|
Friday night Estaro High School in Florida lost to Naples High 91-0. Now parents at both schools are angry, the losing parents because they felt that their children were humiliated and the winning parents are angry because the Naples coach sat his best players out most if not all of the game to try and give the other team a better chance. They want to know why there children were not given the chance to pad their records. Crazy stuff if you ask me.
Friday night Estaro High School in Florida lost to Naples High 91-0. Now parents at both schools are angry, the losing parents because they felt that their children were humiliated and the winning parents are angry because the Naples coach sat his best players out most if not all of the game to try and give the other team a better chance. They want to know why there children were not given the chance to pad their records. Crazy stuff if you ask me.
Soccer? just kidding :)
|
Friday night Estaro High School in Florida lost to Naples High 91-0. Now parents at both schools are angry, the losing parents because they felt that their children were humiliated and the winning parents are angry because the Naples coach sat his best players out most if not all of the game to try and give the other team a better chance. They want to know why there children were not given the chance to pad their records. Crazy stuff if you ask me.
wait...the team that lost left its best players on the bench because the coach wanted the team that won to have a better chance? and the losing parents are upset that their kids lost? isn't losing part of organized sporting events? one of the teams have to lose...i'd think they'd be the ones upset at the losing coach fro leaving the best players on the bench, not the winning team's...
unless I'm misunderstanding something...
|
|
Friday night Estaro High School in Florida lost to Naples High 91-0. Now parents at both schools are angry, the losing parents because they felt that their children were humiliated and the winning parents are angry because the Naples coach sat his best players out most if not all of the game to try and give the other team a better chance. They want to know why there children were not given the chance to pad their records. Crazy stuff if you ask me.wait...the team that lost left its best players on the bench because the coach wanted the team that won to have a better chance? and the losing parents are upset that their kids lost? isn't losing part of organized sporting events? one of the teams have to lose...i'd think they'd be the ones upset at the losing coach fro leaving the best players on the bench, not the winning team's...
unless I'm misunderstanding something...
The winning team left it's best players on the bench, not the losing team. Sorry about the confusion.
|
There's no good answer these days. I'm sure the kids from the winning team are good enough that they are looking for Division I scholarships.
The losing kids are looking to enjoy the game, win or lose, without being humiliated.
But what do you do when the better team's 3rd string bench-warmers are better than the other team's starters? The better team can only handicap itself so much.
The losing team has to, at some point, either concede defeat or step up and try to make a respectable show of it.
|
|
The losing team has to, at some point, either concede defeat or step up and try to make a respectable show of it.
Too true. It does make me wonder how they handle enrollement at the schools. Where I live, we have open enrollment which means that students can go to any school they want so long as their parents are willing to get them there. So of the two high schools in town, one has a really good football team, because that is the older school and all the good players end up enrolled there because that is where their dad and granddad played. The other team is not bad, but it still struggles because it has to make do with what is left after the other school's roster fills up. I wonder if it is the same case with this story.
Sigh...it is common practice to bring in the less-great players if you are clearly going to win the game, that's how it works in real life, that's how it should work in high schools. Ambitious parents of sport juniors are despicable beings.
But yeah, the coach apparently did what he could to handicap his own team, and if the game ended like that, not much to do.
|
|
That's what happens when you engage in competitive activities. One side wins, the other loses. The loser feels bad. I think they need to reassess how they feel about sports if they are upset by the degree of loss. Quite frankly I'm glad both sides are confused, as I think competitive activity is one of the remaining bastions of primitive thought. Humanity would be better off without it.
|
|
Quite frankly I'm glad both sides are confused, as I think competitive activity is one of the remaining bastions of primitive thought. Humanity would be better off without it.
Exactly! Damn competitiveness! All it does is teach people to strive to achieve a goal, and look where that has gotten humanity.
|
|
Quite frankly I'm glad both sides are confused, as I think competitive activity is one of the remaining bastions of primitive thought. Humanity would be better off without it.Exactly! Damn competitiveness! All it does is teach people to strive to achieve a goal, and look where that has gotten humanity.
Dead? :)
I think it's time we move beyond competition as a motivation for achievement. Humans are more than capable of doing great things without ego making us feel better than someone else. Altruism doesn't lead to soccer riots, armed robbery, or war. I realize this is an unpopular view, and I might sound a bit eccentric or even elitist by suggesting it but I honestly feel that competition breeds more negative qualities than positive - its just that the negative ones are subtle and tend to happen on a societal level.
Competition has its place, but this was a real slaughter. I'm not saying that the losing team should go into therapy per se, but it may be time to look into a new coach. Then again, I was (and at 29 years old, still am) the relatively large, thick featured guy who turned his nose up at the prospect of joining the football team despite mom's prompting, so what do I know?
|
|
I think it's time we move beyond competition as a motivation for achievement. Humans are more than capable of doing great things without ego making us feel better than someone else. Altruism doesn't lead to soccer riots, armed robbery, or war. I realize this is an unpopular view, and I might sound a bit eccentric or even elitist by suggesting it but I honestly feel that competition breeds more negative qualities than positive - its just that the negative ones are subtle and tend to happen on a societal level.
Not so much an "unpopular view", I think as an unrealistic one. Our drive to compete and achieve is a part of basic human nature - stemming from the natural instinct for survival that is a part of many living things. Without our competitive drive, humanity might never have survived to achieve the things we have. Sure, bad things have happened along the way, but that is a part of life, and in a way helps to give the good things meaning.
|
|
Not so much an "unpopular view", I think as an unrealistic one. Our drive to compete and achieve is a part of basic human nature - stemming from the natural instinct for survival that is a part of many living things. Without our competitive drive, humanity might never have survived to achieve the things we have. Sure, bad things have happened along the way, but that is a part of life, and in a way helps to give the good things meaning.
But do you think we can just continue to accept this part of our nature, or should humanity strive to be something more? I think humans have the unique capacity to exceed our biological make-up. We need not always be victims of what we are. If we have such a capacity we should use it rather than just exist.
|
|
For debate purposes, we may want to define the scope of the argument. Are we referring to competitive sports, or competition in all aspects of life?
If you are applying for a job, you are competing with other applicants for that job. The same goes for college admission.
Heck, when you ask someone out on a date, you are essentially competing for that individual's attention - especially if that person is seen as attractive to many people.
Is there a way for society (any society) to function with the elimination of these competitive aspects that doesn't bear a horrifying resemblence to a George Orwell novel?
|
|
But do you think we can just continue to accept this part of our nature, or should humanity strive to be something more? I think humans have the unique capacity to exceed our biological make-up. We need not always be victims of what we are. If we have such a capacity we should use it rather than just exist.
I think striving to be something more is exactly what the human race has been doing for the past few thousand years. We've come a long way: from hunters, to hunter-gatherers, to a primarily agrarian society, and to a primarily indutrial society. Slowly, but surely, we have moved away from the need to solve all of our problems with violence (although we still have a ways to go). We have expanded our knowledge, allowing competing philosophies to be hammered out in the arena of public discourse, creating wonderful works of art, and developing life-changing technology.
For things like this, I like to quote Men In Black
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
Personally, I look forward to tomorrow.
|
|
For focus, I'm talking about directly competitive activities. One person or group against another. In situations where it is one person against a field, such as competing for a job or a grant, the competitive aspect is not as prevalent - you are judged on your merits, and those of the field cannot directly affect what you posses. For example, in the new hire example, the abilities of the field have no impact on the ability of the individual. Though the individual may lose the job to a more qualified applicant, the winner had no affect on the losers ability.
But competing for a promotion is directly competitive - the other applicants can attempt to sabotage your bid for promotion, and thus can affect your bid.
|
|
But do you think we can just continue to accept this part of our nature, or should humanity strive to be something more? I think humans have the unique capacity to exceed our biological make-up. We need not always be victims of what we are. If we have such a capacity we should use it rather than just exist.
And yet our competitive natures also encourage us to accomplish things that we might have never accomplished if not for the desire to do better than the other guy.
I think it's better to accept our natures for what they are, rather than pretend to be something 'better.' The trick is to still be a good person, while accepting that we lust and covet and feel envy. These things shouldn't be denied, because the person that denies them (or pridefully sets himself up as being 'above such things,' and so places himself perfectly for a spectacular fall), isn't learning how to *control* these impulses and drives.
Best, IMO, to accept that we are not sugar and spice and everything nice, and learn to control the worst parts of ourselves, our tempers and our desires and our fears, rather than pretend they don't exist, and so end up defenseless and unprepared in the face of them in a possibly life-altering situation.
For competition, while I have little experience with athletic competition (although I did get a rush when I beat someone much more in shape than myself in raquetball!), most of my friends and myself in high school and college very much enjoyed competing scholastically, and not having the best grade wasn't a crushing defeat, it was a motivation to try harder. Since we were friends, we'd even help each other to study and quiz each other before big tests, since we weren't insanely competitive.
It's not about the other guy losing, at least not in a healthy psyche, and in many cases, whether the 'goal' is a test score for your Postal Exam or ASVAB or SATs, a new 'best time' for your swimming, mountain-bike riding or distance / duration record for your daily run or workout, or just pounds lost on Atkins this week, the most important competitions, IMO, are with yourself.
As for the whiny parents of the team kids in the OP, my opinions of such parents can be summed up with one word. WAH!
|
|
Set: I agree that the goal here is control, not elimination. We do need to grasp these things that make us who we are - you can't rise above what you do not acknowledge. But just acknowledging it is only one step, and only a short step above ignorance. Now this is perhaps more extreme than I actually believe, but picture a society without organized competition. Would we self-destruct? Or would we find better things to do with our time and money? Or would we, perhaps, become healthier as a society without the psychological conditioning that these activities promote?
And competition with the self is pretty much what I am advocating: it is incumbent upon each person to make themselves better. As a music teacher, this is an issue I face when thinking about curriculum: should students compete in groups, or compete against their self?
It should be clear by now what my answer is, but unfortunately the prevailing attitude seems to be that competition is better for improving performance. But I don't care about performance, I care about psychological development.
This is actually pretty heady philosophical stuff. I admit we won't solve anything here, but it sure is fun to try!
What scares me is groupthink. :)
And competition with the self is pretty much what I am advocating: it is incumbent upon each person to make themselves better. As a music teacher, this is an issue I face when thinking about curriculum: should students compete in groups, or compete against their self?
This is what I prefer too, when I compete I compete against myself, the rest of you are there just to run interference (which must be why I don't particularly care for team against team sports, and tend to find eg. track-and-field more interesting and worthy...)
This has also come up with several games and how I play them. I as a rule don't cheat because what would be the point? Winning some artificial competition? I also game for a good game, so I don't particularly enjoy playing against people who I could beat without effort, while losing against a worthy opponent is a joy.
This might also be a bit of a cultural issue, one fine example being reality tv show Survivor. The concept for the show was originally Swedish, concentrating on team effort and solidarity (as befits Sweden), then came US version featuring nasty plotting, backstabbing and all that, and then some other versions on which at least Canadian and Finnish version were mentioned as comparatively more boring than US version, because people got along with each other and were not busily backstabbing each other in order to come on top...
US Survivor might be more entertaining but if I would have to choose who I would like to share a desert island with, I'd prefer Swedes, Finns or Canadians...
|
|
Set: I agree that the goal here is control, not elimination. We do need to grasp these things that make us who we are - you can't rise above what you do not acknowledge. But just acknowledging it is only one step, and only a short step above ignorance. Now this is perhaps more extreme than I actually believe, but picture a society without organized competition. Would we self-destruct? Or would we find better things to do with our time and money? Or would we, perhaps, become healthier as a society without the psychological conditioning that these activities promote?
The big problem I had in psych classes is that there seemed to be two different (well, dozens, actually) warring schools of thought.
The 'catharsis / primal scream' crowd said that expressing strong feeling was absolutely necessary, that 'bottling stuff up' only led to big explosions down the road.
The behaviorism / Skinnerians were more 'the mind is a machine, teach someone to flip out and they'll just flip out more and more.'
I'm a total behaviorist, personally. If I get all weepy, I'm just conditioning myself to get all weepy. If I let myself lose my temper, I just get worse and worse at controlling my temper. The stuff I control or restrain doesn't 'bottle up' until I 'explode,' it *goes away.*
But, I have no way of knowing what goes on in other people's heads. Perhaps, in the words of Blake, my passions can be restrained, because they are weak enough to be restrained. Perhaps some people who aren't me *do* have feelings that bottle up until powerful laxatives are involved. I don't know.
How does this involve competition? The lesson I taught myself is that different people have different needs, and deal with internal matters using different tactics.
*I* may have no need at all to compete with other people to self-motivate, and I may have less than no use for team sports (I hate sharing a win, or a loss, I prefer solo sports, 'cause I'm a total narcissist). When assigned group projects in college, or at work, I prefer to just do everything, because I loathe having to rely on other people. I remember a college assignment with three partners whom I told to sit down and stay out of my way, allowing them to copy my work when we were done, because I just don't coordinate well with others, which I understand isn't exactly a winning personality trait. :)
But other people may *need* this thing that I do not(#), may benefit strongly from competition-based motivators. I wouldn't want to blanket ban such motivators, because they clearly do work for some people, and, while I am an enormous headcase, I'm not quite so far gone as to expect everyone else in the world to deal with things the way I do! What makes one solution the *only* solution? Man's competitive nature is a ridiculously tiny problem compared to the sorts of inhumanity that blind faith has brought into the world, and I don't think that religion, in and of itself, is a bad thing, only that it is far too often hijacked by hateful freaks who take a belief in an afterlife as justification to devalue a person's actual life (and end it).
I'm not sure if repressing competitive urges would be healthy, as people would be far more likely to channel it into backdoor activities (gossiping, sabotaging rivals, power-fantasies, abusing the kids to make up for their feelings of powerlessness in the workplace, etc.) than transform into enlightened utopian philanthropists, IMO. So instead, we play fantasy football, in which hundreds of thousands of American men, some of whom couldn't run more than 30 ft. without collapsing into a quivering breathless mass of pasty flesh, vicariously compete as if they had some connection to the athletes on the field.
A 'humanity' that had somehow evolved beyond needs and drives and urges would be cold and sterile, IMO, less than humanity, more like some Harrison Bergeron-esque or 1984-stype 'utopia' that would be more coldly horrific than any 'soccer hooliganism' brought about by a surfeit of competition, testosterone and alcohol.
#Although it could be argued that I might benefit personally from learning how to work better in teams, which team sports would certainly help with. But this dog's pretty old, and I'm pretty happy being a curmudgeon.
I had not expected to stir up this kind of response with this thread, but I am glad that I did.
There are some things you can count on. Threadjack ability of Paizonites is one of them.
|
|
US Survivor might be more entertaining but if I would have to choose who I would like to share a desert island with, I'd prefer Swedes, Finns or Canadians...
Now I'm imagining a Middle Eastern Survivor, although it would probably be offensive to everyone, ever.
Plus the one hour season premiere introducing the contestants would be immediately followed by the explosive one hour season finale...
