IEEEWreck
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 656
My fellow Ramblin Wrecks,
I have heard here across many threads and in person a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Wofford game that comes down to "well, we have better athletes, so we should kick their asses". Folks, I'm here to say that's exactly what we saw in that game.
Football is not a game in which athletic superiority will allow you to walk all over a competent opponent. The rules of the game and of physics dictate that in correctly chosen situations lesser players may neutralize better players. This ought to be familiar.
There are plenty of ready metaphors. The worlds greatest chess grandmaster will never beat a decent amateur with a fool's mate.
Wofford was an excellent, valiant opponent. They knew precisely their best shot at stopping the Yellow Jackets and they executed that strategy consistently and with courage. Their best shot was insufficient to overcome us, and in a thousand ways as the game went on they did their best at what they should have been doing, but it wasn't enough. The points and yardage tell that story compellingly.
So please, take note. This hair pulling about how we didn't score 224 to 0 isn't just silly and wrong headed. It's an unseemly demand that our opponents behave like fools and cowards, or else we can't be great. It's an ungentlemanly refusal to acknowledge the quality with which Wofford acquitted themselves on the field.
Wofford was damn good on Saturday. That takes nothing away from our performance.
I have heard here across many threads and in person a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Wofford game that comes down to "well, we have better athletes, so we should kick their asses". Folks, I'm here to say that's exactly what we saw in that game.
Football is not a game in which athletic superiority will allow you to walk all over a competent opponent. The rules of the game and of physics dictate that in correctly chosen situations lesser players may neutralize better players. This ought to be familiar.
There are plenty of ready metaphors. The worlds greatest chess grandmaster will never beat a decent amateur with a fool's mate.
Wofford was an excellent, valiant opponent. They knew precisely their best shot at stopping the Yellow Jackets and they executed that strategy consistently and with courage. Their best shot was insufficient to overcome us, and in a thousand ways as the game went on they did their best at what they should have been doing, but it wasn't enough. The points and yardage tell that story compellingly.
So please, take note. This hair pulling about how we didn't score 224 to 0 isn't just silly and wrong headed. It's an unseemly demand that our opponents behave like fools and cowards, or else we can't be great. It's an ungentlemanly refusal to acknowledge the quality with which Wofford acquitted themselves on the field.
Wofford was damn good on Saturday. That takes nothing away from our performance.
