2002-2005, what do you remember?

[dpodoll68]

Not totally correct

Precisely. Which means it's incorrect.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Precisely. Which means it's incorrect.

I hear ya.

 

[Gopher Bandanna Guy]

The jury is still out on Kill, but as a betting man, I would predict the best Kill will ever do is to replicate what Mason did. I don't see a Big Ten title under Kill ever and part of that is I still don't know what our team identity is. Establish that - and we can build recruiting around it. Frankly, I would love to see Minnesota re-establish the running game centered on running backs - not this spread stuff with a running QB the Gophers will never be able to consistently recruit.

Let Kill get another 2 recruiting classes of guys that fit the Limegrover/Claeys systems, and then make your judgement. We've got to have the right pieces for the system before we can legitimately create an identity.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

I remember the good stuff, too, plus the unbelievable Michigan collapse - but I also remember a regular string of All-Americans, many of them consensus NCAA-recognized All-Americans and one (Ben Hamilton) being a two-year consensus, which hadn't happened since 1949. Note to this: there were NO Minnesota All-Americans, consensus or not, from 1971-1997. I also appreciated the Gophers being one of the top, if not the top running team in the nation, year after year. And I liked winning the non-con games by scores of 49-10, 63-21, 48-14, 46-7, 62-0, etc., thus building stats for our all-conference and All-American players. When we are regularly in the top ten in the nation, we can start scheduling power non-cons, but let's go better than .500 in the B10 first.

 

[dpodoll68]

Here's what I remember about 2002-05. But I have to go back a little further to give it context.

- Jim Wacker was Tim Brewster, beta version. Nice guy, excellent recruiter, nearly completely clueless in virtually every other aspect of college football program management.

- Wacker left behind a bevy of excellent recruits. Mason being the world-class football talent developer that he is (seriously), he took these recruits and made them the backbone of his first good team in 1999. He was able to take advantage of this and get recruits who would later form the backbone of his second good team in 2003.

- Mason, even early in his tenure, could be classified as a disinterested recruiter, at best. He was able to get respectable recruits early in his tenure, but when he was passed over in the fall/winter of 2000 for the OSU job, he shut down almost completely on the recruiting side for the most part. Sure, with his elite development skills he was able to make teams out of guys like Setterstrom, Eslinger, Spaeth, Barber, Cupito, etc., and actually did get one reasonably-sought-after recruit in Maroney. His 2004-06 recruiting (particularly 2005 and 2006) was flat-out disgusting and embarrassing aside from a few key prospects, and even he couldn't turn terrible players into mediocre ones with the batches of players he was getting.

- And thus, a disinterested coach eventually got the walking papers he was asking for, and teaming poor players up with a poor development staff got us the Brewster era.

 

[mplsbadger]

I liked winning the non-con games by scores of 49-10, 63-21, 48-14, 46-7, 62-0, etc., thus building stats for our all-conference and All-American players.

I liked this too. I specifically recall asking my dad if he wanted to take off early in the 4th quarter in 2004 when the Gophers put 60+ on Indiana. He said, "are you kididng me, I've been waiting thirty years for this".

 

[Monty519]

I liked this too. I specifically recall asking my dad if he wanted to take off early in the 4th quarter in 2004 when the Gophers put 60+ on Indiana. He said, "are you kididng me, I've been waiting thirty years for this".

In 2004, we lost @ Indiana, one of those disappointing road losses that littered that era of time.

You must be referring to 2006 when we pasted them 63-26 at the Dome.

 

[mplsbadger]

In 2004, we lost @ Indiana, one of those disappointing road losses that littered that era of time.

You must be referring to 2006 when we pasted them 63-26 at the Dome.

Indeed. Thanks for the correction.

 

[NateDawgUM]

Damn, I had a ton more fun than you guys did from 2002-2005.

 

[EG#9]

Damn, I had a ton more fun than you guys did from 2002-2005.

What was fun: the losing record in the Big Ten or the 1-7 record against Iowa/Wisconsin?

I am continually amazed at what is deemed "acceptable" (much less FUN) by my fellow Gopher fans.

 

[NateDawgUM]

What was fun: the losing record in the Big Ten or the 1-7 record against Iowa/Wisconsin?

I am continually amazed at what is deemed "acceptable" (much less FUN) by my fellow Gopher fans.

I hated beating Alabama. Oregon was a bore. Winning at Ann Arbor...meh. I want to sit around complaining about everything on a message board for the rest of my life. Hopefully a bunch of people born in the 1990s can get a lot better at football so I can feel better about myself.

Could it get a lot better than 2002-2005? Of course! Could it get worse? See: 2006-present.

I try to have a good time regardless of the product on the field. I've met more good friends through Gopher Football since 2002 than probably any other source, and that includes a whole ton of great people I've met in Chicago. We need to develop the culture first, winning will come after.

 

[EG#9]

I hated beating Alabama. Oregon was a bore. Winning at Ann Arbor...meh. I want to sit around complaining about everything on a message board for the rest of my life. Hopefully a bunch of people born in the 1990s can get a lot better at football so I can feel better about myself.

Could it get a lot better than 2002-2005? Of course! Could it get worse? See: 2006-present.

I try to have a good time regardless of the product on the field. I've met more good friends through Gopher Football since 2002 than probably any other source, and that includes a whole ton of great people I've met in Chicago. We need to develop the culture first, winning will come after.

I don't think watching football is most peoples social life, but I am glad you've met good friends through it (not sarcasm). When I watch football, I want to watch a good product and it pisses me off that the Gophers have not had as much (or more) success than Iowa/Wisconsin. I want to know that the school I cheer for is serious about competing for championships and I am not watching the college football equivalent of the Washington Generals.

I certainly don't feel better/worse about myself based on the Gophers results. I despise people that go on other football boards after a win and talk trash like they played in the game, it's pathetic to me.

I don't believe you develop a "culture" without winning, as the product on the field will determine the public's interest in it. The Gophers inability to be competitive over the last 40 plus years has driven away generations of fans and eroded all of the "culture" that was once in place.

 

[MrC]

This is all opinion but this is my honest take on what happened during the Mason years.

When Mase got here he took over a program in shambles. We were a joke in the world of college football. Jim Wacker was a wonderful person, one of the nicest guys ever but he was not the right coach for this program. Mason came in and changed the culture. Took the team from a place where losing was the norm and made the program respectable again. In 1999 he had a great year, pulled the upset at PSU and had the team inches from the Rose Bowl. In 2000 he took a good team to Ohio State and manhandled the Buckeyes in Columbus. At this same time John Cooper was on his way out the door and Mason thought he was a shoe in for his dream job at Ohio State. He lobbied hard for the job, he put everything else on hold in his pursuit of the job.

And they hired Jim Tressel. Given his age he knew he would never be the head coach at Ohio State and he lost his desire to be a head coach. He wasn't going to walk away from the money or prestige so he continued to go through the motions at Minnesota but things changed. The team was still respectable, played hard and was competitive most of the time but the spark that was there in 1999 and 2000 was gone.

By the time he was fired in 2006 his relationship with the high school coaches, adminstration and fan base was destoryed beyond repair and it was time for a change to be made. Mason had brought the U the most sustained success it had seen in decades but it was clear he was never going to get things over the hump.

Mason did some great things for the University of Minnesota football program. The unfortunate end to the story is the administration decided to go cheap with his replacement so much of the postive work Mase did was flushed down the toilet before the new guy figured out what it meant to be a college football coach. Not his fault as he never should have been in that position in the first place.

That is my take at least for what its worth....

This matches my recollection exactly. By the time he left he seemed to have develop a kind of smugness that was out of place compared to what he actually accomplished. I was ready to see him go.

Too bad the Glen Mason we see and hear today, who has made this town his home, was not the guy coaching the Gophers those last seasons.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Precisely. Which means it's incorrect.

Weird. Huh. Then I guess I should ignore Iowa and Purdue's bowl placement in '06. Also I guess I should ignore Iowa and Northwestern's bowl placement in '08 and Illinois and Penn St's bowl placement in '10.

Overall records sure did matter there. Either there's a rule about bowls forcing to take teams with better overall records or there isn't in the BT. Once you're bowl eligible in the BT, overall record means about as close to nothing as possible. BT record and how you travel is what really matters.

Like I said earlier, all this UNC series cancellation does is help the Gophers to get to crappy bowls like Little Caesar's in Detroit. It does nothing to get them to a better bowl game.

 

[dpodoll68]

Weird. Huh. Then I guess I should ignore Iowa and Purdue's bowl placement in '06. Also I guess I should ignore Iowa and Northwestern's bowl placement in '08 and Illinois and Penn St's bowl placement in '10.

Overall records sure did matter there. Either there's a rule about bowls forcing to take teams with better overall records or there isn't in the BT. Once you're bowl eligible in the BT, overall record means about as close to nothing as possible. BT record and how you travel is what really matters.

Like I said earlier, all this UNC series cancellation does is help the Gophers to get to crappy bowls like Little Caesar's in Detroit. It does nothing to get them to a better bowl game.

You sure are confident for a guy who is wrong. Did you even bother to look it up, or did you just assume that you're right?

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Incorrect.

Off of memory and I nailed Iowa and NW in '08 after I looked it up. NW had an identical BT record, a better overall record, and in fact beat Iowa that year but Iowa went to The Outback Bowl while NW went to the Alamo Bowl. Mmmmmm. Interesting. I'm sure there are other similar examples.

 

[dpodoll68]

Duke fans. And you wonder why everyone hates you. (It's the misplaced ego, in case you weren't getting it.)

Either there's a rule about bowls forcing to take teams with better overall records or there isn't in the BT.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/39509/reviewing-b1gs-bowl-selection-procedure

Money quotes:

"A Big Ten team may be selected as a BCS at-large participant if it has won at least nine regular-season games and is ranked among the top 14 in the final BCS standings."

"CAPITAL ONE BOWL

•Bowl may select any eligible team after Rose Bowl Game/BCS except a team that has two fewer wins or two more losses (in all games) than another eligible team. This rule applies whether there are one or two Big Ten teams in BCS bowls."

"OUTBACK BOWL

• Bowl may select any eligible team after Rose Bowl Game/BCS except a team that has two fewer wins or two more losses (in all games) than another eligible team. This rule applies whether there are one or two Big Ten teams in BCS bowls."

Once you're bowl eligible in the BT, overall record means about as close to nothing as possible.

HA

BT record and how you travel is what really matters.

HAHA

It does nothing to get them to a better bowl game.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


You can feel free to kiss the ring whenever it pleases your majesty.

 

[OddStack]

The travel part IS A FACTOR sometimes in bowl selection.

Every year some teams get passed over/bumped down to less prestigious bowl like Pewterschmidt mentioned. East Carolina was not bowl eligible last year but did this: http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/20...college-football-bowl-game-that-doesnt-exist/
to help prove they'll travel well and not get bumped down a bowl b/c of their peer's fans.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Duke fans. And you wonder why everyone hates you. (It's the misplaced ego, in case you weren't getting it.)



http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/39509/reviewing-b1gs-bowl-selection-procedure

Money quotes:

"A Big Ten team may be selected as a BCS at-large participant if it has won at least nine regular-season games and is ranked among the top 14 in the final BCS standings."

"CAPITAL ONE BOWL

•Bowl may select any eligible team after Rose Bowl Game/BCS except a team that has two fewer wins or two more losses (in all games) than another eligible team. This rule applies whether there are one or two Big Ten teams in BCS bowls."

"OUTBACK BOWL

• Bowl may select any eligible team after Rose Bowl Game/BCS except a team that has two fewer wins or two more losses (in all games) than another eligible team. This rule applies whether there are one or two Big Ten teams in BCS bowls."



HA



HAHA



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


You can feel free to kiss the ring whenever it pleases your majesty.

Just give up. How else do you explain Iowa getting to the Outback over NW in '08. Overall record sure mattered there...and that's what we're talking about here. One extra potential loss in the NC. No way an additional win over NMST improves our bowl slot other than getting us qualified. It's not going to happen. Just stop. You're wrong here.

 

[dpodoll68]

Just give up.

Why? Because I'm right and you're wrong?

How else do you explain Iowa getting to the Outback over NW in '08.

You said "is". "IS". Not "was". That's an enormous difference. I don't give a sh*t about what happened to Northwestern in 2008. We're talking about what could happen to Minnesota in 2013. See links above.

Overall record sure mattered there...and that's what we're talking about here.

No, it isn't. Your initial post:

Bowl placement is not determined by overall record.

Had you said "Bowl placement was not determined by overall record", you would've been correct and I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't. And you are wrong.

No way an additional win over NMST improves our bowl slot other than getting us qualified.

You are wrong. It might happen, it might not. But "no way" is terribly, 100% incorrect. See the links above. Are you saying you know more than the Big Ten about its own rules?

It's not going to happen.

Maybe, maybe not. But it could happen. That's what makes you W-R-O-N-G-G-G-G-G-G.

You're wrong here.

Nope. Thanks for playing, though.

I thought I'd seen it all, but someone thinking they are still correct when they are absolutely, 100%, without-a-doubt wrong wrong wrong is stunningly hilarious to me.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Why? Because I'm right and you're wrong?



You said "is". "IS". Not "was". That's an enormous difference. I don't give a sh*t about what happened to Northwestern in 2008. We're talking about what could happen to Minnesota in 2013. See links above.



No, it isn't. Your initial post:



Had you said "Bowl placement was not determined by overall record", you would've been correct and I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't. And you are wrong.



You are wrong. It might happen, it might not. But "no way" is terribly, 100% incorrect. See the links above. Are you saying you know more than the Big Ten about its own rules?



Maybe, maybe not. But it could happen. That's what makes you W-R-O-N-G-G-G-G-G-G.



Nope. Thanks for playing, though.

I thought I'd seen it all, but someone thinking they are still correct when they are absolutely, 100%, without-a-doubt wrong wrong wrong is stunningly hilarious to me.

Success! You're lawyering on a message board. I'm right because you're talking about the definition of 'Is'. You know the content of my message but for you to "win", you have to pick apart words in a sentence. That's what happens when lawyers get backed into a corner. They attack at a micro level because they lost at the macro level.

You are so easy to get riled up. That was fun.

 

[Monty519]

The caveat is the two more wins or two less losses. In '08, Iowa and Northwestern had the exact same record, so obviously the overall record isn't gonna be the determining factor there, that's a no-brainer. It still doesn't change the fact that overall record is a factor in where you fall for bowl games. If the Gophers went hardcore and scheduled a hard non-conference and only went 2-2 during it, but went 4-4 in conference play to finish 6-6, they will not go to as good a bowl game as they probably would if they went 4-0 in a cupcake NC schedule and 4-4 in BT play to finish 8-4.

I do agree however, that it is unlikely that one game will make or break the spot we fall into. But that's assuming you go 3-1 if you play one hard NC game. What if you trip up in another (something we all know Gopher teams are prone to do)?

 

[dpodoll68]

You know the content of my message but for you to "win", you have to pick apart words in a sentence.

I'm not picking apart anything. You said that regular season wins are meaningless in determining bowl placement. That is absolutely wrong. Period. You think it's cute to bicker back and forth when you're wrong? Nice backtracking, btw. "I was just trying to get you riled up." Yeah, my ass you were.

That's what happens when lawyers get backed into a corner. They attack at a micro level because they lost at the macro level.

A. I'm not a lawyer. B. I lost at no level. You are unquestionably and undeniably wrong at all levels.

 

[lakesgopher]

You may not have lost the debate but you look like a dbag trying to attack someone because of a grammar error

 

[dpodoll68]

You may not have lost the debate but you look like a dbag trying to attack someone because of a grammar error

It's not a grammar error! He was absolutely wrong! Overall record can play a role in bowl selection! It's not a minor point, nor is it nitpicking! It's not up for debate!

If people would notice, I don't really care if someone is wrong. I point it out, then they can accept that they're wrong, and we all move on. What really gets me going is when someone attempts to defend an indefensible point. Just admit that you're wrong, and we'll go from there. It doesn't make you any less manly or whatever to admit that you're wrong and/or you made a mistake. Just don't dig your hole deeper by trying to defend your wrongness or to pretend that you were "just joking".

 

[lakesgopher]

It's not a grammar error! He was absolutely wrong! Overall record can play a role in bowl selection! It's not a minor point, nor is it nitpicking! It's not up for debate!

You said if he would have said "was" instead of "is" you wouldn't have said anything. You do this for every thread. You have a need to always be right and you have the time and energy to fact find. So yes you are being a dbag and that's not up for debate either

 

[dpodoll68]

You said if he would have said "was" instead of "is" you wouldn't have said anything.

Correct. Because what the rule WAS has no bearing on the Gophers schedule in 2013. What the rule IS most certainly does have a bearing. It is a factor in changing the schedule. It is 100% relevant to the discussion. It is also not a minor point. Making the schedule easier and attempting to ensure more non-conference wins could, in theory, put the Gophers into a better bowl after the 2013 season without regard for their conference record, travel ability, etc., etc. This is not a minor point and it is not up for debate.

You have a need to always be right

I couldn't care less about being "right". What I care about is getting the facts right and making sure everyone knows what the actual facts are, not what certain people have concocted in their mind.

So yes you are being a dbag and that's not up for debate either

If insisting on factual accuracy makes me a "dbag", I'll proudly wear the badge with honor. Thank you for bestowing it upon me.

 

[lakesgopher]

No problem thanks for your know it all attitude, you're special to the board and I thank you for all your knowledge, or fact finding-probably more accurate

 

[Catechol]

Making the schedule easier and attempting to ensure more non-conference wins could, in theory, put the Gophers into a better bowl after the 2013 season without regard for their conference record, travel ability, etc., etc. This is not a minor point and it is not up for debate.

Unlikely it would make a major difference. The only reason it's being done is because Kill and Teague are nervous about being bowl eligible at all. What you didn't include in your previous citation was that the bottom 5 B1G bowls (realistically the ones you're talking about for the Gophers) have zero stipulation about record. A more recent example is how PSU won 9 games last year and got dropped to the second lowest bowl, behind Iowa (7 wins), OSU and NU (6) due to the scandal.

So aside from the top 3 bowls, W/L record does not matter by rule. Of course it usually does somewhat, but if you're trying to be as factual as possible, most B1G bowl placements are not determined by overall record. Strength of schedule (subjectively) and game attendance play a role, probably as much as picking up just 1 more cupcake win. Moreover, SOS and attendance will likely take a hit by scheduling cupcakes. The Gophers at 7-5 are unlikely to get picked ahead of say Iowa at 7-5 or even 6-6 just because they beat NMSU. And the Gophers at 7-5 (versus 6-6) are not going to get picked ahead of an 8 win team to go to the Outback Bowl.

"What have you done lately" can also be a big deal for bowls. You win 4 cupcake games in September then go 2-6 in conference, losing your last 4 in November? No bowl is going to like that. You go 2-2 in OOC against some tough teams, then go 4-4 in conference, winning your last 3 in November? Now you're a team that is really heating up for a bowl. Mid-level bowls become about selling your team to the bowl, not about getting 7 wins vs. 6.

 

[dpodoll68]

Unlikely it would make a major difference. The only reason it's being done is because Kill and Teague are nervous about being bowl eligible at all. What you didn't include in your previous citation was that the bottom 5 B1G bowls (realistically the ones you're talking about for the Gophers) have zero stipulation about record. A more recent example is how PSU won 9 games last year and got dropped to the second lowest bowl, behind Iowa (7 wins), OSU and NU (6) due to the scandal.

So aside from the top 3 bowls, W/L record does not matter by rule. Of course it usually does somewhat, but if you're trying to be as factual as possible, most B1G bowl placements are not determined by overall record. Strength of schedule (subjectively) and game attendance play a role, probably as much as picking up just 1 more cupcake win. Moreover, SOS and attendance will likely take a hit by scheduling cupcakes. The Gophers at 7-5 are unlikely to get picked ahead of say Iowa at 7-5 or even 6-6 just because they beat NMSU. And the Gophers at 7-5 (versus 6-6) are not going to get picked ahead of an 8 win team to go to the Outback Bowl.

"What have you done lately" can also be a big deal for bowls. You win 4 cupcake games in September then go 2-6 in conference, losing your last 4 in November? No bowl is going to like that. You go 2-2 in OOC against some tough teams, then go 4-4 in conference, winning your last 3 in November? Now you're a team that is really heating up for a bowl. Mid-level bowls become about selling your team to the bowl, not about getting 7 wins vs. 6.

I agree with everything you're saying. However, none of it really applies to the FACT that overall record can and sometimes does matter in Big Ten bowl placement.