Since Hoke has been hired, check that since RR was hired, wait since football was invented, there has been a lot of talk about toughness. Coaches preach it, the fans eat it up, and the media keeps stirring the pot. I recognize that each player has certain toughness level to him, but do certain teams and coaches really teach toughness so much that their specific team is so much tougher than other teams?
I think to make it to the high college and pro level most of the players have to have a certain amount of toughness to stay in the game. I would contend that at that point the levels of toughness are pretty small.
My contention is that when teams win they are usually considered tough and when teams lose the fans and press question their toughness. I think talent and strength is mistaken for toughness.
What got me going on this was some of the talking heads and fans lathering up over Dantonio and Narduzzi. Are they coaching toughness this year and not teaching toughness 2 years ago when they were getting torched by CMU and Minnesota? Or is J . Worthy playing now with competent secondary?
I know it has happened before but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Find me a game that people thought the tougher team lost. I know it has happened but I would guess the media stories and fan reaction is about 98% winning team and 2% losing team on who was tougher.
I love doing what ifs. So let's suppose everything that happened Saturday was the exact same except the ref did not blow the play dead on the backward pass. We probably pick it up and score for a 14PT turnaround(they scored on that possession) and for the sake of argument the rest of the game played out pretty much as is and Michigan pulls out a tough win.
Is Michigan being lauded for their toughness?
Does Kovacs come to the podium and say yeah we won but they were the tougher team?
I think a lot of it is BS what do you think?
Edit-I struggled with the title so I changed it to try and cut down on the snark/lack of understanding of my point.