Smith's diving TD catch in overtime sends Minnesota to win over New Mexico in Rate Bowl80%

By The Associated Press65%

12/27/2025, 3:15:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Framing Effect, and Self-Serving Bias, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 29% saturation with 170 hits. Analysis detected 911 faulty-reasoning hits from 586 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.4% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,262 of 20,369 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

Phoenix 
Minnesota thrives in an era of bowl opt-outs, even when a national championship is out of reach. 
These Golden Gophers dig the postseason. 
Jalen Smith scored his second touchdown on a diving 12-yard catch in the first overtime and Minnesota extended its postseason winning streak to nine games with a 20-17 win over New Mexico in the Rate Bowl on Friday. 
Minnesota’s bowl winning streak  seven straight under coach P.J. Fleck  matches Southern California and Utah for second-longest all-time, behind Florida State’s 11 in a row from 1985-95. 
“It’s all about the players  the resolve, the resiliency, the scrap they have,” Fleck said. 
“I’m proud to be their coach for what they’ve done and what they continue to do.” 
A year after Kansas State beat Rutgers 44-41 in the Rate Bowl, the 2025 version turned defensive in the desert  until a flurry early in the fourth quarter. 
Minnesota (8-5) went up 14-6 when Darius Taylor scored on a 5-yard touchdown run, but Damon Bankston returned the ensuing kickoff 100 yards for a touchdown. 
New Mexico's 2-point conversion on a trick play tied the game at 14-all. 
The teams returned to trading punts, sending the game to overtime at Chase Field, home of baseball’s Arizona Diamondbacks. 
New Mexico (9-4) failed to get a first down on the opening possession and Luke Drzewiecki kicked a 36-yard field goal. 
The Gophers and their fans then got to celebrate Smith’s spectacular touchdown twice  once live, the other after an official review confirmed the catch. 
“Obviously, we didn’t start the way we wanted, but we battled,” said Minnesota quarterback Drake Lindsey, who threw for 147 yards and two touchdowns. 
“We had to battle back all season and we did it again.” 
New Mexico had its chances and took a couple more that failed. 
It didn’t work out, but the Lobos took quite a step forward in coach Jason Eck’s first season. 
A team picked to finish 11th in the 12-team Mountain West Conference, New Mexico went undefeated at home for the first time since 1962, beat a Power Four team (UCLA) for the first time since 2007 and played in a bowl game outside of Albuquerque for the first time since 2004. 
“I’m proud of all those things this team did,” Eck said. 
“In terms of toughness, we showed that we always respond and we did that again tonight.” 
The Lobos earned a spot in their first bowl game since the 2016 New Mexico Bowl behind a vastly improved defense. 
Fourth-worst in the FBS a year ago, New Mexico climbed to No. 49 this season, allowing about 222 yards less in total defense. 
The Lobos shut down Minnesota for most of the first half, recovering a botched snap on a midfield fourth-and-1 attempt and holding the Gophers to 112 first-half yards. 
Minnesota finally found an offensive rhythm late in the half, moving 75 yards in nine plays on a drive capped by Lindsey's rainbow 10-yard touchdown pass to Smith in the back corner of the end zone. 
Minnesota’s defense wasn’t bad, either. 
The Gophers allowed two drives deep into their own end, but stiffened when they needed to, holding New Mexico to two field goals and 124 total yards for a 7-6 halftime lead. 
“They have some really good players and a really good scheme,” Eck said. 
“They know who they are.” 
And they know how to play in the postseason. 
The Gophers open the 2026 season at home against Eastern Illinois on Sept. 3. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.5%Actor-Observer Bias4.1%This article: 29.0%The Associated Press: 1.5%MPR News: 4.4%Anchoring Bias29.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.3%MPR News: 6.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.9%MPR News: 4.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 22.0%The Associated Press: 11.7%MPR News: 25.4%Framing Effect22.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MPR News: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 18.8%The Associated Press: 2.0%MPR News: 7.7%Halo Effect18.8%This article: 2.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MPR News: 1.8%Hindsight Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 23.4%The Associated Press: 2.3%MPR News: 11.1%In-Group Bias23.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MPR News: 4.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.0%The Associated Press: 11.2%MPR News: 18.5%Negativity Bias2.0%This article: 12.1%The Associated Press: 3.1%MPR News: 8.2%Optimism Bias12.1%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: 1.9%MPR News: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%MPR News: 2.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MPR News: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%The Associated Press: 2.0%MPR News: 3.0%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 8.7%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic8.7%This article: 21.7%The Associated Press: 2.3%MPR News: 6.0%Self-Serving Bias21.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MPR News: 2.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%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: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.4%MPR News: 5.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.9%MPR News: 9.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 5.7%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: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 2.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MPR News: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%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: 1.5%The Associated Press: 3.1%MPR News: 5.0%Hasty Generalization1.5%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: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.0%MPR News: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%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%

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.