sixmantrucker
11-man fan
The coach should obviously just have thrown in the towel what was he trying to prove?
BE":1a4hu426 said:The thing I dislike the most about sixman is the Mercy Rule..., unless I am on the tail end of the score, which is a good argument for being called a hypocrite, I suppose. Here is why I loathe the indispensable rule.
First, as a coach one is compelled to play everyone on the sideline in order to keep the score "humane". And if no game was played the night before, the sideline is loaded with family members who want and need the opportunity to perform. Therefore, the starters are replaced usually no later than the start of the second quarter. As a result these starters are basically punished for being very good. Of course this is an extremely controversial point of view; namely for the reason that most kids don't fit in to that category of "very good".
Someone mentioned earlier how 50% of Tyler Earl's games were over at the half...I wish that had been true. That would have been roughly 28 games . In fact, and please forgive me for knowing this, Tyler and Shelby Smith played in 57 varsity football games in four years with a record of 56 and 1 with seasons of 15-0, 13-1, 14-0 and 14-0, respectively. Of those 57 games only 13 went the entire four quarters. Their senior year they 45ed every opponent until the state championship, missing it by one point 98-54. Do the math: that's an average of 3.25 four-quarter games played each year. Of those 44 mercy rule games, Tyler and his teammates sat out some part of all of them. It's almost pathetic. Knowing this , if I had to do it over again I probably would move him to an eleven-man school to escape such a thing.
BE":22zc8fgi said:Pardon me for thinking out loud...the thing I dislike the most about sixman is the Mercy Rule..., unless I am on the tail end of the score, which is a good argument for being called a hypocrite, I suppose. Here is why I loathe this indispensable rule.
First, as a coach one is compelled to play everyone on the sideline in order to keep the score "humane". And if no game was played the night before, the sideline is loaded with family members who want and need the opportunity to perform. Therefore, the starters are replaced usually no later than the start of the second quarter. As a result these starters are basically punished for being very good. Of course this is an extremely controversial point of view; namely for the reason that most kids don't fit in to that category of "very good".
Someone mentioned earlier how 50% of Tyler Earl's games were over at the half...I wish that had been true. That would have been roughly 28 games . In fact, and please forgive me for knowing this, Tyler and Shelby Smith played in 57 varsity football games in four years with a record of 56 and 1 with seasons of 15-0, 13-1, 14-0 and 14-0, respectively. Of those 57 games only 13 went the entire four quarters. Their senior year they 45ed every opponent until the state championship, missing it by one point 98-54. Do the math: that's an average of 3.25 four-quarter games played each year. Of those 44 mercy rule games, Tyler and his teammates sat out some part of all of them. It's almost pathetic. Knowing this , if I had to do it over again I probably would move him to an eleven-man school to escape such a thing.
I wish some local common sense was permitted in this situation. Suppose the two opposing coaches were gentlemen, and as such after the 45 point mark was reached decided to play on with a couple of variations. Say the winning team agreed to play a second squad on one side of the ball to observe how the opposition's offense or defense performed against them. As a result they began to score more often, becoming more competitive, and the end product was that the game becomes much more interesting for everyone, especially the players and their families. More playing time, more interest and more sportsmanship equals an infinitely more enjoyable game. Sounds silly I know, but there has to be a better way to ensure a dose of mercy in such situations. Hey, end the game but not the play. Wouldn't that be better for everyone. Just thinking out loud.
kbjoe1":13k8w34x said:BE":13k8w34x said:Pardon me for thinking out loud...the thing I dislike the most about sixman is the Mercy Rule..., unless I am on the tail end of the score, which is a good argument for being called a hypocrite, I suppose. Here is why I loathe this indispensable rule.
First, as a coach one is compelled to play everyone on the sideline in order to keep the score "humane". And if no game was played the night before, the sideline is loaded with family members who want and need the opportunity to perform. Therefore, the starters are replaced usually no later than the start of the second quarter. As a result these starters are basically punished for being very good. Of course this is an extremely controversial point of view; namely for the reason that most kids don't fit in to that category of "very good".
Someone mentioned earlier how 50% of Tyler Earl's games were over at the half...I wish that had been true. That would have been roughly 28 games . In fact, and please forgive me for knowing this, Tyler and Shelby Smith played in 57 varsity football games in four years with a record of 56 and 1 with seasons of 15-0, 13-1, 14-0 and 14-0, respectively. Of those 57 games only 13 went the entire four quarters. Their senior year they 45ed every opponent until the state championship, missing it by one point 98-54. Do the math: that's an average of 3.25 four-quarter games played each year. Of those 44 mercy rule games, Tyler and his teammates sat out some part of all of them. It's almost pathetic. Knowing this , if I had to do it over again I probably would move him to an eleven-man school to escape such a thing.
I wish some local common sense was permitted in this situation. Suppose the two opposing coaches were gentlemen, and as such after the 45 point mark was reached decided to play on with a couple of variations. Say the winning team agreed to play a second squad on one side of the ball to observe how the opposition's offense or defense performed against them. As a result they began to score more often, becoming more competitive, and the end product was that the game becomes much more interesting for everyone, especially the players and their families. More playing time, more interest and more sportsmanship equals an infinitely more enjoyable game. Sounds silly I know, but there has to be a better way to ensure a dose of mercy in such situations. Hey, end the game but not the play. Wouldn't that be better for everyone. Just thinking out loud.
To me this is the same sour grapes its the rule for a good reason. Who the heck cares about records if he didn't have five others out there helping he wouldn't got the records he got but I don't see their name plastered all over everywhere. I had a coach that had something good for your what if statements " If a buzzard had a radio in his butt there would be music in the air " coach George Walton Poage II