Article from bleacherreport.com

[TheUnsub]

Don't know if someone already posted this, very informative.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3804 ... pi-in-2010

[bleuwolfe]

Mostly, it is because they are Ole Miss: They will win a game they are not supposed to—Florida in 2008—and they will also lose a game they are not supposed to—Mississippi State in 2009—and it has always been thus.

I know this 'win 1 we're not supposed to/lose 1 we shouldn't' has been our recent MO, but was it 'always' the case, even during the Vaught years? If any of you guys were around during the glory days and want to weigh in on this, I'd be very interested to hear your opinion/recall.

Another thought, if this is indeed our genetic disposition, wth happened during EO reign of terror? We could barely beat Memphis and almost lost to the Citadel. Then blew a 21pt 2nd half lead over arkie. Based on the above quoted 'because they are OM' we should have won the Ark game (not to mention leading lsux 4Q in BTR) & lost to Mem, and/or Citadel right?

BTW when I say recent MO, I mean last 10-15 yr. Guess I'm just not buying the 'and it has always been thus.'

[done]

Mostly, it is because they are Ole Miss: They will win a game they are not supposed to—Florida in 2008—and they will also lose a game they are not supposed to—Mississippi State in 2009—and it has always been thus.

I know this 'win 1 we're not supposed to/lose 1 we shouldn't' has been our recent MO, but was it 'always' the case, even during the Vaught years? If any of you guys were around during the glory days and want to weigh in on this, I'd be very interested to hear your opinion/recall.

Another thought, if this is indeed our genetic disposition, wth happened during EO reign of terror? We could barely beat Memphis and almost lost to the Citadel. Then blew a 21pt 2nd half lead over arkie. Based on the above quoted 'because they are OM' we should have won the Ark game (not to mention leading lsux 4Q in BTR) & lost to Mem, and/or Citadel right?

BTW when I say recent MO, I mean last 10-15 yr. Guess I'm just not buying the 'and it has always been thus.'

I don't know that such a history is unique to Ole Miss and I don't know if it happened every year during the "good old days"...but certainly the 38-0 TN victory under Archie was not a game we were supposed to win (much less dominate), nor was the' 77 game against Notre Dame. And on the flip side the loss To Southern Miss in Oxford under Archie...and even the loss to Southern Miss in '77 (after we beat Notre Dame) were not games we were supposed to lose. But I don't know if we have more of a history of that that most other teams.

[bleuwolfe]

Thanks, Chuck, and I think you're right all teams win/lose those unexpected games that they are or are not supposed to = upsets. Pretty common. So why does OM have this tag? I've heard it all my life. Curious, eh? But I dont think its part of our DNA.

Btw I have that TN game on dvd (the coaches' tape no sound/commentary & BW). Great game! You can feel the emotion! Think I'll watch it tonight!

[rewalters]

Mostly, it is because they are Ole Miss: They will win a game they are not supposed to—Florida in 2008—and they will also lose a game they are not supposed to—Mississippi State in 2009—and it has always been thus.

I know this 'win 1 we're not supposed to/lose 1 we shouldn't' has been our recent MO, but was it 'always' the case, even during the Vaught years? If any of you guys were around during the glory days and want to weigh in on this, I'd be very interested to hear your opinion/recall.

Another thought, if this is indeed our genetic disposition, wth happened during EO reign of terror? We could barely beat Memphis and almost lost to the Citadel. Then blew a 21pt 2nd half lead over arkie. Based on the above quoted 'because they are OM' we should have won the Ark game (not to mention leading lsux 4Q in BTR) & lost to Mem, and/or Citadel right?

BTW when I say recent MO, I mean last 10-15 yr. Guess I'm just not buying the 'and it has always been thus.'

I don't know that such a history is unique to Ole Miss and I don't know if it happened every year during the "good old days"...but certainly the 38-0 TN victory under Archie was not a game we were supposed to win (much less dominate), nor was the' 77 game against Notre Dame. And on the flip side the loss To Southern Miss in Oxford under Archie...and even the loss to Southern Miss in '77 (after we beat Notre Dame) were not games we were supposed to lose. But I don't know if we have more of a history of that that most other teams.

Well said!

[bbqit]

Every team has done this. It's why the coach tries so hard to get you excited to play. Yet lookin back on history there is one team that has made a living doing just this. I goes way back if you research it. My personal belief is it won't occur unless you are over rated. Another personal belief is over rated teams have poor bowl records. So which team did I decide had the flaw of winning the big game and losing to somebody they should not the most thru history? Ark. Seems like every time they managed a big win against Texas they managed to lose to an OK St who was worthless at the time. Then look at their bowl record. No offense to any Ark fans who come here because I had fun being ranked high last year. I knew we weren't as good as that but I wasn't going to turn it down. The more often a team is ranked high the more people think that team is a yearly top team. It's good business for the school so I'm not puttin you down for it Ark. Yet I will say, nw ark has yelled and screamed about Nutt will win a big one and lose an easy one, so many other things too but this is blameing Nutt for a preexisting problem, that when Ole Miss didn't live up to the media hype last year the media has jumped on the Ark bandwagon about Nutt. That bandwagon includes Ark having a shot at winning the west this year. That place is Bama's. The fight for second place in the west is going to be one heck of a fight. It really could be any of us.

[rebelliousb]

So why does OM have this tag? I've heard it all my life. Curious, eh? But I dont think its part of our DNA.

Because it happens to us when that loss makes a huge difference. See SC 2009 (or MSU), Bama 2008

and on a positive note: Florida 2008, LSU 2009

[delusionalthug]

losing a game you aren't suppose to and winning one you are is something that happens to almost every team almost every year. Look at the last few years for example all around college football. Look at some of your typical top 15 programs. Ohio State, Southern Cal, Texas, OU, Florida, even Alabama recently lost to Louisana monroe for petes sake. Now granted, they've been great the last 2 years but that momumental loss covers them for the sake of the argument for a few years. But then again, I don't know how you define "lose one you arent suppose to". What the hell does that even mean? I guess lose to a 7 point underdog? 14 point underdog? a Team who's 4-4 when you are 8-0? I don't get it.

I always love it when message board morons say " they'll lose one they aren't suppose to" . Like that's not common or something.