Name one other instance

 

Why so you can call those coaches classless? No thanks! Just keep watching high school football you will see it again.

Why so you can call those coaches classless? No thanks! Just keep watching high school football you will see it again.

That's what I thought.

Definitely not running up the score but getting to the running clock to get younger players reps. If ones have stayed in it could have been in the 60's.

 

You can't play your younger guys when the clocks not running? Honestly this doesn't surprise me at all.

You got me on the shotput, but I take more pride in my contributions as a senior starter on a state championship team under the tutelage of hall of fame coaches Tom Duffy and Jim Daugherty. Bottom line is the “classy” coach last night tried to shorten the game, the other side decided it was more important to leave the ones in against Walton’s freshman and sophomores, including running no huddle hurry up under a minute to get a score. The focus for Walton now is to continue to get better every day to get closer to the NCCs of the world, because in their brief 6 years they have clearly surpassed the Carrolls of the world.

 

Wanted to "like" this twice...so I'll reply with a like and a... :thumb:

 

Agree 100% with what was class and what was not. A running clock shortens the game...which in this case was better for both parties. Get the clock running, get it over with. Carrol was NOT going to win regardless of a 2 point conversion vs. an extra point.

Kicking and extra point to keep the clock slower would have given Walton more time to score again...which is the better option if you are really trying to run the score up. Its not that complicated.

Definitely not running up the score. Could have been in the 60's, I don't know. But clocking someone is not the way to intentionally end a game, especially going for 2 to do it. This may be sour grapes. Running clocks happen all the time. But making it obvious that is what you are trying to do in a game that is obviously over is classless and you'll never convince me otherwise. I wouldn't forget this if i were coaching the Panthers. Definite bulletin board material for the future.

 

Bless your heart....you are admitting that you have trouble seeing the obvious. :lol2:

As a neutral observer I have no problem going for 2 at 34-0. In baseball I have no problem with a team stealing up 9-0 in the fifth inning to try to get to 10-0. The quicker these blowouts are over the better...

Surprised to hear both Latimores played. I had been told the better one was off the team due to discipline.

Surprised to hear both Latimores played. I had been told the better one was off the team due to discipline.

Heard the same as well.

Heard the same as well.

He returned last game and so did a couple other starters from the IR..

As a neutral observer I have no problem going for 2 at 34-0. In baseball I have no problem with a team stealing up 9-0 in the fifth inning to try to get to 10-0. The quicker these blowouts are over the better...

You would steal up 9-0? Whatever happened to sportsmanship. I'm not from this area so I guess I grew up in a different culture. Where I come from we remember crap like going for 2 to try and humiliate an opponent or stealing up 9-0. Brews bad blood and sticks in your craw. But whatever. I'm all for going for the jugular but I also show good sportsmanship. If you run up the score, so be it. But deliberately going for a running clock, especially more than once, is spitting in your opponents face. I would remember it.

I don't see how going for two to get a running clock is classless. What if it only took one point to get the running clock?? Does the team have to take a knee and not try the XP? Or do you have to completely shut everything down to avoid the running clock? A running clock is a running clock, no matter how you get there. It's designed to shorten the game when a team is clearly overmatched. If I'm on the short end of a beat down, I'm a lot more upset if the other team has a chance to get the running clock and avoids it to prolong the game.

I don't see how going for two to get a running clock is classless. What if it only took one point to get the running clock?? Does the team have to take a knee and not try the XP? Or do you have to completely shut everything down to avoid the running clock? A running clock is a running clock, no matter how you get there. It's designed to shorten the game when a team is clearly overmatched. If I'm on the short end of a beat down, I'm a lot more upset if the other team has a chance to get the running clock and avoids it to prolong the game.

 

Whatever. I'm done

Whatever. I'm done

 

I get where you're coming from. Whether the clock is running or not, no one likes to get beat by 5 or more TD's. And if a team has a chance to get things over early to prevent further embarrassment and exposure to injuries (for both teams), then they need to do it. Allowing the game to last longer does no good for anyone, and doesn't spare anyone's feelings. People have been killing Matney at Johnson Central for years (and with good reason, mind you) for doing everything he could to avoid the running clock, including kneeling on extra points, to extend games. I've been on the wrong end of beatings before, and again, I much rather just get those games over with, and have no issues with the other team going for two to get to a running clock. I've been in that situation before, and have prayed for a running clock. As a coach, I can't see myself using a team going for two when up by 34 as a key motivation point. Whether the clock was running or not when the game ended, i'm still just motivated in general to try to improve and be more competitive the next time I see them.

 

I also know Coach Barth. He's coached my son (albeit not in Football) and is a stand up, solid guy. He's not into running up the score or embarrassing the other team.

In all honesty, I don't understand why coaches want to get to the running clock so fast. I would try to keep just under the running clock as long as possible just to get more reps at game speed, especially if a teams needs to build depth, which 90% of the teams in the state need to build depth. That has been my argument for years, but after the threshold was lowered to 36 points, it may be a little more difficult. But, I would still sub a few backups in with the starters to get as much experience as possible prior to the running clock.

 

Sidebar: that is one of the big reasons I don't like comparing scores of like opponents, one team may be trying to get a running clock ASAP, while another coach is trying to get experience. Scores can mean different things.

You would steal up 9-0? Whatever happened to sportsmanship. I'm not from this area so I guess I grew up in a different culture. Where I come from we remember crap like going for 2 to try and humiliate an opponent or stealing up 9-0. Brews bad blood and sticks in your craw. But whatever. I'm all for going for the jugular but I also show good sportsmanship. If you run up the score, so be it. But deliberately going for a running clock, especially more than once, is spitting in your opponents face. I would remember it.

 

They were going for 36 points, not 96. Last year this wouldn't even have been mentioned because they still would need another 9 points to get to a running clock.

 

36 is too low. That's not Walton's fault. The KHSAA put them in this position by making the threshold too low. If you stop at 35 you risk the outcome or needing to put your starter's back in, which could lead to injury after sitting for two quarters, or whatever. Getting to 36 insures the other team won't have the time to get back into the game and force you into difficult decisions.

 

No problem with it. Move on.