Are Certain Teams Really "Tougher"?

Submitted by Ziff72 on

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. 

 

 

 

markusr2007

October 21st, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^

He's real.

The "toughest" Michigan team had to be that 1997 team. They were an unimaginitive and a vanilla ugly duckly on ofefnse, but on defense they swung brass balls around like a mace and played with grit and attitude.

 

 

Ziff72

October 21st, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^

All those NFL players kinda helped as well.  I do agree with you that that Woodson kid did a great job of overcoming his physical limitations and relying on grit and attitude to be successful

You confirmed my point that we think of the 97 defense as the toughest.  It was the best and most talented defense I have seen at Michigan so it is regarded as the toughest according to everyone.

Could the 95 defense have been tougher but less talented?  Yes it could have but nobody knows that and nobody would ever say that.  Hence my point that toughness is an overrated and silly thing to comment on.

LSAClassOf2000

October 21st, 2011 at 5:07 PM ^

"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.  "- Ziff72

To me, "toughness" is being able to overcome adversity and not lose track of the point of it all. I would say that teams who win despite a schedule and circumstances which stack up against them by conventional wisdom display "toughness" to a degree. Individuals who perform at a position where they were not expected to be much display "toughness". To a great extent, I do believe you are right - some teams are simply more talented and stronger than the other team they are playing, and the physically bigger team will likely win, but it doesn't necessarily speak to how "tough" the loser in that contest may be.