Time for a little ethics debate:
I'm guessing most of you saw this story about the 0-4 Michigan h.s. team whose season was cancelled -- they hadn't won a game, or even scored a point. Administrators feared for the kids' safety.
What do you think of the decision:
*Safety first or quitting?
*Which side shows more sportsmanship?
Here's my take: The school and county are within their rights to cancel the competition with the other schools in the district, but I put it absolutely back onto them to find a way for these kids to compete.
For example, they could look around the state (or even the region) for other weak schools who can't compete with the "big boys," then let them play a modified season. In college, this is called "Division 1-AA," "Division 2" and "Division 3."
The point is this: I'm all for the safety of the kids, but taking away their sport is wrong and it's on the administrators to make it right.
-- D.S.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Safety first. Hard to make judgement without actually looking at the team though. Still, safety first.
As for finding other games...nah. One fall without football will not kill them. THey can do intramurals in a year.
This is bogus. Unsafe? It's football, it's inherently dangerous, but how can the team be THAT outmatched physically that they're risking injury?
What a joke of a decision. Furthering the wussification of America, now kids who actually WANT to play sports recreationally arne't even ALLOWED to.
Most states have a classification system based on enrollments. That is their version of divisions (not much different than the NCAA), and it seems to work well, as the higher the classification the bigger the players.
Witnessed two years of 1-17, including a game that had us down 14 within the first 45 seconds. Never once was physical safety an issue (ego safety--another story).
I think this is rediculous as well, but shouldn't this team face some sort of penalty because of the lost benefit to the teams that lose their games against them? I'm not sure how the playoff system works in Michigan, but in Ohio, playoff teams are determined by computers, so any win is important. Are these games being forfeited?
Just because a team is going to lose is not justification...I think that safety might not be the only thing on these administrators minds.
I went to a high school my freshman yr that was on a 12 game losing streak. We lost every game my freshman year and we sucked and we knew it. The worst part was we had a hall of fame qb helping the coaches plan practice(RIP OTTO) A few yrs later this same small military school in st pete was one of the powerhouses in the class A division because they implemented a fun and gun system. granted they regressed to the mean but just like the yankees and the braves in the 80's who sucked they turned it with solid management. Im sure the braves and the evil empire will have their downfall but that comes with the territory. Let the kids play because it is better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all.
If Safety really is a concern, that's saying something. If money's the reason why not, that's a whole other story.
I mean if the team is just bad, that's one thing. But if kids are getting badly injured, I don't think any of us can honestly say that they should just "suck it up and deal," I'd whole heartedly disagree...
Like most of us, I guess we knew more of the facts... that being said, here's a fun story about my High School's football team.
My freshman year, I witnessed quite possibly the greatest HS football game ever. Sure, we lost by a touchdown, but it was only because Carson Palmer threw for 7 TDs against us, and DeShaun Foster ran for over 400 yds but only 6 TDs for us...
For the record I played tennis...
By the way, where's Bill Simmons to come and make a joke about how Tagliabue should shut down the Raiders for the same reason?
-Todd (Boston)
One thing to keep in mind is that the COACH was one of the people who supported the decision to cancel. He's a first-year coach, granted, but my guess is that they're going to try to move to a different classification next year and didn't want a death on his hands this year
Sorry Matt (Fairfax), it was just too easy.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm originally from Texas, but high school without football seems just wrong. If they are so bad, maybe it's not the kids, but the coach. In any case, winning or losing, I think if the kids are willing to put on the pads and get out there, then the pansy assed administrators should let them.
My freshman year of high school hockey, my team won 1 game and we were outscored probably around 7 to 1 every game.
But you bet your behind I still wanted to be out there.
Let the kids play.
rob (warwick)
In every state there is a team like this. One team in my HS league lost like 30 straight games. In 3 years, they were in the state finals. This is crap. I feel bad for these kids.
Ultimately, this should have put to a vote from the athletes themselves--they are the ones with the most at stake. As a former HS and college athlete myself (who played for a couple winless teams), it was always about more than W's and L's. It was about preparing for challenges, pushing yourself further than you thought you could, learning teamwork, and of course the cameraderie. I definitely think the school's decision is more damaging than getting a beatdown each game. This especially sucks for seniors who won't get another chance next year.
Being winless or 1-26 is one thing. Risking your health against players that are physically superior is another. I don't think the school's decision came down to W's and L's. It's about some 5'6 150lb kid breaking his neck against a 6'2 280lb kid. Competition in high school is nothing compared to being physicall impaired for the rest of your life.
toivo99, thanks for bringing some facts to the debate. I read about this earlier today and felt bad for the kids, but didn't realize just how short-manned the team was. Playing 12 or 13 players is borderline insanity.
I played just one year of high school football - 'cause I'm lazy - and was a two-way tackle and played on special teams. Still, I got the occasional play or two off. With the roster Oscoda had, they'd be very hard-pressed to do the same, especially considering the specialization required to play football.
At best, the coach could reduce the number of plays to three or four and hope to teach everyone how to play multiple positions for that limited number of plays...how long before an opposing coach figured out the weakness in the blocking scheme and sacked the qb into repeated concussions?
I really wish the seniors could play, and I certainly hope Oscoda can field a team next year, but for once I think I'd come down on the side of safety. (And I think kids should toss their bicycle helmets in the trash, climb monster oak trees with snacks and a good book, and play sandlot tackle. That's how we rolled in my misspent youth.)
Post a Comment