CSU v. UCSB

[byualum]

Talent & teamwork will always prevail.

Villanova over G-Town
NC State over Houston
Jets over Colts in Superbowl III
Air Academy over Columbine in the 1990 Colorado High School State Semifinals (still hard to swallow)

Certainly these teams were not as talented as the ones they beat...

[CATLAX MAN]

Perhaps the individuals on those teams that lost may have been more talented when you compare them man for man, but I know that in the 1st 3 cases you listed, the better TEAM won. Can't comment on the last one.

[CSUalum32]

i agree with alex, he was on the team a couple years before me, but even in 2001 we had a rough time with BYU. I remember the 01 league championship game, (that game still scrapes the skin) i dont even know how much we were up by but all i know is BYU, on the shoulders of Steve Austin at the face off X, they came back to beat us. i think CSU has beaten BYU almost everytime after that, maybe losing once. it is all about the team attitude that CSU carries, from what i have seen from the fall, CSU has a great team attitude and seemed to get along really well and mesh as a team and from flips journal it looks like they continue to get closer.

[DG]

Perhaps the individuals on those teams that lost may have been more talented when you compare them man for man, but I know that in the 1st 3 cases you listed, the better TEAM won. Can't comment on the last one.

The '85 Villanova team is one of my favorite teams of all time.

Nova played better that night...they shot 78.6% (not missing a shot in the 2nd half) and won by 2. The Hoyas couldn't do anything but tip their hat to the Wildcats. As a matter of fact, they applauded Nova as the victors took the stand.

Nova's run reminded me Stanford in the 2001 USLIA (it wasn't MDIA then Sonny) tournament.

Check out the attached link...
http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/sports2000/numbers/149861.html

[bbandlax]

Along with DG's comments,

Nobody in the country during the 84-85 season who would have said Villanova was a better team than Georgetown. I lived just outside of Georgetown and they were a great team. Georgetown was ranked 1st or 2nd the entire year (including number 1 in the last regular season poll. Villanova wasn't even ranked until half way through the season, and even then they never got above #14 (they were not even in the top 20 for the last month and half of the season). For most of that year Georgetown did exactly what we have been talking about, they won many games before they ever touched the court. But that night Rollie Massimino conviced his boys that David could beat Goliath. They believed they could beat Georgetown, and that is exactly the point several of us are trying to make here. Anyone who has played (or more especially coached)athletics at a high level knows the hugh role of psychology in sports (read Coach K's and Dean Smiths books). Georgetown was not only better at every position, they were the better team, but that night Villanova did not believe it.

I dont know all the numbers for the Jets/Colts game, but I am pretty sure that the only person who really felt the Jets were a better team was Joe Namath.

This seems so fundamental to sports, I can't believe were even have to debate it.

[byualum]

I dont know all the numbers for the Jets/Colts game, but I am pretty sure that the only person who really felt the Jets were a better team was Joe Namath.

And CATLAX MAN...

[CATLAX MAN]

BB and BYUalum,

All of what you say just goes to prove my point. It is true that all of the pundits and anyone else who would care to comment would have said that 'Nova & the Jets would not have had a chance in those games. Those TEAMS never once said that. I remember very clearly Joe Namath sitting in a lounge chair by poolside sipping on a drink telling anyone who cared to listen that the Jets were going to win that game. They went out and did not succumb to mystique or intimidation and were the best TEAM on that day, the day that counted. That's the bottom line.

[DG]

Along with DG's comments,

Nobody in the country during the 84-85 season who would have said Villanova was a better team than Georgetown. I lived just outside of Georgetown and they were a great team. Georgetown was ranked 1st or 2nd the entire year (including number 1 in the last regular season poll. Villanova wasn't even ranked until half way through the season, and even then they never got above #14 (they were not even in the top 20 for the last month and half of the season). For most of that year Georgetown did exactly what we have been talking about, they won many games before they ever touched the court. But that night Jimmy V conviced his boys that David could beat Goliath. They believed they could beat Georgetown, and that is exactly the point several of us are trying to make here. Anyone who has played (or more especially coached)athletics at a high level knows the hugh role of psychology in sports (read Coach K's and Dean Smiths books). Georgetown was not only better at every position, they were the better team, but that night Villanova did not believe it.

BB,

Rollie M was the man there, not Jimmy V...Jimmy V was NC State in 1983.

When I think about it, I was pretty lucky to have seen both of those games...

DG

[laxdad03]

i think CSU has beaten BYU almost everytime after that, maybe losing once. it is all about the team attitude that CSU carries

Maybe I'm to blame for my specific choice of the word "mystique." Point is that for a while, BYU has consistently played considerably more poorly against guys on the field wearing Ram helmets (and maybe with people in the stands with "BYU sucks" on their hats) than they have at other times and against other teams, and this is independent of (but in addition to) any considerations about the relative skill levels of the players and teams in question. BYU has to fix this, pure and simple.

[DG]

IAlthough, there is a mental aspect to any game, that is a part of talent. Good teams usually have great concentration and focus. Intangables such as mystique are really almost like superstition. They can be easily overcome by better talent and concentration.
When a team is intimidated, they lose their concentration and focus. They are not scared or think they will lose before the game starts. They just gradually get run down by superior talent and concentration. Gradually, they crumble, lose focus, make mistakes and lose the game.

How do you reconcile your above statement with the UCSB/Michigan outcome in April of 2004? I would not say that Michigan was a better team than UCSB last year, yet under your definition someone could say that UCSB "gradually [got] run down by superior talent and concentration. Gradually, they [lost] focus, [made] mistakes, and [lost] the game."

DG

[Bluevelvet]

Maybe I'm to blame for my specific choice of the word "mystique." ...

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.
In individual sports such as tennis, you can see a player focus and concentrate, and pull themselves to victory from the brink of defeat. It is not because one player is intimidated by Wimbledon. It is because they lacked the talent and focus to overcome these external stimuli.

I would not say that Michigan was a better team than UCSB last year, yet under your definition someone could say that UCSB "gradually [got] run down by superior talent and concentration. Gradually, they [lost] focus, [made] mistakes, and [lost] the game."

If it wasn't lack of concentration, what was it? Mystique?

[DG]

Maybe I'm to blame for my specific choice of the word "mystique." ...

I agree. Your choice of words was unfortunate.
In my mind there is a big difference between mental toughness and mystique.
Mental toughness includes concentration and focus. Mystique implies some kind of external force which prevents a team from winning.
In individual sports such as tennis, you can see a player focus and concentrate, and pull themselves to victory from the brink of defeat. It is not because one player is intimidated by Wimbledon. It is because they lacked the talent and focus to overcome these external stimuli.

I would not say that Michigan was a better team than UCSB last year, yet under your definition someone could say that UCSB "gradually [got] run down by superior talent and concentration. Gradually, they [lost] focus, [made] mistakes, and [lost] the game."

If it wasn't lack of concentration, what was it? Mystique?

I wasn't talking about mystique...that's someone else's language. But to answer your question, I don't believe it was that Michigan was in UCSB's head. I'm not sure they have ever played a meaningful game against each other. It is apples and oranges. Rivalry games create a lot more "stimuli" (to use your terminology) than a game like that.

Maybe the UCSB kids couldn't see well in their new environment...maybe they were just looking past Michigan. There may be a thousand reasons why they lost. But the bottom line is that they didn't play well enough to win.

That said...Are you honestly telling me that Michigan was a better team? Michigan played better on that day, but I don't believe for one minute that you think that the Wolverines were a better team.

DG

[Bluevelvet]

If it wasn't lack of concentration, what was it? Mystique?

I don't believe it was that Michigan was in UCSB's head. I'm not sure they have ever played a meaningful game against each other. It is apples and oranges. Rivalry games...
There may be a thousand reasons why they lost. But the bottom line is that they didn't play well enough to win.
Are you honestly telling me that Michigan was a better team? Michigan played better on that day, but I don't believe for one minute that you think that the Wolverines were a better team.DG

We are both saying the same thing. Yes, Michigan was the better team that day. They did everything better.
They concentrated and executed and they had talent. These are all a part of mental toughness or psychological aspects of the game.
Michigan did not win due to mystique.
P.S. Michigan lost to UCSB in the 2001 quarterfinals in St. Louis when Michigan was the #1 seed and UCSB was #9. Thay have played each other almost every year since and have a bit of a rivalry.

[Hugh Nunn]

You are all arguing up different sides of the same mountain. You can call it whatever you like...Mystique, team chemistry, mental toughness, whatever.

The bottom line is, that when a team really comes together and plays as though the team is more important than the individual, then the whole becomes more than just the sum of all parts. The examples of NC State, and Villanova in the BBall Championships are both prime examples.

I daresay that coaches of forward looking programs strive more for this synergy than anything else. Flip, John Paul, and Jason Lamb can probably describe this intangible better...I just root for good lacrosse. Can't wait for the meat of the season!

Good luck to all.

[CATLAX MAN]

On that day that Michigan played UCSB, they were the better team. They earned that victory by executing a game plan of holding the ball on offense and out-hustling UCSB for ground balls. It was a team victory. One thing that you won't hear from this corner is that SB lost that day due to a confluence of external events beyond their control. You tip your hat to the team and move on.

Were they the better team for the season? The answer is no. If they were, they would've won the championship. They had their chance; they had CSU on the ropes after dominating them for 3 1/2 quarters. After a flagrant cheap shot by a CSU middie, Michigan lost their poise, concentration & focus and then proceeded to lose the game. They totally forgot about what got them to that point, and that was playing a controlled tempo, tough defensive game.

Is mental toughness an attribute of a good team? Absolutely. However, it is not the only factor that will win a game or a championship for you. 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.