Excel
All-American
This is just something I've been thinking about after the first weekend of College Football based on what one of the BTN commentators for the Wisconsin game said:
Would you rather have a relatively close first game against an under-powered opponent, like Nebraska, Illinois or Ohio States' games, or an absolute shilacking like Michigan and Wisconsin dealt out? Here's how I see it:
Close First Games
With a hard fought game you get to really test your team. Defense's learn how to stop concerted drives and Offenses gain experience in driving down the field and fighting to score. There is a certain confidence and learning that comes from that and a well coached team should improve from it. On the other hand, a close game shows future opponents your teams' weaknesses that could be exploited later and could shake confidence as much as it could help.
First Game Blowouts
Basing this only on Wisconsin's game against UMASS, I'm not sure the game was really worth playing other than for the easy "W". UMass's Offense had five drives that ended in three plays or less and ended up turning over the ball twice. What did the UW's Defense learn? They were never truly tested. The same thing goes for Wisconsin's Offense in that it scored four touchdowns on big plays of 50 yards or more. Ohio State and Penn State aren't going to allow four touchdowns like that; against a good team you have to drive down the field and fight, something the Offense isn't going to learn or be comfortable with when they're used to getting easy points against pushovers.
That's just how I see it. There are still learning points from shutouts but personally I would rather have a game like Northwestern's (without the turnovers) or Nebraska's (minus Wyoming's two last TD's) than one like Wisconsin's.
What do you think?
Would you rather have a relatively close first game against an under-powered opponent, like Nebraska, Illinois or Ohio States' games, or an absolute shilacking like Michigan and Wisconsin dealt out? Here's how I see it:
Close First Games
With a hard fought game you get to really test your team. Defense's learn how to stop concerted drives and Offenses gain experience in driving down the field and fighting to score. There is a certain confidence and learning that comes from that and a well coached team should improve from it. On the other hand, a close game shows future opponents your teams' weaknesses that could be exploited later and could shake confidence as much as it could help.
First Game Blowouts
Basing this only on Wisconsin's game against UMASS, I'm not sure the game was really worth playing other than for the easy "W". UMass's Offense had five drives that ended in three plays or less and ended up turning over the ball twice. What did the UW's Defense learn? They were never truly tested. The same thing goes for Wisconsin's Offense in that it scored four touchdowns on big plays of 50 yards or more. Ohio State and Penn State aren't going to allow four touchdowns like that; against a good team you have to drive down the field and fight, something the Offense isn't going to learn or be comfortable with when they're used to getting easy points against pushovers.
That's just how I see it. There are still learning points from shutouts but personally I would rather have a game like Northwestern's (without the turnovers) or Nebraska's (minus Wyoming's two last TD's) than one like Wisconsin's.
What do you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
