Minnesota rules the world of football

[Wamu]

Based on his dumbass logic, Yale, Harvard and Princeton are superior programs to the Goofers

Something-something-something Minnesota basketball from 1901-02 (15-0) & 1902-03 (13-0) something-something-something.

Gophers basketball > UCLA basketball

 

[Wamu]

Minnesota did produce the greatest Football Coach in the history of the game.
I'll let you guess who that was

<<<<<Hint<<<<<<

Nick Saban and his national titles might have something to say about that.

 

[Gator]

Stat-Master, you're wrong as usual.

48-30 under Fleck vs 40-39 over the same time period for your precious Felon U.

You are including data from 2016. PJ got to Minny in 2017.

Why should anyone trust anything that you post?

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Based on his dumbass logic, Yale, Harvard and Princeton are superior programs to the Goofers

That's Wamu's logic dumbass. Wamu is the ONLY one in here who has been trying to argue that the # of Natl Titles a program has won is the end all and be all and only fact needed to know if a program is the best or not.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Stat-Master, you're wrong as usual.


You are including data from 2016. PJ got to Minny in 2017.

Why should anyone trust anything that you post?

Even better, thank you for the assist. 39-26 is even more dominating vs 30-36 than 48-30 is over 40-39. I was giving FSU credit for a good year that I didn't need to according to my original statment.

39-26 >>> 30-36

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Nick Saban and his national titles might have something to say about that.


View attachment 312427

Bernie Bierman, Bud's coach, and HIS 7 Natl Titles at two different schools, might have something to say about that as well.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Something-something-something Minnesota basketball from 1901-02 (15-0) & 1902-03 (13-0) something-something-something.

Gophers basketball > UCLA basketball

Up until a snow storm kept John Wooden from taking the UMn job & instead taking his 2nd choice, UCLA...

YES, UMn bb > UCLA bb.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

That's Wamu's logic dumbass. Wamu is the ONLY one in here who has been trying to argue that the # of Natl Titles a program has won is the end all and be all and only fact needed to know if a program is the best or not.

So you agree that titles from 60+ years ago are meaningless when comparing current programs?

 

[Wamu]

Up until a snow storm kept John Wooden from taking the UMn job & instead taking his 2nd choice, UCLA...

YES, UMn bb > UCLA bb.

You ain't right.

 

[Wamu]

That's Wamu's logic dumbass. Wamu is the ONLY one in here who has been trying to argue that the # of Natl Titles a program has won is the end all and be all and only fact needed to know if a program is the best or not.

So you're saying the number of national titles a program has isn't relevant when comparing teams?

You think Minnesota football is one of the all time elite programs. All I'm saying is the Gophers haven't won a national title in more than 60 years. And in that 60+ year span they have only won double digit games once. But go ahead and disagree with that.

This is a doozy. That 1960 Minnesota team that gotta piece of the national title. They LOST the Rose Bowl that season. Score of that game played on Jan. 1, 1961. (# 4) Washington 17 / (# 1) Minnesota- 7

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

You ain't right.

Have you even any clue what you are talking about?

Are you under the impression that UCLA bb has always been good? lol

Before John Wooden got there, they mostly sucked. For one, UMn won their 3rd Natl Title before UCLA even started playing basketball, dumbass.

And when they started playing, they played mostly local teams, Whittier, Pomona, Occidental, Redlands & Caltech were all conference foes. The Conf was called the SCIAC, the Southern California Intercolliate Athletic Conference. It's now a Div 3 conference.

In 1926, they lost a game where they only scored 8 points. In a bb game, not football or soccer but basketball.


They didn't have a home gym until 1932, and that gym only held 2000 people? Just before they moved into a different building, the fire marshall declared it only safe for 1300 people. UMn's BB Arena on the other hand, in 1932, held over 14,000 people. It was one of the largest capacity bb Arenas in the nation, and when it was remodeled in 1950, until 1971, it was THE largest capacity bb Arena in the nation.



UCLA's first 2 coaches went 21-4 and 66-19 playing in that SCIAC conference, and as soon as they moved to the Pacific Coast Conference, that 2nd coach proceeded to go 107-140, and the 3rd coach went 93-120.


THEY SUCKED!!!!!


Wooden showed up in 1948, and although the team showed marked improvement, making a couple NCAA tournament appearances and winning just shy of 70% of their games during his first 15 years there, it wasn't until his 16th season at UCLA before the team really started to dominate the game.

From 1958-1963, UCLA did not finish a season ranked once. Before 1958, they had only cracked the Top 25 rankings 6 times, never finishing higher than 7th.




Minnesota on the other hand, had 3 perfect seasons and 3 corresponding Natl Titles in 1902, 1903 & 1919, won B1G Conf Titles in 1906 & 1907 going 23-4 over the two seasons. They won a Conf title in 1917 with a 17-2 record, their 11-1 record in 1901 probably ranked them #2 right behind Yale, a team they dominated the very next year. UMn was probably better than Yale in 1901, too, but we'll never know. From there UMn had seasons of 15-3 & 16-4 where they didn't even win the Conf title and 14-6 where they did win the Conf title in the 30s, but before the NCAA tournament started. Then in 1949, UMn went 18-3, ranked #6 in the nation, but since they didn't win the Conf Title, got left out of the NCAA tournament. Evidence that the NCAA tournament was a chump tourney even 11 years after starting up. In 1954 they went 17-5 but didn't crack the Top 25 but did in 1955 going 15-7, at #11.


So just after the 1963 season, UMn had a far more impressive bb resume than UCLA did.


1901 - 11-1
1902 - 15-0#
1903 - 13-0#
1906 - 13-2*
1907 - 10-2*
1917 - 17-2*
1919 - 13-0*#
1932 - 15-3
1937 - 14-6*
1938 - 16-4
1949 - 18-3 - #6 AP
1954 - 17-5
1955 - 15-7 - #11 AP

3 natl titles, the 11-1 season in 1901, a #6 and a #11 alone, not even counting the 06, 07, 17, 32, 37, 38 or the 54 seasons beat out UCLA's #7, #8, #13, #14, #15 & #19 AP finishes so far up to that point.

Add 64 and 65, UCLA finished #1 and #2 in the AP, and won it's first 2 NCAA titles. Even up to this point, as UMn added a #7 AP ranking in 1965 going 19-5, UMn STILL had a better bb resume than UCLA.

a #1, a #1, a #1, a #2, a #6, a #7, a 17-2 B1G conf winning season, and a #11

is better than...

a #1, a #2, a #7, a #8, a #13, a #14, a #15 & a #19




Going forward, UCLA kept winning, and hence passed them up late in the 60s when they kept winning Natl Titles. The fact that they were cheating and players were being paid to play for UCLA? It's just hearsay I guess, players admitting they got paid, apparently was not enough evidence to go after UCLA and strip them of any of their titles as UCLA was their meal ticket, obviously.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

So you're saying the number of national titles a program has isn't relevant when comparing teams?

Sure it's relevant, just not the end all and be all and only stat that matters. It's an important stat, for sure, but not as important as you make it out to be. If it was, you'd have to acknowledge UMn being Top Ten of ALL-TIME in the following sports...

Football, 8th/9th,
Basketball, 9th,
Baseball, 7th,
Hockey, 5th, 5 NCAA titles ranks them 5th, tied with BU & BC, though they have several more "Mythical" Titles in the 20s, 1932? & 1940.
Wrestling, 6th,
Women's Hockey, 1st,
Dance, 1st. 19 titles ranks them 1st and not sure that anyone else is even close?
Solar Raycing, Top 3,
Quiz Bowl, Top 3.

Yeah, ALL FOUR of the 4 major league representative sports.

You prepared to do that? To admit UMn's Top Ten in Football, Basketball and Baseball, just to be able to justify your not believing UMn's #1 in hockey?




If I was the big super hyper biased homer you claim that I am, I would be tooting UMn's horn as Top Ten ALL-Time in all 7 of those sports and #1 in Solar Raycing and Quiz Bowl as well as Dance, Women's Hockey and Men's Hockey.

But I don't.




I only claim Top Ten All-Time for Wrestling, Top 3 for Quiz Bowl and Solar Raycing and #1 all-time for Men's and Women's Hockey and Dance.

Baseball MIGHT be Top Ten, but I seriously doubt it. Lots of teams who haven't won 3 titles have been to a shitload more College World Series than the Gophers, I'm assuming, and UMn was Top Ten at producing MLB talent for a long time, but I'm guessing a few southern baseball programs have caught up to them recently. I've claimed UMn to be the #1 northern Baseball program for awhile now, but even that might not be true now that Oregon State has tied UMn with 3 titles and has 2 more CWS appearances than Minnesota. UMn's still got way more NCAA tourney appearances than Oregon State, but Oregon State has just a few more All-Americans 40 vs 37 I think, and a few more sent to the MLB ranks 39 vs 35 I think?

Basketball is no where near Top Ten all-time, lol. It's 3 titles and #12 ranking at producing NBA players aside, the bb program, despite it's glorious start, has been hampered by scandals involving racism, sex, selling a couple tickets, and the big one Clemgate, and being in too tough of a conf when only conf champs got invites to the NCAA tourney leaving several Top Ten rated Gopher teams out of the tourney. UMn was better than UConn and rising fast before Clemgate happened, then UConn won 4 titles and UMn has since floundered, in part because of sanctions, but poor coaching hires as well. Our newest coach could change that, but that's yet to be seen. One Top 30 recruit means little if he doesn't follow that up with more highly rated recruits, developing them and coaching the games well.

You think Minnesota football is one of the all time elite programs.

WAS.

Do you understand what the word "was" indicates, what it means, what it signifies? It signifies past tense.

I've labeled the Gopher football team a HAS BEEN on several occasions. Meaning IN THE PAST they were one of the all time elite programs. The #1 program in fact, up until 1941 at least, and then possibly up til 1962? And they have since slid down the all-time rankings, PAST the #10 spot. You totally freaked out and OVER reacted when I referenced two sources that had them ranked Top Ten all-time, but I was just posting them as two of many sources, two of the more favorable to the Gophers, to balance out the ones less favorable to the Gophers.

You also freaked out and overreacted when I called some of your sources into question, their motives to be more specific. Anyone with a brain and simple common sense would tell the average person that businesses trying to make money are guided by that money, their actions usually are motivated by the idea that acting one way, or doing something a certain way will bring about the making of more money than doing something the right or honorable way. Never heard the term clickbait??? They give classes all over the place on how to bring more traffic to your site or your business, and in relation to podcasts or news sites, they manipulate what they post or say to get more traffic, more views, more clicks. How is it that you do not know this?

Well, because of this, the sites you mentioned, lean towards pimping modern programs and programs with lots of fans, or dissing modern programs/programs with lots of fans, so as to get them riled up as that brings more traffic to the site or more clicks on the article or post and gets more people talking about it and discussing it. This is simple psychology dude. lol


So sources that diss the Gophers and rank them way low, out of the Top 25, maybe even out of the Top 40, are obviously biased towards modern football and they minimize any of the accomplishments of programs who were successful before the modern era, so even Bud Wilkinson's accomplishments at OU are being seen as ancient history and teams like Colorado are being forgotten. Modern football is moving so fast and the people who follow and write about it for a living are never going to give the great programs of the past their due. That doesn't pay the bills.

All I'm saying is the Gophers haven't won a national title in more than 60 years. And in that 60+ year span they have only won double digit games once. But go ahead and disagree with that.

I will,

they've won double digit games twice.


They only played 97 games in the first decade post 1960 title, 61-70. Not easy to win double digit games when you don't even play double digit games 30% of the seasons and need to go 10-0 the other 70%. The next decade they only played 111 games. Again, not easy to win double digit games when you only play 11 games in the regular season. Very few programs who played only 11 game schedules did win double digit games. I understand some teams did it. Good for them. They probably had administrations that cared about football, UMn's did not. Next decade, same thing, 112 games played by the Gophers. 11 in the regular season. Same thing in the 4th decade, only played 112 games.

Mason came close in 1999, 2 games lost by just 3 points, one in OT, kept them from winning 10 that year.


I've NEVER said UMn was any good from 1963-1997. And they've only occasionally been good since 1998. They had two seasons among those 35, 1967, where they tied for the Big 10 title and 1977, where they beat #1 ranked Michigan 16-0 after beating both #10 EOS Washington and #18 at the time, UCLA in the ooc, but lost 5 games, 4 to unranked teams.

They hadn't yet been relegated to the MetroDump, so there seemed like there was still hope. Then after the move to the MetroDump, Lou Holtz came to town for 2 seasons, but his alma mater came calling and he left for Notre Dame, taking with him many Gopher recruits who ended up helping him win the Natl Title in 1988 for Notre Dame.




Now Fleck has moved the program up a notch closer to being top of the Western Division, just as there may not be a Western Division anymore. This year was their last shot and they blew it. Depth is more of an issue than I thought it was. All 3 losses so far were without the team's #1 WR, one of the games was also missing the team's #1 RB, and one of them was missing the team's 6th year starting QB the whole game, another game he was missing for part of the game. A truly Elite program would have quality depth, players who could step up and fill the shoes of the injured player and Fleck has not succeeded in getting UMn to that point yet. I thought he had. Still think UMn could win out, but that won't be tough as they won't get to the Conf Title game or a top notch bowl game.

This is a doozy. That 1960 Minnesota team that gotta piece of the national title. They LOST the Rose Bowl that season. Score of that game played on Jan. 1, 1961. (# 4) Washington 17 / (# 1) Minnesota- 7


View attachment 312445

#1 UMn lost to #6 Washington who lost to #4 Navy who lost to #5 Missouri who lost to #11 Kansas who lost to #3 Iowa who got pummeled by...

#1 Minnesota.


I challenge you to find another season with anywhere near the same scenario.

Only lame ass Mississippi went without a loss. They played an unranked team in their bowl game, and only mustered a tie vs unranked LSU. But did have a win vs #7 ranked Arkansas, their only ranked opponent the whole season.


So how do you justify naming any of them clearly better than the others? Minnesota's pummeling of #1 ranked, at the time, Iowa, their only loss, proved to be the game that impressed the voters the most I guess.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

The basketball pimping is Def his worst bit.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

So you agree that titles from 60+ years ago are meaningless when comparing current programs?

Titles? What titles does Oregon have to compare?

ZERO Football titles.
ZERO Baseball titles.
ZERO Hockey titles.
ZERO legit Basketball titles.


4-9 vs UMn in Fb & BB.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Titles? What titles does Oregon have to compare?

ZERO Football titles.
ZERO Baseball titles.
ZERO Hockey titles.
ZERO legit Basketball titles.


4-9 vs UMn in Fb & BB.

How far back until titles lose their value?

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Also, Minnesota has 0 NCAA championships in Men's Basketball.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Also, Minnesota has 0 NCAA championships in Men's Basketball.

This is true.

He is recognizing the helms titles as legit lol

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

The basketball pimping is Def his worst bit.

It's bad to acknowledge that Minnesota won the very first intercollegiate bb game EVER?
It's bad to acknowledge that Minnesota was the very first college basketball Dynasty?
It's bad to acknowledge that former Minnesota Gophers basically created the NBA and then coached the first NBA Dynasty and filled up much of it's roster?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn has produced SIX Naismith Hall of Famers?
It's bad to acknowledge that the Western Conference Championship Trophy is named after a former UMner?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn has produced the most Top 12 ranked teams that didn't get into the NCAA tournament?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn has produced the 12th most NBA players?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn had the largest capacity college basketball venue in the nation for 21 years?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn was John Wooden's first choice and that a snow storm prevented him from becoming UMn's coach and instead he took the UCLA job?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn led the nation in basketball attendance for a period of time?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn had a women's basketball team way back in the day?
It's bad to acknowledge that UMn had blacks playing basketball for them before almost any other school did? This would have dated back to 1904 but Bobby Marshall was too good of a hockey player to want to play bb I guess?

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

This is true.

He is recognizing the helms titles as legit lol

I don't understand how CFB fans of all people don't understand how those helms titles not only can be, but ARE legit, just as legit as any Recognized Cfb Natl Title of the 20th Century. ESPN and Sports Illustrated and the NBA all acknowledge them, as ESPN and SI both include those titles in their Sports Almanacs and I saw them listed as well on NBA.com, and Wikipedia obviously acknowledges them.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

How far back until titles lose their value?

Never. They never lose their value. The players winning those titles way back were not playing in hopes of making tons of money in the pro leagues as there wasn't any pro leagues, or if there were, they didn't pay very well. And they were risking their lives when they played football back then as it was a far rougher and more dangerous sport then as it is now.

The players of back then were more like warriors where as the players today are pampered prima donnas. And yes, I take a bit of pride in knowing that it was back then, when the players were more like warriors, that the people of my state thrived and in some ways dominated the game.

Look at any list of all time great players from back in the day, and you won't find just Bronko Nagurski, but you will also find Joe Guyon and Johnny Blood McNally, Walt Keisling & Ernie Nevers. The aforementioned Pudge Heffelfinger and Bobby Marshall.

Pug Lund was named Player of the Year by someone, can't remember who, but I will look it up, but it was in 1934 I believe, pre-dating the Heisman Trophy, but Pug had a finger removed so he could better hold the ball. Now that was a Warrior.

I'd put up the state of Minnesota's Best 11 old time players against any other state in the nation's Best old time 11 player lineup any day of the week.