Motivation: Where does it come from?

[biga75]

Just to get back to the supposed point of this thread ... no wait, it seems to have been another Stitt-bashing thread, so I guess it has stayed on topic.

But the thread title implies something else, so: Can a coach, or staff, really "pump up" a team with rah-rah histrionics? Apparently, some can. But, by and large, motivation has to be internal. It's possible that that has become more so with today's athletes. Not too long ago, I had occasion to mix with a few younger collegiate players (friends of the son of a friend of mine). Near as I could tell, they went to at least three different schools -- all D-I. Perhaps they were trying to be "cool," but they seemed to agree that over-blown "pep talks" by the coaches were "embarrassing" and "insulting." A very small sample size and -- as I said -- possibly not really an honest reflection, but ... FWIW.

On a side note, bowl games sure tell you who is, or is not motivated. There have already been several "upsets" where it seemed obvious that the difference was motivation, not overall team talent (and the season records proved it). Right now, for example, Arkansas (7-5) is kicking the crap out of Virginia Tech (9-4), 24-0 at halftime. Say what you want about how strong the SEC is (or isn't), V-Tech came within a TD of winning the ACC, while Arkansas had a losing record in the SEC. The Razorback are playing with a purpose, while the Hokies seem to be just going through the motions. Could change at halftime ... but only if the V-Tech players decide to get in the game.

VT has rattled off 28 straight points...the Hokies must've had quite the halftime "pep" talk
28-24 VT with 10 minutes left in the 4th.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Just to get back to the supposed point of this thread ... no wait, it seems to have been another Stitt-bashing thread, so I guess it has stayed on topic.

But the thread title implies something else, so: Can a coach, or staff, really "pump up" a team with rah-rah histrionics? Apparently, some can. But, by and large, motivation has to be internal. It's possible that that has become more so with today's athletes. Not too long ago, I had occasion to mix with a few younger collegiate players (friends of the son of a friend of mine). Near as I could tell, they went to at least three different schools -- all D-I. Perhaps they were trying to be "cool," but they seemed to agree that over-blown "pep talks" by the coaches were "embarrassing" and "insulting." A very small sample size and -- as I said -- possibly not really an honest reflection, but ... FWIW.

On a side note, bowl games sure tell you who is, or is not motivated. There have already been several "upsets" where it seemed obvious that the difference was motivation, not overall team talent (and the season records proved it). Right now, for example, Arkansas (7-5) is kicking the crap out of Virginia Tech (9-4), 24-0 at halftime. Say what you want about how strong the SEC is (or isn't), V-Tech came within a TD of winning the ACC, while Arkansas had a losing record in the SEC. The Razorback are playing with a purpose, while the Hokies seem to be just going through the motions. Could change at halftime ... but only if the V-Tech players decide to get in the game.

VT has rattled off 28 straight points...the Hokies must've had quite the halftime "pep" talk
28-24 VT with 10 minutes left in the 4th.

And VT, the better team on paper, ended up winning 35-24. Whether it was a pep talk or the players just decided to play like they were capable of, the difference between the two halves was simply amazing. From what the announcers said, Arkansas had the same problem in several games this season. They'd come out on fire in the first half, the other team would make adjustments at the half, the Razorback couldn't adjust to the adjustments ... and they'd end up losing. But nothing quite as bad as this game.

Oh well, we didn't really care much one way or the other. It was just "the only game in town" (as far as football was concerned). Colorado vs Okie State pretty slow so far.

 

[Ursa Major]

Just to get back to the supposed point of this thread ... no wait, it seems to have been another Stitt-bashing thread, so I guess it has stayed on topic.

But the thread title implies something else, so: Can a coach, or staff, really "pump up" a team with rah-rah histrionics? Apparently, some can. But, by and large, motivation has to be internal. It's possible that that has become more so with today's athletes. Not too long ago, I had occasion to mix with a few younger collegiate players (friends of the son of a friend of mine). Near as I could tell, they went to at least three different schools -- all D-I. Perhaps they were trying to be "cool," but they seemed to agree that over-blown "pep talks" by the coaches were "embarrassing" and "insulting." A very small sample size and -- as I said -- possibly not really an honest reflection, but ... FWIW.

On a side note, bowl games sure tell you who is, or is not motivated. There have already been several "upsets" where it seemed obvious that the difference was motivation, not overall team talent (and the season records proved it). Right now, for example, Arkansas (7-5) is kicking the crap out of Virginia Tech (9-4), 24-0 at halftime. Say what you want about how strong the SEC is (or isn't), V-Tech came within a TD of winning the ACC, while Arkansas had a losing record in the SEC. The Razorback are playing with a purpose, while the Hokies seem to be just going through the motions. Could change at halftime ... but only if the V-Tech players decide to get in the game.

VT has rattled off 28 straight points...the Hokies must've had quite the halftime "pep" talk
28-24 VT with 10 minutes left in the 4th.

The "Arkansas Collapse" is quite clearly Stitt's fault. Although, I'm sure many of the Stitt apologists on this board won't admit the connection. Last year, Arkansas' head coach Bret Bielema befriended Stitt during an off season coaching conference. They had a lunch where they discussed the fly sweep and questioned why today's college players aren't motivated enough. It seems the mad scientist is spreading his poisonous false perceptions of football and young men. This was further evidenced by coach Bielema's post game press conference comments where he failed to thank the Arkansas seniors for their contribution to the program.

 

[Grizzoola]

.... On a side note, bowl games sure tell you who is, or is not motivated. There have already been several "upsets" where it seemed obvious that the difference was motivation, not overall team talent (and the season records proved it). Right now, for example, Arkansas (7-5) is kicking the crap out of Virginia Tech (9-4), 24-0 at halftime. Say what you want about how strong the SEC is (or isn't), V-Tech came within a TD of winning the ACC, while Arkansas had a losing record in the SEC. The Razorback are playing with a purpose, while the Hokies seem to be just going through the motions. Could change at halftime ... but only if the V-Tech players decide to get in the game.

My observations, exactly about bowl results. I'm too lazy to cite the number of bowls I've watched, thinking they'd be good games, only to see an underdog blow out a favorite, many times. It was clear, last night, that OkState was more motivated than the higher ranked CO.

I think the bowl system is archaic; there needs to be a playoff system like the FCS. Otherwise, some teams & coaches aren't motivated to win a meaningless bowl, no matter how much money their school gets by participating. There's simply nothing more at stake.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... My observations, exactly about bowl results. I'm too lazy to cite the number of bowls I've watched, thinking they'd be good games, only to see an underdog blow out a favorite, many times. It was clear, last night, that OkState was more motivated than the higher ranked CO.

I think the bowl system is archaic; there needs to be a playoff system like the FCS. Otherwise, some teams & coaches aren't motivated to win a meaningless bowl, no matter how much money their school gets by participating. There's simply nothing more at stake.

Preaching to the choir … but it’s still true. As it happens, my wife and I like to keep a log of the games, mainly so we don’t miss one on TV. Not necessarily interested in any specific team, but sometimes the games do turn out to be good.

At a quick count (could be off by one or so either way), there have been 14 bowl games where “form held,” or it was a toss-up. Form held (finally), between #22 Virginia Tech (9-4) and Arkansas (7-5), where V-Tech won 35-24. But even there (as noted earlier), VT had to dominate the second half after falling behind 0-24. And South Florida (10-2) beat South Carolina (6-6), 46-39. Toss-ups example would be several (6-6) vs (6-6) matchups, plus Texas A&M vs Kansas State … where both were 8-4, and the final score was 33-28 for K-State. That was a good game.

But I count 7 (so far) games -- including the OSU-Colorado games -- where the difference seemed to largely be motivation. The records and rankings were not that different for OSU (#12, 9-3) and Colorado (#10, 10-3) … but OSU won by 30 points. Sorry, Buffs never showed up.

It’s true that Hawai’i (6-7) was playing at home [Hawai’i Bowl] against Middle Tennessee State (8-4) … but getting thumped 52-35 tells you MTSU didn’t much give a s***t.

And Boise State (10-2) sure did not show up against Baylor (6-6) … they got clobbered 31-12. Or how about #24 Temple (10-3) losing to Wake Forest, 34-26? Not a huge win, but that was a game that should not have been close (the other way).

In some cases, there were coaching changes going one, etc. But that still means a third of the bowl games so far largely turned on the apparent motivation of the players: Who wanted it more?