CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on July 28, 2026, 10:33:34 AM

Title: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 28, 2026, 10:33:34 AM
The AP Poll started in 1936.  From then through 1941 or 1942 the Gophers were really THE dominant team.  

AP Poll NC's, 1936-1942:



AP Poll total Appearances, 1936-1942 (55 total polls):

AP Poll top-10 appearances, 1936-1942 (55 polls):
AP Poll top-5 appearances, 1936-1942 (55):
AP Poll #1 appearances, 1936-1942 (55):


Up until the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor (https://youtu.be/V8lT1o0sDwI?si=-7PmMUgiyoU0lzP-) and for a short time thereafter the Gophers were THE dominant team in the Country.  

Things got wonky for a lot of teams during WWII but most of the top teams got back to being top teams once the war was over, not Minnesota.  Here is a short version of their seasons from 1943-1960:

The 1960 NC is highly dubious especially by modern standards.  The top-6 each had one blemish:


Back then the final poll was BEFORE the bowls.  After the final poll came out:


In a modern context the final poll would probably be Washington then Mizzou then Ole Miss but that is debatable.  What is NOT debatable is that #1 would absolutely not be Minnesota after their bowl loss to Washington.  

The reason I went through all of this is because a lot of people see Minnesota's "NC" in 1960 and assume that they were good up through 1960 THEN fell apart.  My assertion is that the 1960 MNC was both a flash in the pan as opposed to representing sustained success AND highly dubious at least by modern standards.  Thus, Minnesota wasn't good up through 1960, they stopped being a serious contender long before WWII ended and they never really recovered thereafter.  
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: Wildcat4E on July 28, 2026, 10:41:28 AM
Back then the final poll was BEFORE the bowls.  After the final poll came out:
  • Minnesota lost 17-7 to #6 Washington in the Rose Bowl
  • Ole Miss beat unranked Rice 14-6 in the Sugar Bowl
  • Iowa had no bowl
  • Navy beat unranked Army then lost 21-14 to #5 Mizzou in the Orange Bowl
  • Mizzou beat #4 Navy 21-14 in the Orange Bowl
  • Washington beat #1 Minnesota 17-7 in the Rose Bowl


In a modern context the final poll would probably be Washington then Mizzou then Ole Miss but that is debatable.  What is NOT debatable is that #1 would absolutely not be Minnesota after their bowl loss to Washington. 


Wow, that's no less than criminal.  

I just watched a reel that listed 5 teams that will never be what they once were.

Colorado
Pittsburgh
Minnesota
Army
and #1, Nebraska

Tough medicine, but seemed sound.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: FearlessF on July 28, 2026, 10:45:12 AM
I doubt any program will have a run like Nebraska had in the mid-90s
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 28, 2026, 12:22:06 PM
I doubt any program will have a run like Nebraska had in the mid-90s
Bama?

Didn't the Sooners have a killer run with Wilkenson?
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: Wildcat4E on July 28, 2026, 12:24:24 PM
Bama?

Didn't the Sooners have a killer run with Wilkenson?
Far be it for me to speak for the pot-stirrer, but I speak dirt farmer.

I believe he meant from now forward.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: ELA on July 28, 2026, 01:48:02 PM
badge says its because their Nazi NIL pipeline dried up
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2026, 02:12:12 PM
It would be perhaps interesting to note by "era" which team was dominant, of perhaps 2-3 teams.  Not by decade, by 5-6-7-8 periods.

Who took over from Minnesota?  Was it due to a population shift?  Coaching?  Lack of support?

Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 28, 2026, 05:14:09 PM
It would be perhaps interesting to note by "era" which team was dominant, of perhaps 2-3 teams.  Not by decade, by 5-6-7-8 periods.

Who took over from Minnesota?  Was it due to a population shift?  Coaching?  Lack of support?
Well, immediately after Minnesota you get to the WWII teams and that era is a big historical anomaly.  In the final 1943 poll Notre Dame was #1 but they subsequently lost to Great Lakes Naval.  Great Lakes Naval was #6 in the final poll which also included:
In 1944 six of the top-10 were military schools or installations:
Also in the 1944 final poll were:
The war in Europe was over in May of 1945 and Japan surrendered in September of 1945 but the 1945 season had already started by then so Army's 1945 NC still falls in the "War era" from my perspective.  

After that the Irish really took over.  From 1946-1949 they finished 1, 1, 2, 1.  

I think you run into a cherry picking problem after that.  You could avoid that with some kind of rolling comparison where you looked at (per your suggestion) rolling 5-6-7-8 year periods.  

Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 28, 2026, 06:51:04 PM
I love that I've been able to create 5 of those service teams for WNCFG. 

Thanks, AI!!!
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2026, 07:00:26 PM
So, ND kinda knocked Minnie down, somewhat, and then we saw Oklahoma, USC came one, Ohio State never left, then Alabama started up ...I'm sure I'm missing some.

Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: FearlessF on July 28, 2026, 07:11:21 PM
Far be it for me to speak for the pot-stirrer, but I speak dirt farmer.

I believe he meant from now forward.
Ed Zachery


yes, Saban had a run as good - he's the only one since Osborne - really don't think we will see another one but,..........

Curt is gonna try like hell with the Hoosiers
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 28, 2026, 09:28:30 PM
Thanks to the playoff, no one will win 3 out of 4 NCs, no.  Just by sheer statistics, it won't happen.  Playing 3 straight games vs top-10 caliber opponents makes each playoff season unlikely for even the top seed to win it.  Doing it 3 of 4 years?  The math doesn't math.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: FearlessF on July 28, 2026, 11:01:56 PM
1993 through 1997, the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team achieved a dominant overall record of 60 wins and 3 losses (60–3)

3 losses in 4 seasons???

that would be tough
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 29, 2026, 12:24:07 AM
1993 through 1997, the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team achieved a dominant overall record of 60 wins and 3 losses (60–3)

3 losses in 4 seasons???

that would be tough
Sure, but that is far from apples-to-spples.  Nebraska played less high end teams in each of those seasons than a team at that level today would play in the playoffs alone. 

Even on the question of championships though, I generally agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) above. Even if one program managed to field the best team four years in a row the chances that they'd make it through three 12-yeam playoffs aren't very good because beating high-end opponents back-to-back-to-back is pretty unlikely even if your team is the best.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 29, 2026, 12:57:48 AM
I think it's as simple as their great coach left.  He didn't coach there during WWII, and when he came back, it wasn't the same.  

When HCs return to a previous stop, it never seems to go as well as the first time, does it?  John Robinson at USC, Bill Snyder at K-State.  I'm sure there are plenty of other WWII examples like Bernie Bierman, but I really do just think that's it.

It's also a major indicator that a school is actually an elite program vs a one-coach peak when they have multiple elite runs under different HCs.  Minnesota had that from the 1910s-1940ish, but it's simply highly unlikely to continue that forever.  That's a good 30-year run of multiple peaks under multiple HCs.  

Florida had a great 30-year run under multiple HCs, from the early 80s to 2012.  The ebbs are fun, but the flows afterward suck.  From 83-85, the Gators went 27-4-3 under Pell and then Hall.  Spurrier won 102 games in the 90s.  Meyer won 2 NCs.  Hell, even Muschamp had us at #3 going into the bowls one year.  
But that time ended, and it happened to be 70 years after Minnesota's run.  
Nebraska's run was about 30 years, too.  1970-2001.  Only 2 HCs, but both reached the pinnacle multiple times.  Idk, maybe there's something to 30-year runs.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 29, 2026, 07:22:44 AM
I think it's as simple as their great coach left.  He didn't coach there during WWII, and when he came back, it wasn't the same. 

When HCs return to a previous stop, it never seems to go as well as the first time, does it?  John Robinson at USC, Bill Snyder at K-State.  I'm sure there are plenty of other WWII examples like Bernie Bierman, but I really do just think that's it.

It's also a major indicator that a school is actually an elite program vs a one-coach peak when they have multiple elite runs under different HCs.  Minnesota had that from the 1910s-1940ish, but it's simply highly unlikely to continue that forever.  That's a good 30-year run of multiple peaks under multiple HCs. 

Florida had a great 30-year run under multiple HCs, from the early 80s to 2012.  The ebbs are fun, but the flows afterward suck.  From 83-85, the Gators went 27-4-3 under Pell and then Hall.  Spurrier won 102 games in the 90s.  Meyer won 2 NCs.  Hell, even Muschamp had us at #3 going into the bowls one year. 
But that time ended, and it happened to be 70 years after Minnesota's run. 
Nebraska's run was about 30 years, too.  1970-2001.  Only 2 HCs, but both reached the pinnacle multiple times.  Idk, maybe there's something to 30-year runs.
Greg Schiano comes to mind, although the teams he's up against now are far superior to what he was up against in the depleted Big Easy.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: FearlessF on July 29, 2026, 08:24:06 AM
Sure, but that is far from apples-to-spples.  Nebraska played less high end teams in each of those seasons than a team at that level today would play in the playoffs alone.

Even on the question of championships though, I generally agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) above. Even if one program managed to field the best team four years in a row the chances that they'd make it through three 12-yeam playoffs aren't very good because beating high-end opponents back-to-back-to-back is pretty unlikely even if your team is the best.
Ed Zachery
not apples to apples - the game has changed and become much more competitive
Saban bailed out

conference championships for example - winning the Big 10, or Big 8, or SEC or even the Big 12, (5) seasons in a decade was much easier before they had 18 teams
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 29, 2026, 10:25:38 AM
conference championships for example - winning the Big 10, or Big 8, or SEC or even the Big 12, (5) seasons in a decade was much easier before they had 18 teams
WRT Conference Championships I think the bigger change (even bigger than expansion to 18 teams) is the pre/post CCG issue because before CCGs you had split titles.  

For example, during the famed 10-Year-War between Woody and his apprentice the Buckeyes and Wolverines won eight conference titles EACH.  

In that entire 10 years the only outright titles were:

The Big Ten awarded 17 conference titles in the 10 years from 1969-1978.  That isn't just unlikely now, it is mathematically impossible.  Now there are only a maximum of 10 titles to go around each 10 years.  
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 29, 2026, 10:38:21 AM
The Big Ten awarded 17 conference titles in the 10 years from 1969-1978.  That isn't just unlikely now, it is mathematically impossible.  Now there are only a maximum of 10 titles to go around each 10 years. 

The Commish said yesterday that if they go to 24 teams in the playoff that the B1G championship game would go away.

Which would mean... you know.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 29, 2026, 11:20:38 AM
The Commish said yesterday that if they go to 24 teams in the playoff that the B1G championship game would go away.
It doesn't serve much of a purpose even in the 12-team era:
2024:
2025:

It didn't make much difference.  
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 29, 2026, 11:30:02 AM
I think it's as simple as their great coach left.  He didn't coach there during WWII, and when he came back, it wasn't the same. 

When HCs return to a previous stop, it never seems to go as well as the first time, does it?  John Robinson at USC, Bill Snyder at K-State.  I'm sure there are plenty of other WWII examples like Bernie Bierman, but I really do just think that's it.

It's also a major indicator that a school is actually an elite program vs a one-coach peak when they have multiple elite runs under different HCs.  Minnesota had that from the 1910s-1940ish, but it's simply highly unlikely to continue that forever.  That's a good 30-year run of multiple peaks under multiple HCs. 

Florida had a great 30-year run under multiple HCs, from the early 80s to 2012.  The ebbs are fun, but the flows afterward suck.  From 83-85, the Gators went 27-4-3 under Pell and then Hall.  Spurrier won 102 games in the 90s.  Meyer won 2 NCs.  Hell, even Muschamp had us at #3 going into the bowls one year. 
But that time ended, and it happened to be 70 years after Minnesota's run. 
Nebraska's run was about 30 years, too.  1970-2001.  Only 2 HCs, but both reached the pinnacle multiple times.  Idk, maybe there's something to 30-year runs.
I'm sure that is part of it but . . .

Ohio State was one of the top teams from 1936-1942 (see above).  They lost a great coach, Paul Brown*.  The Buckeyes weren't great in the late 40s but they weren't awful and then they took off under Woody starting in 1951.  

*Paul Brown:  IMHO, Paul Brown is the greatest football coach of all time.  The guy was successful at the HS, College, and NFL levels and introduced a lot of things that are still in use today.  He won an NC at Ohio State in 1942 then got drafted into the Navy and coached the Great Lakes Bluejackets during WWII.  Ohio State expected him to come back post-war but he got a humongous (at the time) money offer from the brand new NFL franchise in Cleveland and went there instead.  He dominated pro football in the late 40s and early 50s.  

My point is that Ohio State lost a phenomenal coach to WWII but returned to prominence anyway because the underlying structure remained.  Similarly, Michigan was pretty good from 1936-1942 and roared back post-war.  It seems to me that most of the teams that were very good immediately before WWII returned to being very good post-war but Minnesota simply didn't.  
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 29, 2026, 11:34:14 AM
It doesn't serve much of a purpose even in the 12-team era:
2024:
  • Oregon won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, lost in the quarterfinals to #8 seed Ohio State. 
  • Penn State lost it and got the #6 seed in the CFP, beat #11 seed SMU, beat #3 seed BoiseSt in the quarterfinals, lost to #7 seed ND in the semi-finals. 
2025:
  • Indiana won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, beat #9 Bama in the quarterfinals, beat #5 Oregon in the semifinals, beat #10 Miami in the NC. 
  • Ohio State lost it and got the #2 seed in the CFP, lost to #10 Miami in the quarterfinals. 

It didn't make much difference. 

Just saying that we will once again see co-champs in the conference.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: FearlessF on July 29, 2026, 11:39:02 AM
still much tougher to be a co-chump with 18 teams
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 29, 2026, 11:59:16 AM
still much tougher to be a co-chump with 18 teams
Tougher?  Maybe.  

Much tougher?  I don't think so.  

There are more teams but you aren't playing all of them.  With a nine-game schedule and 18 teams in the league you are missing fully half of them (yourself included) so you could end up with a 4-way tie at 8-1 or 7-2.  One of those teams might not even be all that good, they might just pull off one upset and miss a slew of top teams and get to eight wins mostly by beating up doormats.  
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 29, 2026, 12:31:30 PM
Things look different from year-to-year too now. I don't know who is even on what team anymore. I know 2026 looks to be much different than 2025.

(https://i.imgur.com/qglNK0g.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/0fQRNQI.png)

Iowa and Minnesota will always be on the Wisconsin schedule, so the other 7 games rotate.

No IU, UM, UfO, or OSU this year.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: MikeDeTiger on July 29, 2026, 12:35:25 PM
Things look different from year-to-year too now. I don't know who is even on what team anymore. I know 2026 looks to be much different than 2025.

I don't even know what teams are in the Big Ten anymore.  Have a hard enough time remembering the total number of teams is 18.  

How does the Big Ten make its schedules now?  Front-office fiat decisions every year?  Some rotation schedule?
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 29, 2026, 12:46:19 PM
Rotation teams are home/away over two seasons. Wisconsin has 7 rotation games every year.

There is no rhyme or reason.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: ManHawk on July 29, 2026, 03:04:50 PM
It doesn't serve much of a purpose even in the 12-team era:
2024:
  • Oregon won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, lost in the quarterfinals to #8 seed Ohio State. 
  • Penn State lost it and got the #6 seed in the CFP, beat #11 seed SMU, beat #3 seed BoiseSt in the quarterfinals, lost to #7 seed ND in the semi-finals. 
2025:
  • Indiana won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, beat #9 Bama in the quarterfinals, beat #5 Oregon in the semifinals, beat #10 Miami in the NC. 
  • Ohio State lost it and got the #2 seed in the CFP, lost to #10 Miami in the quarterfinals. 

It didn't make much difference. 
But the winner gets a trophy.  Of course if they get rid of the CCG,  then they both get a trophy.
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 29, 2026, 03:24:02 PM
There is no rhyme or reason.
There is *SOME* rhyme/reason because as you pointed out:
Iowa and Minnesota will always be on the Wisconsin schedule, so the other 7 games rotate.
I think that every team has a few that are always on the schedule.  

I don't know and don't care to look up all the ins and outs but most of the major rivalries will be played every year then each team will rotate through all the rest.  Also, I think the four western teams all play each other every year to minimize travel costs.  
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: MikeDeTiger on July 29, 2026, 03:29:39 PM
I was wondering if everybody had perma-rivals the way the SEC now does, and if the B1G teams have the same number of them, as does the SEC with it's three perma-rivals per team.  
Title: Re: WWII killed Minnesota Football, why?
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 29, 2026, 03:55:53 PM
I was wondering if everybody had perma-rivals the way the SEC now does, and if the B1G teams have the same number of them, as does the SEC with it's three perma-rivals per team. 
TBH, I don't know and don't care enough to look it up.  I don't think it is that many though (except for the Western teams who have each other = 3) because with 18 teams and 3 perma-rivals and 9 games that works out to:
You aren't playing those other 14 teams very often.  

If you have two permanent rivals as @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) stated that Wisconsin does then you get: