Playoff re-matches [Archive] - AnyGivenSaturday.com

Umass74

November 10th, 2006, 09:21 AM

You guys remember when UMass went to the Final Four in basketball back in 1996. And you maybe remember that we lost to Kentucky by 7 points.

You may not remember that we had already beat #1 Kentucky 92-82 earlier in the season. I can remember thinking when it became apparent that we were going to meet them again: "Beating Kentucky twice in one season is going to be REALLY tough"

When I was at the UMass-UNH game I was thinking that I really don't want to see the Wildcats again this year.

Other possible re-matches are Appy-JMU, YSU-Maine (if Maine makes the playoffs) and probably several others.

What do you think? Is it better to have beaten a team already (so that you know you can do it? Or would it be better to have lost and get the revenge factor?

89Hen

November 10th, 2006, 09:23 AM

Honestly, and no offense, but I've always thought the "beating somebody twice in one season is tough" saying is the biggest crock in all of sports.

AppGuy04

November 10th, 2006, 09:24 AM

ASU/Furman last year

BillLuc1982

November 10th, 2006, 09:32 AM

Honestly, and no offense, but I've always thought the "beating somebody twice in one season is tough" saying is the biggest crock in all of sports.

Especially if it's a matchup like YSU-Indiana State

BeauFoster

November 10th, 2006, 09:33 AM

Honestly, and no offense, but I've always thought the "beating somebody twice in one season is tough" saying is the biggest crock in all of sports.

The only thing that is true about the statement is that sometimes a team may become complacent after beating the team a first time. The ASU/FU from last year is somewhat of a different story. Both games were close and both were won by the home team. Doesn't Sagarin allow the home team about 3 points (nearly the margin of each game)? If a team is prepared to play the opponent on that week and doesn't focus on the first win, then the saying holds little to no credence (IMO)

FlyYtown

November 10th, 2006, 09:37 AM

I could see YSU vs. Maine at Stambaugh again...

89Hen

November 10th, 2006, 09:37 AM

The only thing that is true about the statement is that sometimes a team may become complacent after beating the team a first time.
But these rematches are in playoffs, championship games or bowl games, so I doubt either team would be complacent.

IMO it's just a lame excuse (mostly by the media types) when a team loses the rematch after winning the first. Often the two teams are evenly matched so it would make sense that if they played 10 times they'd each win 4 or 5.

BeauFoster

November 10th, 2006, 09:38 AM

But these rematches are in playoffs, championship games or bowl games, so I doubt either team would be complacent.

IMO it's just a lame excuse (mostly by the media types) when a team loses the rematch after winning the first. Often the two teams are evenly matched so it would make sense that if they played 10 times they'd each win 4 or 5.

I agree completely with everything you said. That is why I pointed out the ASU/FU series from last year. The two were so evenly matched that home field and a fumble was the difference!

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 09:40 AM

Honestly, and no offense, but I've always thought the "beating somebody twice in one season is tough" saying is the biggest crock in all of sports.

Maybe I just remember the bad memories, but Furman's rematches would not agree with your statement.

I can't remember them all.
1983 Western Carolina (This one does not exactly fit) tied reg. WCU won playoffs.
1988 Lost to Marshall in regular season. BEat them in the playoffs
1996 MArshall - Lost both times ( but that Marshall team was unbeatable)
2001 Lost to GSU in the regular season and beat them in the playoffs
and of cournse last year with ASU

If you throw out 1996 due to Marshall being so much better than Furman. There is not once that the outcome has been the same for the two games.

Appguy

November 10th, 2006, 09:46 AM

We were winning before the fumble...
that was just icing on the cake

BeauFoster

November 10th, 2006, 09:52 AM

We were winning before the fumble...
that was just icing on the cake

I couldn't have taken it had Martin completed a pass there, regardless of gain on the play. My heart rate was already about double at that point.

89Hen

November 10th, 2006, 09:54 AM

There is not once that the outcome has been the same for the two games.
In the examples you gave the teams were obviously evenly matched. WCU was a tie in the regular season, Marshall '88 total delta was 10 points and the ASU and GSU total deltas were 3.

BTW, I don't think WCU counts since somebody had to win in the playoffs and you can't just dismiss 1996.

Black Saturday

November 10th, 2006, 10:05 AM

I agree completely with everything you said. That is why I pointed out the ASU/FU series from last year. The two were so evenly matched that home field and a fumble was the difference!

Richie Williams getting hurt in the first quarter was the reason we didn't win by three tds in Boone.:bow:

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 10:06 AM

In the examples you gave the teams were obviously evenly matched. WCU was a tie in the regular season, Marshall '88 total delta was 10 points and the ASU and GSU total deltas were 3.

BTW, I don't think WCU counts since somebody had to win in the playoffs and you can't just dismiss 1996.

Stickler for details :p

Mr. C

November 10th, 2006, 10:07 AM

We had a thread during the playoffs last season about the rematch subject and, most often, the team that lost in the regular season won in the playoffs. Don't remember the exact numbers, or games, but maybe someone else does.

BeauFoster

November 10th, 2006, 10:07 AM

Richie Williams getting hurt in the first quarter was the reason we didn't win by three tds in Boone.:bow:

I guess that's why we had to play! Seriously, we were both tremedous teams last year and either team could have won the game. Back to the point of the thread, I don't buy the hard to beat the same team twice bunk

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 10:12 AM

Richie Williams getting hurt in the first quarter was the reason we didn't win by three tds in Boone.:bow:

Yep no doubt about that. Furman would have made no adjustments. There would have been no momentum changes.:rolleyes:

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 10:13 AM

I guess that's why we had to play! Seriously, we were both tremedous teams last year and either team could have won the game. Back to the point of the thread, I don't buy the hard to beat the same team twice bunk

I think it is fine not to buy it but I would imagine that the facts show that it does not happen often. I know in Furman's case, as stated above and contrary to whatever 89 says, The games have been split more often than not

Mr. C

November 10th, 2006, 10:18 AM

Yep no doubt about that. Furman would have made no adjustments. There would have been no momentum changes.:rolleyes:
Just like the defensive adjustments the Paladin coaching staff made in 2004 when Richie Williams completed an NCAA-record 28 passes in a row and was 40-of-45 for the game (another NCAA record) with a school-record 413 yards passing.
:D xlolx :nod: :cool: :D

89Hen

November 10th, 2006, 10:22 AM

Saint3333

November 10th, 2006, 11:03 AM

Well so Furman is 3-1 with the winner of the regular season game losing and then winning in the playoffs.

It also has happened four times for ASU:
1987 ASU beats Marshall 17-10, then loses to them in the semis 10-24
2000 ASU loses to Troy, then beats them 33-30
2001 ASU loses to GSU in both
2005 ASU loses to Furman and beats them in the semis.

So between ASU and Furman the loser of the regular season game wins in the playoffs 6 out of 8 times (of course we share one of those) so actually 5 out of 7 I guess.

Mr. C

November 10th, 2006, 11:13 AM

I don't remember that, but I'd love to see the numbers. What is 'most often'?
If I had time right now to look up the old thread, I'd tell you. It seems like it was about 75% of the time, or more (working on memory here).

putter

November 10th, 2006, 11:25 AM

Montana - Cal Poly could happen again, just like last year. That is one team I don't want to see again because it is very possible a repeat of last year could happen also. Win the regular season game and lost the playoff game.

JMU_MRD'03-'07

November 10th, 2006, 12:15 PM

Ask the Tribe of W&M what they think of the saying. ;)

LUHawker

November 10th, 2006, 12:43 PM

Maroon&White

November 10th, 2006, 12:47 PM

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 12:51 PM

Just like the defensive adjustments the Paladin coaching staff made in 2004 when Richie Williams completed an NCAA-record 28 passes in a row and was 40-of-45 for the game (another NCAA record) with a school-record 413 yards passing.
:D xlolx :nod: :cool: :D

I think they were so shocked by the fact that you were playing us close they could not think

Pard94

November 10th, 2006, 01:38 PM

mcveyrl

November 10th, 2006, 01:44 PM

The best place to look to prove that saying would probably be the NFL where teams are (generally) pretty closely matched and play each other twice within the division. Anybody got time to look up the stats on that?

Even though I don't really buy into the "tough to beat twice" theory (it's always hard to win, especially in the playoffs!), I hope that it applies should JMU meet up with ASU agsin :)

SoCon48

November 10th, 2006, 01:53 PM

Honestly, and no offense, but I've always thought the "beating somebody twice in one season is tough" saying is the biggest crock in all of sports.

It's very true in instances where the first game was won by a very close score by the home team. They'll likely have their hands full for the second game if it's away.

SoCon48

November 10th, 2006, 01:58 PM

First, I would like to see Lafayette make it back to the playoffs. Once that wish is granted I would love to take on App State again. Last year was a great game and their fans seemed very supportive of their team without crossing the line. A very classy bunch!

Pard, I only wish App and Lafayette would get a home and home series going for a very long stretch. The Lafayette fans were great when they came to Boone. Made me want to see them have a very successful 2006 season.
Got my master's in Pa., love that state, and would welcome the excuse of going up evey other year to see the Apps play!
Talking about the fans..I was impressed by the class both teams' players showed on the field.

Marchawg

November 10th, 2006, 01:58 PM

I'm still trying to get into Div I-AA, so forgive my I-A response but it's from experience!

My father is a huge FSU Seminoles fan, and I am a huge UF Gators fan. Back in 1996, FSU beat UF in the last game of the regular season 24-21. After disposing of Alabama in the Conference championship game, we got a huge break in that we were able to play FSU again.

My father was so pumped up about it because his precious 'Noles had already beaten us that year and he figured they'd do it again. He bought tickets to the game for us, and off we went to see my Gators pummel his 'Noles 52-20 in the rematch.

That said, I hate rematches when my team won the first game, but love them when my team lost the first one.

Go Lehigh TU owl

November 10th, 2006, 02:01 PM

UMass and Lehigh have played twice in the I-AA playoffs. I think Lehigh won back in the early 80's and UMass defeated LU in a tight game in Amherst in 1998. I think there is a distinct possibility for a rematch in Amherst this year.

Lehigh's best hope this year is to go up against a team that plays it somewhat close to the vest, kinda like JMU in '04. JMU and Umass both look really good on both sides of the ball are both very capable of putting up 40 and shutting down their opponent. Maine would be an interesting team if they could somehow run the table. Their style of play i think will allow them to be in their final two against Umass and UNH. If they win or not will depend a lot on their offense.

JohnStOnge

November 10th, 2006, 02:19 PM

Honestly, and no offense, but I've always thought the "beating somebody twice in one season is tough" saying is the biggest crock in all of sports.

It depends upon how good the "somebody" is. I think that in previous years someone on this board did an analysis of what's happened in the I-AA playoffs during rematches and the teams that lost the first time around had a huge edge. Montana/Cal Poly last season is one example that comes to mind.

Another big one to me, of course, is McNeese beating Western Kentucky 38-13 during the 2002 during the regular season then losing by 34-14 to the Hilltoppers in the championship game.

I think that when two good teams play the one that lost the first time does have the advantage. The one that won the first time doesn't have as much to adjust to, while the one that lost can look at what hurt it and plan to counter it the next time. In the case of Western Kentucky and McNeese, I think Western Kentucky had some counters planned for McNeese's blitzing style of defense and made up its mind not to let B.J. Sams beat it. Result: WKU only had 10 first downs in the championship game but burned McNeese blitzes for a number of big plays that led to or scored points while Sams wasn't going to touch the ball on punt returns and had people all over him everywhere he went.

I don't know if I feel like running the numbers but I'm pretty sure that if somebody does they'll find that the team that lost during the regular season has won the overwhelming majority of I-AA playoff rematches.

matfu

November 10th, 2006, 02:20 PM

furman could very well see app again in the playoffs this year in boone. remember, for all but 1 and a half minutes of the first half, furman led in yardage etc. we will be a different team in the playoffs with felton and gray healthy. it could make up for our last two losses there. the problem is even if we HAPENED to win in boone, it would be in the quarters, and i wonder if we could get "up" for two more games. time will tell.

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 02:44 PM

Black Saturday

November 10th, 2006, 02:44 PM

[QUOTE=matfu]furman could very well see app again in the playoffs this year in boone. remember, for all but 1 and a half minutes of the first half, furman led in yardage etc. we will be a different team in the playoffs with felton and gray healthy.

When will you guys ever learn that two halves make a football game and the only stat that really makes a darn is the final score?: smh : :rolleyes:

JohnStOnge

November 10th, 2006, 03:02 PM

It makes sense that the advantage is typically to the losing team the second time around. I know this isn't always the case, but if the teams are relatively equal, probability would say that each will win 50% of the time. So even the at the start of the second game when the probability is still 50/50, that same probability over the long term requires the loser of the first game to win more often than not, the second one. The probablity will not equal 100% because a sufficient number of games are not played and because teams are not equal.

89, you being the kind of numbers and facts and such, I am surprised that you don't see this.

I kind of disagree with that. Probability has to do what has yet to happen. What has happened in the past has no impact. So, for instance, if you flip an honest coin and it comes up heads, the probability that it'll come up heads the next time is still 0.50. Even if you've flipped it five times and it comes up heads every time, the probability that it'll come up heads the next time is still 0.50.

Of course then you might begin to wonder if it's an honest coin.

I think what really might happen is something like what I described earlier. If you win the first time, it means your game plan worked. You don't have as much to correct; especially if your game plan worked really well. But, the next time, the other team is going to look at that film and see what was wrong with its own game plan. It'll do different things...things designed to counter what worked well for you the last time.

And what are you going to do? Are you going to stay away from things that worked well for you in order to avoid that? It puts you in a tough position.

If you have big talent edge, it doesn't matter. UMass could play Savannah State 100 times and it's not going to lose unless it has something like 30 unforced turnovers. But if the talent level is close, I think that kind of thing might make a big difference.

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 03:11 PM

I kind of disagree with that. Probability has to do what has yet to happen. What has happened in the past has no impact. So, for instance, if you flip an honest coin and it comes up heads, the probability that it'll come up heads the next time is still 0.50. Even if you've flipped it five times and it comes up heads every time, the probability that it'll come up heads the next time is still 0.50.

Of course then you might begin to wonder if it's an honest coin.

I think what really might happen is something like what I described earlier. If you win the first time, it means your game plan worked. You don't have as much to correct; especially if your game plan worked really well. But, the next time, the other team is going to look at that film and see what was wrong with its own game plan. It'll do different things...things designed to counter what worked well for you the last time.

And what are you going to do? Are you going to stay away from things that worked well for you in order to avoid that? It puts you in a tough position.

If you have big talent edge, it doesn't matter. UMass could play Savannah State 100 times and it's not going to lose unless it has something like 30 unforced turnovers. But if the talent level is close, I think that kind of thing might make a big difference.

That is right every time it starts over. But if you flip the coin 50 times the odds are pretty good that heads will be 25 and tails will be 25 or close. It is the same concept here except that there are more considerations than simple 50/50 chance which is why you will never get the 50/50 probability.
Also there is the assummption here that most playoff teams are relatively equal not Umass against Sav st. I am not talking perfect probability here but conceptually it still works.

And my guess is that the historical games prove it. Not 100% of the times because it is not that simple.

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 03:15 PM

I kind of disagree with that. Probability has to do what has yet to happen. What has happened in the past has no impact. So, for instance, if you flip an honest coin and it comes up heads, the probability that it'll come up heads the next time is still 0.50. Even if you've flipped it five times and it comes up heads every time, the probability that it'll come up heads the next time is still 0.50.

Of course then you might begin to wonder if it's an honest coin.

I think what really might happen is something like what I described earlier. If you win the first time, it means your game plan worked. You don't have as much to correct; especially if your game plan worked really well. But, the next time, the other team is going to look at that film and see what was wrong with its own game plan. It'll do different things...things designed to counter what worked well for you the last time.

And what are you going to do? Are you going to stay away from things that worked well for you in order to avoid that? It puts you in a tough position.

If you have big talent edge, it doesn't matter. UMass could play Savannah State 100 times and it's not going to lose unless it has something like 30 unforced turnovers. But if the talent level is close, I think that kind of thing might make a big difference.

And PS I understand that football games are not a matter of probability. But how many times has somebody said if the teams played ten times team A would win 6 of them. While there are many many factors that go into this there is no reason to assume that two relatively equal teams, ASU and Furman last year, Furman and Georgia Southern in 2001, would not split two games. Maybe not year in and year out but over the long term they would. Just like a coin flip. :smiley_wi

JohnStOnge

November 10th, 2006, 03:32 PM

And PS I understand that football games are not a matter of probability. But how many times has somebody said if the teams played ten times team A would win 6 of them. While there are many many factors that go into this there is no reason to assume that two relatively equal teams, ASU and Furman last year, Furman and Georgia Southern in 2001, would not split two games. Maybe not year in and year out but over the long term they would. Just like a coin flip. :smiley_wi

I actually do think probability plays a role in football games. But there's a way to test things. If you were to assume that the team that it's just a matter of probability, there shouldn't be a "significant" difference between what happens when all the second results are counted vs. what happens when all the first results are counted.

So lets say you had 30 rematches and the team that lost the first time won 25 of those games. There's no way that could happen unless, on average, the team that lost the first time generally had a better chance of winning the second time. If the odds of the first-time loser winning were no better than 50:50 each time, you'd have less than one chance in 6,000 of that happening.

And my impression is that that's kind of consistent with what's happened historically in the I-AA playoffs. My impression has been that there really are indications that what's been happening can't be accounted for by chance....that something really is going on that favors the team that lost the first time.

If whoever put those numbers up previously did it again I could be sure. Me, I don't know if I'd want to go through all the work of identifying every historical rematch! At least not now. But maybe that'd be something good to do before the next season for whatever version of the Playoff Championship Division or whatever it's going to be called magazine.

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 03:43 PM

I actually do think probability plays a role in football games. But there's a way to test things. If you were to assume that the team that it's just a matter of probability, there shouldn't be a "significant" difference between what happens when all the second results are counted vs. what happens when all the first results are counted.

So lets say you had 30 rematches and the team that lost the first time won 25 of those games. There's no way that could happen unless, on average, the team that lost the first time generally had a better chance of winning the second time. If the odds of the first-time loser winning were no better than 50:50 each time, you'd have less than one chance in 6,000 of that happening.

And my impression is that that's kind of consistent with what's happened historically in the I-AA playoffs. My impression has been that there really are indications that what's been happening can't be accounted for by chance....that something really is going on that favors the team that lost the first time.

If whoever put those numbers up previously did it again I could be sure. Me, I don't know if I'd want to go through all the work of identifying every historical rematch! At least not now. But maybe that'd be something good to do before the next season for whatever version of the Playoff Championship Division or whatever it's going to be called magazine.

I should not better than to argue stats with a stat nut:rolleyes: :D

JohnStOnge

November 10th, 2006, 03:54 PM

That is right every time it starts over. But if you flip the coin 50 times the odds are pretty good that heads will be 25 and tails will be 25 or close. It is the same concept here except that there are more considerations than simple 50/50 chance which is why you will never get the 50/50 probability.
Also there is the assummption here that most playoff teams are relatively equal not Umass against Sav st. I am not talking perfect probability here but conceptually it still works.

And my guess is that the historical games prove it. Not 100% of the times because it is not that simple.

Ok, I see what you're saying. Only quible is that the odds of the actual outcome exactly matching the underlying probability are small if there's a reasonably large number of trials. If you flip a coin 50 times, for instance, the probability of getting a 25/25 split is about 0.11. But you can look at distributions of what might happen and say, for instance, that you're more than 95 percent sure that it should come out somewhere in the range of 19 to 31. So if you get less than 19 or more than 31 heads you know that the underlying probability isn't likely to really be 0.50.

JohnStOnge

November 10th, 2006, 03:57 PM

I should not better than to argue stats with a stat nut:rolleyes: :D

We're not arguing, we're discussing!

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 04:02 PM

We're not arguing, we're discussing!

That is true. I just ran out of time and had to say something:nod:

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 04:09 PM

Ok, I see what you're saying. Only quible is that the odds of the actual outcome exactly matching the underlying probability are small if there's a reasonably large number of trials. If you flip a coin 50 times, for instance, the probability of getting a 25/25 split is about 0.11. But you can look at distributions of what might happen and say, for instance, that you're more than 95 percent sure that it should come out somewhere in the range of 19 to 31. So if you get less than 19 or more than 31 heads you know that the underlying probability isn't likely to really be 0.50.

For the first time in this discussion I can truly say I did not understand any of that. But let me see if I clarify it for the simple-minded ( with respect to stats). (EDIT _ I reread and believe I understood on the second go round)

Realizing in the football example that all things are not equal and never will be equal or nor will they be solely left to chance but assuming that the talent level is relatively the same, coaching staffs are similar in talent, etc etc. if those two teams played twenty times, one might expect that each team would win an equal number of times. However, those teams do not play twenty times but another ten similarly equal teams do, you woud get a similar result. it might be 11-9 12-8 and so forth. Therefore, it seems to me that probability would favor not a particular team but a more predictable outcome that would result in the teams that lost the firsts games to win the second one. How is that?

How about that for some of the world's longest run on sentences.:D

OL FU

November 10th, 2006, 04:18 PM

John,

I believe the conclusion might be that it is not fair to make the prediction that it is hard to beat the same team twice when considering a single game. But when predicting the likelihood of teams splitting games in general, such a prediction is more likely to be accurate.

Agree?

Death Dealer

November 10th, 2006, 06:34 PM

Richie Williams getting hurt in the first quarter was the reason we didn't win by three tds in Boone.:bow:

OMFG....Ritchie Williams, Rithcie Williams, Rithcie Williams.....He isn't God, he was a great college QB (not better, no worse than Martin, just different), but no way you won that game by 21 with him in (that's just smack talk). It would have been a very similar outcome. Those two teams last year were as closely matched as I've ever seen in this rivalry. That is not the case this year, and if we make it back to Boone in the playoffs, we could win it, but I don't see it happening (you guys are too good this year).

89Hen

November 10th, 2006, 10:39 PM

I still think it's bunk and a weak excuse thrown out by the team that loses the rematch. You think teams don't look at film before the first game, or try to make adjustments at halftime? The fact that you've played them before and LOST has no bearing on how easy it will be to beat them the second time and vice versa.xcoffeex

BDKJMU

November 10th, 2006, 11:50 PM

If a team beats another team once I think its psychologically a little more difficult for the players on the winning team to get as emotionally up and focused for a rematch. The team as a whole I think will lose a little bit of its edge. Conversely, for the players on the losing team, I think they're apt to be a little more focused and emotionally up for the rematch. The revenge factor plays into it. I think generally a team has to be a good bit better than another team to beat them twice. Thats why more often in playoff rematches, where the talent difference usually isn't that great, you see the losing team from the 1st game winning the rematch.

appst97

November 11th, 2006, 07:40 AM

OMFG....Ritchie Williams, Rithcie Williams, Rithcie Williams.....He isn't God, he was a great college QB (not better, no worse than Martin, just different), but no way you won that game by 21 with him in (that's just smack talk). It would have been a very similar outcome. Those two teams last year were as closely matched as I've ever seen in this rivalry. That is not the case this year, and if we make it back to Boone in the playoffs, we could win it, but I don't see it happening (you guys are too good this year).

Thanks DD, I will side with you on this one. But not the Ritchie Williams part, the IF part. " IF worms had guns, birds wouldn;t mess with them" ...."IF" should be banned from this board. That being said, last year was a great year, and this one has a lot of potential, if.......

Pard94

November 11th, 2006, 07:44 AM

Pard, I only wish App and Lafayette would get a home and home series going for a very long stretch. The Lafayette fans were great when they came to Boone. Made me want to see them have a very successful 2006 season.
Got my master's in Pa., love that state, and would welcome the excuse of going up evey other year to see the Apps play!
Talking about the fans..I was impressed by the class both teams' players showed on the field.

That would be great. Had we had a better season this year I would have been more optimistic about our chances to consitently hang with App State and make such a series entertaining. Alas, we are not there yet. Not to mention we need to schedule out of conference games with schools other than than IVY league. Oh well, someday I hope.

Sam Adams

November 11th, 2006, 07:45 AM

Beating a very good team twice in one season is a tough thing to do. There is probably a psychological component that favors the underdog in those rematch games. Its not a irreversible law of nature, but it is frequently the case that it is tough to beat a good team twice in 1 season.

Death Dealer

November 11th, 2006, 07:50 AM

Thanks DD, I will side with you on this one. But not the Ritchie Williams part, the IF part. " IF worms had guns, birds wouldn;t mess with them" ...."IF" should be banned from this board. That being said, last year was a great year, and this one has a lot of potential, if.......

No prob there appst97...xlolx ...you gotta stay true to your guys.:nod:

HiHiYikas

November 11th, 2006, 08:23 AM

Western KY showed us all how to handle playoff rematches in 2002, avenging regular-season losses against Western Ill. and McNeese in the playoffs. McNeese beat the Hilltoppers 38-13 in the reglar season, and lost to WKU in the title game, 34-14. That's a pretty wide swing.

WKU's work against McNeese is very impressive. Normally, I would think there's no rematch mojo that can make a team good enough to avenge a loss of 25 points or more.

I'd like to know the swings on other playoff rematch scores. What's the most one-sided loss ever avenged in the playoffs?

An ASU-Furman rematch doesn't make me nearly as nervous after the 40-7 win for the Mountaineers (in fact, if ASU plays Furman again I won't even go to practice that week). A 33-point swing seems pretty much unattainable (though seemingly nothing is).