When it came to the do you have any questions part of the interview process, I asked why is it THE Ohio State University? Awkward silence, then one of the muckaty mucks in the safety department said to differentiate the University from the rest of the state schools.
If by "mindfocked" you mean "outclassed in coaching acumen on every conceivable level" then I agree. If by "mindfocked" you mean"cognizant that he was outclassed in coaching acumen on every conceivable level" then I can't disagree. If by "mindfocked" you mean something divorced from the fact that he was simply getting outcoached and said outcoaching was exacerbated by the fact that Florida had at least as good and probably better talent than Tennessee, then I disagree.
That sure sounds like you are describing a coach that doesn't think he can win. How is that not a psychological advantage for UF?
i get what you're saying, kidb, i've just seen enough to believe that psychology can play into sports just as much as talent and coaching.
I don't understand how anyone can think psychology doesn't play a huge part in sports. For the better part of 8 years, Fulmer's sphincter drew up tighter than a drum when it came to Florida. Same way with Majors and Alabama (or any team that had a red uniform). Greg Norman is the classical study in how psychology can kill someone's efforts. After so many snake bites, he simply couldn't stand having a 7 stroke lead in 96 and flat out choked the Masters away.
Gotta agree with Uni on two things. 1. I will never refer to OSU in that form. I'd rather write out Ohio state, to be perfectly honest. 2. luck has certainly played a major role in FSU's undefeated record. If in order to win, you must rely on something happening, over which you have almost no control (a kicker missing two very makeable field goals), and said thing happens, it's lucky. I disagree about the Nd one though. Absolutely the right call there.
Because Phil Fulmer wasn't the UT football team. What aren't you understanding? UF beat UT because they were better at football, and part of that is that they were a better coached team. That's the actual answer. That's how things work in the real world. So let's talk about your made up world where a footbal team has a "psychological advantage" over another football team that remains constant from year to year despite the fact that the actual football teams themselves change drastically. Please try to focus specifically on how his "psychological advantage" still exists today between these two "teams" just as it did in 1997. What is this "psychological advantage" made of? Through what vessels does this "psychological advantage" travel through space and time? Or, as an alternative, we can just rename it "voodoo" (just for clarity of identification) and then proceed with our conversation thusly. Or, as another alternative, three or four posters can reply with "hey, you're right, KidB. Trying to personify a constantly changing entity by giving it an unchanging psyche and then using said imaginary unchanging psyche as a way to explain why a constantly changing entity affiliated with one institution kept beating a constantly changing entity affiliated with another institution. I realize now that I was arguing that the equivalent of some shit you would read in a Harry Potter novel actually exists in real life, and I was making this argument with a straight face. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, Kid. I'm less retarded now than I was just three or four minutes ago, and I owe it all to you. Good talk.
Fearless Forecast: GT knocks off FSU with a late game FG. Badgers bash Buckeyes by at least 10 points Alabama squeaks by in a close one Baylor gets a win with a game ending drive. Ducks duck upset by a comfortable margin
He has had his struggles against certain opponents, yes. But he has overcome that many times as well (post early career, his record vs the Patriots has been right at .500 and is 2-2 all time against them in the playoffs for example). However, I will not derail this into another Droski vs Manning debate, but suffice to say he has had his demons.
I don't think the argument is that psychology is immaterial. I think the argument is that the "in the coach's head" or "in the team's head" is invalid when the casts are constantly changing. Year to year the point is probably decent, but long term it simply isn't. UF was year over year better coached than UT and there isn't any debate about it. As the east brought in better coaches, everyone else was too.
