Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

In the Lloyd Carr thread, it was at least hinted at that Michigan needs someone who can beat Ohio State. I asked if people actually believe that there is something to it other than the same thing that it would take to beat, say, Penn State. An Ohio State fan said that there was.

Do you guys agree? Is there some coaching skill for winning big games? This feels a lot like clutch to me, which most people don't believe exists, at least consistently.

Lloyd Carr has a reputation for not being able to beat Ohio State. He started out with 5 wins in 6 tries but in the last 7 games he lost 6.

I'm curious about this so I'm looking up the years of his wins and losses. I will post the results either way.

Records aren't everything, but here are Michigan and Ohio State's regular-season records each year, excluding their game.

Carr vs Cooper: (starts with UM at OSU)
Year UM OSU winner
1996 7-3 10-0 UM
1997 10-0 10-1 UM
1998 9-2 9-1 OSU
1999 8-2 6-5 UM
2000 7-3 8-2 UM

Based just on this it would appear that OSU was significantly better in their first game and played at home and lost. Perhaps marginally better in the last loss at home as well. Second and third seem evenly matched and the home team won. In the fourth Michigan were the better team and won at home. The first game on the list is really the only one that is surprising.

Carr vs Tressel (starts with OSU at UM)
year UM OSU Result
2001 8-2 6-4 OSU
2002 9-2 12-0 OSU
2003 9-2 10-1 UM
2004 9-1 6-4 OSU
2005 7-3 8-2 OSU
2006 9-2 11-0 OSU
2007 8-3 10-1 OSU

First game Michigan had a better record and were playing at home and went down. Same story in 2004, though they played in Columbus. Otherwise they were pretty even or Ohio State were clearly the better team.

So for the most part things went to the favorites. Carr got one big upset over Cooper and Tressel got one over Carr. Seems like you can't say much. The general sentiment is that Carr is better than Cooper but not as good as Tressel in these games but it seems like just a reaction to an upset on either side.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

I think matchups matter. one team may hold an edge over their rival b/c of the way they matchup, even if the 2 teams are relatively even vs common opponents.

loko at Indy/Denver in 2003 and 2004. 2 pretty close teams, but Denver just didn't match up well and got smoked.

(though those aren't really "rivals")
I guess figuring that out is a skill.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think matchups matter. one team may hold an edge over their rival b/c of the way they matchup, even if the 2 teams are relatively even vs common opponents.

loko at Indy/Denver in 2003 and 2004. 2 pretty close teams, but Denver just didn't match up well and got smoked.

(though those aren't really "rivals")
I guess figuring that out is a skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you picked two teams that werent rivals and had a sample size of 2 games?

I mean yeah, matchup differences exist and I guess in some college situations the "rival" team really is pretty much always running the exact same system out there, but for the most part, you dont know what your "rival" is going to do from year to year so a coach who can beat every time is also the coach most likely to beat your rival.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

The presumption that rivalry games are different from other games makes the assumption that people aren't always trying their hardest to win, which I think for the vast majority of the folks involved in high level sports is kinda silly and insulting.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

Re: Michigan-OSU, you also forgot 95 when a 7-3 Michigan team beat a 10-0 OSU team. But I really think this is just overdone, the people who say Cooper "didn't get" the rivalry or Tressell owns Carr. Carr was a better coach than Cooper, and also ran good against him. The Sweatervest is a better coach than Carr overall and ran a bit good against him too. I know it's cool when people can pretend that either a coach has magical powers 1 game a year or that a coach who is quite good suddenly becomes a complete moron one game a year (okay, hyperbole), but the better explanation is a combination of sample size/variance and overall ability.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The presumption that rivalry games are different from other games makes the assumption that people aren't always trying their hardest to win, which I think for the vast majority of the folks involved in high level sports is kinda silly and insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where it is different is for Ohio State for example under Woody Hayes and Tressel (but not Cooper and I don't know about Bruce) they would work on something for Michigan everyday.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The presumption that rivalry games are different from other games makes the assumption that people aren't always trying their hardest to win, which I think for the vast majority of the folks involved in high level sports is kinda silly and insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where it is different is for Ohio State for example under Woody Hayes and Tressel (but not Cooper and I don't know about Bruce) they would work on something for Michigan everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is how much does that matter? I'm not saying it doesn't but it isn't like this establishes a causal connection either (I realize demanding such proof creates an impossible standard; I'm just sayin...). Sparty put a countdown clock in the lockerroom, similar to how Tressel said he would make OSU proud in 300whatever days. Didn't work so well for Sparty.

It's kind of like the inflamatory comment idea. David Boston or Terry Glenn or Chuck Winters makes a derogatory comment about the other team ("they're nothing" or "we'll keep doing this til we get him fired") and the other team is fired up and wins, and causal significance is attributed to the comment. Now, not saying that's false or anything, but there are all sorts of possible counter-examples too (Harbaugh guarantees a win and they do). It's just a situation where you presuppose your conclusion and find something that could plausibly support it, rather than the other way around.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

UM was 11-0 in 2006. /nit

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The question is how much does that matter? I'm not saying it doesn't but it isn't like this establishes a causal connection either (I realize demanding such proof creates an impossible standard; I'm just sayin...). Sparty put a countdown clock in the lockerroom, similar to how Tressel said he would make OSU proud in 300whatever days. Didn't work so well for Sparty.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was the idea was they worked on a play that they would save for Michigan so it wouldn't be on a tape anywhere. Of course if the other side does the same thing there probably isn't much advantage, but they DO try harder in this game. I think it is possible that what happened with Cooper is he treated it the same as any other game, if Carr emphasized the game at the expense of preparation for other games this would the source of an edge.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The presumption that rivalry games are different from other games makes the assumption that people aren't always trying their hardest to win, which I think for the vast majority of the folks involved in high level sports is kinda silly and insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree with the OP, but I don't think I can agree with this. Most coaches will tell you that it's really hard to keep players motivated for every game. Though I suppose it applies less to a college football season due to there being so few games.

This can be a matter of game day motivation against a bad team, but it can also be a matter of preparation motivation. I could see skipping out on some extra film study to play video games or something if my team was playing a 1AA team that week.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The presumption that rivalry games are different from other games makes the assumption that people aren't always trying their hardest to win, which I think for the vast majority of the folks involved in high level sports is kinda silly and insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where it is different is for Ohio State for example under Woody Hayes and Tressel (but not Cooper and I don't know about Bruce) they would work on something for Michigan everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is how much does that matter? I'm not saying it doesn't but it isn't like this establishes a causal connection either (I realize demanding such proof creates an impossible standard; I'm just sayin...). Sparty put a countdown clock in the lockerroom, similar to how Tressel said he would make OSU proud in 300whatever days. Didn't work so well for Sparty.

It's kind of like the inflamatory comment idea. David Boston or Terry Glenn or Chuck Winters makes a derogatory comment about the other team ("they're nothing" or "we'll keep doing this til we get him fired") and the other team is fired up and wins, and causal significance is attributed to the comment. Now, not saying that's false or anything, but there are all sorts of possible counter-examples too (Harbaugh guarantees a win and they do). It's just a situation where you presuppose your conclusion and find something that could plausibly support it, rather than the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its called the narrative fallacy. It explains roughly 90% of sports journalism.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

John Cooper was the worst big game coach in the history of college football. And it's not even close. He lost many Michigan and bowl games that he should have won. The 1993 game where Ohio State came in undefeated and lost 28-0 was one of the worst performances of all time. The Biakabatuka game in 1995 wasn't much better. Losing to Air Force in the bowl game. This is just off the top of my head, I've probably blocked out the rest as a defense mechanism.

I'm not sure Carr has lost any to Tressel that he should have won.

Edit: Just realized I didn't answer the question. Answer: yes, because if someone can be horribly bad at it, it must be a skill.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

Carr probably should have won in 01 and 04. The 01 Michigan team was pretty good early on but started on a downward spiral in the State game that year. We won a game at Wisconsin while having 1 or 0 first downs in the 2nd half, for example. So it's not clear that, given the arc of the team, that it was one he should have won, although Michigan was playing for the Rose Bowl (actually Sugar) and OSU was 6-5 or something like that. 04 was another bad one but on the road at least.

Otherwise he actually did pretty good in that in 02 and 05 OSU was clearly better, in 05 much better, yet both games came down to the wire. Granted, no one cares about moral victories but given the quality of the teams Michigan did quite well.

And of course he pulled 95 and 96 out of nowhere.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

I've posted this before but I will say it again. I had a friend who used to play for OSU(2002-2004). He said that there was a portion of practice each week dedicated to Michigan. They would either watch UM film or practice against the scout team mimicking UM personnel. It didn't matter if OSU was facing Penn State in week 9 or Akron in week 1, they were still preparing for Michigan.

You can debate if this is skill or not, but it is definitely a different strategy. I never asked if they did it for any other team but I doubt they do.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

What's more impressive is that it didn't seem to interfere with success in other games (again, assuming this has a significant substantive meaning).

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

I think it has more to do with Michigan measuring their program against Ohio State, and Tressell>>>>Lloyd, so if your current coach can't get the job done, you have to find someone who can.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it has more to do with Michigan measuring their program against Ohio State, and Tressell>>>>Lloyd, so if your current coach can't get the job done, you have to find someone who can.

[/ QUOTE ]

What has what to do with what?

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

I asked FootballOutsiders a few months ago about this regarding the NFL and rivalry games and Aaron said he ran the numbers and it doesn't matter. You're just as likely to see Green Bay beat Chicago as you are Green Bay beat a Chicago clone that wasn't their "rival".

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
John Cooper was the worst big game coach in the history of college football. And it's not even close. He lost many Michigan and bowl games that he should have won. The 1993 game where Ohio State came in undefeated and lost 28-0 was one of the worst performances of all time. The Biakabatuka game in 1995 wasn't much better. Losing to Air Force in the bowl game. This is just off the top of my head, I've probably blocked out the rest as a defense mechanism.

I'm not sure Carr has lost any to Tressel that he should have won.

Edit: Just realized I didn't answer the question. Answer: yes, because if someone can be horribly bad at it, it must be a skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize someone has to be horribly bad at it right? Just like someone has to be pretty good at it. They cant all be exactly as expected.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've posted this before but I will say it again. I had a friend who used to play for OSU(2002-2004). He said that there was a portion of practice each week dedicated to Michigan. They would either watch UM film or practice against the scout team mimicking UM personnel. It didn't matter if OSU was facing Penn State in week 9 or Akron in week 1, they were still preparing for Michigan.

You can debate if this is skill or not, but it is definitely a different strategy. I never asked if they did it for any other team but I doubt they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the question is does this correlate with winning, losing or nothing?

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

The notion that this requires a skill is BS.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've posted this before but I will say it again. I had a friend who used to play for OSU(2002-2004). He said that there was a portion of practice each week dedicated to Michigan. They would either watch UM film or practice against the scout team mimicking UM personnel. It didn't matter if OSU was facing Penn State in week 9 or Akron in week 1, they were still preparing for Michigan.

You can debate if this is skill or not, but it is definitely a different strategy. I never asked if they did it for any other team but I doubt they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the question is does this correlate with winning, losing or nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as a thought experiment I think this would correlate with winning. Assuming that OSU and Michigan are roughly equally skilled, which they usually are, the better prepared team and staff would be more likely to win the game than not. I know there are a lot of variables unaccounted for but being better prepared than your opponent can only increase the likelihood of success.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

Hire Derek Jeter for clutch, imo.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've posted this before but I will say it again. I had a friend who used to play for OSU(2002-2004). He said that there was a portion of practice each week dedicated to Michigan. They would either watch UM film or practice against the scout team mimicking UM personnel. It didn't matter if OSU was facing Penn State in week 9 or Akron in week 1, they were still preparing for Michigan.

You can debate if this is skill or not, but it is definitely a different strategy. I never asked if they did it for any other team but I doubt they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the question is does this correlate with winning, losing or nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as a thought experiment I think this would correlate with winning. Assuming that OSU and Michigan are roughly equally skilled, which they usually are, the better prepared team and staff would be more likely to win the game than not. I know there are a lot of variables unaccounted for but being better prepared than your opponent can only increase the likelihood of success.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably agree with you but I could throw about twenty sports cliches and metaphors and conventional wisdom at you that would directly contradict it. They will be too tight, they will be too amped up, they need to be loose, blah blah blah. This is why you gotta look out for narrative fallacy. Yeah, your story sounds great if you are trying to come up with a reason to get to the conclusion you want, and you might even be right but I could come up with just as convincing a story to come to a different conclusion.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

I think if anything certain coaches will prepare more to exploit the other coach's tendencies. Maybe throw in some metagame but this is all stuff they should be doing anyway, so no I don't think there is a special skill.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

Jim Tressel devotes a part of every practice to the Michigan Game.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jim Tressel devotes a part of every practice to the Michigan Game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus he wears a really smart sweater. Which is more skillful, you be the judge.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

Sweatervest, ldo.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

if "more skill" relates to the question of "are some coaches better than others at gameplanning and motivating their players for one specific game?" then i certainly believe skill is involved.

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

Hey, whoever posted that footballoutsiders stuff, is there an article anywhere that covers it, or is there nothing readily available on the internet?

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

This is sort of OT, but I think there is a 'big game' mentality that some coaches are better at than others. Since I think everyone will agree that rivalry games fit that category, I'll use it.

Using two pro examples, Schotenheimer and Holmgren are said to have had trouble in playoff games because they get too emotional/high-strung for them, and this nervousness gets passed on to the players. Not everyone will agree with these specific examples, esp. since Holmgren has 2 SB appearances and 1 win, but if you agree that such a concept is valid, then surely there are college counterparts as well?

Re: Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is sort of OT, but I think there is a 'big game' mentality that some coaches are better at than others. Since I think everyone will agree that rivalry games fit that category, I'll use it.

Using two pro examples, Schotenheimer and Holmgren are said to have had trouble in playoff games because they get too emotional/high-strung for them, and this nervousness gets passed on to the players. Not everyone will agree with these specific examples, esp. since Holmgren has 2 SB appearances and 1 win, but if you agree that such a concept is valid, then surely there are college counterparts as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that's true, but you're basically just asserting that there is a "big game/rivarly mentality" that has a meaningful impact (independent of general ability) on who wins. It MIGHT be possible, but just because people say it all the time doesn't make it so. If anything, I'd say the default would be no meaningful difference unless otherwise proven.