Rambling about WVU-Notre Dame, being a frontrunner, and such

[alexrgct]

So if you haven't noticed, I'm very interested in psychology, especially how group/individual psychology impacts team performance in sports. Given this, I've been thinking about that Notre Dame loss to West Virginia versus UConn's streak of 173 consecutive wins over unranked opponents.

Now, once UConn really started rolling as a program (1993-94, the first year UConn was a #1 seed), the Huskies haven't done a lot of losing, period, much less to unranked teams. However, Geno's teams were once prone to the occasional slip-up. This hasn't been the case in well over seven years. Did something change? And is this line of thought instructive for programs like ND or Baylor (who are chugging right along this season but suffered a defeat to an unranked Texas Tech last season)?

Here's my theory:

When you are one of the favorites to win a national title, two things happen with great frequency in your games. One is that your opponent is so intimidated and psyched out that they've checked out before tipoff. The other is that your opponent is fired up to play you and see how they stack up against the very best. Both scenarios are dangerous. A team that has already decided it can't beat you allows you to win so easily that you may come to conclusion that you're a little better than you actually are. Conversely, a team that plays like it has nothing to lose can surprise you and cause you to scramble.

I think Geno is a better coach now than he was 10 , 15, or 20 years ago, and one of the ways he's improved is that he's very, very accustomed to fielding teams that opponents either fear or really, really want to beat. He's honed to the point of near-perfection the ability to be convincingly pissed off after a 35-point win if there was room for improvement by his team. Conversely, he knows how to prepare his teams physically and mentally for the grind of being the measuring stick for other teams over the course of a season.

I wonder if Muffet has developed that same mentality. This is the first team in 11 years that she's fielded who really is EXPECTED to be there at the end. So not only are her kids not used to being in the pole position, but she isn't as accustomed to it either. Maybe there were some bad habits that developed over the course of the season (over-reliance on drawing fouls and getting to the line for points, as an example). Perhaps the grind of being front-runners got to her kids after a while. Or maybe it was just a fluke. But boy, if flukes weren't controllable, wouldn't UConn have lost to a team like WVU at least once since December 2004???

I also wonder whether Baylor will be able to handle the pillar-to-post grind of being the favorite. They weren't last year. This year, they seem more ready, but it's tough to say; they haven't faced an opponent who SHOULD put up much of a fight since the UConn game.

Don't get me wrong- if I have to pick a team to win it all, and my life depends on being right, I'm going with Baylor. But if they or Notre Dame slip up in the tourney, it may well be that their relative inexperience of being the measuring stick year in and year out does them in. It will be a fascinating tournament next month whatever happens.

 

[eireman]

So if you haven't noticed, I'm very interested in psychology, especially how group/individual psychology impacts team performance in sports. Given this, I've been thinking about that Notre Dame loss to West Virginia versus UConn's streak of 173 consecutive wins over unranked opponents.

Now, once UConn really started rolling as a program (1993-94, the first year UConn was a #1 seed), the Huskies haven't done a lot of losing, period, much less to unranked teams. However, Geno's teams were once prone to the occasional slip-up. This hasn't been the case in well over seven years. Did something change? And is this line of thought instructive for programs like ND or Baylor (who are chugging right along this season but suffered a defeat to an unranked Texas Tech last season)?

Here's my theory:

When you are one of the favorites to win a national title, two things happen with great frequency in your games. One is that your opponent is so intimidated and psyched out that they've checked out before tipoff. The other is that your opponent is fired up to play you and see how they stack up against the very best. Both scenarios are dangerous. A team that has already decided it can't beat you allows you to win so easily that you may come to conclusion that you're a little better than you actually are. Conversely, a team that plays like it has nothing to lose can surprise you and cause you to scramble.

I think Geno is a better coach now than he was 10 , 15, or 20 years ago, and one of the ways he's improved is that he's very, very accustomed to fielding teams that opponents either fear or really, really want to beat. He's honed to the point of near-perfection the ability to be convincingly pissed off after a 35-point win if there was room for improvement by his team. Conversely, he knows how to prepare his teams physically and mentally for the grind of being the measuring stick for other teams over the course of a season.

I wonder if Muffet has developed that same mentality. This is the first team in 11 years that she's fielded who really is EXPECTED to be there at the end. So not only are her kids not used to being in the pole position, but she isn't as accustomed to it either. Maybe there were some bad habits that developed over the course of the season (over-reliance on drawing fouls and getting to the line for points, as an example). Perhaps the grind of being front-runners got to her kids after a while. Or maybe it was just a fluke. But boy, if flukes weren't controllable, wouldn't UConn have lost to a team like WVU at least once since December 2004???

I also wonder whether Baylor will be able to handle the pillar-to-post grind of being the favorite. They weren't last year. This year, they seem more ready, but it's tough to say; they haven't faced an opponent who SHOULD put up much of a fight since the UConn game.

Don't get me wrong- if I have to pick a team to win it all, and my life depends on being right, I'm going with Baylor. But if they or Notre Dame slip up in the tourney, it may well be that their relative inexperience of being the measuring stick year in and year out does them in. It will be a fascinating tournament next month whatever happens.

 

[eireman]

knowing a lot of sports psychologists......they'd probably reply that most of the above is irrrelevant and that the aforementioned do a good job of keeping their teams and individuals in the moment

 

[alexrgct]

knowing a lot of sports psychologists......they'd probably reply that most of the above is irrrelevant and that the aforementioned do a good job of keeping their teams and individuals in the moment

In the final minutes of ND-WVU:

-ND's post players fouled out
-Their defense broke down
-Their last two offensive possessions resulted in horrible shots they didn't need to take.
-Between those two possessions, they stupidly fouled West Virginia with the game tied, thereby sending them to the line to score the winning points.

Sorry, ND was not in the moment. They were panicked and drained mentally. I think the grind of being front runners had a lot to do with it.

If that's just a fluky loss that happens from time to time with no relevant explanation, why has UConn not lost since December 2004 to a team like WVU? In that time, UConn has fielded some teams that are not as good as this ND team, btw.

 

[meyers7]

So if you haven't noticed, I'm very interested in psychology, especially how group/individual psychology impacts team performance in sports.

I haven't, but then I'm not really all that observant, being a guy and all.

Here's my theory:

Without pasting all of that, I would pretty much agree with you. Going undefeated in more a mental exercise than anything else.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Simply put, Geno and CD are indeed much more experienced in the last 19 years, and they have developed an incredible training\coaching system that draws in and pushes some of the top recruits in the nation to the max. The players are tested through a huge variety of tough challenges both in practice and in games, and they usually meet or obliterate those challenges.

However, there are times when things slip a bit at the end. The end of regulation and OT in the ND game tis year was a smaller example. The last time I can remember a bigger slip might have been the UTenn game at HCC in 2005. But the Huskies are a tough hardened bunch when at fairly full strength.

 

[rington]

So if you haven't noticed, I'm very interested in psychology, especially how group/individual psychology impacts team performance in sports. Given this, I've been thinking about that Notre Dame loss to West Virginia versus UConn's streak of 173 consecutive wins over unranked opponents.

Now, once UConn really started rolling as a program (1993-94, the first year UConn was a #1 seed), the Huskies haven't done a lot of losing, period, much less to unranked teams. However, Geno's teams were once prone to the occasional slip-up. This hasn't been the case in well over seven years. Did something change? And is this line of thought instructive for programs like ND or Baylor (who are chugging right along this season but suffered a defeat to an unranked Texas Tech last season)?

Here's my theory:

When you are one of the favorites to win a national title, two things happen with great frequency in your games. One is that your opponent is so intimidated and psyched out that they've checked out before tipoff. The other is that your opponent is fired up to play you and see how they stack up against the very best. Both scenarios are dangerous. A team that has already decided it can't beat you allows you to win so easily that you may come to conclusion that you're a little better than you actually are. Conversely, a team that plays like it has nothing to lose can surprise you and cause you to scramble.

I think Geno is a better coach now than he was 10 , 15, or 20 years ago, and one of the ways he's improved is that he's very, very accustomed to fielding teams that opponents either fear or really, really want to beat. He's honed to the point of near-perfection the ability to be convincingly pissed off after a 35-point win if there was room for improvement by his team. Conversely, he knows how to prepare his teams physically and mentally for the grind of being the measuring stick for other teams over the course of a season.

I wonder if Muffet has developed that same mentality. This is the first team in 11 years that she's fielded who really is EXPECTED to be there at the end. So not only are her kids not used to being in the pole position, but she isn't as accustomed to it either. Maybe there were some bad habits that developed over the course of the season (over-reliance on drawing fouls and getting to the line for points, as an example). Perhaps the grind of being front-runners got to her kids after a while. Or maybe it was just a fluke. But boy, if flukes weren't controllable, wouldn't UConn have lost to a team like WVU at least once since December 2004???

I also wonder whether Baylor will be able to handle the pillar-to-post grind of being the favorite. They weren't last year. This year, they seem more ready, but it's tough to say; they haven't faced an opponent who SHOULD put up much of a fight since the UConn game.

Don't get me wrong- if I have to pick a team to win it all, and my life depends on being right, I'm going with Baylor. But if they or Notre Dame slip up in the tourney, it may well be that their relative inexperience of being the measuring stick year in and year out does them in. It will be a fascinating tournament next month whatever happens.

You make some good points, and you're right, it is going to be interesting.

 

[ChicagoGG]

Alex - you are always a good read. Thanks for the interesting points!

 

[Kibitzer]

Alex, another thoughtful post, sprinkled with nuggets of wisdom.

Permit me to add another element to the equation and that is the coach/players relationship. Specifically, the level of confidence that the players have in their coach(es).

As I see it, UConn players believe totally in Geno, CD, et al. I think they are convinced that Geno could not only walk on water, but that he could do so without frightening a single fish.

Coaches named Wooden and Auerbach commanded similar respect and inspired unquestioned confidence in their infallability. Ditto Vince Lombardi, Dean Smith, Coach K and, yes, Pat Summitt.

This begs the question; Do Muffet McGraw or Kim Mulkey rise to this level? My answer would be something like either a charitable "not yet" or a more dismissive "not quite."

My thesis, then, is that at "crunch time," UConn players harbor no doubts whatsoever but that Geno will rise to the occasion when the issue is in doubt, whereas players on these other teams may have just that smidgen of uncertainty that makes the vital difference between a narrow victory instead of a crushing defeat.

Having said that, I still have not forgiven Geno for not calling a time-out after Diana made what should have been the game-winning basket vs. Duke instead of allowing play to continue while Jessica Foley hit that trey that put the silver uniforms into permanent storage.

But, as Alex says, Geno is a better coach now than he was in the past. I certainly concur.