brewster's contract (non)extension...

[dinkything]

don't know if anyone read sid's column yesterday, but with the economy in the tank, bob bruiniks has had to make some tough decisions at the 'u,' including the shelving of plans to extend contracts, etc.

sounds like brewster and his assistants will have to do without a contract extension heading into the 2009 season...

the silver lining in this economic gloom? joel maturi will have at least another year with which to evaluate bewster and his bottom-line performance, without any added financial risk to the 'u'

the fortuitous timing of bruiniks' decision provides 'cover,' and presumably a sense of relief, for maturi as we look ahead to the 2009 season...

if the gophers finish in the top 4 of the big 11 (i.e. alamo bowl or better), and if the economy begins to trend upward, then brewster should have his contract extension 12 months from today...

if the gophers are home for the holidays for the 2nd time in 3 years, then maturi hopefully has his list of replacement head coaching candidates updated in his desk drawer, with his own 'killer shot' at the top of that list...

if the gophers go to a minor bowl, then maturi has a tough decision to make next year in terms of whether to buy out the remaining 2 years of brewster's contract, or to accept an environment of declining standards and expectations at the bierman complex...

 

[grunkiejr]

First, how is going to a minor bowl game "declining standards and expectations at Bierman?" Did I miss something? Were we going to major bowl games?

Do you really think going to a minor bowl game next year would make Maturi consider firing Brewster? I'll tell you right now that if we win 6+ games (the required minimum for a bowl game) Brewster will not be fired.

A head coach coming in to a program--especially a non top-tier program--deserves 5 years. It is unfair to a coach to judge him on W/L's from inheriting a bare cupboard and you have to give a coach 5 years to stock the cupboard and see what he can do with his players. We can judge more in year 3 than year 1 but he is still relying on recruits from 2005-2007 as his upperclassmen which means his players are still underclassmen.

I was agreeing with what you wrote until you took the ridiculous turn at the end.

 

[Go Gophers Rah]

if the gophers are home for the holidays for the 2nd time in 3 years, then maturi hopefully has his list of replacement head coaching candidates updated in his desk drawer, with his own 'killer shot' at the top of that list...

if the gophers go to a minor bowl, then maturi has a tough decision to make next year in terms of whether to buy out the remaining 2 years of brewster's contract, or to accept an environment of declining standards and expectations at the bierman complex...

Normally, I'd agree with this. However, 2009 (or 2010 for that matter) are not "normal" schedules when viewed beside our schedules of the previous 10-years. I tend to look at the conference record instead of an overall record. Here are my expectations:

In a building year (such as 2007 and maybe 2008): at least two conference wins
In a solid year (which should be 2009): at least 3 or 4 conference wins
In a year with a great upper-class (which should be 2010): at least 5 conference wins

With that, I would say that a minor bowl in 2009 (while not ideal) might be acceptable if we are competeive in our losses.

 

[dinkything]

First, how is going to a minor bowl game "declining standards and expectations at Bierman?" Did I miss something? Were we going to major bowl games?

Do you really think going to a minor bowl game next year would make Maturi consider firing Brewster? I'll tell you right now that if we win 6+ games (the required minimum for a bowl game) Brewster will not be fired.

A head coach coming in to a program--especially a non top-tier program--deserves 5 years. It is unfair to a coach to judge him on W/L's from inheriting a bare cupboard and you have to give a coach 5 years to stock the cupboard and see what he can do with his players. We can judge more in year 3 than year 1 but he is still relying on recruits from 2005-2007 as his upperclassmen which means his players are still underclassmen.

I was agreeing with what you wrote until you took the ridiculous turn at the end.

grunkie-
is there a point at which the 2009 season falls so short of expectations...that maturi begins to look elsewhere?
and secondly, what if maturi does have his 'killer shot' waiting in the wings?

 

[16FeetUnder]

A head coach coming in to a program--especially a non top-tier program--deserves 5 years. It is unfair to a coach to judge him on W/L's from inheriting a bare cupboard and you have to give a coach 5 years to stock the cupboard and see what he can do with his players. We can judge more in year 3 than year 1 but he is still relying on recruits from 2005-2007 as his upperclassmen which means his players are still underclassmen.

I would add to this that if you plan to keep a coach on for 5 years, extending him this year is considerably cheaper than extending him next year. Next year, we MUST extend him and Brewster knows it. That puts the U in a much worse position as far as offering salaries/buyouts.

 

[grunkiejr]

grunkie-
is there a point at which the 2009 season falls so short of expectations...that maturi begins to look elsewhere?
and secondly, what if maturi does have his 'killer shot' waiting in the wings?

Is this you Cor?

Personally, I don't know if there is a number of wins/losses but you also have to look at the bigger picture.

Obviously if we take a step back and don't win a game or only win one game and were constantly taking Iowa type beatings that is one thing. However, if we're in every game and end up only winning 4 games I don't think Maturi will make a move but he also won't give Brewster an extension. However, if we only win 4 games but our grades go to crap or our program becomes Iowa North with a new player getting arrested on a regular basis that means something entirely different. To me, if you fire a coach after he serves 3 years of a 5 year contract (implied time period to "turn the program around" when he was hired) when the program doesn't have off the field problems I think it is hard to attract other great coaches. The only way to get around the difficulty of attracting coaches is to pay SEC type of money and the U of M athletic dept can't afford to do that.

 

[dinkything]

Normally, I'd agree with this. However, 2009 (or 2010 for that matter) are not "normal" schedules when viewed beside our schedules of the previous 10-years. I tend to look at the conference record instead of an overall record. Here are my expectations:

In a building year (such as 2007 and maybe 2008): at least two conference wins
In a solid year (which should be 2009): at least 3 or 4 conference wins
In a year with a great upper-class (which should be 2010): at least 5 conference wins

With that, I would say that a minor bowl in 2009 (while not ideal) might be acceptable if we are competeive in our losses.

ggr-
then perhaps there is an expectations issue...
i wasn't the biggest fan of glen mason, although he won my respect grudgingly by engineering 3 incredible turnaround projects while at kent state, kansas, and minnesota...
when he was fired after going 38-25 with 5 bowl appearances in his final 5 seasons at the 'u,' many, including me, were anticipating a head coaching upgrade...

so far, i must admit i haven't seen the upgrade, and i fundamentally disagree that he inherited a program on the ropes...

is it possible to determine that the gophers do not have that upgrade when the final 2009 tally is in? if so, what would that tally have to be? 5-7? 4-8? or worse?

 

[16FeetUnder]

is it possible to determine that the gophers do not have that upgrade when the final 2009 tally is in? if so, what would that tally have to be? 5-7? 4-8? or worse?

dkt -
What tally would it take for you to believe we do have that upgrade? 11-1, 12-0, 13-0 and another NC?

 

[dinkything]

I would add to this that if you plan to keep a coach on for 5 years, extending him this year is considerably cheaper than extending him next year. Next year, we MUST extend him and Brewster knows it. That puts the U in a much worse position as far as offering salaries/buyouts.

16feetunder,
it all depends...if the gophers go 8-4 or better, then yes, it gets more expensive to extend brewster...but the cash really begins to roll in to the program with the upturn...
but if the gophers remain home for the holidays, then it's an entirely different matter...

 

[16FeetUnder]

16feetunder,
it all depends...if the gophers go 8-4 or better, then yes, it gets more expensive to extend brewster...but the cash really begins to roll in to the program with the upturn...
but if the gophers remain home for the holidays, then it's an entirely different matter...

Fair enough, factor in the extra money from the new stadium and maybe we can afford to spend a little more. I just don't see us firing him next year unless a season similar to 2007 happens, especially with the MN crop of recruits in next years class.

 

[Go Gophers Rah]

ggr-
then perhaps there is an expectations issue...
i wasn't the biggest fan of glen mason, although he won my respect grudgingly by engineering 3 incredible turnaround projects while at kent state, kansas, and minnesota...
when he was fired after going 38-25 with 5 bowl appearances in his final 5 seasons at the 'u,' many, including me, were anticipating a head coaching upgrade...

so far, i must admit i haven't seen the upgrade, and i fundamentally disagree that he inherited a program on the ropes...

is it possible to determine that the gophers do not have that upgrade when the final 2009 tally is in? if so, what would that tally have to be? 5-7? 4-8? or worse?

You'll notice, I said at least when talking about wins. Mason met all of these standards I laid out - whaich was great - for the first 6 or 7 years. Then he failed to build upon it.

If Brewster can match Mason's record, then I wouldn't say "lets fire him because those records weren't good enough to keep Glen." I would say that we should extend his contract by a few years and see if he can take us to a place that Glen Mason couldn't.

I do agree with those that say you've got to give a new coach 5 years - unless something illegal or immoral happens and perhaps not after 3 or 4 years of pathetic performance (see Greg Robinson at Syracuse).

 

[Goldmember]

I love how people ignore the facts with these stories. The orginal post makes it sound as though the U changed it's mind about granting an extension to a contract that is virtually brand new. This nonsense. It never even entered the realm of possabilities.

The media asked Joel Maturi and Tim Brewster about a possible extension and they both said "I'm in favor of that," both knowing full-well there was not a snowball's chance in hell of an extension to a new contract being a priority for the U. Voila ... instant "story" for the Strib.

This was 100% manuafactured by a local media that has no interest in actually covering the sport and only wants to comment on the "reality TV" aspects of Minnesota sports. Often, this is because their writers on payroll and pension no longer follow the game. Don't get sucked-in by this crap. The Strib (and others) just want to create controversy to make it seem like they are still providing you coverage of local sports.

This "extension" is and always was a total non-issue. Now, we can continue to read about their other exciting non-sports stories like "will the vikings move if we don't build ziggy wilf a stadium?" and "Should the Vikings fire Childress?" and "who'se using roids in the MLB?" The drama is so much fun for people that have no interest in sports.

 

[grunkiejr]

ggr-
then perhaps there is an expectations issue...
i wasn't the biggest fan of glen mason, although he won my respect grudgingly by engineering 3 incredible turnaround projects while at kent state, kansas, and minnesota...
when he was fired after going 38-25 with 5 bowl appearances in his final 5 seasons at the 'u,' many, including me, were anticipating a head coaching upgrade...

so far, i must admit i haven't seen the upgrade, and i fundamentally disagree that he inherited a program on the ropes...

is it possible to determine that the gophers do not have that upgrade when the final 2009 tally is in? if so, what would that tally have to be? 5-7? 4-8? or worse?

Ok. You're clearly just trying to engage in a conversation that has been had here many times over so this is the last time I will comment in this thread.

2006 Gophers: 6-7 (3-5) (5-7 against Division 1A)
Key Players: Bryan Cupito (Sr), Matt Spaeth (Sr), Logan Payne (Sr), Mike Sherels (Jr), Amir Pinnix (Jr), Dominic Jones (Jr), Alex Daniels (Jr), Dominique Barber (Jr), Willie Van De Steeg (So)
Key Statistics: Led the country in turnover margin at +1.38 /game, #117 ranked pass defense

A few comments:
*Returning starters: 6 offense, 5 defense
*Of the nine key players listed only four returned and two of them (Pinnix, Van De Steeg) were hampered with injuries in 2007
*I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 6-7 is the worst record of any team in the last 20 years that led the country in turnover margin (not a fact, just an educated guess). This means that the 2006 team likely overachieved on record behind the arm of an incredibly efficient 3rd year starter at QB.
*The #117 ranked pass defense lost 2 likely starters in the secondary with the departure of Dominic Jones and Keith Massey and had to replace them (well after recruiting was done) with two 2* rated true freshman (Ryan Collado, Kyle Theret) that had no other scholarship offers.

I still have the Athlon Sports 2007 college football preview that forecast the Gophers to finish 4-8 (0-8) when it was expected that Jones, Massey, and Alex Daniels would still be on the team. I will concede that mistakes were made in coaching that could have given us more wins in 2007 but the cupboard really was bare. For every "diamond in the rough" two-star recruit of Mason's that blossomed (Decker, Van De Steeg, MB3, etc) there were probably 4 that came in to the program and never lasted until their senior year because they figured out they couldn't play D1 football. That is the reason that we never had the depth necessary to compete in the Big Ten and the reason that 2007 unfolded so poorly when we had to deal with attrition and injuries to key players.

 

[Goldy74s]

I thought the Sid column was so incoherent that I did not comment on it at all.

First of all, what does the economy have to do with the extension? Nothing. It cost no more to pay Brew in 2009 than it would if he were, or were not, extended. The real issue is in a pay raise or a buy out. There is no 'cheaper' or 'more expensive' scenarios here. His wage is based on wins. We pay the going rate or he is gone. If he does not win games, he will not quit.

Secondly, are we back to this incredibly short sighed and stupid view again that you can take a coach down to less than two years left on his contract? Have you learned NOTHING from the total disaster of running Mason down to zero years? Really, it is hard enough to have to endure the ignorance of each generation of young Gopher fans coming along and reinventing bad ideas over and over again without having to run the same brainless ideas past the same old generations of Gopher fans.

THE HEAD COACH MUST HAVE TWO YEARS LEFT ON HIS CONTRACT IN ORDER TO RECRUIT. If he does not, we will get more hollow years of recruits. By December of this year we either extend Brewster by more than one year, or we buy him out, or we cripple the next head coach with hollow recruiting classes. Those are your semi intelligent choices Gopher fans and it has nothing to do with the economy.

A one year extension would be the same as buying a three page centerfold billboard on SI saying "Our coach is on his way out!" I would recommend against that as well.

Maturi has 10 months to decide. In the mean time he should shower this coach with his praise and love, make up fake excuses about why he has not offered an extension yet (Sid's column), and privately sharpen his best knife with one of those foot operated sharpening wheels.

Tick tock, tick tock , Coach Brewster needs to win some football games or the math and money of college football will catch up to him some dark evening at the Bierman Building.

 

[Schnoodler]

The ogic is correct. Of course most others are hoping he succeeds. But the truth is the decision to move forward or not needs to be made this year. That's not to say delaying the decision by opting for an extension is a 100% vote of confidence.

 

[year of the gopher]

First of all, what does the economy have to do with the extension? Nothing. It cost no more to pay Brew in 2009 than it would if he were, or were not, extended.

Well, the U is an organization that gets a fair chunk of its funding from the State Legislature, and because of that it matters an awful lot how the economy is doing. It not only looks bad publicly, but could have political repercussions in St. Paul for funding when the U is perceived to be spending extra money during tight economic times.

You can argue, perhaps rightfully, that football is a revenue sport and you have to spend money to make money, but that doesn't change the perception at the Capitol.

 

[1983]

first off

The athletic department has a budget and they are required to stay within it. The University can decide to take money from the school of dentistry to help build a building somewhere on campus but will have to justify it big time. Sid as usual, far off the truth which is that Brunnicks is reaffirming to the Public and the meat heads at the capital that the athletic department stands alone and if there are extensions signed, the athletic department must have it in their budget for an extension. Basic 101 business is if this football program is successful and the planned revenue is generated, the coach WILL get an extension so as to perpetuate the revenue. While it is questionable at times, the machine at the U knows the coach can be and usually is the highest paid dude on campus, it will never change, good or bad economy.

 

[Goldy74s]

At the risk of sounding anti Brewster even when I am trying not to be anti Brewster, it would not be a good time to extend. In the real world it is considered very bad form to give big bonus money to CEO types when the company is losing every game they play. My guess would be that any sort of winning record at some point in the season, will produce an extension. Maturi loves hype. 2-0 might do it.

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

3 months ago Maturi was babbling about extending Brewsters contract. Now all of a sudden the economy has gone bad and the U is in a budget crunch. Hello to Joel. Where have you been?

Maturi should have kept his mouth shut and stayed in his corner where he belongs. Or when asked, state the facts instead of blowing smoke. Make the decision after the coming season.

 

[Schnoodler]

I think maturi was responding to questions and not making a public statement. he needs to show support and if posed with an extension question there is no way to give a positive response without implying that it would happen at some point. And naturally if he believes in the porgram then he believes in it's eventual success which would require a contract extension of some kind. It's not blowing smoke, just merely stating how it naturally works.

there are just some questions that you can't be wishy washy when answering. This is one of them.

 

[ulfr]

First, how is going to a minor bowl game "declining standards and expectations at Bierman?" Did I miss something? Were we going to major bowl games?

Brewster was hired to improve upon Glen Mason's tenure and get "GopherNation to Pasadena, sooner, rather than later", NOT to continue to just barely get to a no-name bowl, year in and year out.

That being said Brewster will be back in 2010, and deserves to be back in 2010 barring any grievous on- or off-field embarrassment(s) (eg Clem). He needs to see upperclassmen from his own classes, especially if that transpires without anymore 1-11 seasons.

Further I think that Maturi has hired his last football coach, and he will go down with the ship that is the Brewster program if it does indeed founder in the short-term future, especially for reasons of under-performance.