I've always thought the conventional wisdom that it's tough to beat a team three times in one year was an example of the "gambler's fallacy", in which people assume that the "law of averages" will change the probability of a favorable outcome even though the games are logically independent. (Imagine flipping a coin twice, and noticing that it's landed heads-up both times. The probability that it will land heads-up a third time is still the same as it was the first time: 50%.)
It's possible that the human element can create a little more of a connection between games than there is between coin flips. Perhaps the team that won becomes complacent, or the coaching staff fails to adjust the gameplan, or the team that lost gets hungrier or tries harder. But since we're dealing with pretty good coaches and serious players, I'm hoping that these sorts of psychological factors are minimized as we prepare for a third game this year.
It's possible that the human element can create a little more of a connection between games than there is between coin flips. Perhaps the team that won becomes complacent, or the coaching staff fails to adjust the gameplan, or the team that lost gets hungrier or tries harder. But since we're dealing with pretty good coaches and serious players, I'm hoping that these sorts of psychological factors are minimized as we prepare for a third game this year.