To blowout, or not to blowout? That is the question

Caledonia is sans-fingernails after round-1 win over Portage Northern

They say that by an inch or by a mile, winning is winning.  You’ll get no argument from me on that one.  But while at first examination it seems like it would be nice to cruise through round-1 of the playoffs  by a mile, like East Grand Rapids did over Forest Hills Eastern, there also exists a school of thought that says a close game, even an overtime victory like the one Caledonia had over Portage Northern, is preferable.  Granted, antacids would turn into Skittles if you were to find yourself in the latter situation, and you’d probably end out with more experienced hair over the long term,  but let’s suspend disbelief briefly and assume victory in either situation.

The case for the blowout

Confidence — Confidence, in a team’s packages, its gameplan and its competitiveness, is crucial to playoff success.  And clobbering your first round opponent is a stimulant to the collective confidence of a team.  A blowout victory in round-1, whether against an equally talented team or not, enables a team to enter round-2 with the knowledge not only that they belong, but that they belong significantly more so than do others.

Timely peaking — The list of regular-season rampages that have ended in post-season letdowns is longer than you might think, but most coaches are well aware of the potential for overconfidence borne from early success.  Because of this, a primary goal as a coach is to ensure that your team plays their best football of the season between weeks 10-14.  A blowout in round-1 is a great first step.

Extra preparation — As much as they will deny it, it’s a rare coach that doesn’t look ahead toward future opponents.  Their “one game at a time” rhetoric is predominantly for their players’ benefit (I’m sure some coaches stick to this philosophy, but we’re talking generalities here), and knowing that they’re going to blowout their round-1 opponent gives them more time to prepare for round-2.

The case for the nailbiter

Nailbiter experience — For all the gray hairs induced thereby, gutting out a close game gives a team experience in gutting out close games.  And while the majority of round-1 matchups are double-digit affairs (by virtue of the seeding system that puts the best against the worst, the second best against the second worst, etc), the majority of round-2, 3, 4 & 5 matchups are not.  Winning a close game in round-1 prepares you for the tests you’ll face in the later rounds.

Timely peaking — Same as in the blowout scenario, but for a slightly different reason.  Close games typically bring out the best in both teams, and a close game in round-1 puts you at your best in round-2.

Targeted preparation — In a close game, teams get to see first hand what they’re really made of.  In the playoffs, this axiom is pushed to the next degree.  They get to take stock of strengths and weaknesses, and tailor their subsequent practices to address precise issues, enabling them to raise their level of play in those specific areas from week to week.  In contrast, blowouts teach nothing in particular, and coaches are forced to simply say, “Play like that again next week.”

There are pros and cons either way.  So you’re the coach of a playoff team.  Which would you rather?

Keep up with the latest football action and analysis by becoming a WMAS fan on Facebook, or you can join the conversation by following WMAS on Twitter.