Winning rivalry games, is it a skill? - Page 2

KUJustin · #1 11-27-2007, 03:13 PM

[ 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.

Todd Terry · #2 11-27-2007, 03:44 PM

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.

damaniac · #3 11-27-2007, 03:52 PM

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.

MiloDanglers · #4 11-27-2007, 03:57 PM

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.

damaniac · #5 11-27-2007, 04:08 PM

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).

Dudd · #6 11-27-2007, 04:32 PM

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.

damaniac · #7 11-27-2007, 08:14 PM

[ 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?

vhawk01 · #8 11-27-2007, 09:31 PM

[ 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?

ThaSaltCracka · #9 11-27-2007, 10:10 PM

The notion that this requires a skill is BS.

MiloDanglers · #10 11-27-2007, 10:45 PM

[ 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.