The Roast of P.J. Fleck | Pat McAfee Show All Time Moments #1 (8 minute video discussion)

Donate To GopherHole

Pat MacAfee is always welcomed in Gopher Country.

There are many reasons why we must bring Floyd home. The principal among that is to shut the mouth of the pig-style pie-slinging media personalities who despite the Gophers.
 

Some guy said:
And that isn’t why they went to the rose bowl
They went to the rose bowl because Michigan and northwestern both had more recently
Click to expand...
Link?

Regardless, I already conceded that there would be a couple exceptions. Doesn't really matter
 

Some guy said:
And that isn’t why they went to the rose bowl
They went to the rose bowl because Michigan and northwestern both had more recently
Click to expand...

Untrue. Purdue won the head-to-head tiebreaker that year against the other two.

About the only time the "who hadn't been there last" scenario was used was when team(s) tied but had no concrete head-to-head result, or some teams didn't play head-to-head.
 

As to the original post here, that is some lame sports talk. Dropping F bombs and throwing insults is not clever or entertaining. I don't know much about McAfee other than he was has generally been a PJ Fleck fan over the years. That segment was strange all the way around. Is that Iowa dipshit a co-host, or was he just a guest on the show that particular day? What is his role on the show?
 



tjgopher said:
Untrue. Purdue won the head-to-head tiebreaker that year against the other two.

About the only time the "who hadn't been there last" scenario was used was when team(s) tied but had no concrete head-to-head result, or some teams didn't play head-to-head.
Click to expand...
there were literally years where a vote by conference presidents sent a team. If you think it was historically by record and tiebreaks, you’re mistaken
 

tjgopher said:
As to the original post here, that is some lame sports talk. Dropping F bombs and throwing insults is not clever or entertaining. I don't know much about McAfee other than he was has generally been a PJ Fleck fan over the years. That segment was strange all the way around. Is that Iowa dipshit a co-host, or was he just a guest on the show that particular day? What is his role on the show?
Click to expand...
Agree. It's something someone would do out of their garage. Not professional at all. I like Pat from back in '19, but that guy and his sidekick hurling insults that way is just a horrible way to live a life.
 

Some guy said:
there were literally years where a vote by conference presidents sent a team. If you think it was historically by record and tiebreaks, you’re mistaken
Click to expand...

I know the history of the Rose Bowl, trust me. First off, Big Ten teams didn't start going to the Rose Bowl on an annual basis until 1947. Since then, in most years, yes, the Big Ten Rose Bowl rep was based on conference champion, record, and head to head tiebreakers. That is especially true after 1972, when they dropped the rule that there would be no repeat teams, which had been in place for a few years prior. That rule came into play for the Gophers in 1967.

There have been years where the "last to not go" was used as a tiebreaker when there was no head-to-head result or three teams all beat other in a three-way tie, etc. There were a couple of years where presidents or ADs voted, but there were no clear head-to-head winner those years, either. But, almost always, head-to-head has determined who goes to the Rose Bowl in case of ties or co-championships. In other words, the "last no to go" or when presidents or ADs votes, came in years where there was no head-to-head result, or a three-way tied resulted in everyone beating everyone. So, no, I'm not mistaken.

And, to the specific point, the 2000 season, head-to-head was used for Purdue to go to the 2001 Rose Bowl.


Some guy said:
Link? That’s literally how the rose bowl north was decided for decades
Click to expand...

What do you mean the Rose Bowl north? How was it decided for decades? He was specifically asking for a link showing Purdue was awarded the 2001 Rose Bowl based on the fact they were the last to not play in the game, which was your claim. And, I'm quite sure that you will find no such link, because that was not why they got the bid.
 
Last edited:



tjgopher said:
I know the history of the Rose Bowl, trust me. First off, Big Ten teams didn't start going to the Rose Bowl on an annual basis until 1947. Since then, in most years, yes, the Big Ten Rose Bowl rep was based on conference champion, record, and head to head tiebreakers. That is especially true after 1972, when they dropped the rule that there would be no repeat teams, which had been in place for a few years prior. That rule came into play for the Gophers in 1967.

There have been years where the "last to not go" was used as a tiebreaker when there was no head-to-head result or three teams all beat other in a three-way tie, etc. There were a couple of years where presidents or ADs voted, but there were no clear head-to-head winner those years, either. But, almost always, head-to-head has determined who goes to the Rose Bowl in case of ties or co-championships. In other words, the "last no to go" or when presidents or ADs votes, came in years where there was no head-to-head result, or a three-way tied resulted in everyone beating everyone. So, no, I'm not mistaken.

And, to the specific point, the 2000 season, head-to-head was used for Purdue to go to the 2001 Rose Bowl.




What do you mean the Rose Bowl north? How was it decided for decades? He was specifically asking for a link showing Purdue was awarded the 2001 Rose Bowl based on the fact they were the last to not play in the game, which was your claim. And, I'm quite sure that you will find no such link, because that was not why they got the bid.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what year it changed to what. Pre BCS which is 99 or 98? It was decided all kinds of ways. At various times there have been various rules that were completely arbitrary.

For a time it was decided by presidents vote
For a time there was a rule against a team going back to back years.
I was responding to a post saying it was always decided by normal tiebreaker rules so he only recognizes titles of teams who go to the rose bowl. I could be wrong about Purdue in 2000.
 

Some guy said:
I have no idea what year it changed to what. Pre BCS which is 99 or 98? It was decided all kinds of ways. At various times there have been various rules that were completely arbitrary.

For a time it was decided by presidents vote
For a time there was a rule against a team going back to back years.
I was responding to a post saying it was always decided by normal tiebreaker rules so he only recognizes titles of teams who go to the rose bowl. I could be wrong about Purdue in 2000.
Click to expand...

All of that is true. However, NONE of that superseded conference record and/or head-to-head.

It was only decided by presidents vote (1973) or AD vote (1967) when there was no clear head-to-head. Not yearly, not even close.

It has almost always been decided by normal tiebreaker rules. There was a stretch of the 1960s where teams could not go back-to-back years. That came after Minnesota went in both 1961 and 1962. That rule was eliminated in 1972.

Bottom line, the various rules that you are citing only came into play if the normal tiebreaker rules could not determine a Rose Bowl bid. Those rules came into play rarely. Ultimately, the traditional tiebreaker rules historically have decided almost all Rose Bowl bids, especially the past five decades.

All good. Let's hope the Gophers can just win the Big Ten title game and don't have to worry about any of the rules !!
 
Last edited:

tjgopher said:
All of that is true. However, NONE of that superseded conference record and/or head-to-head.

It was only decided by presidents vote (1973) or AD vote (1967) when there was no clear head-to-head. Not yearly, not even close.

It has almost always been decided by normal tiebreaker rules. The rules that you are citing only came into play if the normal tiebreaker rules could not determine a Rose Bowl bid.
Click to expand...
The no repeats rule superseded head to head AND conference record when 6-1 Purdue went to the 1967 Rose Bowl over 7-0 Michigan state and the loss Purdue has was to Michigan state

So to say none of that superseded conference record is just flat wrong
 

Thanks for the info @tjgopher !

Regardless, the Big Ten is never going to retroactively declare that only the Rose Bowl participant was the sole conference champion. It's a moot point on a fringe opinion (mine). :)
 





Some guy said:
The no repeats rule superseded head to head AND conference record when 6-1 Purdue went to the 1967 Rose Bowl over 7-0 Michigan state and the loss Purdue has was to Michigan state

So to say none of that superseded conference record is just flat wrong
Click to expand...

I acknowledged that, there was a no repeat rule for about 7 years in the late 60s and early 70s. Yes. It was noted in my post to you. And, then I said in the past five decades, post-1972, those "other rules" have been superseded.

Why did you take that part out my post you quoted? I literally said what you said.
 

tjgopher said:
I acknowledged that, there was a no repeat rule for about 7 years in the late 60s and early 70s. Yes.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of what gophers4_life and I were talking about?
Because that’s pretty important in the context of what we are talking about.

Ohio state winning the tiebreak in 96 over northwestern without playing them is relevant to the conversation.
Indiana going in 67 because Purdue went in 66 and Minnesota went in 60 is relevant to the conversation.
 

tjgopher said:
There was a stretch of the 1960s where teams could not go back-to-back years. That came after Minnesota went in both 1961 and 1962. That rule was eliminated in 1972.
Click to expand...

I mean it literally right there for you to read.
 

OK.

It's my fault for leading us down this tangent in the first place. My bad 🙋


Going back, when you said "But Kirk ferentz has never won an outright big ten title. So maybe ferentz is a really good comparison if fleck can just get one big ten west title."

I think that is a fair comment, and hopefully we get that in the next couple seasons.

Not saying I think Nebraska is going to start heating up. But if they and/or Purdue and/or ILL under Berty get established ... it's going to be that much harder to win the West. Key window, perhaps it is fair to say, in the next couple years.
 

Some guy said:
Ohio state winning the tiebreak in 96 over northwestern without playing them is relevant to the conversation.
Indiana going in 67 because Purdue went in 66 and Minnesota went in 60 is relevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...

I have no stake in the other discussion. That said, I don't mind co-championships, so I'd be against what he was saying. No big deal.
 

Some guy said:
Are you aware of what gophers4_life and I were talking about?
Because that’s pretty important in the context of what we are talking about.

Ohio state winning the tiebreak in 96 over northwestern without playing them is relevant to the conversation.
Indiana going in 67 because Purdue went in 66 and Minnesota went in 60 is relevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...

The 1967 season was an interesting one. Purdue, Indiana, and Minnesota all tie. All had beaten each other. Purdue went the previous year so they were eliminated. That left Minnesota and Indiana fighting for the bid. Minnesota killed Indiana in the regular season, but head-to-head didn't factor in. So, the Big Ten ADs voted and chose Indiana to go, as they had never been to the Rose Bowl.

Oddly enough, had Purdue just beaten Indiana on the final Saturday of the regular season, the Boilers would have been all alone in first, Minnesota all alone in second, and Indiana would have been third. The Gopher would have gone.
 

tjgopher said:
The 1967 season was an interesting one. Purdue, Indiana, and Minnesota all tie. All had beaten each other. Purdue went the previous year so they were eliminated. That left Minnesota and Indiana fighting for the bid. Minnesota killed Indiana in the regular season, but head-to-head didn't factor in. So, the Big Ten ADs voted and chose Indiana to go, as they had never been to the Rose Bowl.

Oddly enough, had Purdue just beaten Indiana on the final Saturday of the regular season, the Boilers would have been all alone in first, Minnesota all alone in second, and Indiana would have been third. The Gopher would have gone.
Click to expand...
The gophers would have gone
The gophers would’ve gotten the gophers4_life big ten title for going
The gophers would’ve finished alone in second in the conference to Purdue and wouldn’t have been able to claim a conference title for 1967
 

back to the original point of the thread -

this continues to amuse me.

When Fleck was hired, one of his first comments was "I'm not for everyone." Fleck said that up front. He understands that some people are not going to like his style.

and yet, when people criticize Fleck's style, his defenders jump up to object.

I am getting used to Fleck's style. Still don't love it, but I can live with it if the program is relatively successful.

BUT - if Fleck wants to win the B1G West, he has to beat Iowa. It's that bleeping simple. Beat Iowa. Bring the Pig Home.

On the "champions" argument - ran across an article on the 1960 college FB rankings. Missouri was undefeated. They lost to Kansas, which dropped Missouri in the ratings, and the Gophers wound up with the #1 rating. But - it was later determined that Kansas had used an ineligible player, so the game was declared a forfeit and Missouri's record was corrected to 11-0 for the season. remember that the final AP vote was taken before the Bowl Games. Gophers were voted #1 in a narrow vote, but later lost the Rose Bowl.
 

leaving for vanderbilt will 100% never happen, could be the worst p5 job in the nation
 

short ornery norwegian said:
back to the original point of the thread -

this continues to amuse me.

When Fleck was hired, one of his first comments was "I'm not for everyone." Fleck said that up front. He understands that some people are not going to like his style.

and yet, when people criticize Fleck's style, his defenders jump up to object.
Click to expand...

It is one thing to "not be for everyone" and take a little guff from people about your style. It is a whole different level to have a profanity-laced personal attack on a national podcast with a million viewers/listeners. I might add, the attack was filled with inaccuracies and half truths regarding Fleck's success at Minnesota.

I'm not sure what is so amusing to you about it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom