Re: Congrats, Mizzou, but...
- From: Jon Enslin <jenslin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:18:04 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 28, 2:11 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Nov 28, 12:43 pm, "KilgoreTrout" <a4a2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 25 2007 12:09 AM, Ted Dawson wrote:
Step it up an order of magnitude against Boomer. Props to KU, they
took everything MU gave them, which was a lot in the second half.
Mizzou went into Prevent Offense *and* Defense. Not good, unless
Pinkel wanted to hide a lot of his playbook.
Missouri already played OU in Norman this year, lost 41-31, but gave the
Sooners all they wanted. It will be tough for Oklahoma to beat Missouri
twice in the same season.
I've never gotten that line of reasoning <It will be tough for Team A to
beat Team B twice in the same season>.
It almost sounds like yer saying it's worse for Oklahoma to have beaten
Missouri than if they'd lost, or not played yet. To which I have to say -
wha wha what?!??!
Assuming relatively equal teams, the loser of the first game is very
motivated to prove the first game was a fluke. The winner has to
battle complacency because they've already proven they can beat them.
See e.g. UNL and Texas 1999.
I think the reason that teams have trouble beating someone twice runs
a little deeper than that. The loser of the first game is going to
make adjustments on both sides of the ball because they lost. The
winner isn't going to do that because they won.
I think the biggest example of this is the St. Louis v. New England
Super Bowl. When they met during the regular season, the Patriots
played it very conservatively defensively and lost. When they played
in the Super Bowl, they blitzed the Rams all over the place and it
took awhile for them to adjust and by the time they did, it was too
late. (Insert Jaros whine here.)