Manufactured Controversy?

[Enhance]

Then how do you discuss the "lack" that Husker players show in losses to 5-7 Texas in 2010, or to 7-6 Iowa State in 2009? It may be unquantifiable but it bears discussion. How do you do that?

 

Because if we're alleging that Nebraska did their damnedest to win either of those games, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I would describe the effort through most of each game as "half-assed" at best.

That was exactly my point, how do you discuss it? There's no way. It's not looking at a football play and pointing out exactly what went wrong leading to one team's success - we're talking about an incalculable variable for which there's no consensus.

 

And as I said, people will use examples to discredit my idea just like I can use some to discredit theirs. How about Nebraska getting beat down on the road against Michigan for a step ahead in our divisional race, or Nebraska getting blown out on the road against Oklahoma in 2008? No one can convince me "want" was irrelevant in those games. A player can have all the want in the world, but it doesn't matter if they're not focused and executing.

 

There's a place for desire and passion in sports, but it somewhat reminds of me of how religious debates sometimes go. Some say show us God exists, some say show us he doesn't, rinse and repeat.

 

The answer can't be There's no way to discuss it, so we won't. Of course there were observable things that we did/didn't do, and those merit discussion. People are going to put labels on the level of play, and in an unquantifiable situation like that, it's hard to say that someone's version of events has less merit.

 

Further, to wrap this back to Jason Peter, I'm nearly 100% certain, without listening to the broadcast, that his total analysis of our team isn't "they wanted it more." Jason, among all his faults as a broadcaster, is not someone you can accuse of being parsimonious with words.

 

As for those blowouts you mention, if "want" or whatever "lack" label you want to use is not a factor, then your only alternative is to say that those teams were, legitimately, 34 and 28 points better than us. I think psychology plays a far greater role in sports than this conversation is giving credit for. Sun Tzu would agree with me.

I've stated a few times that desire and passion, or more concisely psychology, do play an important role in sports, but it's thrown around far too often as if it's the ultimate factor for a game's outcome. It's not. It's downright idiotic, in my opinion, of course, to suggest players and teams lose simply because somebody wanted it more, and that's the end of it. And that's EXACTLY how so many sports conversations go. I think it's OK to suggest there's a cooperation between psychology and action in sports. I've gotten a little carried away with myself - I think psychology is important and play's a role in a game, but it's given far too much attention and credit than I think it's worth, and I've stated why previously.

 

There's a balance to be found between what motivates someone and what they actually do. Far too often, it's more about why someone did it than how they did it, and that's pure sensationalism.

 

It's like when Mark Cuban laid the wood on Skip Bayless a couple of weeks ago - Bayless would rather spend hours talking about Lebron James losing the '11 championship from a psychological standpoint than giving credit to the Mavericks for what they physically did to win it.

[knapplc]

I've stated a few times that desire and passion, or more concisely psychology, do play an important role in sports, but it's thrown around far too often as if it's the ultimate factor for a game's outcome. It's not. It's downright idiotic, in my opinion, of course, to suggest players and teams lose simply because somebody wanted it more, and that's the end of it. And that's EXACTLY how so many sports conversations go. I think it's OK to suggest there's a cooperation between psychology and action in sports. I've gotten a little carried away with myself - I think psychology is important and play's a role in a game, but it's given far too much attention and credit than I think it's worth, and I've stated why previously.

 

There's a balance to be found between what motivates someone and what they actually do. Far too often, it's more about why someone did it than how they did it, and that's pure sensationalism.

 

I will agree with you that there are some people who throw around terms like "wanted it more" as if they fully explain the nuances of a win or a loss, and they are sometimes wrong. But they are also sometimes right; it's a game-by-game discussion, not something we can use to describe every win or every loss.

 

I'm still looking for an alternative explanation for why superior teams lose to inferior teams, or at least greatly struggle with them, if "wanted it more" is a non-starter. If this concept doesn't exist, how does a team with a losing record, having a crap year, beat a team going to their conference's championship game?

[sd'sker]

it seems like our focus was certainly lacking in those losses that we should have won.

[tschu]

Texas did not want it more than Nebraska did in 2010.

 

I suppose we could better define "wanting it more," between having a desire to win and having the fortitude to take that desire out on the field and succeed, but however we want to define it, bottom line is, out on the field 2010 Texas outplayed us. Maybe we "wanted it more" in the locker room. They clearly "wanted it more" on the field, which is where it counts.

They outplayed us and beat us. But I strongly feel that we wanted it more.

 

We're getting into more semantics. It doesn't matter what words we use to define it. That "outplayed us" is what I'm talking about. We were better, they played better, and they won. We have to stop that.

Not semantics at all. You brought up an entirely different matter - execution. Yes, they outplayed us. They beat us and won. And they deserved to win. But them wanting it more than us had nothing to do with it - especially since in my opinion WE were the ones who had the most desire to win the game. Them winning had nothing to do with them wanting it more than us. They just played better than we did.

 

The main point being, the amount of WIM (wanting it more) has little to do with the result. At that level of competition, everyone wants it badly. Certainly, though, there are some psychological factors that can have a small impact on games. But you see it way less in a team sport than you do in individual ones like golf and tennis.

[tschu]

I'm still looking for an alternative explanation for why superior teams lose to inferior teams, or at least greatly struggle with them, if "wanted it more" is a non-starter. If this concept doesn't exist, how does a team with a losing record, having a crap year, beat a team going to their conference's championship game?

Because sometimes teams just play badly? There are a million different variables that affect the outcome of a football game.

[knapplc]

Not semantics at all. You brought up an entirely different matter - execution. Yes, they outplayed us. They beat us and won. And they deserved to win. But them wanting it more than us had nothing to do with it - especially since in my opinion WE were the ones who had the most desire to win the game. Them winning had nothing to do with them wanting it more than us. They just played better than we did.

 

The main point being, the amount of WIM (wanting it more) has little to do with the result. At that level of competition, everyone wants it badly. Certainly, though, there are some psychological factors that can have a small impact on games. But you see it way less in a team sport than you do in individual ones like golf and tennis.

 

Then explain why NU spends so much money on sports psychology. It has a far greater impact than you wish to admit.

[In the Deed the Glory]

90% of the game is half mental...

 

You are pigeon-holing this "wanted it more" thing into just a 3 hour window on game day, that is not the case.

 

Listen guys, if you don't believe that the game is played more between the ears than between the lines you are mistaken and take this game, and why its special, for granted.

 

Why didn't Jamal Turner play last year? He was better, but he wasn't into the game mentally. He didn't work hard in practice and invest the time like Marlowe, who wanted it more. I see it everyday, the kids that want to be great are infinitely more prepared than those that take their ability for granted. It is that rare combination, like in the mid-90s for Nebraska or the best example is Michael Jordan, when both of these things come together that you get a great team/player.

 

You have to have the desire, the want to, to be great and the ability to follow through.

 

The game, like all games, is mental first.

[knapplc]

We're arguing shades of gray, too. Nobody thinks the mental aspect of the game has zero influence on the outcome, just like nobody thinks it totally controls the outcome. Where we differ is in the amount, and that's bogging everyone down.

[In the Deed the Glory]

We're arguing shades of gray, too. Nobody thinks the mental aspect of the game has zero influence on the outcome, just like nobody thinks it totally controls the outcome. Where we differ is in the amount, and that's bogging everyone down.

 

Fair enough.

[HuskerShark]

Speaking of games that we should have won, I am watching this NU-NW game for some reason. My takeaways:

 

-Thank God Lance Thorell is gone. They threw in his direction EVERY play, and he failed miserably.

-Rex was completely beat up from 35 carries vs MSU the week before

-In addition, the line play was atrocious.

-NW keyed on the run and sold out on it 100%. Beck needed to use play action more. Even not using PA, Taylor had a hell of a game passing the ball.

-Finally, we did not take NW seriously. Don't expect that same mistake to be made this year.

[NUinID]

I'm still looking for an alternative explanation for why superior teams lose to inferior teams, or at least greatly struggle with them, if "wanted it more" is a non-starter. If this concept doesn't exist, how does a team with a losing record, having a crap year, beat a team going to their conference's championship game?

Because sometimes teams just play badly? There are a million different variables that affect the outcome of a football game.

 

Wow, someone finally gets it. If a coach could always explain why a team plays badly than he would be the greatest coach in the world. Call it momentum, call it lack of focus, call it in the immortal words of Shane Falco, "Quicksand". Sometimes nothing goes right and you can't explain it. No one can explain how Nebraska loses 8 fumbles to ISU and loses that game. Sometimes it just happens. There is no way ISU should have beat Okie St. last year, but it happended. How did WVU beat Clemson 70 whatever to whatever in the Orange Bowl last year. If they played 10x it wouldn't happen again. How did NU beat Florida 64-28 in 1996. It was fun and I enjoyed the game a lot but no way do I believe NU was that much better than Florida. They were better by far, but the old quicksand hit Florida and it all went down hill.

[Enhance]

I will agree with you that there are some people who throw around terms like "wanted it more" as if they fully explain the nuances of a win or a loss, and they are sometimes wrong. But they are also sometimes right; it's a game-by-game discussion, not something we can use to describe every win or every loss.

 

I'm still looking for an alternative explanation for why superior teams lose to inferior teams, or at least greatly struggle with them, if "wanted it more" is a non-starter. If this concept doesn't exist, how does a team with a losing record, having a crap year, beat a team going to their conference's championship game?

Well, I don't think it's either wrong or right and that's the end of it. I look at it as one variable in an equation, without the variable the equation doesn't make sense; but, if you exclude the other variables and leave the "want" variable, the equation doesn't make sense again. I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying, though, so it appears we agree. But like I said, my problem is when people, again Skip Bayless being the perfect example, use psychology to explain a loss rather than sports knowledge to describe a victory. He and many others would rather focus on individuals and sensationalism more often than not. Unfortunately, people eat this stuff up or simply don't realize any better, and it's unfortunate.

 

As for an alternative explanation, sometimes things just don't go your way, and I don't believe that has anything to do with want. A bounce here, a bad call there, etc. If there's an upset I'm not denying there isn't a certain "want" factor, but as "want" is not a definable variable, I would prefer to spend less time talking about it. For example, I think it's reasonable to say Nebraska overlooked Northwestern last year. But once I said it, what more is there to say? Nothing. So once that's been established, we move into talking about the specifics that made Nebraska fail and Northwestern win, and those specifics are far more interesting to talk about to me than anything else, because there's a lot more to say and analyze about them.

[Goal-line]

"Wanting it more" is an excuse that's thrown out when someone has no real argument.

Total and complete BS. If you don't "want it more" than your opponent, don't play on my team.

It's an unquantifiable mental state that you can't prove. Allegedly, we "wanted it more" than Texas in 2010, and we were the better team. And it didn't mean jack squat.

We wanted it more in the "Game of the Century" and it meant a National Championship! How about the Ohio State Game last year? Once we found out we could play harder and wanted it more, it happened. We lost the bowl game last year because we did not play with the passion and want to get the job done. Northwestern game was the same out come. We lost the Texas game for the conference championship because some fool on the clock screwed up. The reason YOU can't prove it is because you do not understand it. If you are getting your ass pushed around all up and down the field, you do not have enough want to play the game and win. L. David played hard with passion every play. Baker Steinkuhler dogged it half of the time.

 

As I said, don't bother checking out any uniform items for my team. You will not be playing.

[Saunders]

"Wanting it more" is an excuse that's thrown out when someone has no real argument.

Total and complete BS. If you don't "want it more" than your opponent, don't play on my team.

It's an unquantifiable mental state that you can't prove. Allegedly, we "wanted it more" than Texas in 2010, and we were the better team. And it didn't mean jack squat.

We wanted it more in the "Game of the Century" and it meant a National Championship! The reason YOU can't prove it is because you do not understand it. Again, don't bother checking out any uniform items for my team. You will not be playing.

Lol, k. Tell Tom Osborne and Tommie Frazier they didn't "want it" more than Florida State in 1993.

 

And I'm cool with not "checking out uniforms" for your team. I'm not much of a D&D guy, and don't look good in tights.

[nuhuskeralum]

"Wanting it more" is an excuse that's thrown out when someone has no real argument.

Total and complete BS. If you don't "want it more" than your opponent, don't play on my team.

It's an unquantifiable mental state that you can't prove. Allegedly, we "wanted it more" than Texas in 2010, and we were the better team. And it didn't mean jack squat.

We wanted it more in the "Game of the Century" and it meant a National Championship! The reason YOU can't prove it is because you do not understand it. Again, don't bother checking out any uniform items for my team. You will not be playing.

Lol, k. Tell Tom Osborne and Tommie Frazier they didn't "want it" more than Florida State in 1993.

 

And I'm cool with not "checking out uniforms" for your team. I'm not much of a D&D guy, and don't look good in tights.

 

tommy and co. did want it more than FSU, but the refs wanted FSU more than us.