Coaches that leave the dogs in...

[AdvocateOfMany434]

I was watching tape of the Rustburg game last week and I posted this on the 3A board. I want you guys to weigh in? Want to hear from others...

I think Rustburg's coach is a idiot! I get tired of seeing coaches leave in players when they are beating up on teams. He had #7, #6 and many others in all night after they were up 49 points? I love Appomattox's coach, he is all about playing conservative and letting 2nd and 3rd team reserves get reps so they can have experience. If a player gets hurt, that coach deserves it for being greedy and playing his 1st string for pointless reasons (I DID NOT SAY THE PLAYER DESERVES IT). He should be ashamed of himself and any other coach that lets this crap go on. Beating a team by 30 just isn't enough huh? What is there to prove? Why is it all about padding stats? We have a sophomore commit to NC STATE and his numbers at WR was not near what Buster Henderson had. I dont blame the kid, he gonna do what coach tells em. If you agree with this type of garbage as a fan/parent shame on you as well. Like I said before, Im thankful for a coach like Coach Smith that "calls the dogs off."

 

[spartan2005]

Giles starters typically don't play if they are up 30 points. I've seen games when the 2nd team was playing in the 2nd quarter. Usually the starters will come back out for the first series in the 2nd half and then let the other kids play. We've taken a knee inside the ten rather than scoring but I have some problem with that when you have the 2nd team and JV kids out there. They need the game experience. By then you usually have the running clock so the game ends rather quickly.

 

[AdvocateOfMany434]

well i look at it like this spartan, if i pull off the pit bulls & dobermans, then i put in my hound dogs/Labrador retrievers and still beating you, THEN.... i put in my weenie dogs & yorkies and im still smashing you when im still playing ya 1st team. well....thats on u. salute to Giles coach for great coaching then.

 

[Prognosticator]

Unfortunately some teams only have weenie dogs and yorkies...

 

[AdvocateOfMany434]

Unfortunately some teams only have weenie dogs and yorkies...

and that is true

 

[Ryan4VT]

Coach Mance at Richlands will generally pull the starters when they get up by 5-6 touchdowns if it's in the first half. It changes a bit when its second half, but he is all about resting starters and getting they backups experience.

 

[SpartanOfYore]

I think the majority of good high school coaches realize the benefits of pulling starters - giving them rest, preventing injuries, developing depth - far outweigh whatever is gained by winning by an enormous margin. Because in high school ball, where there are no pollsters that need to be impressed, nothing is really gained; any coach who would go out of his way to embarrass a defeated opponent just makes himself look like a jackass, and casts his entire program in a negative light.

Of course, there are always exceptions. There are some good coaches who are indeed jackasses (or can be on occasion, at least), and won't hesitate to pour it on. I suppose one infamous example would be Brad Bradley's William Campbell team, featuring future-Pro Bowler Cedric Peerman, piling it on an overmatched Appalachia squad to the tune of 70-0 in the 2002 Division 1 state title game. I wasn't there, but I've heard from a reliable source that Bradley could have easily called off the dogs much earlier in that game than he did; why he chose not to is anyone's guess.

What I find almost as questionable as running up the score is when the coach of a team that's getting walloped leaves his starters in for nearly the entire game. We've all seen coaches keep their first strings in long after the opposition has started wholesale substitutions, just to try to avoid being embarrassed. Then they'll let their subs in for the last series. Even worse - I've seen a coach put starters back in, after they'd come out, in a pathetic attempt to make a score look more respectable. Two years ago at Hidden Valley, Salem had a 52-7 lead in the fourth quarter, and had been playing most of the second half with all second-stringers on both sides of the ball. With a few minutes to go, Salem subbed in a few number three's on D, mostly in the secondary. Well, HV's coach Weaver sent his starting qb (and one or two other starters) back in, so the Titans could get a couple of late TD's against what was essentially Salem's JV defense to lose by "only" 52-21.

Karma got Weaver back last year when Salem scored 77 on HV in the first half last year - and did so with a mix of two's and three's in on offense with almost half of the second quarter left to play. By the third quarter, Salem had to go out of its way to not score. The number four tailback was just running straight into the center behind the JV line, every snap. HV's first-string defense finally managed to stop the Spartans.

Most of the things you guys have mentioned were on evidence in that game. The second and third stringers on a team that's winning big deserve to play, too. However, with the running clock, their opportunities are few and far between. Especially when the code of sportsmanship says that you basically have to quit trying to score. Which has always struck me as an odd double standard, in a way. Why is it okay for one team to still be passing every down and stopping the clock as much as possible, yet the team with the big lead is expected to just stop trying? A rhetorical question, really, as I know the answer is "sportsmanship." But as a couple of you have pointed out, as long as the team that's winning big has its second and third-stringers in, I see nothing wrong with continuing to run the regular offense - passes included.

There are some ethical gray areas involved in most of this. I don't approve of stomping on a team when they're down, but I also don't think it's right to penalize your own bench by having them just sit on the ball. Similarly, I think more coaches on the losing sidelines should get a clue, realize that a 49-7 deficit with 5:00 left in the third is a lost cause, and let their damn subs play! So what if they lose 63-14 instead of 49-21 - no one will remember, and they'll probably reap some benefits down the road.

 

[AdvocateOfMany434]

I think the majority of good high school coaches realize the benefits of pulling starters - giving them rest, preventing injuries, developing depth - far outweigh whatever is gained by winning by an enormous margin. Because in high school ball, where there are no pollsters that need to be impressed, nothing is really gained; any coach who would go out of his way to embarrass a defeated opponent just makes himself look like a jackass, and casts his entire program in a negative light.

Of course, there are always exceptions. There are some good coaches who are indeed jackasses (or can be on occasion, at least), and won't hesitate to pour it on. I suppose one infamous example would be Brad Bradley's William Campbell team, featuring future-Pro Bowler Cedric Peerman, piling it on an overmatched Appalachia squad to the tune of 70-0 in the 2002 Division 1 state title game. I wasn't there, but I've heard from a reliable source that Bradley could have easily called off the dogs much earlier in that game than he did; why he chose not to is anyone's guess.

What I find almost as questionable as running up the score is when the coach of a team that's getting walloped leaves his starters in for nearly the entire game. We've all seen coaches keep their first strings in long after the opposition has started wholesale substitutions, just to try to avoid being embarrassed. Then they'll let their subs in for the last series. Even worse - I've seen a coach put starters back in, after they'd come out, in a pathetic attempt to make a score look more respectable. Two years ago at Hidden Valley, Salem had a 52-7 lead in the fourth quarter, and had been playing most of the second half with all second-stringers on both sides of the ball. With a few minutes to go, Salem subbed in a few number three's on D, mostly in the secondary. Well, HV's coach Weaver sent his starting qb (and one or two other starters) back in, so the Titans could get a couple of late TD's against what was essentially Salem's JV defense to lose by "only" 52-21.

Karma got Weaver back last year when Salem scored 77 on HV in the first half last year - and did so with a mix of two's and three's in on offense with almost half of the second quarter left to play. By the third quarter, Salem had to go out of its way to not score. The number four tailback was just running straight into the center behind the JV line, every snap. HV's first-string defense finally managed to stop the Spartans.

Most of the things you guys have mentioned were on evidence in that game. The second and third stringers on a team that's winning big deserve to play, too. However, with the running clock, their opportunities are few and far between. Especially when the code of sportsmanship says that you basically have to quit trying to score. Which has always struck me as an odd double standard, in a way. Why is it okay for one team to still be passing every down and stopping the clock as much as possible, yet the team with the big lead is expected to just stop trying? A rhetorical question, really, as I know the answer is "sportsmanship." But as a couple of you have pointed out, as long as the team that's winning big has its second and third-stringers in, I see nothing wrong with continuing to run the regular offense - passes included.

There are some ethical gray areas involved in most of this. I don't approve of stomping on a team when they're down, but I also don't think it's right to penalize your own bench by having them just sit on the ball. Similarly, I think more coaches on the losing sidelines should get a clue, realize that a 49-7 deficit with 5:00 left in the third is a lost cause, and let their damn subs play! So what if they lose 63-14 instead of 49-21 - no one will remember, and they'll probably reap some benefits down the road.

great post and sad at the same time. They are the coaches i wish to take to a woodshed.

 

[lovethisgame78]

I was watching tape of the Rustburg game last week and I posted this on the 3A board. I want you guys to weigh in? Want to hear from others...

I think Rustburg's coach is a idiot! I get tired of seeing coaches leave in players when they are beating up on teams. He had #7, #6 and many others in all night after they were up 49 points? I love Appomattox's coach, he is all about playing conservative and letting 2nd and 3rd team reserves get reps so they can have experience. If a player gets hurt, that coach deserves it for being greedy and playing his 1st string for pointless reasons (I DID NOT SAY THE PLAYER DESERVES IT). He should be ashamed of himself and any other coach that lets this crap go on. Beating a team by 30 just isn't enough huh? What is there to prove? Why is it all about padding stats? We have a sophomore commit to NC STATE and his numbers at WR was not near what Buster Henderson had. I dont blame the kid, he gonna do what coach tells em. If you agree with this type of garbage as a fan/parent shame on you as well. Like I said before, Im thankful for a coach like Coach Smith that "calls the dogs off."

Maybe to condition their starters for the Appo game.

 

[longtimerhsfan]

I would think any coach should think about it in terms of when a lead is safe and when it is not. We have all seen and heard of games in which teams came back from 4 TD deficits and either won the game or made the other team sweat. Any team can score a TD and then get a quick turnover and score again right away, so a 28-0 lead can become 28-14 in a matter of 30 seconds or less on the clock.

So for high school ball, my personal take would be that a 5 TD lead would be considered "safe", especially if you were into the second half already and the clock was running. If you get that lead of 5 TDs or more and you are still in the first half, I have seen coaches start to sub already, but in most cases, they will still leave the starters in for the first half, and maybe even one series in the second half before they call off the dogs.

Of course you can and should sub early in those total blowouts where it is 35-0 by the end of the first quarter and 49-0 by the halfway point of the second quarter. In those games, of course there is never any doubt so why not play as many people as you can, no matter which side you are on?

I totally agree with how selfish it is to pour it on when a game is clearly decided and I applaud the above poster for calling out the one person in our state who seemed to enjoy doing it at every opportunity, especially when he thought he had an axe to grind.

 

[AdvocateOfMany434]

I would think any coach should think about it in terms of when a lead is safe and when it is not. We have all seen and heard of games in which teams came back from 4 TD deficits and either won the game or made the other team sweat. Any team can score a TD and then get a quick turnover and score again right away, so a 28-0 lead can become 28-14 in a matter of 30 seconds or less on the clock.

So for high school ball, my personal take would be that a 5 TD lead would be considered "safe", especially if you were into the second half already and the clock was running. If you get that lead of 5 TDs or more and you are still in the first half, I have seen coaches start to sub already, but in most cases, they will still leave the starters in for the first half, and maybe even one series in the second half before they call off the dogs.

Of course you can and should sub early in those total blowouts where it is 35-0 by the end of the first quarter and 49-0 by the halfway point of the second quarter. In those games, of course there is never any doubt so why not play as many people as you can, no matter which side you are on?

I totally agree with how selfish it is to pour it on when a game is clearly decided and I applaud the above poster for calling out the one person in our state who seemed to enjoy doing it at every opportunity, especially when he thought he had an axe to grind.

that "one person" better be grateful Coach Smith took out the dogs vs us last year. we were slaughtering them by half time.

 

[mvwarrior]

I'm not a fan of running the score up like most everyone on this site. There have been noted situations of the sort like mentioned in some of the reply's above where a coach may have done that to a team and the saying "what goes around" does come around. But to leave your starters in the game to embarrass an opponent is not necessary when the score is 50-0. Yeah in a case like Salem and HV last year, I don't know how you call that as from what I heard Salem was pretty much trying not to score but the other team has to have some dignity and keep pushing but sometimes on given nights it's either your night or its not! Someone posted above that maybe the coach was trying to push his starters in preparations for an upcoming team they know will be a "dog fight" for 4 quarters if they want to win. So every situation may not be the same and done for the same reasons. But me personally I would rest my starters and give my backups some much needed game time reps for future games!

 

[SpartanOfYore]

I'm not a fan of running the score up like most everyone on this site. There have been noted situations of the sort like mentioned in some of the reply's above where a coach may have done that to a team and the saying "what goes around" does come around. But to leave your starters in the game to embarrass an opponent is not necessary when the score is 50-0. Yeah in a case like Salem and HV last year, I don't know how you call that as from what I heard Salem was pretty much trying not to score but the other team has to have some dignity and keep pushing but sometimes on given nights it's either your night or its not! Someone posted above that maybe the coach was trying to push his starters in preparations for an upcoming team they know will be a "dog fight" for 4 quarters if they want to win. So every situation may not be the same and done for the same reasons. But me personally I would rest my starters and give my backups some much needed game time reps for future games!

"from what I heard Salem was pretty much trying not to score..."

Salem was very much trying not to score the entire second half, as I wrote above. If for whatever reason Magenbauer had wanted to, the Spartans could have had all second-stringers (and a few three's) in, just running the regular offense, and scored well over one hundred points. And there is no exaggeration in there. HV's defense was just that pitiful. But what would have been the point of doing that? Same deal against Byrd in 2014. Salem scored 35 in the first quarter, and the night was already over for most of the starters. Final score was 42-7.

 

[mvwarrior]

"from what I heard Salem was pretty much trying not to score..."

Salem was very much trying not to score the entire second half, as I wrote above. If for whatever reason Magenbauer had wanted to, the Spartans could have had all second-stringers (and a few three's) in, just running the regular offense, and scored well over one hundred points. And there is no exaggeration in there. HV's defense was just that pitiful. But what would have been the point of doing that? Same deal against Byrd in 2014. Salem scored 35 in the first quarter, and the night was already over for most of the starters. Final score was 42-7.

SpartanOfYore I wasn't trying to paraphrase any of your comments in your above post, I heard the Friday after that game that Salem tried every way not to put any more points up on the board. I was just stating that every situation is different and I am aware that although a blowout, Salem did not have the starters in. Sometimes your backups are as good as other teams starters and the point differential keeps growing no matter what you do. Didn't mean to mislead or ruffle any feathers only trying to give my interpretation and sometimes on paper doesn't sound like what you mean in your head!

 

[SpartanOfYore]

SpartanOfYore I wasn't trying to paraphrase any of your comments in your above post, I heard the Friday after that game that Salem tried every way not to put any more points up on the board. I was just stating that every situation is different and I am aware that although a blowout, Salem did not have the starters in. Sometimes your backups are as good as other teams starters and the point differential keeps growing no matter what you do. Didn't mean to mislead or ruffle any feathers only trying to give my interpretation and sometimes on paper doesn't sound like what you mean in your head!

Not to worry, my feathers weren't ruffled, and I had no problem with anything you wrote. I just like to clarify what went on in that game whenever the opportunity arises, because it's easy for people to see "77-7" at halftime and jump to the conclusion that Salem ran it up. I've never seen Coach White nor Coach Magenbauer go out of their way to embarrass an opponent, and there have been a lot of opportunities to do so over the years.

 

[Keith_Stone33]

There are some situations where it is difficult to pull the dogs off as a coach, as you want to get your guys some snaps.. I went to a game years ago where the winning team ran the opening kick back for a TD, two defensive touchdowns, and a fumble recovery inside the 10 which led to another score all in about a quarter and a half, and the starting O only got 1 real series in the first half. A coach doesnt want to embarrass the other team or get his guys hurt, but wants to get his guys some snaps to keep them sharp. Ive always felt that if you are up by 35 in the second half (against a below average team) its well within time to pull the dogs off.

 

[AdvocateOfMany434]

There are some situations where it is difficult to pull the dogs off as a coach, as you want to get your guys some snaps.. I went to a game years ago where the winning team ran the opening kick back for a TD, two defensive touchdowns, and a fumble recovery inside the 10 which led to another score all in about a quarter and a half, and the starting O only got 1 real series in the first half. A coach doesnt want to embarrass the other team or get his guys hurt, but wants to get his guys some snaps to keep them sharp. Ive always felt that if you are up by 35 in the second half (against a below average team) its well within time to pull the dogs off.

that sounded like out game vs DR last season. they quit at halftime loaded bus and left. SMH, the players wanted to play.

 

[Keith_Stone33]

that sounded like out game vs DR last season. they quit at halftime loaded bus and left. SMH, the players wanted to play.

Seems like some teams would be better off to have an intrasquad scrimmage on friday night, rather than be on one side or the other of a beating like that

 

[Intrinsicrewards]

I agree with the posts above. Coaches should show class and not hammer down once the game is decided.

In the event a coach does not show class, he deserves and should get no mercy from coaches that never forget. I know of a coach in the TRD a few years ago who was blowing out every opponent by huge margins. He was throwing 60 yard touchdown passes with seconds to go on the clock and up by 60 plus. His excuse was...that's just our wide open offense. We really don't run the ball at all. Within a year or two, his studs had graduated and his fortunes had changed. I noticed that opposing coaches gave him no mercy and they put the hammer down on him week after week. What goes around comes around as someone else stated on here.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

I think I know who you are talking about. If it's same guy, last time I saw him, he was trying to "run out clock" in first quarter trying not to get beat 60-0.

But in a blow out, every kid who dressed for game should play in 2nd half. But the 35 point running clock rule prevents many backups from getting very many snaps. Often times, both teams only get 1 or 2 possessions in second half.

 

[BullRunFootball]

The running clock makes it very difficult for sure. Starters typically play through the first half and might get 1 series or none depending on the score in many games at the half. At least that is the case for most teams. The running clock is a great rule but the true "second team" guys are the ones who get cut short on playing time b/c many coaches are trying to get all the kids in. It is certainly tough for squads that have big numbers.

 

[cutnjump]

A lot of good posts above and nothing I would strongly disagree with. I think the number one objective should always be to exhibit good sportsmanship. Having said that, over the years I have seen a number of unique situations that on their surface might appear to not be in the best interest of sportsmanship, however, with further understanding, info and insight the reality is the offending school/coach really did not have a lot of choices and the choices they may have had could arguably be debated as no better(maybe even worse) from a sportsmanship standpoint The most obvious one is when you have played everybody, possibly even the waterboy and cheerleaders, and you are still scoring. It is hard to tell kids who rarely play not to give their best effort and some would say altering the competitive nature of the game(taking a knee, not trying, punting on an earlier down, etc.) is even more embarrassing to the opponent. Another is a numbers situation, where injuries, availability, the 40 quarter rule leave no other playing options on the roster. Sometimes the best a coach can do is be overly conservative AND emphasize to his players not to demonstrably celebrate positive results. I am not saying the situation that generated this thread was right or to condone running up the score or embarrassing an opponent, just trying to point out that sometimes what may appear to be bad sportsmanship may not necessarily be that and in attempting to not exhibit such behavior an opponent could in fact be embarrassed in a worse manner. Guys that have been in the business can recognize behavior for what it really represents and fans can usually take their cue from the head coach as far as whether the opponent conducted themselves in a reasonable/sportsmanlike manner.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

I recall back to the time Gretna scored 89 on AltaVista , Gretna actually had JV backups in the game who were ripping off 70 yard TD runs. Safe to say that was probably only time a couple of those guys carried ball in a varsity game.

 

[AdvocateOfMany434]

I this is one of the best threads by far I have seen in along time. there are some great post above. thanks for sharing....

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

I agree with you Advocate. cutnjump has a really good one above.

 

[High-Fidelity]

RUTS all you can for the first half and the first series of the 2nd half, if you score 70 by that point, so be it. Then get the youngsters in there to get them some experience.

 

[longtimerhsfan]

In one of our playoff games a few years ago, with the game well in hand, our coach brought in his kicker to try about a 55 yard field goal. On the surface, it might have looked like he was trying to score more, but he knew deep down that it was beyond the kid's range, that he would not make it, but that it would be good practice, and save the other team further embarrassment. So he knew just what he was doing in that case.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

Gretna kicked a 50 yarder just before half one time, and got accused of running up score. When a high school team attempts a 50 yard FG, it's not running up score. Come playoff time, that 50 yard attempt could be the difference between winning a state championship and getting knocked out of playoffs. there comes a time during regular season that a coach has to "experiment" with plays that he may need down the road.
By same token schools should play one game involving a long road trip every season, then come playoff time if you have to hit the road on a long one, you will have experience.

 

[EHC87]

There has only been 1 time that I've supported an intentional beat down and even then had mixed feelings about it. I think the year was 1980 and Martinsville beat Tunstall 80-0. This was Martinsville's first year "back" into the Piedmont District after effectively being kicked out of the district by principals of the other district schools. Martinsville had been dominant and an obscure VHSL rule was discovered that allowed schools to compete for the district title by playing all but one district opponent. Martinsville was essentially black balled for 2 years. Tunstall was the first game back.

Even so, the players for Tunstall weren't the ones responsible for this travesty...it was the adults and that is why I have mixed feelings about it.

Generally speaking, no need to run up the score. Pulling the starters and allowing the reserves playing time builds your program for the years to come. I've enjoyed this thread. Most coaches that I've seen don't try to run up the score....even those from the schools who are our biggest rivals.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

I recall AltaVista dropping Gretna and a couple other schools from the schedule in around 2002. This came after Gretna beat AltaVista 12-6 in overtime, the year before.

 

[AdvocateOfMany434]

Hey @Tony D. Tiger , how about you read this thread and see how many people agree with leaving dogs in is a "idiotic" move.

 

[Mayberryite]

There has only been 1 time that I've supported an intentional beat down and even then had mixed feelings about it. I think the year was 1980 and Martinsville beat Tunstall 80-0. This was Martinsville's first year "back" into the Piedmont District after effectively being kicked out of the district by principals of the other district schools. Martinsville had been dominant and an obscure VHSL rule was discovered that allowed schools to compete for the district title by playing all but one district opponent. Martinsville was essentially black balled for 2 years. Tunstall was the first game back.

EHC...have you read the book "The Dogs" by Carey "Pete" Carter?? It tells the tale of the 79 Dogs and how they were kicked out of the Piedmont District. The Dogs pieced together a last-minute schedule made up of mostly 3A schools because the other PD schools left them in a tough spot. MHS also played and beat the perennial power Southampton that year in the regular season. Their overall record caused them to be left out of the playoffs and Southampton went on to win the 2A title. You can read all about the "Martinsville Rule" in lots of detail in this book. I've seen it listed on Amazon.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

Very dirty what they done. VHSL always has trouble with doing what's right.

 

[EHC87]

EHC...have you read the book "The Dogs" by Carey "Pete" Carter?? It tells the tale of the 79 Dogs and how they were kicked out of the Piedmont District. The Dogs pieced together a last-minute schedule made up of mostly 3A schools because the other PD schools left them in a tough spot. MHS also played and beat the perennial power Southampton that year in the regular season. Their overall record caused them to be left out of the playoffs and Southampton went on to win the 2A title. You can read all about the "Martinsville Rule" in lots of detail in this book. I've seen it listed on Amazon.

I indeed have Carter's book. I played on Martinsville's 8th grade team in 78. The 8th grade and jv teams chose not to play Piedmont District schools (Patrick County was the exception for the 8th grade team) during this time. Our 8th grade team played a schedule that was highly unusual as a result. I remember playing a 9th grade team from Reidsville, a team from Walnut Cove, traveling to Lynchburg, and Halifax County to name a few. I really enjoyed the book because people in Southwest Virginia where I've lived for years, didn't really know about that situation. To many, it sounded like a tall tale.....yet it was entirely true.

 

[1street]

I hadn't heard that story, I played for Fleming during the 79-81 seasons and we played Martinsville Bulldogs through those years. I remember watching that Southhampton game over a teammate's house with most of our team watching on a reel to reel projector. I remember playing against Jesse Penn and I believe there was a big rb named Cecil France when I was a 10th grader. Jesse was beast on the field in high school and we became friends at VT. I blocked a punt that Jesse ran in for a touchdown for our team to win the Spring Game one year. I remember watching him play for the Cowboys and the announcer said that Landry said that Penn was the best rookie defensive player who ever came through camp. It was shame he had a career ending injury. I was looking forward to seeing him be one of the better defensive players for the Cowboys. I would like to meet up with Jesse if he is living close to the area. You wouldn't happen to know if he's close by do you? He would know who I am if you just say Street.

 

[Keith_Stone33]

There has only been 1 time that I've supported an intentional beat down and even then had mixed feelings about it. I think the year was 1980 and Martinsville beat Tunstall 80-0. This was Martinsville's first year "back" into the Piedmont District after effectively being kicked out of the district by principals of the other district schools. Martinsville had been dominant and an obscure VHSL rule was discovered that allowed schools to compete for the district title by playing all but one district opponent. Martinsville was essentially black balled for 2 years. Tunstall was the first game back.

Even so, the players for Tunstall weren't the ones responsible for this travesty...it was the adults and that is why I have mixed feelings about it.

Generally speaking, no need to run up the score. Pulling the starters and allowing the reserves playing time builds your program for the years to come. I've enjoyed this thread. Most coaches that I've seen don't try to run up the score....even those from the schools who are our biggest rivals.

So the district schools took Martinsville off the schedule because they were too good? wow...

 

[Mayberryite]

So the district schools took Martinsville off the schedule because they were too good? wow...

Don't want to oversimplify the entire story, but basically yes. MHS developed a rec feeder system and had a coach that was a HUGE proponent of the weight room well before things like that became norms.

And I'm fairly certain that Jesse Penn stills live in the Dallas area. He has been to a few games recently, though. I saw him on the Dogs' sideline at a game at Magna Vista a couple years ago. He has a nephew that's a freshman on the JV team, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him a time or two in the next few years.

 

[EHC87]

I will attest to the recreation program (we also had a good youth basketball program as well) and the weight room. As an 8th grader, an activity bus took us from the junior high school to the high school to lift in the Spring.

As to the rule, here is the gist of it. There were 10 teams in the Piedmont at the time meaning that there was a 9 game district schedule. There was an old rule on the VHSL books that enabled the Piedmont District principals to reduce the number or league games from 9 to 8......and you can guess who was left off EVERY other team's schedule. This was a cowardly move by those principals AND the VHSL denied Martinsville's appeal to rectify the situation.

The decision to drop the Dogs basically indicated that the other school's leaders were essentially telling their players that "you cannot compete successfully against Martinsville"......what a message to tell your kids.

Still shaking my head all these years later over this travesty.

 

[1street]

Thanks Mayberryite! Maybe I'll get a chance to see and talk with him at game in a year or two.
Didn't mean to get away from the story of how the Dogs were cast out of the Piedmont District. Definitely sounds like a raw deal. I guess it shows how fear makes people make some decisions without much thought of fairness. I appreciated being able to have some hard fought games facing the Dogs but never knew that politics had played a role in the matchup of our teams. I'll have to see if I can locate that book. Sounds like a great read.

 

[DanvilleSportsHead]

EHC...have you read the book "The Dogs" by Carey "Pete" Carter?? It tells the tale of the 79 Dogs and how they were kicked out of the Piedmont District. The Dogs pieced together a last-minute schedule made up of mostly 3A schools because the other PD schools left them in a tough spot. MHS also played and beat the perennial power Southampton that year in the regular season. Their overall record caused them to be left out of the playoffs and Southampton went on to win the 2A title. You can read all about the "Martinsville Rule" in lots of detail in this book. I've seen it listed on Amazon.

Thank you Mayberryite! I'm definitely getting this book.