OutKick97%

Rate Bowl Total Has Fallen A Bit Too Far83%

By David Troy0%

12/26/2025, 7:25:56 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Special Pleading, and Anchoring Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 13.8% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 868 faulty-reasoning hits from 608 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.5% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,830 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.50% of the article peer group.

New Mexico vs. Minnesota, 4:30 ET 
I have some good news, and I have some bad news. 
Let's start with the bad news. 
The bad news is that I am not going to continue the march towards writing an article for every single bowl game. 
I looked at the schedule, and it just won't work with the other commitments and what needs to be covered. 
The good news is, I am still going to provide some plays for games, and may even try to write one article covering each game. 
So, some articles might have two or three plays rather than focus on just one game. 
For today, I'm skipping the opener and going with the second game on the docket as New Mexico takes on Minnesota in the Rate Bowl. 
New Mexico put together a nice campaign and is looking to cap it off here with a win. 
They were 9-3 for the season, but did they really play anyone of significance? 
There were a couple of teams on the schedule that were at least decent. 
They lost their first game of the season as they had to head to Michigan. 
The Wolverines proved too much for the Lobos and dropped them 34-17. 
In what might be one of their more impressive wins, they went on the road to UCLA and beat the Bruins 35-10. 
Their other two losses were conference losses as they fell to San Jose State and Boise State in back-to-back weeks, both road games as well. 
Since that point, they ended the season with six straight wins, with them being a mixture of dominant and close games. 
It appears that the Lobos will have all of their key players, with no one significant missing the game that hasn't already missed time for New Mexico. 
Minnesota had a bit of a tougher year in terms of their record, but in fairness to them, they also had a tougher schedule. 
They opened their seasons with fairly easy victories over Buffalo and Northwestern State. 
Their first loss came at the hands of California as they had to travel to play them. 
After beating Rutgers in grind-it-out game, they were demolished by Ohio State. 
Another two wins over Purdue and Nebraska took them to a showdown with Iowa. 
It appears that the Golden Gophers barely bothered getting off of the bus for that one as they fell 41-3. 
They beat Michigan State in overtime, then lost their next two games as they were blown out by Oregon, and loss a tough one to Northwestern 38-35. 
All of their losses came on the road, for whatever that is worth to you. 
Their final game was against Wisconsin and they did win that one. 
The Golden Gophers missing their second leading running back sounds bad, but the reality is that a lot of running backs, aside from the truly elite, are interchangable. 
So, I look at this team as basically full strength. 
When they lose, they tend to lose badly, but I don't think New Mexico can be put in the same category as Oregon, Ohio State, or even Iowa. 
I do think they are live dogs, but that's not saying much as this has already dropped to be about a pick'em. 
I think the total has dropped too much at this point, though. 
Back over 42.5 in this one. 
Both have capable offenses and defenses that are adequate but won't completely shut anyone down. 
For more sports betting information and plays, follow David on X/Twitter: @futureprez2024 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%David Troy: 1.6%Outkick: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias9.6%This article: 10.6%David Troy: 7.6%Outkick: 1.9%Anchoring Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 2.4%Outkick: 5.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 1.1%Outkick: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%David Troy: 10.2%Outkick: 8.8%Confirmation Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.8%David Troy: 20.5%Outkick: 12.5%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 7.5%David Troy: 3.9%Outkick: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.5%This article: 3.8%David Troy: 5.2%Outkick: 5.2%Halo Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 5.4%Outkick: 1.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%David Troy: 0.7%Outkick: 1.3%Horn Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.7%Outkick: 5.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 1.3%Outkick: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%David Troy: 8.4%Outkick: 12.8%Negativity Bias2.4%This article: 11.9%David Troy: 6.0%Outkick: 4.4%Optimism Bias11.9%This article: 4.8%David Troy: 0.5%Outkick: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.8%This article: 8.5%David Troy: 13.9%Outkick: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 2.0%Outkick: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%David Troy: 0.3%Outkick: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.0%This article: 5.6%David Troy: 6.3%Outkick: 3.4%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 3.8%David Troy: 5.8%Outkick: 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 9.2%David Troy: 8.0%Outkick: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 1.6%Outkick: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.4%Outkick: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.3%Outkick: 4.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 9.6%David Troy: 1.5%Outkick: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 2.1%Outkick: 4.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 2.0%David Troy: 3.0%Outkick: 3.6%Appeal to Authority2.0%This article: 3.4%David Troy: 1.5%Outkick: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion3.4%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 1.0%Outkick: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.4%David Troy: 2.6%Outkick: 1.7%Begging the Question2.4%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.5%Outkick: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.5%Outkick: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.5%Outkick: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.1%Outkick: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.6%David Troy: 11.4%Outkick: 11.5%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 2.6%David Troy: 0.3%Outkick: 0.2%Middle Ground2.6%This article: 4.8%David Troy: 0.5%Outkick: 0.4%No True Scotsman4.8%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.5%Outkick: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 4.8%Outkick: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 1.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 11.4%David Troy: 7.3%Outkick: 1.0%Special Pleading11.4%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%David Troy: 0.0%Outkick: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%

586 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.