Data supporting EAST/WEST Divisions

[MaxyJR1]

Link. Sorry if posted before.

 

[Schnauzer]

Agree with the point made in the article nearly 100% (with the small exception being the possibility of having Rutgers as the Gopher's protected rival).

 

[RailBaronYarr]

This split is East:Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue and West: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State. This is NOT a straight geographic split as Purdue and Indiana are both further west than MSU.

I proved with data of average BT placings and # times ranked that having MSU in the east and Purdue in the west was just as equivalent since 2000. Obviously, whatever division OSU is in will have the slight advantage because they have been nigh unstoppable.

One thing people had a problem with my proposal was the x-divisional games, which this proposal still keeps because no matter how you slice up 14 teams you will lose Mich-OSU, Mich-MSU, Indiana-MSU, or Indiana-Purdue (or even NW-Illinois as I've seen). If x-divisional games are deemed ok, I think moving MSU back to the east and Purdue to the West makes sense. It is an absolute geographic split. X-division games can include MN-Mich for the jug game, Purdue-Indiana for their rivalry, Wisc-PSU + Neb-OSU or Neb-PSU + Wisc-OSU, and then obviously fill-in games like Iowa-Purdue, Illinois and NW with Maryland/Rutgers. 2 teams are gonna get shafted with meaningless games no matter what, but I suppose the article alludes to expanding the recruiting footprint as a positive. I'd rather play Michigan every year and get the TV exposure the jug game typically brings (if MN has a pulse) than play in MD or NJ every other year. I recognize that's personal preference.

At least have a true E/W split.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

I can't see Delany putting Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State in the same division.

Best outcome I can see with good geographical balance would be an East/West split with the Illinois schools getting separated.

West:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Northwestern
Michigan
Michigan State

East:
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

The only non-guaranteed trophy games each year would be the Land Grant/Victory Bell between PSU and MSU/Minn. As long as NW-Illinois, and Ohio State-Michigan are protected I think this is about as good as it would get with 14.

I am down with having a game in Maryland/New Jersey every year, and frankly am crossing my fingers Maryland is our protected crossover in this scenario.

 

[MaxyJR1]

If LSU, Bama, Ark, and Auburn can be in same division, so can OSU, MICH, and PSU. WCG your East division gives OSU or Penn State a free ride to Champ game on annual basis. Can't see that happening.

 

[station19]

I can't see Delany putting Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State in the same division.

Best outcome I can see with good geographical balance would be an East/West split with the Illinois schools getting separated.

West:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Northwestern
Michigan
Michigan State

East:
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

The only non-guaranteed trophy games each year would be the Land Grant/Victory Bell between PSU and MSU/Minn. As long as NW-Illinois, and Ohio State-Michigan are protected I think this is about as good as it would get with 14.

I am down with having a game in Maryland/New Jersey every year, and frankly am crossing my fingers Maryland is our protected crossover in this scenario.

I would agree this is the most likely. Call them the Northwest/Southeast divisions.

Dump the protected cross-over games. At least for some schools. Can't see any need for the far east or far west teams needing to protect a rivalry.

 

[pointman99]

I would agree this is the most likely. Call them the Northwest/Southeast divisions.

Dump the protected cross-over games. At least for some schools. Can't see any need for the far east or far west teams needing to protect a rivalry.

+1

 

[westcoastgopher11]

I would agree this is the most likely. Call them the Northwest/Southeast divisions.

Dump the protected cross-over games. At least for some schools. Can't see any need for the far east or far west teams needing to protect a rivalry.

Southeast division of the B1G? What is the world coming too!?!??!

It would be nice if they allowed some schools protected games but let others choose not to, I think it would be a stretch though.

 

[Gopherprof]

I wouldn't mind having a protected rivalry game with Maryland or Rutgers because it would give us a footprint in a good recruiting area, and it's a game we might actually win consistently.

I know that some people don't want to give up the game with Michigan, but it hasn't exactly been kind to us for the last 40 years, and really only qualifies as a rivalry game because of historical precedent. I don't think most Michigan fans under 50 still consider us a true rival, and that probably goes both ways.

As long as we can play Iowa and Wisconsin every year, I'm fine with whatever. Making the schedule a tad more competitive for us wouldn't be bad either. Having to play the 5 other Legends teams + Wisconsin is just brutal, especially when you add Ohio State or Penn State to that mix.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

I wouldn't mind having a protected rivalry game with Maryland or Rutgers because it would give us a footprint in a good recruiting area, and it's a game we might actually win consistently.

I know that some people don't want to give up the game with Michigan, but it hasn't exactly been kind to us for the last 40 years, and really only qualifies as a rivalry game because of historical precedent. I don't think most Michigan fans under 50 still consider us a true rival, and that probably goes both ways.

As long as we can play Iowa and Wisconsin every year, I'm fine with whatever. Making the schedule a tad more competitive for us wouldn't be bad either. Having to play the 5 other Legends teams + Wisconsin is just brutal, especially when you add Ohio State or Penn State to that mix.

Isn't competitive schedules what playing in the Big Ten is all about? If we only want 4-6 tough games and a bunch of winnable games every year, let's join the MAC and schedule 2 BT teams each year and then take the tough games like NIU, Ohio, Kent Stae, or whatever 3 ranked teams happen to be in the MAC that year as our tough ones. Obviously this is a slight hyperbole but considering the trajectory of football level the MAC has been on it's not super far off from what people are suggesting. I don't see why people are even interested in playing Maryland or Rutgers, let alone making that a protected game in favor of playing Michigan each year. Wow. Even further, honestly how much does playing in MD or NJ every other year (as opposed to 1 in 6) have an effect on recruiting? If it IS indeed a big deal, why would so many people on this board (including you, WestCoast) be fine and dandy with UNC being dropped from the schedule? If protected crossovers are included in future divisions, they should be prioritized by a) need to maintain historic rivalry, then b) keep geographic tie as close as possible (ie, easternmost schools in each division play each other - minimizing fan and team travel time/costs).

I also don't understand how saying Michigan, OSU, and PSU, MSU + a buncha schlubs on one side (my proposal) is any worse than having Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State on one side for competitive balance. Michigan/Nebraska compare well to OSU/PSU, but the balance swings way in your west's favor with Wisconsin/Iowa/MSU are >>> than Purdue/Maryland/Rutgers, both historically and recently. As I said, OSU throws a monkeywrench in any split because they've been so dominant, but I think the article rightly suggests that Michigan and OSU belong in the same division. Any situation to try to force them to the other side for a potential CCG rematch is stupid as it takes away any significance of the first game (a scenario where the 2 playing each other in the regular season where regardless of the outcome they'd play again makes it meaningless. See: Stanford vs UCLA 2012). Let's not forget the number of times this would have happened over the last 20 years with the divisions aligned the way they currently are, making a huge shift just to save this savory matchup not worth the effort. Delany would be wise to learn from his first mistake.

I'm fine with swapping MSU and Purdue in my situation. But truthfully, over the long haul I don't see MSU as any more of a power team than Purdue and it doesn't really change the division strengths. it isn't a real E-W split, and other than a "budding rivalry" (ha) between MSU and Wisconsin, ALL the teams MSU cares about playing (Mich, OSU, PSU, Indiana) would be in the East. Go straight up E/W with a protected crossover and all will be fine. Also, for those whining about playing Michigan, schools like Nebraska and Wisconsin would have to play OSU and PSU as their crossovers. Not "fair" for them, either.

 

[FireDaveLee]

It will go to 16; Georgia Tech & one other.

Pods is the way to go.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Just as a followup, total records from 2000-2012 seasons for my proposed divisions (East:Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, and West: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue) were:

East: 644-476 (0.575)
West: 630-559 (0.575).

Wow, can't get much more even than that. I could try to do a league play analysis but it would hardly seem far since the West has all Big Ten teams and one from the Big 12, while the East would have 2 teams from the inferior Big East conference. I think overall record is enough to show they are at the very least competitive, if not very fairly balanced.

If you want to argue that this time frame includes many of PSU and Michigan's only down years and the Drew Brees Purdue years, I would counter than Nebraska had the same effect (and going in to the mid-late 90s would drastically increase their stock), in addition to the West missing out on some of Wisconsin's best seasons, Northwestern's mid-90s great teams, and the fact that OSU has been stellar since 2000 but not great before that time. This proves the ebb and flow of teams doing well or poorly and that over time things even out competitively.

 

[Gopherprof]

Honestly, RBY, I'm not sure I understand half of what you're talking about, or why it was in response to my post.

I think there's a lot of room in between playing in the MAC, and playing a murderer's row every year. What I guess I don't understand (and don't really understand in general regarding the conference realingment discussions) are the supposed attachments that people have to games outside of Wisconsin and Iowa. Michigan is not our rival. They don't care about us. At all. Just because we have a trophy between the two of us (that we never win), doesn't make us rivals.

I just don't see what exactly we're giving up by making a few changes to our schedule and helping our team in the long run. Again, nobody is advocating we drop to the MAC, but let's assume we're going to a 9-game conference schedule (very likely). If we have Penn State or Ohio State every year + Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and Northwestern, we're setting ourselves up for a lot of losing seasons. That might not sit pretty with your sensibilities of where you think our program should be, but it does reflect a very basic reality that we are one of the smallest programs in the league and have a hard time being competitive even when the deck isn't stacked against us.

 

[Gopherprof]

Also, by definition if you're looking for a "competitive schedule", it should include teams we actually compete against.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Also, by definition if you're looking for a "competitive schedule", it should include teams we actually compete against.

So, then we should be looking for the MAC level. We've gone 34-62 against Big Ten opponents since 2000. I wouldn't call that competitive, so what's the difference with one extra game per year. You can say we're not rivals, but that game absolutely means more to a MN or Big Ten fan than one against.... Maryland.

Your slate of If we have Penn State or Ohio State every year + Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and Northwestern supposes that each and every year all these teams are not winnable games and that they will all have better records than us. How has Wisconsin or Iowa done it where they can have good teams that win 10+ games some seasons and have a few rougher seasons when the talent/schedule just isn't right? In fact, of the teams you cited, this year MSU, Iowa, Northwestern were all winnable games! Not blowouts or an automatic L on the schedule. And this is a young Gopher team in year 2 of a coaching regime coming off 2 3-9 seasons in a row. That's also a big IF we have OSU and PSU in the same year. We'd also have Illinois and Purdue, making for 4-5 winnable games (Ill, Purdue, NW, Iowa, MSU), possibly 1-2 more if Rutgers/Maryland/Indiana were on the schedule. That's anywhere between 4 and 6 winnable games a year with anywhere from 3-5 very tough games a year (assuming Wisconsin doesn't fall off their perch anytime soon). I don't see what's wrong with that. If our program got to the point where we win 1 out of 3 games we maybe shouldn't (like OSU, Mich, PSU, Nebraska), that makes for a possible 6-3 BT record.

I said it was my personal opinion that I'd rather watch us play Michigan every year than Rutgers or Maryland. If people disagree because they're too afraid, then fine. Say we're not rivals anymore, but we've sure played Mich a hell of a lot more than MD or Rut.

 

[Formo]

I agree with the article 100%. Although, I'm not sure if the Nebraska fans would like it (reminescent to Big12's North/South, leaving Nebraska all alone in the North while OU/UT/etc. fight it out in the South).

 

[Gopherprof]

Your slate of If we have Penn State or Ohio State every year + Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and Northwestern supposes that each and every year all these teams are not winnable games and that they will all have better records than us.

No it doesn't. It supposes that it will be extremely hard for us to be consistently competitive within that slate of games, which is a safe bet.

How has Wisconsin or Iowa done it where they can have good teams that win 10+ games some seasons and have a few rougher seasons when the talent/schedule just isn't right? In fact, of the teams you cited, this year MSU, Iowa, Northwestern were all winnable games!

Wisconsin and Iowa have a much bigger commitment to football than the U does. And Michigan State was at no point winnable. I suppose Iowa could have been, but it certainly wasn't in that game. That's not to say that we'll never beat those three teams. Of course we will. But we aren't talking about those teams. We're talking about Michigan.

We'd also have Illinois and Purdue, making for 4-5 winnable games (Ill, Purdue, NW, Iowa, MSU), possibly 1-2 more if Rutgers/Maryland/Indiana were on the schedule. That's anywhere between 4 and 6 winnable games a year with anywhere from 3-5 very tough games a year (assuming Wisconsin doesn't fall off their perch anytime soon). I don't see what's wrong with that. If our program got to the point where we win 1 out of 3 games we maybe shouldn't (like OSU, Mich, PSU, Nebraska), that makes for a possible 6-3 BT record.

All of this sounds very nice, but you're basically just looking at teams and saying "at some point we can beat them!" Making the schedule even a slightly bit easier would actually make that goal much more achievable.

I said it was my personal opinion that I'd rather watch us play Michigan every year than Rutgers or Maryland. If people disagree because they're too afraid, then fine.

You think I'm afraid. I think you're willfully ignorant.

Also, I'm not against playing Michigan. I just don't like the idea of playing Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska in the same year on top of another 6 Big Ten games. I didn't like what Kill did with North Carolina, but I certainly understand it. With 9 Big Ten games you can put it in stone that we'll be playing nothing but FCS and MAC schools outside of the Big Ten.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

Geography should play the only role. Who knows what programs will do well 20, 30 years from now? If Omaha (which will hit the million mark in population soon) gets a better pro team, it could kill the Huskers. Illinois could be a powerhouse. Rutgers might drop football. Who knows?

 

[RailBaronYarr]

No it doesn't. It supposes that it will be extremely hard for us to be consistently competitive within that slate of games, which is a safe bet.

Being competitive has nothing to do with one single opponent. We are competitive in the Big Ten or not. If we're not competitive with Michigan, we're not competitive with teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, OSU, etc etc.

Wisconsin and Iowa have a much bigger commitment to football than the U does. And Michigan State was at no point winnable. I suppose Iowa could have been, but it certainly wasn't in that game. That's not to say that we'll never beat those three teams. Of course we will. But we aren't talking about those teams. We're talking about Michigan.

We lost by 1 TD on the road last year vs a MSU team that had a far superior offense and VERY similar defense to this year. The MSU record this year shows the difference between last year's squad and this one. It was absolutely a "winnable" game on many people's outlooks. As for WI/IA.. so they're competitive simply because they have a much bigger commitment to football? So their schedule has nothing to do with it? So what about all this money we're pumping in to facilities, marketing, recruiting, etc? Is that not a commitment? I WAS talking about Michigan and how WI/IA/MSU have been able to pull it off. MSU has been able to pull off larger levels of success than us in the past 20 years even with yearly games against Michigan, Notre Dame, and prior to the new divisions, PSU. They managed it relevance and decent seasons, wonder what their deal was!?

All of this sounds very nice, but you're basically just looking at teams and saying "at some point we can beat them!" Making the schedule even a slightly bit easier would actually make that goal much more achievable.

You're damn right I'm saying that "at some point we can beat them." Well, more correctly I'm saying "at some point we SHOULD BE ABLE TO beat them." MSU won 4 times in a row vs Michigan recently. Wisconsin has beaten OSU several times in recent years. While the top schools will remain atop from year to year, the playing field is being leveled and my goal for the Gopher program is not just to win more games or have a 10-2 season come on a season where we don't play the cream of the crop, but to have a 9-3 to 10-2 season with quality victories over teams like Michigan. The 2003 season was great, but we didn't beat a single ranked opponent the week we played them. We lost vs Iowa, Michigan, and MSU. Didn't play OSU or Purdue. So no one remembers that as a "great" team (partially cuz of the meltdown loss to Mich and mostly because we beat no one of significance).

You think I'm afraid. I think you're willfully ignorant.

I'm not going to get in to a pissing match with you, but I strongly dislike being called ignorant. I keep myself well-educated on many topics, and have my opinions to be sure, but I am not ignorant. I'll let it pass.

Also, I'm not against playing Michigan. I just don't like the idea of playing Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska in the same year on top of another 6 Big Ten games. I didn't like what Kill did with North Carolina, but I certainly understand it. With 9 Big Ten games you can put it in stone that we'll be playing nothing but FCS and MAC schools outside of the Big Ten.

I love the idea of my favorite team playing Michigan. I get excited for that game more than a game against Indiana, less than a game against Iowa or Wisconsin (but Mich is #3 for me). And all of these moreso than a game against Maryland. I'm fine with playing 2 MAC and 1 FCS opponents with a 9 game BT schedule, but I would hope that it doesn't come on the back of a guaranteed weaker BT opponent in that 9 game stretch. It's why we play in a big time conference with big-time opponents (one of our few recruiting advantages over schools in the MAC - you play big opponents every week and get to show yourself off).

 

[Gopherprof]

Being competitive has nothing to do with one single opponent. We are competitive in the Big Ten or not. If we're not competitive with Michigan, we're not competitive with teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, OSU, etc etc.

Yeah, no. Michigan and Iowa are not even remotely the same program in terms of our ability to compete against them. The numbers simply bear that out.

We lost by 1 TD on the road last year vs a MSU team that had a far superior offense and VERY similar defense to this year. The MSU record this year shows the difference between last year's squad and this one. It was absolutely a "winnable" game on many people's outlooks.

So because we were competitive with them last year, the game this year was competitive? That whole thing I watched where they thumped us wasn't what actually happened?

So what about all this money we're pumping in to facilities, marketing, recruiting, etc? Is that not a commitment?

What money? Our facilities are still dreadfully behind those of the big programs in this league. This is confirmed by all of our coaches and multiple ADs.

I WAS talking about Michigan and how WI/IA/MSU have been able to pull it off.

We aren't WI/IA/MSU. We aren't. If you think we are, you're wrong. We could be, but we are a much smaller program than them at the moment, and it's going to take a lot more than positive thinking and "coachin' em up" to change that.

MSU has been able to pull off larger levels of success than us in the past 20 years even with yearly games against Michigan, Notre Dame, and prior to the new divisions, PSU. They managed it relevance and decent seasons, wonder what their deal was!?

They are a much better program than we are. Next!

You're damn right I'm saying that "at some point we can beat them." Well, more correctly I'm saying "at some point we SHOULD BE ABLE TO beat them." MSU won 4 times in a row vs Michigan recently. Wisconsin has beaten OSU several times in recent years. While the top schools will remain atop from year to year, the playing field is being leveled and my goal for the Gopher program is not just to win more games or have a 10-2 season come on a season where we don't play the cream of the crop, but to have a 9-3 to 10-2 season with quality victories over teams like Michigan.

Good. I like ambitious people. Now, go find 10-20 million dollars and donate it to the football program. Every year. For the next 20 years.

The 2003 season was great, but we didn't beat a single ranked opponent the week we played them. We lost vs Iowa, Michigan, and MSU. Didn't play OSU or Purdue.

Now you're getting it! Even in our best years, we still don't beat those teams consistently.

I'm not going to get in to a pissing match with you, but I strongly dislike being called ignorant. I keep myself well-educated on many topics, and have my opinions to be sure, but I am not ignorant. I'll let it pass.

Don't talk about people being afraid and I won't point out that you don't know what you're talking about. Let it pass or not, tough guy.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Yeah, no. Michigan and Iowa are not even remotely the same program in terms of our ability to compete against them. The numbers simply bear that out.

I cited multiple programs that we're not on the same level as if we aren't close to Michigan. OSU and Wisconsin were in that level. We have won exactly the same number of games against Wisc in the last 10 years as we have against Mich. Might as well boot them out, too.

So because we were competitive with them last year, the game this year was competitive? That whole thing I watched where they thumped us wasn't what actually happened?

Winnable implies had a chance coming in to the game based on talent, how we stacked up. Go ahead and go back to the board prior to the game and see for yourself that many saw this as a very winnable game, Furthermore, we lost by 16. Hardly call that being thumped, especially when you consider we were down by 6 at half and 6 going in to the 4th quarter. Yes, our defense was gashed for rushing yards, but we were absolutely in that game the whole time thanks to our passing D and their TERRIBLE offense outside of Bell.

What money? Our facilities are still dreadfully behind those of the big programs in this league. This is confirmed by all of our coaches and multiple ADs.

Again, prove to me how our football facilities, as a whole (including our 3-year old stadium) are dreadfully behind other programs? Our stadium is a revenue producing, recruiting dream. Even upgrades at other stadiums (ex MSU) have not made their locker-rooms, team meeting rooms in stadium, coaches offices, etc better than TCF's.

We aren't WI/IA/MSU. We aren't. If you think we are, you're wrong. We could be, but we are a much smaller program than them at the moment, and it's going to take a lot more than positive thinking and "coachin' em up" to change that.

Funny that an NIU program not in the Big Ten without all our facilities/$$ can end their regular season ranked and attending a BCS bowl game based solely on being "coached up". I never said we ARE WI/IA/MSU, I am stating there is absolutely no reason we can't be. None. Choosing not to play Michigan isn't going to increase donor dollars, and certainly not recruiting.

They are a much better program than we are. Next!

Being a better program and playing better opponents goes hand in hand. MSU has been relevant DESPITE their more difficult schedule than ours. Taking the easy way out will not magically MAKE us better. We become better and the wins will come.

Good. I like ambitious people. Now, go find 10-20 million dollars and donate it to the football program. Every year. For the next 20 years.

Go shove it up your @ss. MN spent the same amount on football in 2011 as MSU: link, halfway down:

Ohio State Univ. $31,763,036.00
Univ. of Wisconsin $22,041,491.00
Penn State Univ. $19,780,939.00
Univ. of Iowa $18,468,732.00
Univ. of Michigan $18,328,233.00
Michigan State Univ. $17,468,458.00
Univ. of Minnesota $17,433,699.00
Northwestern Univ. $15,733,548.00
Indiana Univ. $12,822,779.00
Purdue Univ. $11,821,265.00
Univ. of Illinois $11,092,122.00

In previous years our spend was reported as lower based on the way the U reports certain aspects of athletic budget (as discussed here many times), but even then, the gap was not 10-20M behind MSU or Wisconsin, it was 5-8M. And, furthermore, it's not MY job to find $10-20M, it's Teague and staff's. My job is to support the team and make my voice heard in what I want to see in the Gopher program, buy tickets, attend games, and donate when I can.

Now you're getting it! Even in our best years, we still don't beat those teams consistently.

And if we hadn't played Michigan we would have played a strong Purdue or OSU team and would have lost anyway. If i could magically change 1 thing about that season, I'd rather NOT lose to Michigan that season (aka have a slightly stronger team that coulda pulled the win of) rather than gamble that we could have beaten OSU or Purdue instead. A Michigan win does more for the program than 2 or 3, maybe more, Purdue wins.

Don't talk about people being afraid and I won't point out that you don't know what you're talking about. Let it pass or not, tough guy.

Difference is I didn't call you out, I called out the philosophy of playing weaker opponents to get a win every other year against instead of playing a team diehard and casual fans alike care about. Funny you calling me a tough guy when you're the one calling me ignorant.

 

[Gopherprof]

-You brought up NIU? NIU would get slaughtered in the Big Ten...They also lost to Iowa. The only reason they're in the Orange Bowl is because they cleaned up on a weak MAC. Structure matters more than anything.

-I'm not sure what you're talking about with coaches offices and meeting rooms, but Kill has discussed how they eat in the hallway on folding chairs because there's nowhere else available. Kill and Teague both echo the same comments that have been made by pretty much everyone else affiliated with the program: our football facilities are well behind the big boys.

-A Michigan win might be worth 2 or 3 Purdue wins, but we're certainly more than 2 or 3 more times likely to beat Purdue than Michigan, which is my point.

-Also, of course it's not your job to do those things (and I know my #s are hyperbole), but if you find yourself holding the expectations that we should be at the Iowa-Wisconsin level, you should at least take an honest look at the reality of why we aren't. Comparing our situation to NIU certainly isn't helpful.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

-You brought up NIU? NIU would get slaughtered in the Big Ten...They also lost to Iowa. The only reason they're in the Orange Bowl is because they cleaned up on a weak MAC. Structure matters more than anything.

-I'm not sure what you're talking about with coaches offices and meeting rooms, but Kill has discussed how they eat in the hallway on folding chairs because there's nowhere else available. Kill and Teague both echo the same comments that have been made by pretty much everyone else affiliated with the program: our football facilities are well behind the big boys.

-A Michigan win might be worth 2 or 3 Purdue wins, but we're certainly more than 2 or 3 more times likely to beat Purdue than Michigan, which is my point.

-Also, of course it's not your job to do those things (and I know my #s are hyperbole), but if you find yourself holding the expectations that we should be at the Iowa-Wisconsin level, you should at least take an honest look at the reality of why we aren't. Comparing our situation to NIU certainly isn't helpful.

My point in bringing up NIU was to show that a team can obviously go 11-1 with a weak ass schedule, be RANKED 15th in the country, go to a BCS bowl game, and still be ridiculed for not beating anybody. The exact problem we faced in 2003 when we didn't beat anyone of value, and the same will happen to us in the future if we succumb to weak schedules. Keep in mind, if we're talking about being in conention for a BCS level game, a loss against a Michigan level opponent will not hurt us nearly as much as a Purdue/Indiana/Maryland loss would in fan/voter eyes nor in the computers.

You don't think Kill & Co aren't spinning the truth? They're competing for public support and dollars from other UMN programs (BBall practice facility, hockey requested upgrades to Mariucci, etc etc etc). I lived across the street from Bierman for 2 years and know for a fact they don't eat in the hallway, they had catering come to the area near the hall of fame with all the big windows - easy to see in. Furthermore, what in the world is the DQ Club room being used for every day - a premium venue good enough for weddings isn't good enough for the football team? We were told we were way behind the big boys before TCF was built and that would make us competitive. 3 years later now we're hearing it again. What happens when we build the facility? How long til we have another excuse for not winning? Wisconsin and Iowa were both competitive before they upgraded their stadium or facilities. How is that possible?

I personally think a Michigan win is worth 10-15x a Purdue win, but what do I know. A Michigan win is a field stormable win. It matters. It can make or break a season for some fans. I would never say that about Purdue. Yes, perhaps we are more likely to beat Purdue than the value of a Michigan win is worth vs a Purdue one. But as a college football fan that history, tradition, and status of the opponent are things that matter to me.

You made a hyperbole thinking that a 10-20 range was still reasonable. I showed you we ARE spending the same as MSU, IA, and very close to Michigan. So now what is the excuse for why we're not competitive?

 

[Gopherprof]

Because those numbers are wrong/misleading?

I've seen a lot of numbers regarding revenue and expenses, and many put us well below those programs. Someone else on this board linked this article with data from the U.S. Department of Education (excel form link at bottom right) http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/04/4460673/texas-football-leads-the-way-among.html

That data says we spent 16.2 million on the football program while the following programs spent:

-Michigan (23.6), Penn State (30.2), Ohio State (34), Iowa (21.6), Wisconsin (24.2), Nebraska (18.9), Michigan State (19.1)

I have no doubt that these numbers vary considerably by year, and don't take into account things like specifically designated donations, but I've been to enough college campuses to see the considerable differences in resources spent at each program. I'd be shocked if, on average, Minnesota spent close to what those programs above spend on a yearly basis.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Because those numbers are wrong/misleading?

I've seen a lot of numbers regarding revenue and expenses, and many put us well below those programs. Someone else on this board linked this article with data from the U.S. Department of Education (excel form link at bottom right) http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/04/4460673/texas-football-leads-the-way-among.html

That data says we spent 16.2 million on the football program while the following programs spent:

-Michigan (23.6), Penn State (30.2), Ohio State (34), Iowa (21.6), Wisconsin (24.2), Nebraska (18.9), Michigan State (19.1)

I have no doubt that these numbers vary considerably by year, and don't take into account things like specifically designated donations, but I've been to enough college campuses to see the considerable differences in resources spent at each program. I'd be shocked if, on average, Minnesota spent close to what those programs above spend on a yearly basis.

So at the most we are spending $2.9M less than MSU, $5.4M less than Iowa, at the least, we are spending within $1M of MSU, IA, and Michigan. I understand wildly varying numbers, and some of the spend shows up in coaching payouts or things not productive to the football program (or large expenditures like a football stadium or jumbotron upgrade that is a one-year spend, like MSU this year). We are not spending orders of magnitude less than other programs with success levels against top tier programs (even if they themselves are not top-level programs). Perhaps 5-10 years ago we indeed WERE spending $10M a year less than Iowa, Wisconsin, MSU. We aren't anymore. Times have changed. We're spending close to the medium-to-big boys. I don't agree with it but with additional TV revenue will be spending more, along with the big boys. The AD has proven he is serious about getting donations to upgrade facilities and have cash on hand to pay to keep Kill around or find the next guy if Kill doesn't work out. So, with all that said, why is it that we don't want to play a team like Michigan every year? We're putting the resources in place to be on par with MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, let's start expecting on-field results (and the spoils that come with them - like, you know, BCS bowls from having a great schedule and quality wins in conference).