What happened last year that enabled Glenvar to lose 33-0 to Giles in regular season but to win 35-0 in playoffs ?
Turning the tables on Giles
- Thread starter freeatlast2013
- Start date
When 2 good teams meet in a rematch, the team that lost the first game has a big advantage in game #2. When a team wins first game, it's harder to prepare for game #2. The loser of game one, can study film, make adjustments, and win game #2.
Now granted, winner of game 1 can watch film and make adjustments also, but it's a lot harder to do compared to losing team. Not to mention the mental approach of players in game 2. When you beat a team, it's sometimes hard to get up for the rematch. Where as the loser watches the film and sees ways to beat them in rematch.
All the above is why I despise football teams playing 2X in same season. Heck I don't even like baseball, basketball or softball playing 2X same season. Play a team once, beat them and move on.
(In playoffs, rematches are sometimes unavoidable due to seedings. See Giles/Glenvar last season.)
Now granted, winner of game 1 can watch film and make adjustments also, but it's a lot harder to do compared to losing team. Not to mention the mental approach of players in game 2. When you beat a team, it's sometimes hard to get up for the rematch. Where as the loser watches the film and sees ways to beat them in rematch.
All the above is why I despise football teams playing 2X in same season. Heck I don't even like baseball, basketball or softball playing 2X same season. Play a team once, beat them and move on.
(In playoffs, rematches are sometimes unavoidable due to seedings. See Giles/Glenvar last season.)
From VHSL-Reference...
From 2000-2013 there were 506 playoff games that were rematches of regular season games.
340 times the team that won the regular season games also won the playoff game and 166 times they did not.
67.2% of the rematch playoff games were won by the team that won the regular season game.
http://www.vhsl-reference.com/see_you_in_playoffs.cfm
From 2000-2013 there were 506 playoff games that were rematches of regular season games.
340 times the team that won the regular season games also won the playoff game and 166 times they did not.
67.2% of the rematch playoff games were won by the team that won the regular season game.
http://www.vhsl-reference.com/see_you_in_playoffs.cfm
Yes I agree with both of you but I am guessing that very rarely does one team totally dominate and then get dominated in rematch.
506 rematches in playoff games is entirely too many.
Good work on research by Va Preps Rod and VHSL reference.
Good work on research by Va Preps Rod and VHSL reference.
Giles turnovers and Glenvar big plays made the difference. Glenvar scored three TDs in the final 0:30 of the first half, including a long pass on the first play after a fumble on a kick-off and a fumble return for a TD on the ensuing kick-off.
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/high_...cle_1ab2c600-5c76-51f2-8923-46c4febb48c0.html
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/high_...cle_1ab2c600-5c76-51f2-8923-46c4febb48c0.html
I recall Powell Valley beating Clintwood 26-0 in 1999 regular season only to lose to them 18-13 in the first round of the D2 playoffs.
It happens.
It happens.
It should be noted that Glenvar forced many of those turnovers. Plain and simple, Glenvar came to Pearisburg with an outstanding game plan designed to cause and exploit miscues. I hated it for the Spartans, but I admired the preparation and planning.
HR6, how would you go about tweaking it though? If you just flip flop games around to keep rematches from happening then you're going to end up screwing over another school besides the two in question. Could you imagine having a situtation where a school would be forced to travel 4 hours to a playoff game instead of, say, one hour because their original game had to be flip flopped out because two other schools had already played in the regular season? That scenario could very well happen. I dont like rematches either but they seem pretty unavoidable to me.
Preventing first round rematches is quite simple with bracketology. Rather than seeding playoff contestants without regard to conference affiliation, award the top seeds to the highest qualifier of each conference first. I personally would like to see only the top two or three teams from each conference qualify for the playoffs. 32 playoff qualifiers per classification is kind of absurd.
Very interesting stat.....guess it's not as hard for a team to win twice as HR thought.
As for 4 hour travel, VHSL needs a rule that if a game is over 2 hours travel for one team, the game is moved to a neutral site halfway between the 2 schools. No school should have to travel 4 hours.
I disagree...completely would ruin the home field advantage.
If you don't want to travel it's really simple, win more games. Don't reward teams who don't have as good of a season by punishing the teams who do.
If you don't want to travel it's really simple, win more games. Don't reward teams who don't have as good of a season by punishing the teams who do.
As a sports fan, I agree with Trevor, but these aren't pros with million dollar contracts. They are kids with families that don't always have the time or money to travel long distance to support their athletes. The problem with mandating a neutral site is it compels someone else to host a game and that requires more work and planning than most people realize.
That's a excellent "Nanny State" statement. We can't have one team benefiting from their hard work and sacrifice. Oh hell no. We have to do something so everything is easy and equal.
Wait a minute. You shouldn't have to go out and win a dirty ole football game anyway. Let's just give all 32 playoff qualifiers an equal trophy. Wait again, then the teams that don't make the playoffs get their feelings hurt. Man, we can't let that happen. Let's just give each and every team an equal trophy. You say the VHSL can't afford that? That's easy, we can get the state legislature to make the cost a line item budget. Oh, don't worry about the cost, the government can just raise the taxes based on the amount of income you make. After all, isn't it the governments job to re-distribute the wealth of everyone that has worked harder and accumulated more. That would be acceptable to them because you taught them that principle in high school. You remember don't you? Back when you said lets make everything equal and meet in the middle for a playoff game!
Haha!..or you could be a private school that wants to be included in the public school ranks. So you waste lots and lots of money on a huge lawsuit. Money that could (should) be going towards, ya know, helping the poor or whatever it is the God that you're supposed to be worshipping and representing would want you to spend that money on.
I tend to agree with HR6 a little on this one here, but not for trips over two hours, more like for trips at roughly 3.5 to 4 hours or more. I used to think like some of you others, but my thoughts changed this year when the Lee Ladies basketball team made the LONG road trip over to the eastern shore to play a below average Nandua team, and also with the long road trips in last years 1A football with Essex/Haysi, Altavista/Honaker in the state semis. I realize it is a tough thing to do to try to find another facility in the middle but hey, as long as the other team gets the opportunity to keep playing I guess they don't mind the trip too much.
From a statistician's point of view, I don't see evidence for the rematch helping the team that lost the first time, though I have always believed it as a coach.
I actually think a swing of 28 points isn't out of the question when teams rematch (though rare). I think there is pretty strong statistical evidence that the standard deviation of how much team A beats team B is a little more than 14 points off of the actual difference. So imagine two teams are even. Team A gets the bounces and wins 28-14 for a perfectly reasonable game between two even teams. In the rematches, team B gets the breaks and wins 21-7. A 28 point swing. However, the swing in these two games is crazy. A 68 point swing is statistically significant no matter how you cut it. There's no way this was just the breaks of the games. Glenvar must have had several things that improved their play coupled with a few things hurt Giles play. I have no idea what all those things might have been, but I'm certain their were many factors.
I actually think a swing of 28 points isn't out of the question when teams rematch (though rare). I think there is pretty strong statistical evidence that the standard deviation of how much team A beats team B is a little more than 14 points off of the actual difference. So imagine two teams are even. Team A gets the bounces and wins 28-14 for a perfectly reasonable game between two even teams. In the rematches, team B gets the breaks and wins 21-7. A 28 point swing. However, the swing in these two games is crazy. A 68 point swing is statistically significant no matter how you cut it. There's no way this was just the breaks of the games. Glenvar must have had several things that improved their play coupled with a few things hurt Giles play. I have no idea what all those things might have been, but I'm certain their were many factors.
Football is way more mental than some folks outside of our football circles give us credit for! Momentum is huge, especially in win-or-go home games. Going to take this back to 1994ish and quote the Little Giants movie: "football is 80 percent mental, 40 percent physical"
I agree with this. I think Glenvar came out and got some big plays/turnovers there in the first half and it snowballed. Giles isnt used to trailing and I think it stunned them (score stunned me too!).
Last edited:
Football is more mental than most people realize. Too many people think football is just being physical and running the ball.
Weren't we talking about Giles? Football IS just running the ball! Just kidding, we throw sometimes too.
Glenvar finally (after years and years) figured out how to stop Giles offense and they also had the horses to do it. Don't forget that Giles didn't get inside Glenvar's 30 the entire game with some of their best players ever so trying to explain it away as not being mentally prepared, fluke plays etc..just doesn't make sense. Glenvar has tremedous skills people coming back plus some real big horses on defense. There are at least 6 possible all state player potentials on this team. Giles will be tough again as usual as well.
If Glenvar has good skill position players returning, they will be tough again. I look forward to going up there when Gretna scrimmages there on August 21.
I've always been impressed with Gretna's athleticism and it will be interesting to see if Glenvar's defense can stop that early. Teams are going to need to have a great secondary to stop Glenvar this year. Glenvar on paper is better than ever with 17 starters returning and they seem to be humble and hungry.
Biggest reason was Glenvar changed their defensive scheme to get in the backfield and disrupt the wing t from developing the momentum it needs to get that 3-6 yards per carry. 2nd..The ball bounced Glenvar's way for a change. 3rd...Giles had nothing to go to once their running game was shut down. 4th.. Glenvar had a couple of great bone rattling hits early in the game that shook Giles players confidence IMO.
Last edited:
agree valleyeyes...same basic thing... I missed typed wing t for single wing. I know that Giles runs the single wing but I was thinking about Pulaski beating up on Salem years ago with the same type offense until Willis White figured out how to stop it by keying on certain players. Stopped it most of the years after that mid to late 90's. Glenvar used the same basic keys on defense to stop Giles single wing in the 2nd game last year. I would say it is in Giles court now. They are going to have to counter that defense or they will get the same result this year. and even if they do they are going to have to be able to stop a very good balanced offense..six possible all state players on Glenvar team this year.
Giles didn't run over Glenvar in the first game. They had to work hard for every yard. Glenvar had some players back that were out the first game. The big challenge for Giles was supposed to have been Lee the prior week which Giles won handily. Glenvar got some breaks and I didn't think Giles looked motivated but take nothing from Glenvar because the played a great game. The biggest difference in my view was the accuracy of Clifford in the 2nd game. He threw darts in the rematch and overthrew most receivers by at least 5 yards in the first game and the game the week before in Radford which they should have lost. Giles also got better pressure on him in the 1st game and didn't in the 2nd.
It's a new year. Interested to see how it shapes up.
A 68 point swing against undefeated defending champs a couple of weeks later is really unheard of. With the running offense machine and athletes that Giles had in place, it's unlikely that they had a bad day. Great running teams like Giles are very, very, consistent game to game unlike passing games or big play offenses. The swing also can't be explained because Glenvar's offense played better either. That was true and a big part of it but don't forget that in the first meeting the Giles machine put up 33 points and marched up and down the field at will just like every other game over the series. Glenvar had to have a great day on offense to score 35 points but they also made some long needed defense adjustments. It will be interesting to see what Giles does from a playbook/coaching standpoint this year.
I don't think Willis figured it out too much. PC won in 93,94,95,97,00,01&02. Salem won in 98 & 99 because they had power houses. didn't have anything to do with figuring something out.
95 and 97 were classic games and at least one went into multiple over times if I recall correctly. The Salem defense in the early 90's was a "stay at home" and "bend but not break" compared to a much more aggressive style 1995 and after...and Salem almost won in 95 and then won in 96, 98, 99 not just the two you stated. Here is my quote "Stopped it most of the years after that mid to late 90's". I think the results speak to that and a coaching philosophy change was a big part of that..no question. Pulaski still had the better athletes on every team IMO..Giles has the same basic offense and I've seen Glenvar over the years not being able to stop it and they had stay home defense which Giles just ran through for 3-8 yards a carry..reminded me so much of Salem/PC. My point being that I think we are in for some real good Glenvar/Giles games for at least the next 5 years.
