Counting Our Chickens Before They Hatch

My high school basketball used to tell us, "Early leads are false leads." We did not always believe him - when someone is whipping you 20-4 at the end of the 1st quarter, it feels more like a butt-kicking than a false lead. The idea, however, does usually hold true - just because a team plays well in the opening minutes does not mean it will sustain that pace for the entire game.

As sports fans, we have a difficult time with this concept. To most of us, an early lead is an indication that that team is going to win the contest. We have all watched enough sports to know that the team winning at the half is usually going to win the game.

If not, the team surely blew it.

The Tennessee Vols nearly "blew it" on Saturday against South Carolina. Up 21-0 in the first half, the Vols looked like they would coast to an easy SEC win. UT fans across the South were exchanging high fives and congratulations about a rare win over Steve Spurrier. Fulmer is the man - I never wanted to see him fired.

Then a funny thing happened in the 2nd half...though not very funny by Big Orange standards. The Gamecocks defense stepped up, the Vols offense struggled and South Carolina took a 24-21 lead. UT fans across the South exchanged off-color exclamations and frustrations about another loss to Steve Spurrier. Fulmer is awful - I told you we ought to fire him.

Then, an even funnier thing happened. The Vols came back and won the game. A last second field goal (over-coming two fumbles and a missed field goal attempt prior to a procedure penalty) took the game into overtime where Tennessee prevailed 27-24.

A game like this is the perfect opportunity to reconsider what we often quickly deride as "choking." There is an incorrect assumption among the sports-watching world that blowing an early lead amounts to some type of character flaw. Allow a comeback? It must be a choke job.

It does not make sense to look at the games this way. There is a reason the games are timed - the game is not over until the time expires, no matter how big the initial lead.

There are a million factors that determine who takes an early lead and who eventually wins the game. One team might pull out a million tricks in the first minutes to establish a lead it cannot maintain past the initial trickery. One team might slowly wear down the other team and use better conditioning to win at the end. One team might be red hot for a few moments and then come back down to earth.

There are obvious examples of choking or blowing a lead. Football fans universally loath the prevent defense that allows an opponent to suddenly find rhythm and easy yards at the end of the game. Offensive aggression is often squashed in the name of using the clock when it would be better to simply keep playing.

But not every blown lead equals some type of choke job.

For example, let's revisit the Tennessee-Ohio State basketball from last season's NCAA tournament. The Vols played a fantastic first half - they shot the lights out, defended well and even managed to get Greg Oden in foul trouble. It all meant a big Vols lead, as much as 20 points at one point.

The second half belonged to the Buckeyes. The Vols cooled off, Ohio State's guards began to penetrate into the lane and Oden played a superior half of basketball. In the end, Tennessee failed in its last opportunity with the ball and lost the game.

Did the Vols choke? Did they blow it? Or did they simply outplay the Buckeyes for a time and then were outplayed by the Buckeyes for a time?

Just like there are a million reasons why early leads occur, there are a million reasons those leads are lost. Clock-killing strategies work most, but not all of the time. It is easier to play loose and aggressively from behind than with the lead. Remember the Houston Oilers and their run-and-shoot attack? It worked great to get a lead, but struggled to hold one. What about the Braves teams of the 1990s with great starting staffs, but miserable bullpens?

Perhaps the reason we deride the team that blows the lead so much is because of the way we celebrate the winners. Those guys never game up, showed heart and character and fought until the end. That means that the losers must have given up, had no heart and questionable character and stopped fighting too early. It is no wonder we blame them for the loss.

Perhaps it is easier to say, "We had them and let them off the hook" than it is to concede, "That lead was a joke - they were way better than us."

Perhaps we over-estimate the margin of a lead. A 21-point lead feels like a comfortable lead, but it is merely three scores. Three possessions is all a team needs to make that up. It only took three possessions to build that lead - why is to perplexing when three possessions later it is lost?

Or perhaps we are just wrong in the way we view such contests. There is no reason to think a game has been blown when a lead is lost. Leads are not victories. The game continues until the final buzzer.

History has also shown us that leads are lost all the time. Why are we always surprised when it happens? I have seen 21-point halftime leads lost before, so why did Tennessee's inability to hold it on Saturday come as such a surprise?

The real surprise ought to be how often we are fooled by an early lead. Fool me once...we get fooled all the time! We allow initial jubilation interfere with time-tested reason. We ought to blame ourselves for the disappointment that comes along with a blown-lead loss rather than the team that blew it.