But what you call "just got beat" isn't different than "looking ahead". It's a bell curve.
The better team loses sometimes. Some X-percent of the time. I think we all agree on that.
So let's look at 3 all-time insane upsets that just pop in my head, that I think everyone will know about:
1975 Kansas beats Oklahoma, 23-3. Kansas was 5-3, OU was on a 28-game winning streak.
Is it unfair to say OU looked past KU? The Sooners had 6 turnovers in the 2nd half, but KU forced at least some of them, didn't they? The KU defense kept the rolling OU wishbone out of the end zone for 60 minutes. OU was by far the better team, but got beat. Do we just say KU played better and go on about our business? Am I silly when I suggest that OU, facing hapless KU at home, sandwiched between road games vs ranked opponents, thought the Jayhawks would be another easy win, as they always had been, and might not have prepared their hardest? Might not have played with their hair on fire, as they SHOULD every game?
We can give KU it's due AND state the obvious - that the better team didn't play anywhere near its best, much of which had nothing to do with what KU did. What's the crime in that?!?
1992 Iowa St beat Nebraska, 19-10. ISU was 3-6, UNL was in the top 10.
There wasn't a big turnover disparity here. ISU ran all over the Huskers and earned their win. But what was the context? UNL had just destroyed two top-15 teams the past 2 weeks and was trying to clinch the Big 8 title the following week vs OU. Is someone going to tell me they weren't overlooking lowly ISU?!? This is exhibit A of exactly what I'm saying happens - the better team having just dominated 2 large bumps in the road, with a major goal still ahead of them, and they poop the bed vs a lesser team. Saying "upsets happen" isn't enough - why do they happen? when? Are there certain situations in which upsets are more likely? All I'm saying is YES.
2007 App St beat Michigan 34-32. App St was I-AA, UM was #5 in the country.
This one was unique, wasn't it? The season-opener. App State was #1, but in FCS. Vegas didn't put a line on it, because it was supposed to be an easy blowout. UM had a lot of talent coming back - NFL types. Home game. Ranked 5th. Probably paid ASU a lot of money, too. No big statistical difference, no big turnover difference. App State earned the win.
The flukiest things in the game were the last 2 events, really - UM getting into FG range in the last 25 seconds, then App State blocking the FG attempt as time expired. The other 59 minutes and 30 seconds weren't fluky. Was the eventual 13-2 ASU team better than 9-4 Michigan? No. But they won, and that's the goal. Great. Did UM "show up"? Did they play their best?
If you want to debate playing your best every single game vs playing your baseline average, that'd be one thing. But UM's best was better than ASU's best. UM's average baseline was better than ASU's baseline. Now badge and others like to say every team should always play their best at all times forever. Sure they should. BUT THEY DON'T. NO ONE DOES. NO ONE CAN. What should be and what is, is vastly different. Putting your head in the sand and pretending it's not true is silly.
