Tag: Minnesota Golden Gophers

Minnesota-Northwestern odds, picks and best bets

Previewing Saturday’s Minnesota Golden Gophers at Northwestern Wildcats college football matchup, with NCAA football betting odds, picks and best bets

The Minnesota Golden Gophers (9-1, 6-1 Big Ten West) visit the Northwestern Wildcats (2-8, 0-7) Saturday for a noon ET kickoff at Ryan Field. We analyze the Minnesota-Northwestern odds and betting lines, while providing college football betting tips and advice on this matchup.

The Golden Gophers are ranked 11th in the Amway Coaches Poll powered by USA TODAY Sports. They’re 10th in the College Football Playoff Rankings.

Get some action on the game at BetMGM by placing a sports bet!

Minnesota at Northwestern: Three things to know

1. Minnesota suffered its first loss of the season last week, dropping a 23-19 decision at then-No. 23 Iowa Hawkeyes. The Gophers still control their own destiny to win the division and make their first Big Ten Championship Game. After Northwestern, they close the regular season at home against second-place Wisconsin, which is one game back.

Northwestern snapped a seven-game losing streak by stepping out of conference for a 45-6 rout of lowly UMass (1-10) last Saturday. It’s been a tough season for the ‘Cats, who a year ago won the Big Ten West and lost to Ohio State in the Big Ten Championship game.

2. Gophers QB Tanner Morgan, who has thrown for 707 yards in the last two games, is in the concussion protocol. With his status for Northwestern uncertain, Cole Kramer or Jacob Clark – both true freshmen – could start.

3. Northwestern has won the last two head-to-head meetings, 24-14 at Minnesota last season and 39-0 at home in 2017.

Minnesota at Northwestern: Odds, betting lines and picks

Odds via BetMGM; access USA TODAY Sports’ betting odds for a full list. Lines last updated Thursday at 2:15 a.m. ET.

Prediction

Minnesota 35, Northwestern 17

Moneyline (ML)

AVOID. Minnesota’s -667 is too chalky. Every $6.67 wagered on the Gophers to win outright would profit $1 if they do so (Ex: Bet $66.70 to profit $10). Betting on Northwestern (+450) pays 4.5-to-1, but the Wildcats are not winning Saturday no matter who’s behind center for the Gophers. I just can’t suggest to anyone to lay that kind of wood.

Against the Spread (ATS)

MINNESOTA (-12.5, -134) is the STRONGEST PLAY. With a full week to fume about the Iowa loss, the Gophers will take out their frustrations on the Wildcats, who are 2-8 against the spread this season. The Gophers are 6-3-1 ATS in 2019.

New to sports betting? Every $1.34 wagered that Minnesota will win by 13 or more points will profit $1.

Over/Under (O/U)

The OVER 39.5 (-115) is worth a small play. Minnesota averages 35.7 PPG and is 6-4 O/U this season. Northwestern ranks 129th (out of 130 teams) with 14.5 PPG and it’s 3-7 O/U. Even if Minnesota’s Morgan sits, look for WRs Rashod Bateman (945 receiving yards, 7 TDs) and Tyler Johnson (900 receiving yards, 9 TDs) to have big games. Meanwhile, Northwestern should be able to move the ball behind freshman RB Evan Hull, who ran for 220 yards on 24 carries vs. UMass last week.

Want some action in this one? Place a bet at BetMGM now. For more sports betting picks and tips, visit SportsbookWire.com.

Johnny’s 2019 college football record: 7-5. Strongest plays: 3-3.

Follow @JohnnyParlay11 and @SportsbookWire on Twitter.

Gannett may earn revenue from audience referrals to betting services.  Newsrooms are independent of this relationship and there is no influence on news coverage.

[lawrence-newsletter]

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1623]

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Poll Mentality

The College Football Playoff selection committee has released its third rankings of the year. What hints did they give us for the future?

The College Football Playoff claims that the selection committee “starts from scratch” every week, judging each team and each resume like new each week. The committee’s rankings the past two weeks, though, show that’s not what it is doing. The selection committee came up with its first rankings two weeks ago. That set of rankings seemed to be based on resume more than what the human polls usually do. Since then, though, the committee has very clearly just been sticking to those rankings–moving down teams that lose, and maybe giving a team a bonus for a big win.

How do I know this? It’s simple. If the committee really started from scratch each week, you would see shifts in the rankings. A team would jump a team for seemingly no reason. But it’s not no reason, as resumes change every week. For example, Ohio State’s season opponents went 6-3 on the week, and all three of those losses came to teams that Ohio State also played. The Buckeyes have a stronger resume this week than last week, even though all the Buckeyes themselves did was play Rutgers. These types of things should cause small shifts in the rankings week to week. That’s not happening, which means that the committee is relying on what they thought last week, not starting from scratch every week.

There were only ten real changes in the rankings this week. Minnesota, Baylor, and Auburn all dropped a bit for picking up losses to other good teams. Iowa gained three spots for beating Top 10 Minnesota. Cincinnati slipped a spot (and lost a second spot to Iowa’s jump) after struggling with a weak opponent for the second time in three weeks. Texas, Navy, and Kansas State all fell out with losses. Iowa State and USC both jumped Appalachian State–which makes sense, since the Mountaineers don’t have any resume worthy of being in the rankings in the first place.

None of these are examples of looking at the whole season and starting from scratch. Every single one of these ranking changes is a direct reaction to what happened on the field this week. Hopefully the committee will start from scratch when the all-important final rankings come out in three weeks, but the committee’s outlook the past two weeks has not been encouraging.

Next…The Penn State and Alabama problems

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

Wisconsin-Minnesota now means even more, thanks to Iowa

Reaction to Iowa beating Minnesota, which makes the Nov. 30 game between the Golden Gophers and the Wisconsin Badgers even bigger.

Thank you, Iowa. That is what the Wisconsin Badgers and their fans are saying after the Hawkeyes ended Minnesota’s dreams of producing an unbeaten season. The 23-19 Iowa triumph in Kinnick Stadium served a very important purpose for Wisconsin: It gave Minnesota one Big Ten loss. Wisconsin, with two Big Ten losses, has been brought back into the Big Ten West title hunt. Wins over Purdue and then Minnesota will give the Badgers another ticket to Indianapolis and a chance to get a (possible, not guaranteed) rematch against Ohio State.

You know Wisconsin wants that rematch. You know Wisconsin wanted the Minnesota game to be a division championship battle. You know Wisconsin needed Minnesota to lose once before Nov. 30 in order for the Badgers to have a realistic chance at going to the Rose Bowl. (Penn State will have a say in this conversation, but that is a separate matter.)

As big as the battle for Paul Bunyan’s Axe always is, and as fierce as the rivalry between Wisconsin and Minnesota — not just the football programs, but the two states — has often been, the Badgers-Gophers clash just got a lot bigger. Thank you, Iowa.

Given how rare Wisconsin and Minnesota have been very good teams at the same time, it is worth cherishing this upcoming battle. The 2016 game was the biggest UW-U of M game in recent memory. Minnesota won nine games that season, including its bowl game. Wisconsin won 11 games.

Before 2016, you would have to go all the way back to 1962 to find a time when both programs were prominent and prosperous. Wisconsin beat Minnesota, 14-9, in the 1962 game between the two schools. The great Badger team quarterbacked by Ron Vander Kelen, which also contained future UW athletic director Pat Richter, went to the 1963 Rose Bowl and played USC in a classic game. Richter, of course, hired Barry Alvarez as head football coach, the most important moment in Wisconsin football history. Wisconsin’s prominence today is rooted in that one decision, which changed everything for football in Madison.

Thank you, Iowa. Wisconsin-Minnesota could be for a ticket to Pasadena. It WILL be for a ticket to Indianapolis, barring a highly improbable UW stumble against Purdue. It is always for the Axe, but this year, it will be for a lot more than that.

Kirk Herbstreit ranks college football’s top-four teams

Where is Georgia football in Kirk Herbstreit’s top-four teams.

Kirk Herbstreit ranked college football’s top-four teams on Sunday morning, following an action-packed Saturday in the top-ten.

His rankings actually stayed the exact same, though, seeing as how none of the drama happened at the top, leaving Georgia football at No. 4 after the Dawgs beat Auburn.

I see nothing wrong with that. There was not really a scenario for Georgia to move up and it definitely did not deserve to move down either. No. 4 is a great spot for UGA.

As for Alabama staying at No. 5, I agree with that one, too. I’d leave the Tide where they are until they prove that the Tua Tagovailoa loss is going to hurt as much as we expect it to.

Here is Herbstreit’s top-four and next two in.

 

Watch Iowa’s game-winning interception to end Minnesota’s unbeaten streak

Minnesota’s path to the playoff just got a lot harder

The Iowa Hawkeyes probably just ended Minnesota’s Cinderella season with a game-sealing interception.

The Golden Gophers were on the cusp of history and a potential College Football Playoff berth coming into Saturday’s game against Iowa. They were 9-0 for the first time since 1904 and were being talked about as one of the best college football teams in the land.

Winning in Iowa is tough, though. They found out the hard way.

They were down  23-19 with just under a minute left on 4th & 21 and senior quarterback Tanner Morgan just got hurt. The final drive was left up to Freshman Cole Kramer. This final play was the result.

Iowa just gets up for these matchups, apparently.

Minnesota will have a chance to prove themselves again in a couple weeks against Wisconsin and, if the standings hold as they are, they could play Ohio State in the Big Ten championship. Things aren’t all the way over — the path is just a bit more difficult.

The feel good story is gone but hold on to hope, Minnesota fans. There are still games left to be played.

Wisconsin’s play vs. Nebraska won’t cut it against Minnesota

An initial reaction to the Wisconsin Badgers’ victory over the Nebraska Cornhuskers.

The Wisconsin Badgers defeated the Nebraska Cornhuskers on Saturday. They won by 16 points. They won without too much drama. Yet, given how flawed the Huskers are, a strong Wisconsin team would have blown the doors off this game. As it was, Nebraska was still in the hunt midway through the fourth quarter. Wisconsin needed a red-zone stop to finally feel good about this game. Until then, the Badgers had to legitimately doubt whether they could put away Nebraska.

That is a problem. Victory should not — and cannot — obscure that reality. Wisconsin handled a bad team well enough to win, but not nearly well enough to inspire confidence about the Nov. 30 matchup against Minnesota on the road. We will continue to unpack various nuances of that game — it’s not as though next week’s Purdue game will offer a hugely revealing insight into the Minnesota contest — but for now, we can simply assert this basic point: Wisconsin’s level of play was nowhere near what Paul Chryst needs it to be against Minnesota.

If the Badgers play like this against the Golden Gophers, they might not merely lose. They might get run out of the building and feel very dissatisfied about the nature of their season. Sure, Minnesota is impressive (we’ll see if the Gophers beat Iowa; this article was written before the start of that game in Iowa City). If the Gophers happen to beat the Badgers by playing a phenomenal game, so be it. Wisconsin can’t control how well Minnesota plays. Wisconsin can control how the Badgers play, and right now, the Badgers aren’t playing particularly well, especially on defense.

Yes, the offense still needs work. Jonathan Taylor can’t keep fumbling (his fumble at Illinois was very costly). Jack Coan has to be more accurate. The offense isn’t a finished product. Yet, the offensive line is knocking the snot out of opposing defensive fronts. Wisconsin can beat Minnesota based on the way the O-line is performing.

On defense, however? Good luck standing up to Minnesota’s speed at wide receiver or the Gophers’ pace, or P.J. Fleck’s scheme. If Nebraska could bust open big holes; if the Huskers could gain first downs with the run on third and seven; if Scott Frost could make Jim Leonhard’s defense look bad for most of the first three quarters; if a 34-14 lead wasn’t entirely safe (and it wasn’t, not with Nebraska being 15 yards from making the score 34-28); and if the back seven was slow to defend a number of downfield pass plays yet again, how will Wisconsin contain Minnesota’s offense?

That question — as we come closer to Nov. 30 — has to dominate coaches’ meetings. It has to be a central talking point on the practice field. It has to be the topic Wisconsin’s defensive players think about. What happened against Nebraska wasn’t acceptable. Victory can’t allow the Badgers’ defense to ignore that point.

2020 NFL draft: Tyler Johnson scouting report

Everything NFL draft fans need to know about Minnesota wide receiver Tyler Johnson

Tyler Johnson | WR | Minnesota

Height | 6-2

Weight | 205

College Bio Page

Career Stats

Strengths

If you’re looking for a polished and intelligent route runner, you won’t find too many in this class who fit that bill better than Johnson.

He does as good a job of stemming his routes as nearly anyone in the nation. He excels at using leverage to his advantage when creating separation, he can sell his route well, and he has the hand techniques to break free from tight man coverage. Johnson’s shiftiness further helps him out, as he can change direction seamlessly and sink his hips into his cuts very well. He runs his routes with great pad level and can make sudden movements, showing off his impressive body control.

Johnson is also valuable after the catch. A decisive and intelligent ball-carrier, he combines the sharpness in his cuts with his ability to see the field and finds a way to extend the play with the ball in his hands. Though his skill set projects best as a ‘Z’ receiver in the pros, he could play in essentially any alignment and perform well.

Weaknesses

Despite being 6-foot-2 and weighing 205 pounds, Johnson isn’t a very physical receiver. His role in the NFL won’t come as a jump-ball receiver who can outmuscle defensive backs to make circus grabs. He doesn’t box out defenders on 50-50 balls very well, and his ability to make catches is hindered by tight, physical coverage. Though he has shown some promise in breaking press-man coverage, he is going to need to get more aggressive when stronger cornerbacks try to lock him up at the line of scrimmage.

Johnson is a good athlete, but he isn’t much better than just good in that regard. His straight-line speed is passable but not great, and he doesn’t seem to have the raw athleticism to burn cornerbacks on vertical routes. He’ll be able to beat defenders with his shiftiness and football IQ, but he would be even more dangerous if he just got a little bit faster.

Bottom Line

A smooth operator with route-running savvy and skills after the catch, Johnson is a polished and fluid receiver with potential to excel at the next level. He may not reach true No. 1 receiver status on a team, but he’s a shifty target who should make a sizable impact on a team’s offense.

Projection: Round 2

Week 12 CFP Bubble Watch: What rankings don’t make sense?

Let’s start to look at the resumes of the 15 teams still alive in the Playoff discussion. Who deserves to be ranked higher or lower?

Welcome to the Bubble Watch. If you’ve been reading through my Eliminator articles, you’d know that I still count 15 teams with a shot at reaching the College Football Playoff. (And if you haven’t been reading them, please feel free to go back to them.)

Now that teams have played enough games, we can get a real look at every team’s resume. So, for the 15 teams still alive, I am going to present all of the resumes to you. We’re going to look at every resume so that we can compare what positives and negatives each team has. It’s the easiest and best way to understand what each team is bringing to the table in the College Football Playoff discussion.

How this works

Let’s go over what I’m looking at and why.

Quality of wins

For the purposes of determining quality wins, things like Top 10 and Top 25 are arbitrary numbers that do more harm than good. There is no reason the gap between No. 25 and No. 26 is considered significantly larger than the gap between No. 24 and No. 25. Therefore, to counteract this, I am being very lenient as to who is considered Top 10 or Top 25. Any team in the Top 25 of one of the major polls (CFP, AP, or Amway Coaches), or in a significant number of the accepted computer rankings, will be considered in the Top 25 for resume purposes. This leads to the awkwardness of having more than 25 “Top 25″ teams, but it presents a more accurate picture of the overall resume. Moreover, it just makes sense. The committee is aware of who is a good team and what counts as a win of decent quality, even if that team didn’t quite make it into the rankings.

I also split up every game each team has played into different groups. The groupings are important. First of all, I focus on Top 10 and Top 25 wins. These are, obviously, the quality wins. Next, I’m looking for teams in the Top 40. These are solid wins and deserve respect. The next group is teams somewhere between 41st and 80th in FBS. These are mediocre teams–they are games that any Playoff contender should win, but could in theory lose on an off day. Everyone outside the Top 80 is a complete cupcake game, and should be valued as a negative. To determine where each team is and who is outside the Top 80, I use a collection of computer rankings that focus on different things (e.g. Sagarin and Anderson) to get broad perspectives on who is a cupcake and who isn’t.

The selection committee has consistently mentioned “wins over teams with winning records” as an important metric over the past few years, so I’m going to show that to you. It is a less detailed way to view a win than looking at where each win is ranked, but the committee seems to care about it so we have to. I will not count a win over an FCS team as a +.500 win, regardless of record. Again, even though the metric is a stupid one–there are cupcakes with +.500 records (for example, Buffalo or Western Kentucky)–the committee cares about it, so we have to as well.

Offensive and defensive performance

I include the rankings in yards per play of each team. On one hand, the resume focuses on which teams you have beaten, so I stick to only identifying the quality of wins and losses and show you each contender’s remaining games. On the other hand, the committee “watches teams play,” which is really not a quantifiable statistic, but something that we can at least try to get a bearing on. Still, it’s hard to find an offensive or defensive metric that accurately represents all teams and styles of play.
Some metrics will over-value “air raid” type offenses while some will prefer more consistent, but less explosive, gameplans. The rank in offensive and defensive yards per play gives a basic metric of how efficient and/or consistent a team is on both sides of the ball.

SOS range

The SOS range is taken from numerous computer rankings. Ranges can be quite large, especially as different rankings favor different things. They do, however, give a decent picture of the possibilities of how strong the schedule actually is. Keep in mind, it’s still a little early in the season, so the different SOS methodologies could bring up radically different results. Ranges could still be wide in some cases, but in general they should narrow over the next few weeks.

Next… Teams that control their own destinies

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

UGA, CFB Twitter reacts to latest CFP rankings

The Georgia Bulldogs landed fourth in the latest College Football Playoff rankings. UGA checks in as the first one-loss team thanks to their big wins over Notre Dame and Florida. Behind the Bulldogs are in the order: Alabama, Oregon, Utah, …

[jwplayer Cn4kXaGN]

The Georgia Bulldogs landed fourth in the latest College Football Playoff rankings. UGA checks in as the first one-loss team thanks to their big wins over Notre Dame and Florida. Behind the Bulldogs are in the order: Alabama, Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, Penn State, and Oklahoma.

This week the Dawgs take on twelfth ranked Auburn in what should be a defensive battle. Barring a collapse, Georgia is heading to the SEC Championship Game to play Joe Burrow and the LSU Tigers.

Following the release of the CFP Rankings, their were quite a few takes on who should be ranked where. Here’s some of the best ones:

This would be a nightmare scenario for the CFP Committee:

Thus scenario would be even worse if Ohio State lost to Penn State who went on to win the Big Ten.

[lawrence-auto-related count=1]

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Blow teams out

What did we learn from the CFP selection committee’s second rankings? Let’s break down what it all means.

In what is a bit of a first from the CFP selection committee, it actually has a very predictable consistent methodology so far this year. However, it’s not a good methodology, and it’s a trend that’s not a good one. The committee isn’t particularly looking at resumes or strength of schedules. It’s not talking about quality wins or schedule strength. No, this year, the committee only seems to care about how much a team wins by.

Maybe this is a bit of an overreaction based on a small sample size. After all, it’s only the second ranking, and there are potentially somewhat reasonable explanations for all of the rankings. (Well, assuming that “Alabama always gets benefit of the doubt” constitutes a somewhat reasonable explanation.)

Let’s look at it, from bottom to top. SMU–the only team to win but drop out of the rankings–very clearly fell out due to a close win over a bad team. The Mustangs still have a considerably stronger schedule and resume than Appalachian State does. That didn’t seem to matter.

This is the only explanation for both Baylor and Oklahoma being so low. Baylor is one of five undefeated Power 5 teams, and is ranked all the way down at No. 13. Not only is Baylor ranked behind one-loss teams, it’s ranked behind two-loss teams. And, contrary to claims of Baylor having a bad resume (and I’m perfectly fine with the committee punishing Baylor for an atrocious nonconference schedule), the Bears have two ranked wins–more than some of the teams in front of them. Oklahoma also has two ranked wins (and a loss to a ranked team), yet is ranked behind both Utah and Oregon–who combine for zero ranked wins. Rob Mullens did again hint that Baylor was punished for its nonconference schedule, but this message appears clearer.

The committee doesn’t tell us much often. But, for now, at least, the committee seems to have determined that the eye test is king.

Making sense of Alabama, Minnesota, and Penn State

Last week, the committee somewhat contradicted itself with how it ranked Alabama, Penn State, and Clemson. Penn State’s “superior resume” supposedly put the Nittany Lions in front of Clemson, though now it seems far more likely that Clemson was just being punished for a close win over North Carolina. Penn State also has several close wins, but those were all against teams worse than North Carolina.

Alabama, meanwhile, seems to be skating through on the fact that it has blown everyone out. Of course, none of the teams Alabama blew out were particularly good. Alabama has no ranked wins–in fact, this is the first time that a one-loss team has been ranked as high as No. 5 this early in the season without a win over a committee-ranked team.

Minnesota is down at No. 8. The Golden Gophers have–other than LSU’s win over Alabama–the best win of any ranked team. The Golden Gophers are also undefeated, and yet behind four teams with a loss. I honestly have no idea how to explain the fact that Minnesota is behind Utah. Maybe this is just a bit of an oversight by the committee?

Other notes

I said yesterday to keep an eye on if the committee shifts things around, or if teams stay static from week to week. That will tell us if the voters are really re-evaluating from scratch each week, or just moving teams up or down based on who loses.

Well, this week, not a single team is in the same position it was in last week. You would think that’s an indicator that the committee is re-evaluating. Unfortunately, it’s not. 14 of the 25 teams that moved moved only one spot, and all of that was due to teams around them jumping or falling. Minnesota jumped eight spots for beating Penn State, so everyone above Minnesota fell a spot. Penn State dropped, so everyone behind Penn State rose. Wake Forest and Kansas State dropped with losses, so the teams behind them moved up.

No one stayed in the same place, but every team that didn’t lose or pick up a major win stayed in the same relative position. The committee didn’t do any re-evaluating this week. It just took what it had last week, other than teams that deserved major shifts.

Lastly, I should note that the committee is continuing a trend it has shown consistently since 2014. A team doesn’t drop for a close loss to a better team. The example this week is Iowa, which only slid three spots for its very close loss against Wisconsin. One of those spots was Texas, which jumped all the way into the rankings at No. 19 for its upset of Kansas State.

Maybe next week the committee will do more re-evaluating from scratch, and it’s really only the top four that matter anyway. Still, the little we have seen and heard from the selection committee so far this season is not encouraging, to say the least.