Curt Cignetti

Donate To GopherHole
Gopherchase said:
He didn’t have a horseshoe wedged up his ass like PJ who had no business getting the Gopher job when he did. His FU type personality didn’t help probably and maybe he was like Caruso at St. Thomas just chose to stay at the lower level.
Click to expand...

PJ had no business getting this job? What are you talking about?
 

Gopherchase said:
He didn’t have a horseshoe wedged up his ass like PJ who had no business getting the Gopher job when he did. His FU type personality didn’t help probably and maybe he was like Caruso at St. Thomas just chose to stay at the lower level.
Click to expand...
How did Fleck have no business getting the Gopher job? Successful MAC coaches have been given jobs in this conference time after time, including Jerry Kill.
 








bleedsmaroonandgold said:
It seems like there's a lot of revisionist history with the extent to which Cignetti had some bizarrely elite roster purchased by an outrageous NIL infusion. If that is actually what happened, we should be able to look back at all the preseason articles telling us about what a wildly stacked roster Indiana had and how they were likely to run the table and win the B1G. But I dont remember that being a common take after we saw the roster Indiana was starting the season with.

It feels like in college sports, everyone likes the idea of a team coming out of nowhere to upset the established order and give hope to everyone else waiting for their home run hire to take them to the promised land. But then when it actually happens, everyone looks for ways to invalidate it.
Click to expand...
It’s a talented roster whether people recognized it or not. Cignetti and staff get credit for identifying it and obtaining it, whether it was purchased or not.
 




Unregistered User said:
It would be a good story if the coach wasn’t such an arrogant, insufferable prick.

I do not want them to win another game.
Click to expand...
Gopherchase said:
Would you rather have our guy and our results or their guy and their results?
Click to expand...
I'll take the arrogant coach who can win football games rather than the one who claims it's more important that he runs a life program.
 
Last edited:





One big difference: Cignetti is 64 years old; PJ is 45. Cignetti has learned a lot of hard football lessons over the years and Indiana is probably his last hurrah. PJ, relatively, is still wet behind the ears. At Cignetti's "advanced" age, at JMU and now Indiana, he clearly has settled on a certain style, which is aggressive not tentative. PJ is like the vast majority of coaches: he says often that more games are lost than won, and our team (like most college teams) play around that over-arching organizing principle. It is a conservative principle: Don't make mistakes.

Cignetti, IMHO, is in the minority of coaches who don't organize game plans, schemes, and coaching around the desire to avoid losing. His organizing principle is winning. You game plan, scheme and coach only to win. To defeat brutally any lesser opponent; to win 100% of toss-up games; and to compete at your absolute highest level of potential against top-ranked opponents. That is the only goal. It is a subtle difference in philosophy and feel. But it means he consistently elevates his players to their highest possible potential, rather than sacrificing some upside in the cause of not losing the game. This topic has been debated countless times on GH and many believe that this is a completely phony distinction. Maybe it is, but I believe it 100%.

PJ might well be a miracle-maker by the time he attains Cignetti's age and experience level. PJ is without question a great organization builder. He recruits above expectations for a place like Minnesota. He is a life coach. His work ethic and dedication are, frankly, exceptional. But PJ still believes that the way you coach a mid-level team to consistently play above expectations is to organize around the principle that more games are lost than won ... which means that you game plan, scheme and coach around the "don't lose" philosophy. That is an inherently conservative and tentative philosophy. A philosophy that fails to exploit the full range of roster potential in the cause of avoiding player mistakes. And that philosophy, I believe, subtly bleeds into player and coordinator psychology, leading to a few weird losses per year and a predictable inability to give a true fight to top contenders.

I believe that as the years wear on, and as PJ sees talented teams like this one (which pre-season he thought to be one of his best teams) consistently fail to achieve goals that were well within reach--this easily could have been a 9-3 year--he will move away from the "don't lose games" organizing principle. He will embrace, not just a rhetorical device, but as an organizing principle, his 78% rule. And when he does, he will mercilessly game plan, scheme and coach to achieve explosive plays, to force turnovers, etc. This will require a mid-level team's taking more chances. This will require doing some things that you don't do when you're primary goal is not to lose the game. And when PJ hits that higher plane of coaching philosophy, when he realizes that mid-level teams can't attain outsized gains by playing Tressel Ball, he could become the next Cignetti. All of the package except coaching philosophy is already is place. Just hope he's still here when the epiphany happens.
 
Last edited:

Some guy said:
Everyone would rather have their results

I wish that was an option!
I choose that option!
Click to expand...
Yeah, some on here keep trying to frame it as an either or situation with Fleck or Cignetti.

What Cignetti has done at Indiana is impressive. They caught lightning in a bottle with the right coach, right backing, and a college football landscape that has been flipped on its head in terms of how rosters are constructed and managed.

What is happening at Indiana right now is the exception, not the rule. There was some fluke to last year for them but this season is legit, will be interesting to see if they can sustain it.

And have said it before....would be a massive feel good story if Cignetti was not such an abrasive personality. The fact that some view Indiana as a villain and want to see them lose when it should be a great underdog story is another odd phenomenon of this whole situation.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
One big difference: Cignetti is 64 years old; PJ is 45. Cignetti has learned a lot of hard football lessons over the years and Indiana is probably his last hurrah. PJ, relatively, is still wet behind the ears. At Cignetti's "advanced" age, at JMU and now Indiana, he clearly has settled on a certain style, which is aggressive not tentative. PJ is like the vast majority of coaches: he says often that more games are lost than won, and our team (like most college teams) play around that over-arching organizing principle. It is a conservative principle: Don't make mistakes.

Cignetti, IMHO, is in the minority of coaches who doesn't organize his game plans, schemes, and coaching around the desire to avoid losing. His organizing principle is winning. You game plan, scheme and coach only to win. To defeat brutally any lesser opponent; to win 100% of toss-up games; and to compete at your absolute highest level of potential against top-ranked opponents. That is the only goal. It is a subtle difference in philosophy and feel. But it means he consistently elevates his players to their highest possible potential, rather than sacrificing some upside in the cause of not losing the game. This topic has been debated countless times on GH and many believe that this is a completely phony distinction. Maybe it is, but I believe it 100%.

PJ might well be a miracle-maker by the time he attains Cignetti's age and experience level. PJ is without question a great organization builder. He recruits above expectations for a place like Minnesota. He is a life coach. His work ethic and dedication are, frankly, exceptional. But PJ still believes that the way you coach a mid-level team to consistently play above expectations is to organize around the principle that more games are lost than won ... which means that you game plan, scheme and coach around the "don't lose" philosophy. That is an inherently conservative and tentative philosophy. A philosophy that fails to exploit player full payer potential in the cause of damping down the potential for player failings. And that philosophy bleeds into player psychology, leading to a few weird losses per year and an inability to give a true fight to top contenders.

I believe that as the years wear on, and as PJ sees talented teams like this one (which pre-season he thought to be one of his best teams) consistently fail to achieve goals that are with reach--this easily could have been a 9-3 year--he will move away from the "don't lose games" organizing principle. He will embrace, not just a rhetorical device, but as an organizing principle, his 78% rule. And when he does, he will mercilessly game plan, scheme and coach to achieve explosive plays, to force turnovers, etc. This will require a mid-level team's taking more chances. This will require doing some things that you don't do when you're primary goal is not to lose the game. And when PJ hits that higher plane of coaching philosophy, when he realizes that mid-level teams can't attain outsized gains by playing Tressel Ball, he could become the next Cignetti. All of the package except coaching philosophy is already is pace. Just hope he's still here when it happens.
Click to expand...
Indiana played pretty conservative last night

Not sure why people associate good with aggressive just because
 

Indiana's defense was not conservative, IMHO. It attacked Sayin all night, taking some big chances hoping he couldn't beat a blitz. Very little rush three, drop back eight into a statue-like zone. On offense, Indiana consistently threw downfield, including throwing into contested catch situations. This is aggressive (Gophers 2019) and gave its running game more room. The Indiana game plan, to me, had a different "feel" as to attack and related player confidence than what the Gophers, say, showed to Ohio State. Might just be me.
 


Gophergrandpa said:
One big difference: Cignetti is 64 years old; PJ is 45. Cignetti has learned a lot of hard football lessons over the years and Indiana is probably his last hurrah. PJ, relatively, is still wet behind the ears. At Cignetti's "advanced" age, at JMU and now Indiana, he clearly has settled on a certain style, which is aggressive not tentative. PJ is like the vast majority of coaches: he says often that more games are lost than won, and our team (like most college teams) play around that over-arching organizing principle. It is a conservative principle: Don't make mistakes.

Cignetti, IMHO, is in the minority of coaches who don't organize game plans, schemes, and coaching around the desire to avoid losing. His organizing principle is winning. You game plan, scheme and coach only to win. To defeat brutally any lesser opponent; to win 100% of toss-up games; and to compete at your absolute highest level of potential against top-ranked opponents. That is the only goal. It is a subtle difference in philosophy and feel. But it means he consistently elevates his players to their highest possible potential, rather than sacrificing some upside in the cause of not losing the game. This topic has been debated countless times on GH and many believe that this is a completely phony distinction. Maybe it is, but I believe it 100%.

PJ might well be a miracle-maker by the time he attains Cignetti's age and experience level. PJ is without question a great organization builder. He recruits above expectations for a place like Minnesota. He is a life coach. His work ethic and dedication are, frankly, exceptional. But PJ still believes that the way you coach a mid-level team to consistently play above expectations is to organize around the principle that more games are lost than won ... which means that you game plan, scheme and coach around the "don't lose" philosophy. That is an inherently conservative and tentative philosophy. A philosophy that fails to exploit the full range of roster potential in the cause of avoiding player mistakes. And that philosophy, I believe, subtly bleeds into player and coordinator psychology, leading to a few weird losses per year and a predictable inability to give a true fight to top contenders.

I believe that as the years wear on, and as PJ sees talented teams like this one (which pre-season he thought to be one of his best teams) consistently fail to achieve goals that were well within reach--this easily could have been a 9-3 year--he will move away from the "don't lose games" organizing principle. He will embrace, not just a rhetorical device, but as an organizing principle, his 78% rule. And when he does, he will mercilessly game plan, scheme and coach to achieve explosive plays, to force turnovers, etc. This will require a mid-level team's taking more chances. This will require doing some things that you don't do when you're primary goal is not to lose the game. And when PJ hits that higher plane of coaching philosophy, when he realizes that mid-level teams can't attain outsized gains by playing Tressel Ball, he could become the next Cignetti. All of the package except coaching philosophy is already is place. Just hope he's still here when the epiphany happens.
Click to expand...
Interesting. My guess is PJ sits there at 45 years old with a gazillion dollars in the bank thinking anyone who criticizes him and his philosophy just doesn’t get it. I don’t think he’s smart enough nor will he be inclined to change his philosophies the results will continue to be middling.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Yeah, some on here keep trying to frame it as an either or situation with Fleck or Cignetti.

What Cignetti has done at Indiana is impressive. They caught lightning in a bottle with the right coach, right backing, and a college football landscape that has been flipped on its head in terms of how rosters are constructed and managed.

What is happening at Indiana right now is the exception, not the rule. There was some fluke to last year for them but this season is legit, will be interesting to see if they can sustain it.

And have said it before....would be a massive feel good story if Cignetti was not such an abrasive personality. The fact that some view Indiana as a villain and want to see them lose when it should be a great underdog story is another odd phenomenon of this whole situation.
Click to expand...

Is anyone criticizing Indiana as a villain outside of this website? I’ve legitimately not heard this take anywhere except here and I listen to a handful of national pods.
 

If all of a sudden Ryan Day was magically coach of the Gophers, would he be able to bring them to the lofty OSU heights in 2 years?
Would he magically transform Gopher resources into OSU levels?
 

Gophergrandpa said:
One big difference: Cignetti is 64 years old; PJ is 45. Cignetti has learned a lot of hard football lessons over the years and Indiana is probably his last hurrah. PJ, relatively, is still wet behind the ears. At Cignetti's "advanced" age, at JMU and now Indiana, he clearly has settled on a certain style, which is aggressive not tentative. PJ is like the vast majority of coaches: he says often that more games are lost than won, and our team (like most college teams) play around that over-arching organizing principle. It is a conservative principle: Don't make mistakes.

Cignetti, IMHO, is in the minority of coaches who don't organize game plans, schemes, and coaching around the desire to avoid losing. His organizing principle is winning. You game plan, scheme and coach only to win. To defeat brutally any lesser opponent; to win 100% of toss-up games; and to compete at your absolute highest level of potential against top-ranked opponents. That is the only goal. It is a subtle difference in philosophy and feel. But it means he consistently elevates his players to their highest possible potential, rather than sacrificing some upside in the cause of not losing the game. This topic has been debated countless times on GH and many believe that this is a completely phony distinction. Maybe it is, but I believe it 100%.

PJ might well be a miracle-maker by the time he attains Cignetti's age and experience level. PJ is without question a great organization builder. He recruits above expectations for a place like Minnesota. He is a life coach. His work ethic and dedication are, frankly, exceptional. But PJ still believes that the way you coach a mid-level team to consistently play above expectations is to organize around the principle that more games are lost than won ... which means that you game plan, scheme and coach around the "don't lose" philosophy. That is an inherently conservative and tentative philosophy. A philosophy that fails to exploit the full range of roster potential in the cause of avoiding player mistakes. And that philosophy, I believe, subtly bleeds into player and coordinator psychology, leading to a few weird losses per year and a predictable inability to give a true fight to top contenders.

I believe that as the years wear on, and as PJ sees talented teams like this one (which pre-season he thought to be one of his best teams) consistently fail to achieve goals that were well within reach--this easily could have been a 9-3 year--he will move away from the "don't lose games" organizing principle. He will embrace, not just a rhetorical device, but as an organizing principle, his 78% rule. And when he does, he will mercilessly game plan, scheme and coach to achieve explosive plays, to force turnovers, etc. This will require a mid-level team's taking more chances. This will require doing some things that you don't do when you're primary goal is not to lose the game. And when PJ hits that higher plane of coaching philosophy, when he realizes that mid-level teams can't attain outsized gains by playing Tressel Ball, he could become the next Cignetti. All of the package except coaching philosophy is already is place. Just hope he's still here when the epiphany happens.
Click to expand...

This. Vastly different skill sets and approaches. And that’s “OK”. I admire PJs gifts and he’s a joy to listen to. I’m sure he’d like more NIL support and staff salary but the cart comes after the horse in some cases.
 




Pompous Elitist said:
This. Vastly different skill sets and approaches. And that’s “OK”. I admire PJs gifts and he’s a joy to listen to. I’m sure he’d like more NIL support and staff salary but the cart comes after the horse in some cases.
Click to expand...
He has absolutely enough salary to pay staff. NIL I’ll give you the struggle a bit but staff salary isn’t an issue our two coordinators were analysts a minute ago he pays them plenty. The rest of the staff is full of never has beens and the pay is accordingly.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Indiana's defense was not conservative, IMHO. It attacked Sayin all night, taking some big chances hoping he couldn't beat a blitz. Very little rush three, drop back eight into a statue-like zone. On offense, Indiana consistently threw downfield, including throwing into contested catch situations. This is aggressive (Gophers 2019) and gave its running game more room. The Indiana game plan, to me, had a different "feel" as to attack and related player confidence than what the Gophers, say, showed to Ohio State. Might just be me.
Click to expand...
You again are confusing effectiveness with aggression
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Is anyone criticizing Indiana as a villain outside of this website? I’ve legitimately not heard this take anywhere except here and I listen to a handful of national pods.
Click to expand...
Who is calling him a villain ON this website


Calling him arrogant isn’t an insult. It’s just a fact.
That’s fine. Great season, great coach
 

Gopherchase said:
He has absolutely enough salary to pay staff. NIL I’ll give you the struggle a bit but staff salary isn’t an issue our two coordinators were analysts a minute ago he pays them plenty. The rest of the staff is full of never has beens and the pay is accordingly.
Click to expand...
Yeah…because he doesn’t have enough salary to pay staff….
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom