Shooter: Gophers and Texas have not committed to play a football game

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,110
Reaction score
16,732
Points
113
Sid and Shooter going head to head.

From Shooter:

"Contrary to a report in Minneapolis, the Gophers and Texas have not committed to play a football game against each other. Minnesota continues, as it has for nearly two years, to try to schedule the Longhorns."

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_12302538?nclick_check=1

Go Gophers!!
 

Does Notre Dame have any open dates in the next few years? I'd much rather play them.
 

Plinnius said:
Does Notre Dame have any open dates in the next few years? I'd much rather play them.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. They already play 3 B10 teams a season (Mich, MSU, Purdue). It might be possible in future seasons, as I believe MSU is currently off their schedule in 2014-2016 and Purdue is off their schedule in 2016 (websites seem to differ on this though). If ND continues its traditional B10 games every year I just don't see them adding the U. They recruit MN well enough without playing games here. Also, haven't they already turned us down a couple of times?
 

Texas has to be a long-shot. After the USC series, Minnesota has a home-and-home scheduled with Colorado. While fans certainly would have no problem playing 2 Big XII teams in a year, I cannot imagine Minnesota scheduling a series with Texas until the Colorado series is over. I bet they are targeting 2014, 2015. There may be a chance they would overlap one year (2013, 2014).

Either way, this is something that would happen so far into the future that it is very strange it is getting as much coverage by our otherwise Gopher-blind local media. I would rather have them provide us reports about what is happening at Air Force, Cal, Syracuse, the rest of the Big Ten (and even South Dakota State for that matter).
 

It looks like one of the very few teams needing a home-and-home for 2010-2011 is UTAH.

How about it? Schedule 2 out of the Top 3 teams in the nation for the 2010 non-conference schedule?
 


Goldmember said:
It looks like one of the very few teams needing a home-and-home for 2010-2011 is UTAH.

How about it? Schedule 2 out of the Top 3 teams in the nation for the 2010 non-conference schedule?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind Utah. Depending on how that team is doing in a given year it could be a really good non-BCS team to have a W over. Downside being they are also a "BCS buster" team that could be shaping into a dangerous non-BCS opponent.

Slightly OT, but if we had to home and home with a Utah school I'd love it to be BYU on the basis of their stadium for the away (see attached). Its supposed to be an awesome place to catch a game.
 

Attachments

  • byu stadium.jpg
    byu stadium.jpg
    98.4 KB · Views: 37

I love ambition and never reward mediocrity, but if this backfires on us and losses stack up.......recruits will walk.
 

GoBigGold said:
I love ambition and never reward mediocrity, but if this backfires on us and losses stack up.......recruits will walk.
Click to expand...

Recruits will walk if get 1 extra L a year instead of a probable W over a cupcake? I'm not sure I buy this. I mean, if we get blown out every season in these marquee games that won't help...but that probably means we're finishing 7-5 (or worse) with some other bad losses in those years too. If we lose every one of these top notch games but they are all competitive, it is likely that we are winning at least 5 or 6 B10 games in those years instead of 3. The context of these potential losses matters. Losing to a USC/Texas during an otherwise good to great season won't cost us recruits.
 

It seems pretty obvious that recruits are not specifically attracted to schools with a high winning percentage. Schools with a high winning % get good recruits because of the national exposure associated with the high winning percentage. There are enough BAD teams getting good recruits to adequately demonstrate that the casue-effect relationship that exists between winning and getting recruits is weak.

Good NC opponents are a great way to claim the national spotlight while Florida is playing the Citadel and Ohio State is playing Akron.
 



Goldmember said:
It seems pretty obvious that recruits are not specifically attracted to schools with a high winning percentage. Schools with a high winning % get good recruits because of the national exposure associated with the high winning percentage. There are enough BAD teams getting good recruits to adequately demonstrate that the casue-effect relationship that exists between winning and getting recruits is weak.

Good NC opponents are a great way to claim the national spotlight while Florida is playing the Citadel and Ohio State is playing Akron.
Click to expand...

VERY well put.

This is exactly the explanation people can't grasp when wondering why anyone would attend Notre Dame, UCLA, A&M, or any other traditional power who hasn't done anything of note for a while.

It's all about exposure and setting yourself up for the NFL.

Though obviously we all would rather win, if Brewster can send guys to the league on a consistent basis (preferably drafted highly), the W/L record won't matter as much to recruits as it did 5 or 10 years ago.
 

When Sid and Shooter disagree it is usually Sid who turns out to be right.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom