Minnesota looks to stretch bowl winning streak to 9 when it faces New Mexico in Rate Bowl95%

By The Associated Press63%

12/26/2025, 5:35:09 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Anchoring Bias, and Optimism Bias, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 34.8% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 1,315 faulty-reasoning hits from 546 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.2% and a BS Rank of 95% (1,209 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.50% of the article peer group.

Opting out has become the in thing to do. 
Every year, players regularly choose not to play in bowl games, some wary of injuries affecting their pro prospects, others leaving for another school or sitting out after a coaching change. 
Entire teams even opt out. 
Minnesota still finds plenty of reasons to embrace the bowl experience, even when the chase for a national championship ended long before the postseason starts. 
The Gophers are pretty good at it, too, heading into Friday's Rate Bowl against New Mexico on an eight-game bowl winning streak. 
That's the FBS' longest active streak, the longest ever by a Big Ten Conference team and fourth-longest in college football history, three behind Florida State's record of 11 from 1985-95. 
“Our players take the bowl games very, very seriously. They love football, and they want to play football,” said coach P.J. Fleck, who is 6-0 in bowl games and in his ninth season with the Gophers. 
“We take a lot of pride in developing that type of mindset here at the University of Minnesota. I just respect the game wholeheartedly. You want to coach players who respect the game.” 
The majority of bowl games this century have long been second-tier events, and the advent of the 12-team College Football Playoff has further cemented that status. 
The constant December upheaval around the game with coaching staff changes and transfer-portal entries has made the bowls even more of an afterthought. 
But not if the Gophers (7-5) can help it. 
“It’s just another opportunity to spend another month with the guys, and travel, and go to a cool place, spend some time together and celebrate the season that we put together,” Minnesota linebacker Maverick Baranowski said. 
“All the bowls have been a blast so far.” 
Rising Lobos 
New Mexico has gone through three coaches and eight seasons since its last bowl appearance, in the 2016 New Mexico Bowl. 
The Lobos appear to be on the rise in their first season under coach Jason Eck. 
Picked to finish 11th in the 12-team Mountain West Conference, New Mexico (9-3) won nine games for the second time since 2008 and closed the season on a six-game winning streak  the longest since 1997. 
The Lobos set a school record for total offense at 484.5 yards per game and their defense is allowing 113.4 yards rushing per game, nearly 100 yards less than last season. 
“We’ve been able to break down some walls and break down some barriers for the University of New Mexico that they haven’t been able to do for a while,” Eck said. 
Lindsey stays committed 
Drake Lindsey had a solid debut at quarterback in place of Max Brosmer, now with the Minnesota Vikings, as an undrafted free agent. 
The 6-foot-5 redshirt freshman ranked in the middle of the pack in most passing statistics in the 18-team Big Ten, but he had six touchdown passes and two rushing scores without a turnover over the final six games. 
It would have been easy for Lindsey to opt out of the bowl game, but he wasn't having any of it. 
“When you have relationships with the coaches that are so good, and they’re continuing to pour into me, pour into the players around me, it’s an easy decision,” he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.5%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 26.7%The Associated Press: 1.4%MPR News: 4.4%Anchoring Bias26.7%This article: 10.8%The Associated Press: 3.2%MPR News: 6.7%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%The Associated Press: 2.8%MPR News: 4.7%Confirmation Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%The Associated Press: 11.1%MPR News: 25.4%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 3.8%The Associated Press: 1.2%MPR News: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 28.4%The Associated Press: 1.9%MPR News: 7.7%Halo Effect28.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MPR News: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 34.8%The Associated Press: 2.2%MPR News: 11.1%In-Group Bias34.8%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MPR News: 4.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.1%The Associated Press: 11.0%MPR News: 18.5%Negativity Bias8.1%This article: 24.0%The Associated Press: 3.1%MPR News: 8.2%Optimism Bias24.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.0%MPR News: 2.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%MPR News: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%MPR News: 2.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%The Associated Press: 0.4%MPR News: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 8.6%The Associated Press: 2.0%MPR News: 3.0%Recency Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 23.8%The Associated Press: 2.2%MPR News: 6.0%Self-Serving Bias23.8%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MPR News: 2.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%MPR News: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 12.3%The Associated Press: 1.3%MPR News: 5.1%Anecdotal12.3%This article: 12.3%The Associated Press: 3.8%MPR News: 9.6%Appeal to Authority12.3%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 5.6%MPR News: 15.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.6%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 2.0%Bandwagon1.6%This article: 6.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MPR News: 1.3%Begging the Question6.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.5%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning5.5%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.8%The Associated Press: 1.2%MPR News: 1.4%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 1.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.6%The Associated Press: 3.0%MPR News: 5.0%Hasty Generalization1.6%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.2%The Associated Press: 2.8%MPR News: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.3%MPR News: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MPR News: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.5%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%

546 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.