Winning rivalry games, is it a skill?

[vhawk01]

[ 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.