SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,635
- Like
- 64,733
Commentators were challenged to come up with anything to compare to a #1 seed becoming the first to lose to a #16 seed after #1 seeds had been 135-0 - and to do it by 20 points. The examples they came up with were from events that had occurred in their lifetimes: the 1980 Olympic Hockey team beating the Russians, Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson, etc. Being an historian, I was able to go back farther.
I've been doing this series on national championship controversies in college football. In the 1942, I described what happened to #1 Boston College, 8-0-0 and needing only to beat arch rival Holy Cross, 4-4-1 to sew up the national title:
"The New York Times Arthur Dailey wrote of the Boston College game: “This had to be seen to be believed. Boston was almost completely impotent.“ Per “Football’s Unforgettable games” by Harold Claassen, “When the contest began, the Eagles were tense. The Crusaders were loose and alert. More than that, they were exceptionally well prepared. Scouting reports told (Coach Ank) Scanlon that BC employed a full charge, gambling defense. The Eagles led the nation in rushing defense with a sensationally low yield of 27 yards a game. Eagle tackle Bouley led the charge and was the player for whom the Crusaders built the better mousetrap. Holy Cross worked it to perfection, capitalizing on Bouley’s quick charge. The Crusaders trapped the tackles all day behind 225 pound freshman George Connor…Whipped to a fever pitch for the job at hand, Holy Cross came out hitting hard and never let up on the pressure.” Holy Cross had an impressive 20-6 lead at the half, then crushed the Eagles 35-6 in the second half, opening with 5 unanswered touchdowns BC got a last, truly meaningless score against 4th stringers. Fans had to wonder which team was actually ranked #1. Holy Cross only outigained BC 335-280 but were the beneficiaries of no less than 10 turnovers."
I think what happened to BC that was what happened to Virginia: They assumed the game would be a walk-over and weren't eventually read to play. They couldn't pull away from UMBC and we tied at halftime. I think they assumed that they would pull away and win easily in the second half. But the Retrievers scored six points in the first minute of that stanza and their confidence began to soar. meanwhile Virginia became not disheartened but confused: "Why is this happening?" I'll refer to the two most dismal performances in the Boeheim Era at SU: the 2006 DePaul game and the 2016 St. John's game in the Dome. The other teams went on a feeding fenzy, each great play convincing them that the next one would be great, too. The game became easy for them. The SU players and Virginia yesterday played like Pearl Harbor was going on, stumbling around in a disbelieving daze.
It also didn't help that Virginia is by nature a deliberate team that relies on a strong defense and an efficient offense to dominate teams. They win one possession, then the next, then the one after that. When the situation becomes chaotic, as when SU slapped the "trunk monkey" press on them two years ago, they don't respond well. And when they fall significantly behind, they don't have the schemes to launch a major comeback in a short time, not unlike a wishbone team in football that can win if they dominant play after play but if they fall behind, they have no answer. That may be why they are not a good pick in the NCAAs. I can remember when Coach K and Jim Calhoun where known for aggressive defensive teams. But they didn't win championships until they had equally strong offensive teams and played a style that allowed them to score a lot. meanwhile Jamie Dixon's Pitts teams and, to an extent, John Thompson's Georgetown teams played like they were going to win every game on defense and they got left behind.
Time will tell if this game was a fluke or whether Virginia's style of play is holding them back. I suspect it's a bit of both.
I've been doing this series on national championship controversies in college football. In the 1942, I described what happened to #1 Boston College, 8-0-0 and needing only to beat arch rival Holy Cross, 4-4-1 to sew up the national title:
"The New York Times Arthur Dailey wrote of the Boston College game: “This had to be seen to be believed. Boston was almost completely impotent.“ Per “Football’s Unforgettable games” by Harold Claassen, “When the contest began, the Eagles were tense. The Crusaders were loose and alert. More than that, they were exceptionally well prepared. Scouting reports told (Coach Ank) Scanlon that BC employed a full charge, gambling defense. The Eagles led the nation in rushing defense with a sensationally low yield of 27 yards a game. Eagle tackle Bouley led the charge and was the player for whom the Crusaders built the better mousetrap. Holy Cross worked it to perfection, capitalizing on Bouley’s quick charge. The Crusaders trapped the tackles all day behind 225 pound freshman George Connor…Whipped to a fever pitch for the job at hand, Holy Cross came out hitting hard and never let up on the pressure.” Holy Cross had an impressive 20-6 lead at the half, then crushed the Eagles 35-6 in the second half, opening with 5 unanswered touchdowns BC got a last, truly meaningless score against 4th stringers. Fans had to wonder which team was actually ranked #1. Holy Cross only outigained BC 335-280 but were the beneficiaries of no less than 10 turnovers."
I think what happened to BC that was what happened to Virginia: They assumed the game would be a walk-over and weren't eventually read to play. They couldn't pull away from UMBC and we tied at halftime. I think they assumed that they would pull away and win easily in the second half. But the Retrievers scored six points in the first minute of that stanza and their confidence began to soar. meanwhile Virginia became not disheartened but confused: "Why is this happening?" I'll refer to the two most dismal performances in the Boeheim Era at SU: the 2006 DePaul game and the 2016 St. John's game in the Dome. The other teams went on a feeding fenzy, each great play convincing them that the next one would be great, too. The game became easy for them. The SU players and Virginia yesterday played like Pearl Harbor was going on, stumbling around in a disbelieving daze.
It also didn't help that Virginia is by nature a deliberate team that relies on a strong defense and an efficient offense to dominate teams. They win one possession, then the next, then the one after that. When the situation becomes chaotic, as when SU slapped the "trunk monkey" press on them two years ago, they don't respond well. And when they fall significantly behind, they don't have the schemes to launch a major comeback in a short time, not unlike a wishbone team in football that can win if they dominant play after play but if they fall behind, they have no answer. That may be why they are not a good pick in the NCAAs. I can remember when Coach K and Jim Calhoun where known for aggressive defensive teams. But they didn't win championships until they had equally strong offensive teams and played a style that allowed them to score a lot. meanwhile Jamie Dixon's Pitts teams and, to an extent, John Thompson's Georgetown teams played like they were going to win every game on defense and they got left behind.
Time will tell if this game was a fluke or whether Virginia's style of play is holding them back. I suspect it's a bit of both.
