IF we finish with only 6 wins....

[Some guy]

More than a snobbish attitude towards sports, it's likely that the lower emphasis on football may well have been for financial reasons. They simply had more pressing needs on campus than to improve facilities and recruiting.

The gophers didn’t have a bad football team every year from 1961-1980

That’s kind of revisionism

From 61-81 the gophers had a .500 or better record in the conference 12 times
From 81-01 3 times

The problems may have started in the 1960s but the issues were not irreversible until the late 70s or early 80s.
The hole to dig out of went from medium to huge when they hired wacker.

Wacker is an inexplicable hire.
I know TCU wasn’t in the best position to win. But they were awful under wacker.
The hire may have been explainable if they hired him as holtz replacement. But by the time the gophers hired him he was a known failure at the D1A level.

 

[disco]

The gophers didn’t have a bad football team every year from 1961-1980

That’s kind of revisionism

From 61-81 the gophers had a .500 or better record in the conference 12 times
From 81-01 3 times

The problems may have started in the 1960s but the issues were not irreversible until the late 70s or early 80s.
The hole to dig out of went from medium to huge when they hired wacker.

Wacker is an inexplicable hire.
I know TCU wasn’t in the best position to win. But they were awful under wacker.
The hire may have been explainable if they hired him as holtz replacement. But by the time the gophers hired him he was a known failure at the D1A level.

I can understand why they hired Wacker.
He was successful everywhere he'd been except TCU.
He was squeaky clean, coming off Holtz' recruiting violations a few years earlier, and the U generally being extremely risk averse.

 

[Some guy]

I can understand why they hired Wacker.
He was successful everywhere he'd been except TCU.
He was squeaky clean, coming off Holtz' recruiting violations a few years earlier, and the U generally being extremely risk averse.

I understand why they hired him too. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it was a terrible hire and was easy to see it was a terrible hire based on the fact he was a big time losing coach at the D1 level.


If St John’s coach went to UCF and went 40-65 would he be “successful everywhere except?”

He was successful everywhere except the most comparable situation

 

[disco]

I understand why they hired him too. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it was a terrible hire and was easy to see it was a terrible hire based on the fact he was a big time losing coach at the D1 level.


If St John’s coach went to UCF and went 40-65 would he be “successful everywhere except?”

He was successful everywhere except the most comparable situation

He was ranked 12th 8-4 and won national coach of the year in 1984. The next year he kicked the slush fund players off, and self reported the violations which crushed the team with probation for the next three years. Now we can debate whether he should have done that or was he just too honest a guy to coach in that era, but that was a big part of why his record at TCU was so bad.

 

[Some guy]

He was ranked 12th 8-4 and won national coach of the year in 1984. The next year he kicked the slush fund players off, and self reported the violations which crushed the team with probation for the next three years. Now we can debate whether he should have done that or was he just too honest a guy to coach in that era, but that was a big part of why his record at TCU was so bad.

He for sure should’ve done that. That doesn’t mean he merited getting a job.

Being a good guy that lost games because of it doesn’t mean you should get a big ten job. Even if you won a division 2 title.


He did have one season with a winning overall record after the situation you just described. He beat texas tech for his best win and ball state for his second best win.

 

[Clairemont Gopher]

That's kind of implying that the higher ups at the U got together in a room and said "nobody will notice if we have a crappy football team now because the Twins and Vikings are here." (rubs hands and lets out an evil laugh.) That's a little tinfoil hat-like.

I do not think Malcolm Moos had one thought about the NFL coming to Minnesota. His sole desire/ambition was to take steps toward making the U into a truly elite public institution. Slashing the athletic budget was one of those steps.

 

[disco]

I do not think Malcolm Moos had one thought about the NFL coming to Minnesota. His sole desire/ambition was to take steps toward making the U into a truly elite public institution. Slashing the athletic budget was one of those steps.

I don't know that Moos goal was to crush football, but I do suspect there were finite funds available to the U, and athletics suffered to fund other priorities. Which is a completely different line of thought, for better or worse.

 

[GoodasGold]

Phoenix isn't ideal but it is warm ...

It’s a desert.

 

[BronkosGhost]

Coyle will probably give Fleck a raise because a rumor spreads that he's tied to some random coaching vacancy.

 

[caliGopher]

That's kind of implying that the higher ups at the U got together in a room and said "nobody will notice if we have a crappy football team now because the Twins and Vikings are here." (rubs hands and lets out an evil laugh.) That's a little tinfoil hat-like.

One interpretation. I'm not suggesting that there was a grand conspiracy at the U. There was a concerted effort to make MSP a Major League city (NFL, MLB).

That coincided with the U driving the bus off a cliff in their righteousness (misguided in my opinion) that sports had become too important.

Two separate events occurring at the same time created the perfect storm during the period between Warmath and Holtz.

No foil hat required.

Evident from this end of history, if you've looked at any of the things coming from the administration at the time about their concerns over sports vs. academics, AND what was happening in the sports market from a professional sports approach.

I can even give you a couple of analogies in the business world of the same thing.

Television: When cable came on the scene, broadcast TV didn't take it seriously. The networks allowed cable systems to buy airtime in their programming to sell the idea that there was a "better option" for viewing TV. By the late 90s, Cable penetration was in roughly 80-85% of US households (TV was in 95% of US households). Viewership became fragmented. Must-see TV was no longer a thing, and the Networks have never really recovered. (Joke's on both of them as streaming buried both of them post-pandemic)

Photography: Kodak - People will never be satisfied with digital images. They want photo albums. Not worried about this "trend" - and we all know what happened to that idea when the iPhone launched.

The U made their valiant stand against sports in the 60's. Other Universities and Colleges did not follow Minnesota's lead. Sports skyrocketed around the U and their stance. We've been trying to catch up for the last 45 years.

 

[walrus]

I don't know that Moos goal was to crush football, but I do suspect there were finite funds available to the U, and athletics suffered to fund other priorities. Which is a completely different line of thought, for better or worse.

I totally agree disco. Every academic program at the U of M probably felt as though they could have used more priority, resources and “love” from the budgets Moos and the administrators gave their departments to work with.