OU Loses To Many Games They Shouldn't

[SoonerFan80]

DISCLAIMER: I am as hardcore of an OU fan as you will find on God's Green Earth.



That being said, it never ceases to amaze me how many times Bob Stoops' OU teams lose games they have no business losing. I realize that it is college football and anything can happen on any day, but there is no excuse for OU playing down to teams like Texas Tech and Boise State.


It would be nice to get an EFFECTIVE pass rush. We have no problem getting through the opponent's OLine, but our DLinemen over-pursue and let the QB just go straight down the middle for either a run or an easy pass completion.

[hink4769]

one of the problems is that all these aggy schools put the stock of their season into beating teams like OU and Saxet.

[Leroy Lizard]

Which coach of a top program doesn't?

[OKLA21FAN]

the bullseye theory at work



and btw, i see many red dots in your future

[LRoss]

Although I kind of agree, it's the nature of being a great team. We're the best team on our schedule as often as not, so every win is expected and every loss is to a lesser team.

Still beats being the perennial underdog who expects to lose and feels like they're special when the get one every however often.

[Big Red Ron]

SoonerFan80 posts too many posts he shouldn't.

[bluedogok]

Everyone except for Kansas and Hawaii have lost games they shouldn't, if things always went according to plan OU wouldn't have won the title in 2000 since they started the season at #19 and beat #11-Texas 63-14, #2-Kansas State 41-31, #1-Nebraska 31-14, #23-A&M 35-31, #8-Kansas State 27-24 and #3-Florida State 13-2. OU shouldn't have even been able to make it to the Big 12 CCG or the Orange Bowl that year according to your theory.

That is why they play the games, because not everything goes to form....that should be more than evident after this season. The days of blowing people out in almost every game is over. There are too many good players out there, and the difference between "good" and "great" is not as big as it used to be.

[PLaw]

Although I kind of agree, it's the nature of being a great team. We're the best team on our schedule as often as not, so every win is expected and every loss is to a lesser team.

Still beats being the perennial underdog who expects to lose and feels like they're special when the get one every however often.

Okay, here's how it works from a Tech grad that was on the five year plan. You're like the red headed step child (notice resemblence to Pistol Pete) that has gotten table scraps all of your life when your brothers have always gotten the best of the best. texass and eATMe are land grant schools that received all of the royalities from the university consolidated oil leases in West Texas. Tech, on the other hand, got what the aggie and whorn controlled legistlature decided to give them. In short, you are always playing against a stacked deck.

I just thank God that I'm a 4th generation, native Okie that had OU branded on his brain in Garvin Co. before I could walk. Circumstances worked out that Tech is where I went to school.

In short, OU will always be great while pokes, raiders, and aggies wish they had what we have.

BOOMER
PLaw

[okcusooner]

SoonerFan80 posts too many posts he shouldn't.

Wow. That's incredibly profound.

Let's not address the merits of SoonerFan80's post...but make some flippant (and unsubstantive remark) instead.

Is that what passes serious for debate nowadays?

[Sonner magic923]

every major program in college football is losing more and more than they are used to it is called parity get used to it mich. ohio st. texas they all lose

[kevpks]

What games should OU lose? We are the victim of upsets because we usually have a better record and more talent than almost every team we play. Take a look at any elite program in this country and you will see a lot of ten win seasons, victories over rivals, a few inexplicable losses, and often a .500 bowl record. I am happy with the state of this program. Conference titles are nothing to sneeze at and we have a great shot at adding another one this year.

[Big Red Ron]

Wow. That's incredibly profound.

Let's not address the merits of SoonerFan80's post...but make some flippant (and unsubstantive remark) instead.

Is that what passes serious for debate nowadays?A battle of wits with such a clearly unarmed individual is a waste of time.

Why don't you play devils advocate with the dude since you think he has a credible point?

[okiewaker]

:D According to the odds makers they should lose atleast .05 games per year.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

DISCLAIMER: I am as hardcore of an OU fan as you will find on God's Green Earth.






... with all due respect, Mr Dennit ... I had no idea you had gotten experimental surgery to have your balls removed ...

what, what did you say, what was that, what was that?

woah woah, I said with all due respect ...

no, that doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want to say to me ...

sure, sure as heck does ...

no no, it doesn't mean that ...

its in the Geneva Convention, look it up

[stoopified]

When you are ranked at the top it stands to reason that your losses will come against lesser teams.That is why they play the games ,the best team doesn't aleays win.If so Bob,Barry,Bud should ALL be undefeated.

[GottaHavePride]

The problem here is that, except for the first two years of Bob Stoop's tenure at OU... EVERY game we lose is one we shouldn't.

With that said, we have lost fewer games over that time span than any other team in the country.

[okcusooner]

A battle of wits with such a clearly unarmed individual is a waste of time.

Why don't you play devils advocate with the dude since you think he has a credible point?

You are so predictable and did exactly as I thought you would.

Instead of addressing 80's argument, you trot out some hackneyed, shop-worn cliche, "a battle of wits..."

And I can see the arms-folded smug look on your face right after you typed the "."

Further, appending some latin at the close of your posts does not make you cerebral just as getting a tribal tattoo does not make a person spiritual.

[OKLA21FAN]

and no one keeps a tally on the games that Bob's teams wins that he 'shouldn't have'.

the glass is half full to me.

[okiewaker]

When you are ranked at the top it stands to reason that your losses will come against lesser teams.That is why they play the games ,the best team doesn't aleays win.If so Bob,Barry,Bud should ALL be undefeated.

80. Bingo! Please read over and over.

[GottaHavePride]

You are so predictable and did exactly as I thought you would.

Instead of addressing 80's argument, you trot out some hackneyed, shop-worn cliche, "a battle of wits..."

And I can see the arms-folded smug look on your face right after you typed the "."

Further, appending some latin at the close of your posts does not make you cerebral just as getting a tribal tattoo does not make a person spiritual.

You are so predictable and did exactly as I thought you would.

Instead of addressing my counter-argument, you trot out some hackneyed ad hominem attack on Big Red Ron.

And I can see the arms-folded smug look on your face right after you typed the "."

[tommieharris91]

It would be nice to get an EFFECTIVE pass rush. We have no problem getting through the opponent's OLine, but our DLinemen over-pursue and let the QB just go straight down the middle for either a run or an easy pass completion.

This is one point that might actually be valid. How many sacks did OU get last night? I seem to remember watching Harrell run around for about 10 seconds on a few plays and then be able to find an open man and get a 1st down. The loss of English may have had a huge effect on this game and so far, no one has talked about it.

[okiewaker]

This is one point that might actually be valid. How many sacks did OU get last night? I seem to remember watching Harrell run around for about 10 seconds on a few plays and then be able to find an open man and get a 1st down. The loss of English may have had a huge effect on this game and so far, no one has talked about it.


I Looked for sacks stats but could not find them. Sorry. But, maybe I have not been paying close enough attention, when was the last time we blocked a punt or kick? Special teams have not been very special for several years. Help me out. I can't remember the last time we blocked a punt. Again, maybe I missed one.

[tulsaoilerfan]

I Looked for sacks stats but could not find them. Sorry. But, maybe I have not been paying close enough attention, when was the last time we blocked a punt or kick? Special teams have not been very special for several years. Help me out. I can't remember the last time we blocked a punt. Again, maybe I missed one.
Good question; last one i remember was the Sugar Bowl against LSU; i also think we have only had 1 punt return TD since Antonio Perkins left

[okiewaker]

Good question; last one i remember was the Sugar Bowl against LSU; i also think we have only had 1 punt return TD since Antonio Perkins left

I may be mistaken, but Branden Shelby may have been the last sooner to block a punt, maaaaybeee 2004. I can't remember. Anyway, this was a huge advantage. As of the last couple (few) years, the special teams has been pitifull. There is absolutely no fire when it comes to the special teams. Someone needs to fire the ST coach.:D

[85sooners]

:pop:

[okcusooner]

You are so predictable and did exactly as I thought you would.

Instead of addressing my counter-argument, you trot out some hackneyed ad hominem attack on Big Red Ron.

And I can see the arms-folded smug look on your face right after you typed the "."


My response was a response to BigRedRon, so why would you expect it to address YOUR counter-argument?

As for your counter-argument that every OU loss after Stoops first two years is a game OU should not have lost...that smacks of the hubris of fans who are fanatical.

I say this warily, knowing that some people will conclude it means I don't love OU football and that I am a "troll"...but sometimes the other team is better and a loss is understandable.

But if you really think that OU necessarily should have beaten the 2003 LSU Tiger team or the 2004 USC team, I'd love to hear your argument.

[bluedogok]

The kickoff return team has done pretty well.

Tulsa: 3rd Quarter - 09:22 - Murray, DeMarco 81 yd kickoff return (Hartley, Garret kick)
Baylor: 2nd Quarter - 00:54 - Murray, DeMarco 91 yd kickoff return (Hartley, Garret kick)

Iglesias had one last year against Baylor.

[medstudent24]

I think the proper way to address this is to look at fellow elite programs and see how many times they lose to unranked teams compared to OU. Here's some examples. Lets use the years that each coach started at his respective program. Its not perfect analysis but its a start.

Losses to unranked teams:

OU (1999-2007)
Notre Dame 99
Colorado 99
Texas Tech 99
Oklahoma St 01
Texas A&M 02
Oklahoma St 02
Oregon 06
Colorado 07
Texas Tech 07

Total: 9
Number per year: 1.00


Texas (1998-2007):
Texas Tech 98
NC St 98
Stanford 99
Texas Tech 02
Arkansas 03
Kansas St 06
Texas A&M 06
Kansas St 07

Total: 8
Number per year: 0.80


USC (2001-2007):
Notre Dame 01
Utah 01
California 03
UCLA 06
Stanford 07

Total: 5
Number per year: 0.71


Ohio St (2001-2007)
UCLA 01
Wisconsin 01
Penn St 01
Wisconsin 03
Northwestern 04
Purdue 04

Total: 6
Number per year: 0.85


More to come, but so far I think the OP's original suspicion is right. It does appear that we lose to unranked teams more often than other similar caliber teams.

[tommieharris91]

You should expect lots of flak and more neg for counting losses to Oregon in 06 and Tech in 05. Especially Oregon. Also, your extension of the data set for OU and not USC or Ohio St show some bias. Specifically, where would OU rank on that list if you showed 3 more of the most dominant teams of the 2000s.

[Sooner98]

I think the proper way to address this is to look at fellow elite programs and see how many times they lose to unranked teams compared to OU. Here's some examples. Lets use the years that each coach started at his respective program. Its not perfect analysis but its a start.

Losses to unranked teams:

OU (1999-2007)
Notre Dame 99
Colorado 99
Texas Tech 99
Oklahoma St 01
Texas A&M 02
Oklahoma St 02
Texas Tech 05
Oregon 06
Colorado 07
Texas Tech 07

Total: 10
Number per year: 1.11



Here's the problem with this arguement: In '99, we were also unranked, with similar records as ND, Colorado, and TTech. All those games were on the road, and I'm guessing we were underdogs, or at best, pick 'ems in all three. You can't really count those as games we definitely "should have won". In 2005, TTech was ranked #21 when we played them, and finished #18. Another one you can't count as one we "should have won". OU and Oregon were ranked similar in '06, an evenly matched game at the time, despite the fact that Oregon fell apart at the end of the season. Even if you don't count that one, that's 4 out of 10 you have to take away, leaving maybe 5 or 6 games against unranked teams since Stoops has been here that we have lost that we probably "should have won". By the way, all but one of those losses (Colorado) came only after our starting QB went out with injury, or was kicked off the team.

I share some of the frustration with losses like this, but when you break it down and analyze it game by game, it's not nearly as bad as it seems. Every school has losses like this, over time.

[Big Red Ron]

Also, you have to start them all off in 1999 or it's all BS. Start them all off in 2001 for all I care but you're not counting apples to apples.

[SoonerRecon]

SoonerFan80 posts too many posts he shouldn't.


if you're going to start a thread, please use proper grammar

[jwlynn64]

Correct me if I am wrong but did we not play the majority of last nights game without our Heisman watch list QB and the Conference sack leader?

I am acutally ashamed of our fans that come on this board and post how we didn't deserve to win, lose game we shouldn't etc....

Sometimes injuries happen and that changes the game.

Did Haslze (spelling?) come out cold? Yes. But that might be why he isn't the starter.

Was the play calling suspect in the first half? Maybe. But it's pretty easy to second guess when you know the outcome.

If Bradford had been suffered a concussion in a car accident on Friday and was scratched for the game Saturday night, how do you think that would have affected the line? I think that OU goes from favorite to underdog in that scenario.

It just shocks me to come on the boards and to read this stuff.:(

[OUmillenium]

the bullseye theory at work


and btw, i see many red dots in your future


Yep, we get everybody's best shot + we suck on the road this year.

[Flying Scotsman]

Me thinks that there are at least 115+ college programs in the country that would love to have our problems....

[goingoneight]

I think the proper way to address this is to look at fellow elite programs and see how many times they lose to unranked teams compared to OU. Here's some examples. Lets use the years that each coach started at his respective program. Its not perfect analysis but its a start.

Losses to unranked teams:

OU (1999-2007)
Notre Dame 99
Colorado 99
Texas Tech 99
Oklahoma St 01
Texas A&M 02
Oklahoma St 02
Texas Tech 05
Oregon 06
Colorado 07
Texas Tech 07

Total: 10
Number per year: 1.11


Texas (1998-2007):
Texas Tech 98
NC St 98
Stanford 99
Texas Tech 02
Arkansas 03
Kansas St 06
Texas A&M 06
Kansas St 07

Total: 8
Number per year: 0.80


USC (2001-2007):
Notre Dame 01
Utah 01
California 03
UCLA 06
Stanford 07

Total: 5
Number per year: 0.71


Ohio St (2001-2007)
UCLA 01
Wisconsin 01
Penn St 01
Wisconsin 03
Northwestern 04
Purdue 04

Total: 6
Number per year: 0.85


More to come, but so far I think the OP's original suspicion is right. It does appear that we lose to unranked teams more often than other similar caliber teams.

Those are all different timelines, dude. You lost credibility before you even had it there. OU lost a lot of games in 1998, so did USC before Petey arrived. You do remember all of those programs have wanted Stoops, right? Yes, even Texas.

[insuranceman_22]

I may be mistaken, but Branden Shelby may have been the last sooner to block a punt, maaaaybeee 2004. I can't remember. Anyway, this was a huge advantage. As of the last couple (few) years, the special teams has been pitifull. There is absolutely no fire when it comes to the special teams. Someone needs to fire the ST coach.:D

Does Lewis Baker get partial credit for a block from Sat. night?

[insuranceman_22]

Here's something else to consider:

How many other Big 12 schools even have a thread like this on their boards....maybe texas....nobody else. While I think we should have won the game, I am very thankful that I've been a Sooner fan since birth. OUr tradition is second to none, the fact that we can argue over this means we've been on one helluva ride in the Stoops era.

[tommieharris91]

if you're going to start a thread, please use proper grammar

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[Big Red Ron]

I hope you're being sarcastic.Indeed, I believe he was refering to the original author of the thread.

[medstudent24]

Why would I start the teams at hte same timeline? Its not fair to compare Bob Stoops 3rd year to Jim Tressel's first year. I used the first year of each coach's tenure, its the only reasonable way to stay objective.

I didnt say it was a perfect analysis but at least its a start. If you dont like it, then put in some work on your own stats.

I used unranked teams because its a lot easier to do that then sit here and debate what constitutes a "should win" game.

I'll check on the Texas Tech 05 thing and edit hte numbers.

If somebody wants to check on this, maybe OU played a higher percentage of ranked teams compared to the other programs during that timeline. Maybe OU has a lower "unranked loss" percentage rate relative to total games played. There's a lot of way to crunch the numbers, and I am by no means saying this is the definitive answer to this question. All I did was report on total numbers of losses to ranked teams. I dont know why some people think its an unfair bias against OU.

[Big Red Ron]

Why would I start the teams at hte same timeline? Its not fair to compare Bob Stoops 3rd year to Jim Tressel's first year. I used the first year of each coach's tenure, its the only reasonable way to stay objective.

I didnt say it was a perfect analysis but at least its a start. If you dont like it, then put in some work on your own stats.

I used unranked teams because its a lot easier to do that then sit here and debate what constitutes a "should win" game.

I'll check on the Texas Tech 05 thing and edit hte numbers.It's a stupid analysis. Too many variables, I'm guessing you're not a statistician.

[goingoneight]

What have Pete Carroll, Jim Tressell and Mack Brown been through that leads you to believe that they could have done any better than Stoops? You really think Mack Brown would have even made the Fiesta Bowl after last year's mess? You think Pete Carroll could recruit players away from sunny Los Angeles and ESPN's loveshild status? You really think the BIG 10 stacks up to half of what the BIG 12 has been in Stoops's tenure?

[hOlden caUlfield...]

I don't think Stoops is the person to blame. If things could be better, he will take care of what is not working with this team. I bet you some of the coaching staff will be gone after this season. I'm not encouraging it. I just see it happening.

[medstudent24]

It's a stupid analysis. Too many variables, I'm guessing you're not a statistician.

I didnt realize I had to publish this in a statistics journal to put up a few numbers up on a college football message board :rolleyes:

Of course there's a lot of variables (many of them confounders), but so what. I bet you're not a statistician either. I never said this was perfect or definitive in any way. Its just a snapshot.

If you got a better set of numbers to list, then please do so.

[medstudent24]

What have Pete Carroll, Jim Tressell and Mack Brown been through that leads you to believe that they could have done any better than Stoops? You really think Mack Brown would have even made the Fiesta Bowl after last year's mess? You think Pete Carroll could recruit players away from sunny Los Angeles and ESPN's loveshild status? You really think the BIG 10 stacks up to half of what the BIG 12 has been in Stoops's tenure?

You're going way beyond anything I'm talking about. My unconfirmed suspicion is that Stoops has won more "tough" games than Mack Brown has. But I didnt look at the games yet so I didnt go into it. I also agree with you that Pete Carroll has a huge recruiting advantage (in fact, all those programs have recruiting advantages over OU).

You are mistaking my post as some kind of across-the-board condemnation of everything that is OU, and thats not what I'm doing at all. Its just a brief snapshot of losses vs unranked teams, not a comprehensive statistical analysis of which program is the "best," however you define that.

[medstudent24]

Also, you have to start them all off in 1999 or it's all BS. Start them all off in 2001 for all I care but you're not counting apples to apples.

How is it fair to compare Bob Stoops vs a combination of Paul Hackett and Pete Carroll?

If I started the timeline in 2001 thats biased in favor of OU, eliminating all our "transition" games that weigh down our numbers.

This is why I included the # losses/year along with the total number, to correct for the varying coaching tenures. Like I said, its not a comprehensive statistically sound analysis but its better than what you are proposing in terms of arbitrarily mixing and matching coaching tenures.

[rhombic21]

I think Bob is a great coach, and I wouldn't trade him for anybody in the nation. But I do have some questions about the staff as a whole. I think that we have lost several games that we should have won, if not for questionable coaching decisions. I also have serious concerns about the number of times we have had very close calls in road games against teams that were far inferior to us -- even in the years when Bob did get us to the NC game, we had numerous games on the road against opponents that we should have handled easily, were we needed a couple breaks or big plays at the end to win. I think that a lot of it is bad luck with close calls from the refs and injuries, and that a part of it just comes with the territory in today's age of parity in college football. But I also think that we seem to put ourselves in a lot of bad situations that could have been avoided with better coaching decisions. I'm also getting pretty alarmed by the issues with discipline that we seem to be having. Turnovers and stupid penalties keep killing us, and those kinds of mistakes are concerning to me when they continue to happen all year. To me, those are things that should be corrected with good coaching, and I'm a little concerned when I see experienced players who keep making boneheaded mistakes.

[medstudent24]

You should expect lots of flak and more neg for counting losses to Oregon in 06 and Tech in 05. Especially Oregon. Also, your extension of the data set for OU and not USC or Ohio St show some bias. Specifically, where would OU rank on that list if you showed 3 more of the most dominant teams of the 2000s.

I dont have time to go back and all those games for every team to determine which ones were "fair" losses vs which ones involved suspect refs. I'm sure SC and Ohio St would argue some of their unranked losses were due to bogus officiating too. I'm not saying that its similar to the bad officiating in the Tech/Oregon games, but the bottom line is that it opens up a huge can of worms and is hard to keep objective.

I'm comparing the coaches for their whole tenure which is the least biased way to do it. Its not fair to compare Bob Stoops 3rd season to Jim Tressel's first season.

[medstudent24]

I think Bob is a great coach, and I wouldn't trade him for anybody in the nation. But I do have some questions about the staff as a whole. I think that we have lost several games that we should have won, if not for questionable coaching decisions. I also have serious concerns about the number of times we have had very close calls in road games against teams that were far inferior to us -- even in the years when Bob did get us to the NC game, we had numerous games on the road against opponents that we should have handled easily, were we needed a couple breaks or big plays at the end to win. I think that a lot of it is bad luck with close calls from the refs and injuries, and that a part of it just comes with the territory in today's age of parity in college football. But I also think that we seem to put ourselves in a lot of bad situations that could have been avoided with better coaching decisions. I'm also getting pretty alarmed by the issues with discipline that we seem to be having. Turnovers and stupid penalties keep killing us, and those kinds of mistakes are concerning to me when they continue to happen all year. To me, those are things that should be corrected with good coaching, and I'm a little concerned when I see experienced players who keep making boneheaded mistakes.

I agree with you in general, but I dont think its specific coaching desicions PER SE but more of a general shift in coaching philosophy. I think Stoops has become more conservative over time, convinced that his elite athletes can outplay the other teams athletes consistently. My sense is that in teh beginning of his coaching tenure he was more aggressive and creative because he wasnt as confident in his players abilities.

Ironically, its the same attitude that many OU fans have attributed to Mack Brown (and mocked him for it)

[rhombic21]

I don't know if conservative is the right word. Last night, I thought we weren't conservative enough on offense. As soon as Bradford went down, the gameplan should have been to run the ball and try to let Halzle manage the game and gain confidence with short, high percentage throws off of play action. We were basically running the ball at will on them, and somebody should have recognized that we just needed to run the ball, kill the clock and keep their offense off the field, and get to halftime so we could regroup, let Joey calm down, and make whatever adjustments we needed to. If we had stuck to that gameplan, we're either leading or within one score at halftime, and the second half is completely different.

In addition to that, I'm still baffled as to why Allen Patrick was even in the game to fumble the ball in the first place. He's the third best back on the team by a pretty clear margin, and by this point in the season, Murray should have replaced him as the starter and feature back a long time ago, with Brown getting most of the second string carries.

I just think there have been a number of times when our coaches seem to lose track of the game situations or fail to make proper adjustments, and when they make questionable personnel decisions that come back to bite us.

[Leroy Lizard]

If Stoops has lost a lot of games to unranked teams, that means he must have won a lot of games against ranked teams.

Would you rather lose to a bad team or a good team? Frankly, I would rather beat a very good team and lose to a very bad team.

[mdklatt]

Like I said, its not a comprehensive statistically sound analysis but its better than what you are proposing in terms of arbitrarily mixing and matching coaching tenures.

How about you find a coach that has more wins, more conference championships, more BCS bowl appearances, more BCS championship appearances, and more BCS championships?

:pop:

[birddog]

it's "too many". not to many.

too many.

[mdklatt]

it's "too many". not to many.

too many.

I don't know. We lost to the Oregon game last year. :D

[C&CDean]

People that say "I'm the biggest OU fan on God's green earth...but" are the same racist types who always say "I've got a ton of black friends.....but"

[TUSooner]

When you are ranked at the top it stands to reason that your losses will come against lesser teams.That is why they play the games ,the best team doesn't aleays win.If so Bob,Barry,Bud should ALL be undefeated.

Exactly. For the past several years almost EVERY OU loss is by definition an "upset" That's because OUr unimaginative, unmotivated coach, Bob Stoops, always has us highly ranked and favored in all our games.
What is he thinking? We should suck more so WE can be the underdog once in awhile.

:rolleyes:

[KingBarry]

DISCLAIMER: I am as hardcore of an OU fan as you will find on God's Green Earth.

That being said, it never ceases to amaze me how many times Bob Stoops' OU teams lose games they have no business losing. I realize that it is college football and anything can happen on any day, but there is no excuse for OU playing down to teams like Texas Tech and Boise State.


It would be nice to get an EFFECTIVE pass rush. We have no problem getting through the opponent's OLine, but our DLinemen over-pursue and let the QB just go straight down the middle for either a run or an easy pass completion.


What strikes me is how rarely Bob Stoops loses. Since 2000, he's lost more than 2 games only two times. Of those, one was a massive rebuilding year -- the "bare cupboards" I guess could be blamed on Stoops recruiting -- and the other included the questionable Oregon outcome, and a loss to an undefeated team playing in their school's biggest game evar.