A Different Way To Look At It

[BreakTheGopherCurse]

Although wins and losses are very important, and we expect to see progress most if not every year, there is more than one formula I imagine to becoming a Rose Bowl caliber team for several years in a row. One theory is that our coach needs to look and feel like Barry Alvarez. That is, take a few years to "get it rolling", and then by year 3, 4 or 5 start contending for the conference championship for several years in a row.

Another theory may be "continuity" and "longevity". Although I don't believe Mason would've ever gotten us to the next level, his continuity and presence brought stability to the program that allowed us to start bringing in some great players every year. We all know he couldn't build a defense for some strange reason, and we all know he seemed "frightened" on the sideline whenever we were in a close game and the other team was marching down the field. Personally speaking, I enjoyed a lot of the Mason era even though I was often heartbroken. We saw some pretty good offensive football, I thought.

People on this board should at least begin discussing the wisdom of taking the time-line off of Brewster's tenure. Perhaps if we thought in terms of 10, 15 or 20 years, we might end up in a better place. Given Brewster's personality, dearth of head coaching experience, the always-present dilemma that takes place in recruiting when you "start over", and the low probability of attracting a "big time" head coach to Minnesota, maybe we should think long-term for Brewster (assuming of course we believe that given 10 years plus he would become a formidable Big Ten head coach). We all know "turnover" (no pun intended) sucks and can cause a lot of problems.

Brewster brought more enthusiasm to the job and the program than any person then-affiliated with the team, including Maturi. But it seems like we've sucked the life right out of the guy. Had he known and felt from the beginning that the University was committed to him long term, and had he had a little more support from the media, etc., who knows where that unbridled enthusiasm would've taken him/us. Instead, I'll bet that he just wants to get the hell out of here unless he happens to have a spectacular year this year.

In other words, is it time in this society to start thinking about changing the paradigm for how we evaluate a head coach?

 

[frozengopher]

Excellent post, unfotunately too much common sense in this one for many on this site.

Given Brewster's personality, dearth of head coaching experience, the always-present dilemma that takes place in recruiting when you "start over", and the low probability of attracting a "big time" head coach to Minnesota, maybe we should think long-term for Brewster (assuming of course we believe that given 10 years plus he would become a formidable Big Ten head coach). We all know "turnover" (no pun intended) sucks and can cause a lot of problems.

This is a really important point. We can't start over every 5 years. We will be a middling to worse team forever with this mentality.

Instead, I'll bet that he just wants to get the hell out of here unless he happens to have a spectacular year this year.

Unfortunately, I fear with any modicum of success, Brew will bolt for greener pastures because of these same circumstances.

 

[gold04]

I think Brewster will have this year and next to show the world he can be a good head football coach. We would need a disastrous season in order for Brewster not to be back for next year. I really believe you need to win a Big Ten championship in your first five years in coaching or you never will. OSU's old coach is the only one to buck this trend in the last 40 to 50 years.

If we are stuck in medocrity these next two years then it is time to cut your losses and move on. I think five years is plenty of time for a coach to show the world what he can do. So far Brewster hasn't showed the world much. He's just had wins over average to below average teams. Playing against so many good teams this year would be the perfect situation for Brewster to show the world he can win big games. I hope he does but time will only tell.

 

[Tater]

I tend to agree with the sentiments of the poster that we should stick with Brew a few years longer. With Mason, after 9 to 10 years we pretty much knew what we were getting and, more importantly, not getting. Mason did a nice job building an identity and making us respectable but he shot himself in the foot by being complacent and not hussling for recruits. His supposedly poor relationship with local coaches just boggled my mind. I really wish Mason had a Brewster-like assistant coach with strong recruiting skills.

I don't mean to turn this into a Mason vs. Brewster thread. Say what you want about Mason, but I think he was a known entity and the jury is still out on Brewster. Coaching skill/knowledge-wise, Brewster should have nowhere to go but up as he continues to gain experience. His recruiting has been consistently decent. That being said, he has two big red flags: (1) lack of wins against rivals; and (2) end of season collapses. As long as he starts to improve on those two issues in the short term, he should be kept around.

 

[Rog]

Excellent

Good!!

If one looks at the big picture and takes into account all the pluses and minuses, our best avenue for success is giving Brewster the same amount of time we gave mason. If we don't, no good coach out there would take this job with our history of turning over coaches.

 

[RodentRampage]

I don't know if I'd give him 10 years, but pulling the plug after 4 probably would be a mistake. It would make good coaches reluctant to come here. Some people say "well, a top team would pull the plug, and if we want to be a top team, we should act like one." That's like saying "I want to be rich. Rich people drive expensive cars, go on vacation to exotic locales and eat at 5 star restuarants. If I want to be rich, I should do the same."