Brewster Contract Extension

BilldGopher

Section 211
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,799
Reaction score
2,871
Points
113
Looks like the contract talks are in the wind according to Kent at the Strib:

"University of Minnesota athletic director Joel Maturi said football coach Tim Brewster has done enough in his two seasons as football coach to warrant a contract extension."

I think this is a good thing. Here's the full story:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/g...8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU

Go Gophers! Beat the Jayhawks!
 


If the reason for the extension is to help recruiting, o.k., but for any other reason this is premature.

The real question is how long do we keep Maturi around? He has all the skill of a solid, but not spectacular Associate AD. The guy is in over his head.

If the goal was to expect more, maybe we should give Brewster the chance to show he can coach with the big boys (he hasn't yet) and consistently deliver on recruiting (he's had one season and while it looked great in Feb, the actually delivered class was not as good as advertised with several key players still pending) before we start giving him rewards for his performance. Rewarding him for going 7-5 after a 1-11 season is only rewarding him for tanking the job in year 1, not for actual improvement in year 2.

At best evaluation at this point:

Coaching: C-/D+ (F for 2007 we should have had at least 4 wins but Brewster's lack of coaching experience was glaring/C+ for 2008 mostly just for convincing Ted Roof to come to Minnesota)
Recruiting: Incomplete (pending completion of this season and the outcome of the missing pieces from last year)
PR for the U: B- (judging this based on attendance and "buzz" behind the team). He clearly is better at promoting the program, although he has not been as successful in selling what he says and you only get credit for results, not effort).

How that translates into an extension, given the stated objective of raising expectations is beyond me, which goes back to the question as to how Maturi is still the AD?
 

After the Mason and Monson debacle, I'm all for being patient. The football program is in a lot better position to win now, then 11 years ago when Mason took over.
 

Caligopher - Maturi is doing a great job. Get a grip on reality please.
 


If the reason for the extension is to help recruiting, o.k., but for any other reason this is premature.

The real question is how long do we keep Maturi around? He has all the skill of a solid, but not spectacular Associate AD. The guy is in over his head.

If the goal was to expect more, maybe we should give Brewster the chance to show he can coach with the big boys (he hasn't yet) and consistently deliver on recruiting (he's had one season and while it looked great in Feb, the actually delivered class was not as good as advertised with several key players still pending) before we start giving him rewards for his performance. Rewarding him for going 7-5 after a 1-11 season is only rewarding him for tanking the job in year 1, not for actual improvement in year 2.

At best evaluation at this point:

Coaching: C-/D+ (F for 2007 we should have had at least 4 wins but Brewster's lack of coaching experience was glaring/C+ for 2008 mostly just for convincing Ted Roof to come to Minnesota)
Recruiting: Incomplete (pending completion of this season and the outcome of the missing pieces from last year)
PR for the U: B- (judging this based on attendance and "buzz" behind the team). He clearly is better at promoting the program, although he has not been as successful in selling what he says and you only get credit for results, not effort).

How that translates into an extension, given the stated objective of raising expectations is beyond me, which goes back to the question as to how Maturi is still the AD?

i agree with the first sentence. hopefully brewster does not blow a 30 point lead at the insight bowl. may have to buy him out;)
 

If the reason for the extension is to help recruiting, o.k., but for any other reason this is premature.

The real question is how long do we keep Maturi around? He has all the skill of a solid, but not spectacular Associate AD. The guy is in over his head.

If the goal was to expect more, maybe we should give Brewster the chance to show he can coach with the big boys (he hasn't yet) and consistently deliver on recruiting (he's had one season and while it looked great in Feb, the actually delivered class was not as good as advertised with several key players still pending) before we start giving him rewards for his performance. Rewarding him for going 7-5 after a 1-11 season is only rewarding him for tanking the job in year 1, not for actual improvement in year 2.

At best evaluation at this point:

Coaching: C-/D+ (F for 2007 we should have had at least 4 wins but Brewster's lack of coaching experience was glaring/C+ for 2008 mostly just for convincing Ted Roof to come to Minnesota)
Recruiting: Incomplete (pending completion of this season and the outcome of the missing pieces from last year)
PR for the U: B- (judging this based on attendance and "buzz" behind the team). He clearly is better at promoting the program, although he has not been as successful in selling what he says and you only get credit for results, not effort).

How that translates into an extension, given the stated objective of raising expectations is beyond me, which goes back to the question as to how Maturi is still the AD?

CaliGopher, I agree with your assessment completely on Maturi. It has largely been President Bruininks that has made the tough calls in regards to coaching changes at the U because Maturi wasn't able to pull the trigger, thank goodness for President Bruininks. I also don't want us to handing out long term coaching contracts prematurely which Maturi has done before that will hurt the university athletic department financially when or if we have to dismiss a coach and pay a large buyout.
 

Quote: "CaliGopher, I agree with your assessment completely on Maturi. It has largely been President Bruininks that has made the tough calls in regards to coaching changes at the U because Maturi wasn't able to pull the trigger, thank goodness for President Bruininks. I also don't want us to handing out long term coaching contracts prematurely which Maturi has done before that will hurt the university athletic department financially when or if we have to dismiss a coach and pay a large buyout."

You guys don't have a clue how things work at the U. No AD in the country can make "tough calls in regards coaching changes" without justifying them to their Administration bosses and getting their approval. AD's run the day to day business of athletic departments but they do NOT have the authority to hire and fire coaches and agree to long term coaching contracts without obtaining higher level approval. That his especially true at the U where President Bruininks is very involved in everything that goes on. For example, Maturi reported yesterday that Bruininks made many calls to him during the Louisville BB game. It is readily apparent that there is not anything that Maturi and Bruininks don't discuss concerning Gopher athletics. If you don't like the decisions that are being made in the Athletic Department, you should be blaming Bruininks as well as Maturi. And believe me, there isn't any AD replacement out there that would be able to operate any differently than Maturi.
 

Why the need to Micro Manage

I'm not sure this reaches the definition "micromanagement" but it sure has some aspects I would expect to find is such a definiton.

At what point would the U be better off going the Vanderbilt way getting rid of the athletic department and running it out of the presidents office? The scale of opperations probably does not compare between the two.

I think we as a "fandom" would think more of Maturi if everything was honkydoree when he arrived, but that clearly was not the case. I think he would be shining in an athletic department that was shining when he arrived.

I'm not certain that he is the leader needed to get this athletic department all shiny. And apparently, in light of the presidential involvement, I'm probably not the only one.



Quote: "CaliGopher, I agree with your assessment completely on Maturi. It has largely been President Bruininks that has made the tough calls in regards to coaching changes at the U because Maturi wasn't able to pull the trigger, thank goodness for President Bruininks. I also don't want us to handing out long term coaching contracts prematurely which Maturi has done before that will hurt the university athletic department financially when or if we have to dismiss a coach and pay a large buyout."

You guys don't have a clue how things work at the U. No AD in the country can make "tough calls in regards coaching changes" without justifying them to their Administration bosses and getting their approval. AD's run the day to day business of athletic departments but they do NOT have the authority to hire and fire coaches and and agree to long term coaching contracts without obtaining higher level approval. That his especially true at the U where President Bruininks is very involved in everything that goes on. For example, Maturi reported yesterday that Bruininks made many calls to him during the Louisville BB game. If you don't like the decisions that being made in the Athletic Department, you should be blaming Bruinings as well as Maturi. And believe me, there isn't any AD replacement out their that would be able to operate any differently than Maturi.
 



Quote: "CaliGopher, I agree with your assessment completely on Maturi. It has largely been President Bruininks that has made the tough calls in regards to coaching changes at the U because Maturi wasn't able to pull the trigger, thank goodness for President Bruininks. I also don't want us to handing out long term coaching contracts prematurely which Maturi has done before that will hurt the university athletic department financially when or if we have to dismiss a coach and pay a large buyout."

You guys don't have a clue how things work at the U. No AD in the country can make "tough calls in regards coaching changes" without justifying them to their Administration bosses and getting their approval. AD's run the day to day business of athletic departments but they do NOT have the authority to hire and fire coaches and agree to long term coaching contracts without obtaining higher level approval. That his especially true at the U where President Bruininks is very involved in everything that goes on. For example, Maturi reported yesterday that Bruininks made many calls to him during the Louisville BB game. It is readily apparent that there is not anything that Maturi and Bruininks don't discuss concerning Gopher athletics. If you don't like the decisions that are being made in the Athletic Department, you should be blaming Bruininks as well as Maturi. And believe me, there isn't any AD replacement out there that would be able to operate any differently than Maturi.

First off, I have a pretty good idea of how athletic departments run, and when I stated that Maturi could not make the tough calls in regards to coaching changes, I wasn't talking about him making a call without the A.D. approval. What I meant was the call to get rid of these coaches was initiated by the Presidents office and not by Maturi which is why I was critical of him as he should have been the one going to the administration stating he wanted to make a change and not vice versa.
 

The point I was trying to make is that nothing will change if Maturi is replaced. It doesn't matter who the next AD will be. Bruininks will be calling the shots as long as he is President of the U of M. It was Bruininks decision to give Mason the contract extension, and by all accounts it was also his decision to fire him after the Texas Tech game. Likewise, Monson was not going to be fired until Bruininks agreed to it. Coaching changes have a huge financial impact and Bruininks is not going to delegate those decisions to anyone else. Despite this reality, I think Maturi deserves a lot of credit for finding and recruiting Brewster and Tubby and making the case to Bruininks that they should be hired. A different AD probably would have gone after different coaches. Who in the Hole thinks we would like them better than Brew and Tubby?
 

The point I was trying to make is that nothing will change if Maturi is replaced. It doesn't matter who the next AD will be. Bruininks will be calling the shots as long as he is President of the U of M. It was Bruininks decision to give Mason the contract extension, and by all accounts it was also his decision to fire him after the Texas Tech game. Likewise, Monson was not going to be fired until Bruininks agreed to it. Coaching changes have a huge financial impact and Bruininks is not going to delegate those decisions to anyone else. Despite this reality, I think Maturi deserves a lot of credit for finding and recruiting Brewster and Tubby and making the case to Bruininks that they should be hired. A different AD probably would have gone after different coaches. Who in the Hole thinks we would like them better than Brew and Tubby?

Could we have done better than Tubby, heck no. Could we have done better than Brewster, yes. I just hope we don't go crazy and give him an extension when he hasn't proved that he can win yet. He can recruit, but so can Charlie Weis but can he win and develop talent, that is the question and until he answers that question unequivocally yes then we don't need to be talking long term extensions.
 

What was Weis's recruiting before ND?

Could we have done better than Tubby, heck no. Could we have done better than Brewster, yes. I just hope we don't go crazy and give him an extension when he hasn't proved that he can win yet. He can recruit, but so can Charlie Weis but can he win and develop talent, that is the question and until he answers that question unequivocally yes then we don't need to be talking long term extensions.

Recruiting to ND is a bit like recruiting to an oasis in a desert.
 



I am in favor of a contact extension.

But only if Minnesota beats Kansas by more than 41 points.
 

Wooooh Nellie! The AD need to use the wait and see approach and see how we fare in 09. Even then he has two more years on his contract and that should not hurt recruiting, especially if we are having a good year.
 




Top Bottom