Reusse: Is P.J. Fleck the answer to lift the Gophers out of mediocrity?

Donate To GopherHole

2nd Degree Gopher said:
Interesting numbers, thanks for the effort. What is the source for the estimate of $1M-$2M in increased annual ticket revenue? Is that the estimate of how much in donations they anticipated that the scholarship seating program would bring in? Do all of your numbers include those donations as "ticket revenue"?
Click to expand...
The source of the anticipated new revenue wasn't indicated in the old media reports but I would assume that is the case.

I don't know the answer to your second question. The reporting that the U makes to the NCAA doesn't break out the sources of what it refers to as "contributions." In the ticket revenue reporting instructions, the institution is directed to report amounts paid above face value for preferential seating under category 8 "contributions" rather than category 1 "ticket revenue."

In 2014, the U had "contributions" of $10,000,000. Today it has contributions of $24,000,000. But "contributions" is a broad category of reporting that includes:

Amounts received from individuals, corporations, associations,foundations, clubs or other organizations designated for theoperations of the athletics program.•Funds contributed by outside contributors for the payment of debt service, lease payments or rental fee expenses for athletic facilities in the reporting year.•• Amounts received above face value for tickets.

There isn't data available to quantify the positive effect, if any, of the scholarship seating program. Its reasonable to assume that some amount of the "contributions" is attributable to the program though.

Overall department revenue in 2014 was $105,000,000. In 2024, that amount was $151,000,000. The practical effect is that the U is generating slightly more overall revenue today than in 2014. However, and curiously enough, the 2024 revenue figure included $50,000,000 in media rights revenue under category 11. The corresponding, but differently labeled category in 2014 reports 0, as in zero, dollars in media rights. If in fact the U was not reporting media revenue in 2014 for whatever reason (the U certainly had media revenue) then from sources other than media revenue, the U is bringing in quite a lot less each year from all categories, ticket revenue included.

None of this takes into account skyrocketing expenses. When all of this is taken into account, its not hard to see why the U and other similarly situated institutions are finding venture capital attractive.
 

swede2 said:
The source of the anticipated new revenue wasn't indicated in the old media reports but I would assume that is the case.

I don't know the answer to your second question. The reporting that the U makes to the NCAA doesn't break out the sources of what it refers to as "contributions." In the ticket revenue reporting instructions, the institution is directed to report amounts paid above face value for preferential seating under category 8 "contributions" rather than category 1 "ticket revenue."

In 2014, the U had "contributions" of $10,000,000. Today it has contributions of $24,000,000. But "contributions" is a broad category of reporting that includes:

Amounts received from individuals, corporations, associations,foundations, clubs or other organizations designated for theoperations of the athletics program.•Funds contributed by outside contributors for the payment of debt service, lease payments or rental fee expenses for athletic facilities in the reporting year.•• Amounts received above face value for tickets.

There isn't data available to quantify the positive effect, if any, of the scholarship seating program. Its reasonable to assume that some amount of the "contributions" is attributable to the program though.

Overall department revenue in 2014 was $105,000,000. In 2024, that amount was $151,000,000. The practical effect is that the U is generating slightly more overall revenue today than in 2014. However, and curiously enough, the 2024 revenue figure included $50,000,000 in media rights revenue under category 11. The corresponding, but differently labeled category in 2014 reports 0, as in zero, dollars in media rights. If in fact the U was not reporting media revenue in 2014 for whatever reason (the U certainly had media revenue) then from sources other than media revenue, the U is bringing in quite a lot less each year from all categories, ticket revenue included.

None of this takes into account skyrocketing expenses. When all of this is taken into account, its not hard to see why the U and other similarly situated institutions are finding venture capital attractive.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the thorough response.
 

TurfGopher said:
uggh Cignetti is the exception to the rule that program ascension doesn't happen over night. Look at Nebraska, Look at Wisconsin, Look at us post Mason. It took us 20 years to get back to middle of the pack in the big ten. We are finally filling up the stadium on a regular basis. The students finally give a damn. I don't like losing to Iowa all the time either but at least our stadium isn't Kinnick North anymore when they come to town. The greed and impatience of the casual fan is so annoying. Glen Mason's best teams had several heartbreaking, embarrassing losses at home. At least PJ's are on the road. Kills teams would lose bowl games to G5 teams every year.
Click to expand...
Cignetti is a unicorn who also got lucky with some NIL, too. Can’t expect other coaches to be him. But in terms of game strategy, you can expect coaches to study deeply what Cignetti does and how he attacks an opponent. PJ likes James Franklin (right down to the haircut). IMHO, junk the modeling onFranklin—shift to Cignetti. BTW, Cignetti started, if I recall, by paying big money to get experienced, canny Coordinators. Smart.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Cignetti is a unicorn who also got lucky with some NIL, too. Can’t expect other coaches to be him. But in terms of game strategy, you can expect coaches to study deeply what Cignetti does and how he attacks an opponent. PJ likes James Franklin (right down to the haircut). IMHO, junk the modeling onFranklin—shift to Cignetti. BTW, Cignetti started, if I recall, by paying big money to get experienced, canny Coordinators. Smart.
Click to expand...
Thing is, Indiana had nothing to lose hiring Cignetti. They had a history of almost total suck. If Cignetti bombed, it's another in a long line of below average Indiana coaches. If the U took the approach of firing Fleck for a Cignetti type hire and it bombed, we lose almost a decade worth of stability and consistency across the board. Fleck is a US treasury note in an environment full of junk bonds. He doesn't produce at a high rate, but he produces at a predictable level.

The U and donors need to step up for that to change.
 


Reusse is ranting on his podcast that he never used the word "mediocre" in the column and the Star Tribune now does "clickbait" headlines like MSN.
 

mngg11 said:
Thing is, Indiana had nothing to lose hiring Cignetti. They had a history of almost total suck. If Cignetti bombed, it's another in a long line of below average Indiana coaches. If the U took the approach of firing Fleck for a Cignetti type hire and it bombed, we lose almost a decade worth of stability and consistency across the board. Fleck is a US treasury note in an environment full of junk bonds. He doesn't produce at a high rate, but he produces at a predictable level.

The U and donors need to step up for that to change.
Click to expand...
We tried a Cignetti once. His name was Brewster. Didn't work that time, as I recall.
 





mngg11 said:
Thing is, Indiana had nothing to lose hiring Cignetti. They had a history of almost total suck. If Cignetti bombed, it's another in a long line of below average Indiana coaches. If the U took the approach of firing Fleck for a Cignetti type hire and it bombed, we lose almost a decade worth of stability and consistency across the board. Fleck is a US treasury note in an environment full of junk bonds. He doesn't produce at a high rate, but he produces at a predictable level.

The U and donors need to step up for that to change.
Click to expand...
PJ is a CEO type coach. A leader, sets the tone, etc. He knows we need explosive plays; he knows we need a positive turnover ratio; he knows field position matters. Always talking about his 78% rule. But he relies on Coordinators to put these things into motion. And those coordinators, in games in which we are at some athletic disadvantage (except annually for Nebraska!) seem to move away from those goals not toward them. We don’t have a talent advantage against several teams. In those games, if PJ actually wants to achieve his 78% thingie, his OC has to be creative not just dial up what the opponents are expecting and have planned for. We will always lose those games if we let the superior athletic team also outthink us. I believe the road to victory in these games is to outthink the opponent; don’t do the expected; try to destabilize the opponents defense, don’t just feed into their strength. Might be something as simple as playing with high tempo. For PJ, the plan in these games seems to be try to hang around and hope the more athletic opponent makes a whole bunch of mistakes. History has shown this is a bad plan against Kirk, Parker, et al.
 
Last edited:

LeftofThaDial said:
Can’t compare the two at all. Brewster hadn’t been a HC before, or since. Cignetti had been a HC for 13 years winning every year from D2, to FCS, to FBS.
Click to expand...
No question about that. But at age 62, he had about as many Power 4 schools interested in him as Brewster did. It was an out of the box hire; Brewster was for different reasons, obviously.
 
Last edited:

Hates Monikers said:
We tried a Cignetti once. His name was Brewster. Didn't work that time, as I recall.
Click to expand...
False equivalence. Brewster was young and had never been a head coach. Cignetti is a seasoned coach in his 60s: apprenticed under some great coaches and was a very successful head coach before going to Indiana. Brewster was in over his head; Cignetti is defining the water level.
 

Two things can be true at the same time: Cignetti can be showing that there is no magical ceiling that historical doormats in major conference are constrained by if they hire the right coach and it is more likely that a school hires the next Fickel or Frost than the next Cignetti.

I would hope anyone making firing/hiring decisions at a middle of the pack (or worse) Big Ten team keeps in mind that Cignetti level success is possible, but it is much more likely to get more of the same or worse. There is a cost benefit analysis to be done there, but it should be done with eyes open in every direction.
 



bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Two things can be true at the same time: Cignetti can be showing that there is no magical ceiling that historical doormats in major conference are constrained by if they hire the right coach and it is more likely that a school hires the next Fickel or Frost than the next Cignetti.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with this about cignetti but it’s also pretty contingent on paying for a team v
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Two things can be true at the same time: Cignetti can be showing that there is no magical ceiling that historical doormats in major conference are constrained by if they hire the right coach and it is more likely that a school hires the next Fickel or Frost than the next Cignetti.

I would hope anyone making firing/hiring decisions at a middle of the pack (or worse) Big Ten team keeps in mind that Cignetti level success is possible, but it is much more likely to get more of the same or worse. There is a cost benefit analysis to be done there, but it should be done with eyes open in every direction.
Click to expand...
One thing about taking a chance on Cignetti: he had an unbroken history of winning big at every level. Prior to his joining Indiana, he had a 119-53 (.770) record as a head coach. In his most recent gig before Indiana, at John Marshall U, his record was 52-9 (.881). At Indiana, in year zero and part way through year one, he is 19-2 (.905). Cignetti is different than most mid-tier B1G coaching hires because he brought along an unbroken history of extraordinary winning records, albeit in lesser leagues. Most "new" coaches the Gophers might look at, I believe, would sport lifetime records winning records that were closer to .550 or maybe .600. If a coach has a lifetime winning record of, say .550, and you put him on a team that has recruiting disadvantages and lower NIL than most of its league competitors, I think it is a truly weird bet to think this coach will, contrary to his history, suddenly "go unicorn" and produce a .750 or higher winning percentage.

PJ's lifetime record as a head coach is 88-61 (.591); his record at the Gophers is 58-39 (.598). PJ embraces the recruiting challenges at Minnesota. I think it would be a bad bet to attempt to escape "mediocrity" by destroying the edifice that PJ has spent 9 years building by hiring a coach with a lifetime winning record at the apparent "mediocrity" level (PJ's: about .600). We'd simply tear down PJ's edifice and spend 5 years re-building most likely the same quality edifice (or perhaps a lesser one). I'd rather first find a way to give PJ more resources: top coordinators and position coaches. Let PJ be what he is best at: a CEO coach dedicated to recruiting, creating program structure, morale building, etc. Let the x's and o's, and game day tactics come from coordinators and coaches who are uniformly committed to achieving PJ'soverarching strategy goals, such as the 78% rule. That I believe is the best way, at this current juncture, to move the Gophers up from "mediocrity" (meaningfully up from a .600 winning record) ... unless there is a coach out there, willing to embrace Minnesota's challenges, who already has a true and proven unicorn-level winning history. Might be worth taking a chance on that guy.
 
Last edited:

Gophergrandpa said:
One thing about taking a chance on Cignetti: he had an unbroken history of winning big at every level. Prior to his joining Indiana, he had a 119-53 (.770) record as a head coach. In his most recent gig before Indiana, at John Marshall U, his record was 52-9 (.881). At Indiana, in year zero and part way through year one, he is 19-2 (.905). Cignetti is different than most mid-tier B1G coaching hires because he brought along an unbroken history of extraordinary winning records, albeit in lesser leagues. Most "new" coaches the Gophers might look at, I believe, would sport lifetime records winning records that were closer to .550 or maybe .600. If a coach has a lifetime winning record of, say .550, and you put him on a team that has recruiting disadvantages and lower NIL than most of its league competitors, I think it is a truly weird bet to think this coach will, contrary to his history, suddenly "go unicorn" and produce a .750 or higher winning percentage against B1G rivals.

PJ's lifetime record as a head coach is 88-61 (.591); his record at the Gophers is 58-39 (.598). PJ embraces the recruiting challenges at Minnesota. I think it would be a bad bet to attempt to escape "mediocrity" by destroying the edifice that PJ has spent 9 years building by hiring a coach with a lifetime winning record at the apparent "mediocrity" level (PJ's: about .600). We'd simply tear down PJ's building and spend 5 years building most likely the same structure (or perhaps a lesser one). I'd find a way to give PJ more resources: top coordinators and position coaches. Let PJ be waht he is best at: recruiting, creating program structure, morale building, etc. Let the x's and o's, and game day tactics come from coordinators and coaches who are uniformly committed to PJ's his overarching strategy goals, such as the 78% rule. That is the best way, at this current juncture, to. ove up from mediocrity ... unless there is a coach out there, willing to embrace Minnesota, who already has a true unicornwinning history.
Click to expand...
It is pretty interesting to look at.

Wacker won 40% of his games at TCU
29% af Minnesota


Mason won at Kansas at a clip of 46%
At Minnesota won at 53% but starting in 2001 the schedule went from 11 to 12 games to provide him with an extra 6 wins.
Take out the schedule expansion and the win percentage was 1 win over 50%

Brewster had never been a head coach.
Won 33% of his games at Mn

Kill won 59% at northern Illinois.
Won 50% at Minnesota


The winning percentage hasn’t varied by more than 11% since the 1990s from what you’re buying.

So you want a coach who’s won 90% at the last stop so you win between 80-100% of your games 😎
 

TurfGopher said:
uggh Cignetti is the exception to the rule that program ascension doesn't happen over night. Look at Nebraska, Look at Wisconsin, Look at us post Mason. It took us 20 years to get back to middle of the pack in the big ten. We are finally filling up the stadium on a regular basis. The students finally give a damn. I don't like losing to Iowa all the time either but at least our stadium isn't Kinnick North anymore when they come to town. The greed and impatience of the casual fan is so annoying. Glen Mason's best teams had several heartbreaking, embarrassing losses at home. At least PJ's are on the road. Kills teams would lose bowl games to G5 teams every year.
Click to expand...

I agree with your first sentence but when did one of Kill's (or Claeys') Minnesota teams lose to a G5 team in a bowl?

Kill's Minnesota teams lost to Texas Tech, Syracuse, and Missouri in bowls. Claeys won both of his bowl games (one against a G5 team). Kill may have lost to a G5 team in a bowl but that's when he coached a G5 team.

Answers to questions like these are at your fingertips and easily retrievable.
 

Hates Monikers said:
No question about that. But at age 62, he had about as many Power 4 schools interested in him as Brewster did. It was an out of the box hire; Brewster was for different reasons, obviously.
Click to expand...

I've always thought of Cignetti as the football comparable to Bo Ryan at Wisconsin. They were both older and very experienced head coaches (although Ryan was still in his fifties when he became Wisconsin's coach) who had a great track record at lower-level programs.

It's not a bad way to hire but I still think there will be multiple less successful coaches who are hired that way for every Cignetti or Ryan who is hired.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom