2022 Minnesota Bowl Projection Tracker

Donate To GopherHole
WriterGoph said:
Anybody that is complaining about the 4-team CFP should realize that the 12-team version is gonna be awesome. There will be upsets and there will be programs outside of blue bloods getting their shot.

I'm sure people bitched when they expanded the hoops tournament from 32 or 48 to 64. But then what happened? Eventually a 15 beat a 2 seed - now it's happened 11 times. And then what else happened? A 16 finally beat a 1. Plenty of double-digit seeds have also made runs to the second weekend. Those upsets are unforgettable.
Click to expand...
What makes you think there will be more upsets. Is the only upset in CFP history Ohio State in 2014?

Comparing basketball and football is not really relevant. It's much easier to get variance in a game when one dominant shooting performance is enough to win. The more teams we get I think we'll see less upsets as the law of averages will lead to the team with more talent winning.
 
Last edited:



RememberMurray said:
If the Gophers never get to the One Meaningful Game, I guess I've wasted a helluva lot of my time on meaningless games.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that all Bowl games are meaningless. I loved the Outback Bowl win! Pretty much all Gopher games are meaningful to me.

My point was now we are going from 3 meaningful playoff games to 11! That's fun if you love CFB. Also the implications with more teams involved will mean many more high-value October and November games with plenty on the line for both teams. I also think the conference title games will take on a whole new level of importance.
 

noamfromm said:
What makes you think there will be more upsets. Is the only upset in CFP history Ohio State in 2014?

Comparing basketball and football is not really relevant. It's much easier to get variance in a game when one dominant shooting performance is enough to win. The more teams we get I think we'll see less upsets as the law of averages will lead to the team with more talent winning.
Click to expand...

More games equals more chances for an upset to happen. Statistically that's true. Nobody ever thought a 16 would ever beat a 1, but it eventually happened. With more programs getting CFP money and exposure, it's bound to spread the wealth a bit wider than the same 6 teams.
 


WriterGoph said:
More games equals more chances for an upset to happen. Statistically that's true. Nobody ever thought a 16 would ever beat a 1, but it eventually happened. With more programs getting CFP money and exposure, it's bound to spread the wealth a bit wider than the same 6 teams.
Click to expand...
More games means more chances for the teams with the most talent to win the title. If Cincinnati was the number two seed last year we would have a better chance to see them win a national title if they only had to play Alabama, rather than needing to beat Alabama and then another team with another talented and deep roster.

You mention 16 seeds and 1 seeds. Those 16 seeds have a shot to win a couple games. They will never win a title because they aren't deep enough. If you don't want the same 6 teams to win titles, I don't believe that expanding the playoff is the answer. It will give those teams with more talent more opportunities to overcome poor regular seasons.
 

disco said:
No. It was a nice cap on a good season.

Personally, I'd rather the whole thing be run exactly like FCS/D2/D3. A real tournament.
Click to expand...
The 12 team CFP will be getting pretty damn close to that.

Unless you meant that you want to prevent all other bowl games from happening that aren't part of the bracket.

(Not gonna happen)
 

Never thought I would see the day where we could have a serious discussion on:

Would you rather go to the Rose Bowl or College Football Playoffs.

Personally I choose the CFP, simply because if we make that the chances of us being the next Clemson goes up tremendously and we will see the Rose Bowl in the next 3-5 years.
 




noamfromm said:
More games means more chances for the teams with the most talent to win the title. If Cincinnati was the number two seed last year we would have a better chance to see them win a national title if they only had to play Alabama, rather than needing to beat Alabama and then another team with another talented and deep roster.

You mention 16 seeds and 1 seeds. Those 16 seeds have a shot to win a couple games. They will never win a title because they aren't deep enough. If you don't want the same 6 teams to win titles, I don't believe that expanding the playoff is the answer. It will give those teams with more talent more opportunities to overcome poor regular seasons.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It's fricking epic to see a 16 beat a 1 or a 15 beat a 2. I don't care if they win the title. I care that I get to watch exciting football and historic upsets happen.

Just FYI, an 8 seed has won the NCAA tournament twice - which is the equivalent of a 6 winning the football title. An 11 seed has made the Final Four 5 times - which would basically be l Iike a 9 seed in football making the semis. Either way, neither of those can happen now due to only 4 teams going. How will that not be a major improvement?
 

WriterGoph said:
Who cares? It's fricking epic to see a 16 beat a 1 or a 15 beat a 2. I don't care if they win the title. I care that I get to watch exciting football and historic upsets happen.

Just FYI, an 8 seed has won the NCAA tournament twice - which is the equivalent of a 6 winning the football title. An 11 seed has made the Final Four 5 times - which would basically be l Iike a 9 seed in football making the semis. Either way, neither of those can happen now due to only 4 teams going. How will that not be a major improvement?
Click to expand...
I do not see your equivalencies as related when looking at the distribution of talent among teams in basketball and football and the difference in the dynamics of the two sports.

If you don't care if they win they title and that the upset happened, you are essentially conceding that the same 6 teams will be winning more titles. If 2 seeded Georgia gets to face FSU this year because they upset a higher seed in the first round, it makes Georgia's path easier. If the goal is to get other teams to win titles, I don't think playoff expansion is the solution.
 

WriterGoph said:
Who cares? It's fricking epic to see a 16 beat a 1 or a 15 beat a 2. I don't care if they win the title. I care that I get to watch exciting football and historic upsets happen.

Just FYI, an 8 seed has won the NCAA tournament twice - which is the equivalent of a 6 winning the football title. An 11 seed has made the Final Four 5 times - which would basically be l Iike a 9 seed in football making the semis. Either way, neither of those can happen now due to only 4 teams going. How will that not be a major improvement?
Click to expand...

The probabilities of those happening are still much higher in basketball than football. It's much easier for 5-8 players to show up and play out of their mind and pull and upset than the 30+ it takes in football.

Most top seeds in college basketball still have several losses throughout the year. The top 4 in college football typically have 0 or 1.
 

Gophers_4life said:
The 12 team CFP will be getting pretty damn close to that.

Unless you meant that you want to prevent all other bowl games from happening that aren't part of the bracket.

(Not gonna happen)
Click to expand...
I'd love to see a 24 team bracket like FCS, 28 like D2, or 32 like D3.
It will never happen because of the bowls, but I'd love to see it. It would be a lot of fun.
 



gophernut1 said:
Never thought I would see the day where we could have a serious discussion on:

Would you rather go to the Rose Bowl or College Football Playoffs.

Personally I choose the CFP, simply because if we make that the chances of us being the next Clemson goes up tremendously and we will see the Rose Bowl in the next 3-5 years.
Click to expand...
The other option is be Washington or Michigan State.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
The probabilities of those happening are still much higher in basketball than football. It's much easier for 5-8 players to show up and play out of their mind and pull and upset than the 30+ it takes in football.

Most top seeds in college basketball still have several losses throughout the year. The top 4 in college football typically have 0 or 1.
Click to expand...

Not gonna disagree that basketball is a different sport. I'll still be excited to watch "non-traditional" playoff teams have a chance to compete. Regardless of what you all think, there WILL be unexpected upsets. It's sports. Powerhouses get upset. Did you think App State would beat A&M? Did you think Texas would have Bama on the ropes (before an awful missed sack)?

Even if the same couple teams win, the fact that the Gophers have a much greater chance to make the CFP with 12 teams should be exciting enough for our program and fans.
 

WriterGoph said:
Not gonna disagree that basketball is a different sport. I'll still be excited to watch "non-traditional" playoff teams have a chance to compete. Regardless of what you all think, there WILL be unexpected upsets. It's sports. Powerhouses get upset. Did you think App State would beat A&M? Did you think Texas would have Bama on the ropes (before an awful missed sack)?

Even if the same couple teams win, the fact that the Gophers have a much greater chance to make the CFP with 12 teams should be exciting enough for our program and fans.
Click to expand...
I must have misunderstood because I thought your point was that this was a good solution to not have the same teams win. My argument about upsets was predicated on the fact that these upsets wouldn't change the most talented teams winning titles. We will see upsets a la Boise vs Oklahoma -- I just don't think that those upsets will matter.
 


noamfromm said:
I must have misunderstood because I thought your point was that this was a good solution to not have the same teams win. My argument about upsets was predicated on the fact that these upsets wouldn't change the most talented teams winning titles. We will see upsets a la Boise vs Oklahoma -- I just don't think that those upsets will matter.
Click to expand...

I think eventually we will see an upset and some variation for the title. But even outside of that, I just like to see the big names get taken down - even if it's in the quarters or semis. Bottom line, it seems clear we should get more exciting football instead of more Bowl games not knowing if a certain team is going to decide not to give a crap.
 

RogueGopher said:
Wrong, regular season games are meaningful. The game this week is the most meaningful game up to this point. Do you follow? The games are meaningful up until you can't win a championship.
Click to expand...

Do I follow? Well, maybe. I think I see what you're trying to say.

Regarding things meaningless vs things meaningful, it might be that certain things hold meaning to me, but not to you.

Here are some (possible) examples:
Tradition.
Beauty (as in, say, the aesthetic beauty of the surroundings in Pasadena itself).
Dignity.
Real excitement and anticipation (as opposed to contrived, manufactured hype).

Meaningless to some, yet very important to others.

Some people enjoy the outdoors by roaring around on ATVs. Others prefer to get away from noise and exhaust fumes by hiking in the backwoods and hearing birdsongs and the breeze in the pines overhead. Some people love to hunt waterfowl, upland birds, etc. Others are avid bird watchers. Some like adrenaline-producing power racing boats, others prefer a backwater paddle in kayak or canoe.

Different strokes, as the saying goes...
 
Last edited:

Here's another example:

I'd be thrilled if the Gophers won the National Title, and just as thrilled if they returned at long last to the Rose Bowl.

Would I move heaven and earth to get tickets for my wife and myself to Pasadena? Oh, yes!

Would I lift a finger to go to some National Championship Lalapalooza in FlyByNightDotCom Stadium, sponsored by my good friends at Blah-Blah-blah, Inc.?

Nope. I'd watch it on TV, and grab a beer and make a sandwich during the commercials.

It's about the experience. They aren't comparable in that sense.
 


RememberMurray said:
By that definition, was the Outback Bowl win over Auburn "meaningless"?
Click to expand...
RogueGopher said:
Yes. It was an exhibition game. There's a reason why so many players opt out of bowl games unless they're in the CFP.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. The way that programs like Minnesota eventually find a way to compete at a higher level (maybe NC someday?) is to win games and gain more national relevance. It helps with recruiting which helps in the win/loss column.

Teams don't go from six wins to national championships one year to the next. Lots happens in the time between that is nowhere near "meaningless".
 

RememberMurray said:
Here's another example:

I'd be thrilled if the Gophers won the National Title, and just as thrilled if they returned at long last to the Rose Bowl.

Would I move heaven and earth to get tickets for my wife and myself to Pasadena? Oh, yes!

Would I lift a finger to go to some National Championship Lalapalooza in FlyByNightDotCom Stadium, sponsored by my good friends at Blah-Blah-blah, Inc.?

Nope. I'd watch it on TV, and grab a beer and make a sandwich during the commercials.

It's about the experience. They aren't comparable in that sense.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with this to some extent. If given the choice to attend a game as a fan in either setting, the Rose Bowl would be a cooler experience.

But as to what is best for the program, the players, and the school overall, winning a natty is a higher and more important bar.
 

disco said:
I actually agree with this to some extent. If given the choice to attend a game as a fan in either setting, the Rose Bowl would be a cooler experience.

But as to what is best for the program, the players, and the school overall, winning a natty is a higher and more important bar.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. Well-stated, too.

Maybe those of us who have been debating Rose Bowl vs National Title game should all agree to disagree at this point, and allow this thread to return to discussions about bowl projections. I think I'm in danger of becoming a thread hijacker.
 

gophernut1 said:
Never thought I would see the day where we could have a serious discussion on:

Would you rather go to the Rose Bowl or College Football Playoffs.

Personally I choose the CFP, simply because if we make that the chances of us being the next Clemson goes up tremendously and we will see the Rose Bowl in the next 3-5 years.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been to a Rose Bowl? I was there in January of 1967 where Bob Greise and Purdue beat USC 14 to 13. I was a senior in high school at the time. The next 4 years I was in the U of M Marching Band and almost got to march in the Tournament of Roses Parade following the 1967 season. I can tell you that the whole experience of the Rose Bowl is something words cannot describe. I know I'm a traditionalist, but I'd take the Rose Bowl. Just seeing our band in that parade would probably bring tears to my eyes. The playoffs are great, but I doubt that the entire experience, from a fan's perspective, could even come close to what we would see in Pasadena.
 


(In the context of this specific discussion)

There's no "choice" to make. Either we beat Ohio State in Indy, or we don't. :cool:

I'll accept either outcome (CFP or Rose, respectively)
 

go4rob said:
Have you ever been to a Rose Bowl? I was there in January of 1967 where Bob Greise and Purdue beat USC 14 to 13. I was a senior in high school at the time. The next 4 years I was in the U of M Marching Band and almost got to march in the Tournament of Roses Parade following the 1967 season. I can tell you that the whole experience of the Rose Bowl is something words cannot describe. I know I'm a traditionalist, but I'd take the Rose Bowl. Just seeing our band in that parade would probably bring tears to my eyes. The playoffs are great, but I doubt that the entire experience, from a fan's perspective, could even come close to what we would see in Pasadena.
Click to expand...

My thinking is not a this year or bust sort of thinking. My thought in making a CFP, is it really gives us a good chance of doing both because it will change perception of our team nationally more than losing to OSU in Indy and going to the Rose Bowl. Especially if one believes we can win against an Alabama or Georgia, which I do.

As a fan, the Rose Bowl would be a better experience and I am not arguing that. I just feel one gives us a great chance at both. We might have to wait 2-4 years to experience it but I trust if you give Fleck even better recruits we are in a class where we have to change the name of our forum and experience multiple Rose Bowls.
 

gophernut1 said:
My thinking is not a this year or bust sort of thinking. My thought in making a CFP, is it really gives us a good chance of doing both because it will change perception of our team nationally more than losing to OSU in Indy and going to the Rose Bowl. Especially if one believes we can win against an Alabama or Georgia, which I do.

As a fan, the Rose Bowl would be a better experience and I am not arguing that. I just feel one gives us a great chance at both. We might have to wait 2-4 years to experience it but I trust if you give Fleck even better recruits we are in a class where we have to change the name of our forum and experience multiple Rose Bowls.
Click to expand...
Love your thought process. It doesn't have to only be this year. This program is being built on sustainability and will be around for this conversation next year and the year after and the year after......... I want both in my lifetime.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom