CSU v. UCSB

[laxdad03]

I agree. Your choice of words was unfortunate.
In my mind there is a big difference between mental toughness or "psychology" and mystique.
Mental toughness includes concentration and focus. Mystique implies some kind of external force which prevents a team from winning.

I don't think mystique necessarily implies an external force, and I don't think any of us have meant it in that way (as an excuse for BYU or anybody else), but rather as an area for potential (one might even say "needed") improvement (the noble quest for which should be what this whole endeavor is all about). What we have all said is, effectively, that in athletics, an unwarranted susceptibilty to any such feelings (e.g. mystique, a body of mystical attitudes and beliefs associated with a particular person, thing, or idea) may represent a weakness (lack of mental toughness) that is quite separate from the way the concepts of talent or skill are typically applied to sports, but may still have a significant impact on performance, or the realization of that talent or skill in a particular situation, and can thereby contribute (significantly and negatively) to how "good" or successful or effective a team is. I think we all basically agree to that extent. And then there are the classic variabilities, e.g. "On any given day..." -- after all, athletics is not an exact science, nor does it pretend to be; again, that complexity is what makes it fun, rather than strictly and definitively analyzable and unfailingly predictable.

[Bluevelvet]

I don't think mystique necessarily implies an external force, and I don't think any of us have meant it in that way (as an excuse for BYU or anybody else), but rather as an area for potential (one might even say "needed") improvement. What we have all said is, effectively, that in athletics, an unwarranted susceptibilty to any such feelings (e.g. mystique, a body of mystical attitudes and beliefs associated with a particular person, thing, or idea) may represent a weakness (lack of mental toughness) that is quite separate from the way the concepts of talent or skill are typically applied to sports, but may still have a significant impact on performance, or the realization of that talent or skill in a particular situation, and can contribute to how "good" or successful or effective a team is. I think we all basically agree to that extent. And then there are the classic variabilities, e.g. "On any given day..." -- after all, athletics is not an exact science, nor does it pretend to be; again, that complexity is what makes it fun, rather than strictly and definitively analyzable and unfailingly predictable.

Well said. Just remember, CSU swaggered into both of their defeats by UCSB last year. Swagger doesn't mean anything unless it interrupts concentration and focus. That is why they do it. Swagger isn't the reason that BYU hasn't beaten CSU. It is how BYU reacts to the swagger that matters. If it interfers with their concentration then it is BYU's inability to overcome distractions that contribute to the loss not CSU's swagger or mystique.

[laxdad03]

Well said. Just remember, CSU swaggered into both of their defeats by UCSB last year. Swagger doesn't mean anything unless it interrupts concentration and focus. That is why they do it. Swagger isn't the reason that BYU hasn't beaten CSU. It is how BYU reacts to the swagger that matters. If it interfers with their concentration then it is BYU's inability to overcome distractions that contribute to the loss not CSU's swagger or mystique.

Agreed on all points (and thank you). As Catlax said, Michigan's response contributed to their own loss as well. CSU is a perennially very good team that also does tend to swagger (although of course they are not alone in that). Apparently, UCSB has learned to deal with it better than most, and that is something that could profitably be emulated by many.

[CATLAX MAN]

Enjoyed the discussion, guys. Thanks for the distraction from mundane work drudgery.

The team thing is a particular hot button issue for me. The worst thing that ever happened to sports was ESPN Sportscenter. It glorifies the individual achievement and celebrates the "look at me" attitude. To me, this has been the most destructive thing to hit team sports, with the possible exception of steroids (but that's a whole separate discussion). I think it is great when teams like the Red Sox & Patriots (and I am not a Boston fan at all) show the sports world that working together as a team is the way to success. As Hugh pointed out, there is nothing better than seeing a team pull together where the whole is more than the sum of all the parts.

[TrainerDan]

Looks like I've missed some lively talk this evening. Having worked closely with BYU the past 2 years I think I have a pretty good perspective as to their mental attitude, especially when it comes to CSU. The CSU games are always taken a bit more seriously than any others it seems. I would have to say to the point of over preparation and spending too much mental energy on the Rams. Don't get me wrong, CSU should never be taken lightly, but there can be a point where it is too much. Those familiar with weight training or cardiovascular training should be familiar with the concept of over-training where in you train so much that it physically does you more harm than good. In the case of BYU vs. CSU I would say the Cougars are mentally overtrained and wear down as the games go along. CSU/BYU is a rivalry, sometimes one team just has the other team's number until they can get over that mental and physical hump and beat the other team. Look at the Red Sox and Yankees for example. Talent wise CSU and BYU aren't much different but the mental edge lies with the Rams right now. BYU will eventually beat the Rams, hopefully this year, and that intimidation or aura that CSU has over them will be broken down. That is when things with that rivalry will get real fun!

[bbandlax]

The team thing is a particular hot button issue for me. The worst thing that ever happened to sports was ESPN Sportscenter. It glorifies the individual achievement and celebrates the "look at me" attitude. To me, this has been the most destructive thing to hit team sports, with the possible exception of steroids (but that's a whole separate discussion). I think it is great when teams like the Red Sox & Patriots (and I am not a Boston fan at all) show the sports world that working together as a team is the way to success. As Hugh pointed out, there is nothing better than seeing a team pull together where the whole is more than the sum of all the parts.

This is a great comment. I think everyone involved with a team should agree. The mantra of "he who bleeds with me this day, I shall call my brother" is the reason so many of us continue to love the game. Overcoming a great challenge with other men with whom you have labored is a rare experience in life. I agree that the Team together can overcome any physical, mental or psychological games the opponent may try.

Coming back to the subject of BYU, the last three years I believe that they had enough talent to beat any MDIA team they stepped on the field with (not necessarily more, but enough). As a team they could have come together, like the Patriots did to beat the Rams, and win the semifinals in St. Louis. However they have been too soft mentally. Each time the other team capitalized on key plays, grabbed the momentum and ran with it. From 97-2000 BYU basically dominated the league. Since then Sonoma, CSU and UCSB have, in their turn, been the standard of the league. Since 2001 BYU has had the physical talent, but not the mental toughness to beat teams like UCSB . Most of BYU’s losses over the last 3 years have been very close games, games that could have gone either way. Close games are usually won by the mentally tougher team. I will step out on the limb and say that BYU has as much talent this year as CSU and UCSB. The games in Provo this year will be close. BYU will not be blown out. But they will only win those two games if they can get over the mental wall that has plagued them in recent years.

[CATLAX MAN]

the last three years I believe that they had enough talent to beat any MDIA team they stepped on the field with (not necessarily more, but enough). As a team they could have come together, like the Patriots did to beat the Rams, and win the semifinals in St. Louis.

BB,

I think you are overestimating BYU's ability last year a little. If you had seen BYU in the tourney last year (and maybe you did, I don't know), it was obvious that they had problems covering quick attackmen and had considerable difficulty clearing against hard riding teams. There is no question they were a talented team, but not talented enough to hang with CSU & UCSB. It was not a mental thing at all. There was a noticeable physical difference.

[bbandlax]

I think you are overestimating BYU's ability last year a little. If you had seen BYU in the tourney last year (and maybe you did, I don't know), it was obvious that they had problems covering quick attackmen and had considerable difficulty clearing against hard riding teams. There is no question they were a talented team, but not talented enough to hang with CSU & UCSB. It was not a mental thing at all. There was a noticeable physical difference.

CATLAX,

I agree that both CSU's and UCSB's defense's were better. However BYU could have won that semifinal game. I was there (have been in St. Louis since it started in '97) and CSU's run in the 3rd was the difference in the game. CSU was the better team for sure, I was just saying that BYU was in the game and if they could have capitalized on a couple of chances they had early in the third..... My point was that they had enough talent to win (offensively I think only USCB had as much talent) but as a team they could not pull it together. I'm not sure which clearing stas you remember but BYU's loss to CSU was not in the clearing game, it was facing off, middie D, handling Johnson behind, and dare I say, a mental collapse in the 3rd. For the record I think if USCB and BYU played ten times last year SB wins 6 or 7. The talent difference was not as "noticeable" as you claim. Remember BYU lost to UCSB in Cali 8-10, that is "hanging" with a team.

[DG]

the last three years I believe that they had enough talent to beat any MDIA team they stepped on the field with (not necessarily more, but enough). As a team they could have come together, like the Patriots did to beat the Rams, and win the semifinals in St. Louis.

BB,

I think you are overestimating BYU's ability last year a little. If you had seen BYU in the tourney last year (and maybe you did, I don't know), it was obvious that they had problems covering quick attackmen and had considerable difficulty clearing against hard riding teams. There is no question they were a talented team, but not talented enough to hang with CSU & UCSB. It was not a mental thing at all. There was a noticeable physical difference.

Catlax,

BB won't toot his own horn here...but he knows lacrosse. He's not like the rest of us BYU hacks.

In their only meeting of the year, I think BYU "hung" pretty well against UCSB. They didn't win, but they led 7-5 going in to the 4th quarter and eventually lost by 2 (on the road). I wouldn't exactly call that a blowout.

As a total aside, one of my favorite USLIA teams of all time was the 2002 Sonoma team. I watched them live a couple of times, and loved their "team first" attitude. I hate SportsCenter chest-thumping highlights.

DG

[bbandlax]

I agree DG,

I had a chance to work with a few of those Sonoma guys in Australia and they were great. They worked as hard as any guys I have been around. They cared about the game and each other. They really brought a rugged edge to that USA West team and were one of the main reasons the team did so well. Like yourself and CATLAX I appreciate the player that sells out on each play and gives the credit to the team. That Sonoma team is probably the bench mark for the "blue collar team first attitude" since the USLIA/MDIA began. They were certainly a mentally tough team if ever there was one.

[grinderpete]

I am going to have to disagree with you DG, but Scottie does not know lacrosse. As his name suggests, he is a BBall man first then lacrosse. Plus I think the only thing Scottie would claim to be knowledgable in would be bad Broncos teams. (sorry JH33). Also Dave I hope you got your call from a current player this past weekend. If not consider this your invite to Alumni Weekend. (byualum, I have been trying to get ahold of you but no luck on my part. I will try again tomorrow.)

Good Day
I said Good Day

PS #30

[DG]

I am going to have to disagree with you DG, but Scottie does not know lacrosse. As his name suggests, he is a BBall man first then lacrosse. Plus I think the only thing Scottie would claim to be knowledgable in would be bad Broncos teams. (sorry JH33). Also Dave I hope you got your call from a current player this past weekend. If not consider this your invite to Alumni Weekend. (byualum, I have been trying to get ahold of you but no luck on my part. I will try again tomorrow.)

Good Day
I said Good Day

PS #30

I did get a call, and he was quite helpful. Great idea, whoever thought of it.

I do love that song...Scottie doesn't know

DG

[Ravaging Beast]

I just don't think that you can attribute any loss to any team based on "they're in our heads." It's a copout; the reality is that the other team was better, whether it was on that day or for the whole season.

You are sounding a little like Stryker11 here. It is theory vs. fact. Some of these guys are basing their opinions on personal experiences. The opposing teams were "in their heads." I will bring up an example that you are probably familiar with. Sonoma had UCSB's number for a several years. In 2003, UCSB played Sonoma in the regular season and lost to them when they had a much more talented team. If you believe that Sonoma and Sonoma's fans were not in UCSB's (especially their favorite goalie) head you are missing something. UCSB was intimidated. Later that season, UCSB destroyed Sonoma in the WCLL finals. Were they intimidated? No. They realized that they had a better team, and were able to take advantage of it.

[Bluevelvet]

[ It is theory vs. fact. Some of these guys are basing their opinions on personal experiences. The opposing teams were "in their heads." I will bring up an example that you are probably familiar with. Sonoma had UCSB's number for a several years. .

Beast-
I think he is saying that you were in your own heads. Sonoma's fans etc. were ineffective once you (UCSB) discovered that you were better. In retrospect, the fans were never a factor. It was UCSB's inability to overcome them that was the factor.
Being intimidated or allowing the other team "in your head" is another way of saying that your team lacked mental toughness. It wasn't them that prevented you from winning even though you had a better team, it was you.

[CATLAX MAN]

That is exactly what I was saying, Bluevelvet.