Gophers ranked 98th in country by Sporting News

Donate To GopherHole
scools12 said:
Hey dummy do you kow I didn't use the "bellweather" term to begin with
Click to expand...

Yes, but you copied it and still used the incorrect spelling. The fact that someone else spelled it incorrectly first does not exonerate you. "Dummy" indeed.

And you still apparently do not know what it means. A bellwether is an indicator - a synonym would be "harbinger". So you don't think that how we perform against MTSU is a harbinger for the rest of the season? How good you perceive MTSU to be is irrelevant to that game's status as a bellwether.

scools12 said:
Being that a win over MTSU would be considered progress. Maybe in your world but not in mine. I would hope by now beating MTSU should be the norm not a hopefully.
Click to expand...

Beating 10-win teams on the road is easy now? I'll be sure to let everyone know.

In Gopher terms, this MTSU team can be thought of as more or less the equivalent of the 2001 Toledo team. Since we got totally pantsed 38-7 by them, then yes, absolutely, I would consider a road win against a 10-win team to be progress. If you want to live in your own dream world and judge things by how you think they should be, rather than how they are, that's your bag. But don't expect the rest of us to do so. In case you didn't notice, MTSU was rated #43 in the very ranking that is the subject of this thread. They are not SDSU or USD.

scools12 said:
I know a lot more about college football then you
Click to expand...

Ha. Genius at work.

scools12 said:
Your utter dismissal of Purdue shows that you know nothing.
Click to expand...

Show me where I utterly dismissed Purdue. All I said is that they will not win 7 games. I will bet you any amount of money you desire that they will be nowhere near #39 at the end of the season. Ergo, this is a terribly inflated ranking.

scools12 said:
Purdue beat Ohio State, Michigan and played Oregon tough in their head coaches 1st year. I have no doubt Purdue's program is in far better shape then the Gopher's in the 4th year if this head coach.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they also lost to Notre Dame, NIU, and Minnesota. Since you know more "then" me about college football, you should know that linear thinking (Purdue>Ohio St.>Minnesota) does not work in sports. You've shown that you care more about "signature" victories than total number of victories. How many years do you think Danny Hope will have a job if he beats OSU and Michigan every year, but still wins only 5 games?

You can textually fellate Danny Hope all you want, but the fact remains that Purdue is a .500 team in the Big Ten. Until they can prove it on the field, we are a better team than them. I don't see how one can reasonably say that Purdue is in "far better shape" when we beat them and they didn't even make a bowl last year. This on a team where Hope had been an assistant for several seasons and runs the exact same style of program as his predecessor. Go ahead and congratulate him on his 5-win season, I guess.
 


GoAUpher said:
Mmmm hmmmm...because who you play has no impact on how good or bad your record will be. Good to know!
Click to expand...

If the gophers were a good team, and they may still be one because no games have been played, they would win some of these "tough" games on their schedule and there actual rank would be higher than what their predicted rank is, this is unlikely however according to many publications.
 

scools12 said:
the grammar police
Click to expand...
Would you like my badge number? If you're going to attack the intelligence of others, it might be in your best interest to make sure your grammar and punctuation are correct. Otherwise, you might appear quite foolish.
 

loki said:
If the gophers were a good team, and they may still be one because no games have been played, they would win some of these "tough" games on their schedule and there actual rank would be higher than what there predicted rank is, this is unlikely however according to many publications.
Click to expand...

So now the schedule does factor into the ranking? Your original statement said that schedule didn't play into it and this was a ranking of how "good" or "bad" a team was predicted to be. My point (which you now seem to support) was how can they predict how good or bad a team is without considering schedules? Good teams can lose ballgames against other good teams. Bad teams can get great records by playing creampuffs.

I don't disagree that ultimately all that matters are W's and L's. But don't pretend that schedule plays no part in how "good" or "bad" a team looks at the end of a season.
 


loki said:
I am a BIG Gopher fan but the reason Sporting News picks us to be 98th isn't because how tough our schedule is or any other reason for that matter other than one main one and that is because that's how bad they predict us to be. I hope its not true but this is the same type of prediction we have been getting for the past few years from publications and they seem to be a lot more accurate than Gopher fans. Lets face it everyone thinks we are a below average to terrible team and based on the way we have played they are not that far off.
Click to expand...

I understand your concern but you really have to do your own assessment. Those guys are weighted by the facts of our D being young and the personnel on the O has not changed much at all and finally, the QB was the worst statistically in the Big Ten last year. So, we certainly look like a bottom dweller at the outset. However, the young guys really are better and the team consequently will on the most part surpass virtually all of the preseason projections. Nevertheless, we are just as vulnerable as any team to the injury bug should it visits one or more of our key units. Sporting News is wrong about many every year; let it be the GOPHERS in '10.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Yes, but you copied it and still used the incorrect spelling. The fact that someone else spelled it incorrectly first does not exonerate you. "Dummy" indeed.

And you still apparently do not know what it means. A bellwether is an indicator - a synonym would be "harbinger". So you don't think that how we perform against MTSU is a harbinger for the rest of the season? How good you perceive MTSU to be is irrelevant to that game's status as a bellwether.



Beating 10-win teams on the road is easy now? I'll be sure to let everyone know.

In Gopher terms, this MTSU team can be thought of as more or less the equivalent of the 2001 Toledo team. Since we got totally pantsed 38-7 by them, then yes, absolutely, I would consider a road win against a 10-win team to be progress. If you want to live in your own dream world and judge things by how you think they should be, rather than how they are, that's your bag. But don't expect the rest of us to do so. In case you didn't notice, MTSU was rated #43 in the very ranking that is the subject of this thread. They are not SDSU or USD.



Ha. Genius at work.



Show me where I utterly dismissed Purdue. All I said is that they will not win 7 games. I will bet you any amount of money you desire that they will be nowhere near #39 at the end of the season. Ergo, this is a terribly inflated ranking.



Yes, and they also lost to Notre Dame, NIU, and Minnesota. Since you know more "then" me about college football, you should know that linear thinking (Purdue>Ohio St.>Minnesota) does not work in sports. You've shown that you care more about "signature" victories than total number of victories. How many years do you think Danny Hope will have a job if he beats OSU and Michigan every year, but still wins only 5 games?

You can textually fellate Danny Hope all you want, but the fact remains that Purdue is a .500 team in the Big Ten. Until they can prove it on the field, we are a better team than them. I don't see how one can reasonably say that Purdue is in "far better shape" when we beat them and they didn't even make a bowl last year. This on a team where Hope had been an assistant for several seasons and runs the exact same style of program as his predecessor. Go ahead and congratulate him on his 5-win season, I guess.
Click to expand...


"Beating 10-win teams on the road is easy now? I'll be sure to let everyone know."

Good God......some of you guys. You do know that "10-win team" is a directional mid-major, right?? Maybe the schedule has changed and we are opening in Madison?
 

"Beating 10-win teams on the road is easy now? I'll be sure to let everyone know."

a 10 win team that had a SOS of 115, the teams the played had a 64-85 record the year before and only played 4 teams with a winning record. yes a win over MTSU would be huge!!!
 

RodentRampage said:
If there ranking was accurate, we'd expect to see a 1 or 2 win season, with a victory over USD and a toss-up versus Illinois.

Our 2009 schedule:

MTSU 43
South Dakota n/a
USC 16
Northern Illinois 49
Northwestern 40
Wisconsin 8
Purdue 39
Penn State 32
OSU 2
Michigan State 50
Illinois 94
Iowa 13

According to their list, USD and Illinois are the only teams that will not be greatly better than us. We could lose to Middle Tennessee State, but beating them wouldn't be seen as as big a deal as a #98 team beating a #43 team really ought to be seen. It looks like they are taking the unknowns and assuming they will all be negatives.
Click to expand...

What in the hell did Purdue and Northwestern show last year that makes them 55 spots better? On top of that, aren't they both breaking in new QBs and didn't Purdue lose their top RB to an ACL? For that matter, what did MSU show last year that makes them 45 spots better? Despite these rankings, I am confident we will go 4-1 in the first 5 games.
 



koppco1 said:
What in the hell did Purdue and Northwestern show last year that makes them 55 spots better? On top of that, aren't they both breaking in new QBs and didn't Purdue lose their top RB to an ACL? For that matter, what did MSU show last year that makes them 45 spots better? Despite these rankings, I am confident we will go 4-1 in the first 5 games.
Click to expand...
"Confident?" Based on what, our obliterated defensive backfield, 9 new starters on defense or the offense that disappeared in 2007?
 

dpodoll68 said:
Northwestern, Purdue, and MSU are all waaaayy too high, much like Minnesota is too low. All four of those teams should be somewhere between 55 and 70, with Minnesota ranked higher than the other 3. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but we did beat all 3 of those teams last year, no?
Click to expand...

dpodoll68 said:
... you should know that linear thinking (Purdue>Ohio St.>Minnesota) does not work in sports.
Click to expand...

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
 

GoAUpher said:
So now the schedule does factor into the ranking? Your original statement said that schedule didn't play into it and this was a ranking of how "good" or "bad" a team was predicted to be. My point (which you now seem to support) was how can they predict how good or bad a team is without considering schedules? Good teams can lose ballgames against other good teams. Bad teams can get great records by playing creampuffs.

I don't disagree that ultimately all that matters are W's and L's. But don't pretend that schedule plays no part in how "good" or "bad" a team looks at the end of a season.
Click to expand...

All that matters are wins and losses. The best teams in the country play touch schedules as well but they are going to be ranked in the top twenty whereas according to numerous experts we will not. If we were good we would win regardless of the schedule but we are not good therefore we will probably lose. Do you understand? Good teams win regardless of the toughness of the schedule (eg; USC, Ohio State, LSU, Alabama, etc... are all winners year in and year out regardless of the toughness of the schedule); According to the experts, we are not a good team and I contend the schedule is irrelevant when making that judgement. Either you are good and win or you are not.
 

Uhm, Mr Supreme Overlord, 5 wins does not equal 7 wins any way that you cut it. Although you can try to convince a Bowl that it does if you want to.
 



When was the last time anyone read the SportingNews or visited its website? If/when ESPN or SI predicts the Gophers to finish at/near the bottom of the conference I will give it some weight.

I totally disagree with this "tough schedule" stuff. If a coach cannot go .500 in his own conference by his 4th year, he should expect to be on his way out. I can see the argument for feeling like 7 wins is enough progress due to USC being on the non conference schedule.
 

No, but if we were to play the 2004 or 2005 schedule, I would expect this to be a 7 to 10 win team. With this year's schedule, I expect it to be a 5 to 8 win team. Schedule matters. We are playing the best of the Big Ten from last year, and have one great and two respectable non-conference foes. No Mason schedule is in the same league as this schedule - and to not factor that into expected wins and losses is asinine.

Loki, for the second consecutive year, we are going to have one of the toughest schedules in the country. Explain to me how this does not affect a team's record. In the end, we want to be at the same place, but I am going to temper my year-by-year expectations and give the coach a chance. This has become a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - Mason's teams posted winning record, and people bemoaned the schedule, Brewster's teams play respectable schedules, then bemoan, adjusted for schedule strength, equal records.
 

loki said:
All that matters are wins and losses. The best teams in the country play touch schedules as well but they are going to be ranked in the top twenty whereas according to numerous experts we will not. If we were good we would win regardless of the schedule but we are not good therefore we will probably lose. Do you understand? Good teams win regardless of the toughness of the schedule (eg; USC, Ohio State, LSU, Alabama, etc... are all winners year in and year out regardless of the toughness of the schedule); According to the experts, we are not a good team and I contend the schedule is irrelevant when making that judgement. Either you are good and win or you are not.
Click to expand...

you are confusing good teams with elite teams..your seriously trying to compare the gophers to probably four of the top seven teams of the decade? good teams are not regulated to the top five in the polls, i would argue they go into the mid thirties and any team that is around that twenty-five thirty mark would have a hell of a time with this schedule..
 

EG#9 said:
When was the last time anyone read the SportingNews or visited its website? If/when ESPN or SI predicts the Gophers to finish at/near the bottom of the conference I will give it some weight.

I totally disagree with this "tough schedule" stuff. If a coach cannot go .500 in his own conference by his 4th year, he should expect to be on his way out. I can see the argument for feeling like 7 wins is enough progress due to USC being on the non conference schedule.
Click to expand...

In setting up objective benchmarks, I said a 7 win season would be acceptable to me in year 4. I adjust it to 6 with USC on the schedule. I have always said I will reserve my judgment until after year 5.
 

Is going 0-8 vs your two biggest rivals acceptable after year 4? Or do you need to see us go 0-10 in 5 years before coming to a conclusion?
 

gopheraschells said:
you are confusing good teams with elite teams..your seriously trying to compare the gophers to probably four of the top seven teams of the decade? good teams are not regulated to the top five in the polls, i would argue they go into the mid thirties and any team that is around that twenty-five thirty mark would have a hell of a time with this schedule..
Click to expand...

According to the experts we are not even going to be a "good team," more like a terrible team. Listen, I don't really care what Sporting New or any publications states but it is the same old around here. We are mediocre at best year in and year out and I think by now we should all be pretty sick of it. Our schedule is tough but so what...it is tough most years as the Big ten in itself is tough....once again it looks like we will just not be any good, hopefully the experts turn out to be wrong.
 

Write-up today on Sporting News. Predicts Gophers will go 2-10 overall, 1-7 in Big 10. Puts it on Weber and a defense with nine new starters. Mentions the season opener and conference opener as bellwether games.
 

Why is Kansas, who lost Todd Reesing, Dez Briscoe, and Kerry Meier, #31 overall and 67 spots ahead of us?
 

well it looks like we shouldn't even show up to play the games..as long as the preseason rankings have us as *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!# we might as well not show up, i guess its not worth giving brew's players a chance i am sorry you guys win lets cut football
 

loki said:
All that matters are wins and losses. The best teams in the country play touch schedules as well but they are going to be ranked in the top twenty whereas according to numerous experts we will not. If we were good we would win regardless of the schedule but we are not good therefore we will probably lose. Do you understand? Good teams win regardless of the toughness of the schedule (eg; USC, Ohio State, LSU, Alabama, etc... are all winners year in and year out regardless of the toughness of the schedule); According to the experts, we are not a good team and I contend the schedule is irrelevant when making that judgement. Either you are good and win or you are not.
Click to expand...

Already agreed with the bold. I'm glad you contend that schedule plays no part. I wonder if you have any logic to back it up. My last thought. While I agree that good teams win regardless of schedule, you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't teams above the Gophs onthat ranking who are worse (and beatable by the Gophers) but who are ranked higher because they are predicted to do better against an easy schedule. Schedule matters, especially when your a team that appears to be average at best.
 


loki said:
According to the experts we are not even going to be a "good team," more like a terrible team. Listen, I don't really care what Sporting New or any publications states but it is the same old around here. We are mediocre at best year in and year out and I think by now we should all be pretty sick of it. Our schedule is tough but so what...it is tough most years as the Big ten in itself is tough....once again it looks like we will just not be any good, hopefully the experts turn out to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Don't let being sick of mediocre get you believing nonsense. Mediocre teams facing tough schedules will likely do worse overall (and thus look worse overall) then equally mediocre teams playing cream puff schedules. It's not rocket science.

I'm not using the tough schedule as a crutch. If we don't win we don't win. I just think its silly to get so hung up on wins and losses that you pretend schedule plays no part in the overall record.
 

Maroon said:
Write-up today on Sporting News. Predicts Gophers will go 2-10 overall, 1-7 in Big 10. Puts it on Weber and a defense with nine new starters. Mentions the season opener and conference opener as bellwether games.
Click to expand...

It would be great if MTSU and others on the schedule read and believe this opinion. Love the element of surprize.
 

GoAUpher said:
Don't let being sick of mediocre get you believing nonsense. Mediocre teams facing tough schedules will likely do worse overall (and thus look worse overall) then equally mediocre teams playing cream puff schedules. It's not rocket science.

I'm not using the tough schedule as a crutch. If we don't win we don't win. I just think its silly to get so hung up on wins and losses that you pretend schedule plays no part in the overall record.
Click to expand...

Another way to look at it is if we had a NC schedule of Alabama, Texas, USC, and Oklahoma and went 0-4 would the team be better or worse than a team that went 4-0 against a typical Mason NC schedule? What if all the losses in the former case were by 1 point and the wins in the latter case were also by 1 point?
 

dpodoll68 said:
The fact that you think those two statements are contradictory shows your true brainpower.
Click to expand...

You need to learn how to take a compliment.

You're obviously not a big Emerson fan, but let's try another one, and I'll even lob this one in underhand for you: "It is as impossible for a man to be cheated by any one but himself, as for a thing to be and not to be at the same time."
 

Too Long in the Wasteland said:
Is going 0-8 vs your two biggest rivals acceptable after year 4? Or do you need to see us go 0-10 in 5 years before coming to a conclusion?
Click to expand...

I love winning rivalry games, but I do not place as much stock into that metric as other people. Iowa and Wisconsin have fielded some fairly solid squads in each of the last three years. I believe we have been underdogs in each game, six is a small sample size, and so that could be reasonably expected.

If we go 10-2 with our losses being against Iowa and Wisconsin, I will be happy with our season, and want Brewster extended.

If we go 2-10 with our wins against Iowa and Wisconsin, I will want Brewster fired (before 5 years, for an abysmal performance). Granted, it'd be the happiest I could possibly be with a 2-10 record, but that's not saying much.

Win games and wins against rivals will fall into line.
 

hyaluronic said:
I love winning rivalry games, but I do not place as much stock into that metric as other people. Iowa and Wisconsin have fielded some fairly solid squads in each of the last three years. I believe we have been underdogs in each game, six is a small sample size, and so that could be reasonably expected.

If we go 10-2 with our losses being against Iowa and Wisconsin, I will be happy with our season, and want Brewster extended.

If we go 2-10 with our wins against Iowa and Wisconsin, I will want Brewster fired (before 5 years, for an abysmal performance). Granted, it'd be the happiest I could possibly be with a 2-10 record, but that's not saying much.

Win games and wins against rivals will fall into line.
Click to expand...

Typically, but I think John Cooper would have to disagree with you (so would Lloyd Carr during his last 7 years at Michigan). But I agree that this isn't the most important record for him to be worried about. The only way the rivalry games matter for Brew is if the team has a middling season. If its a 6-6 or 7-5 year but we take back at least 1 border trophy (sorry, the Bell doesn't mean enough) he'll be in better shape than 6-6/7-5 with a continued O-fer record against Iowa/Wisky.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom