DEEP ROOTED PROBLEM......

[josh087]

Yes, and Boise, ID is a haven for remarkable players. "Plain and simple." Simple is right.

Good God, stop bringing up this irrelevant example. Please see the above posts for reasons why this viewpoint is simply not true. Boise DOES NOT GET their difference-makers from Idaho! They recruit California for these players! Even if they somehow got all their guys from Idaho, they are the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.

I usually disagree with JackieO, and the stance on this is a little extreme in the post, but the point is that with a few rare exceptions we have to go outside the state of Minnesota to find the skill position players we need to win a BT Title.

Because of this, we are at a disadvantage to other teams (not all teams) in recruiting from their own state. As we all know, you are more likely to be able to keep players in state - so the lack of talent does hurt us when compared to other schools.

On its own, Is comparative lack of local talent something that we can't overcome? No.
On its own, Is being in a pro-sports town something we can't overcome? No.
On its own, Is being in a cold weather climate something that we can't overcome? No.
On its own, Is not supporting football in the past something that we can't overcome? No.

But ALL of these factors COMBINED have played a part. It isn't just one "magic" thing we need to change.

Just because "Wisconsin has won a BT title and plays in a cold-weather state," doesn't mean it isn't still a factor in our inability to win. In Wisconsin's case, they have been able to support their program better with better fans and more resources to help make up for this weather disadvantage compared to other states when trying to recruit nationally.

It is all the factors COMBINED which have contributed to 50 years of futility.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

I knew Cal Stoll and if he'd had the facilities Brewster has, he'd have done a lot better. He also had to contend with very tough non-conference opponents and with an extra Big Ten game added some years (Ohio State in the opening game!). The problem with Cal's teams is that they'd knock off a national power one week and lose to a bottom feeder the next. That inconsistency really hurt, despite that Cal was a good recruiter. Today we have to spend the money for a winning 1A coach who can recruit. The university is first rate, as is the urban area, as are the facilities and stadium. The last piece is the coach - and you don't hire someone with no coordinator or head coaching experience (and don't fire your outgoing coach during the bowl games!).

 

[gopherluv]

Head meet wall. The numbers are apples to oranges. We're in middle of the pack in Big Ten funding when you add in costs that the U doesn't group under the FB budget. Not Iowa level, but I'm tired of seeing that 9 million number tossed out like it means something.

"Not Iowa level" ...so how much more does MN spend on football? Can we match UW's budget of $24m? Open your eyes and stop making excuses for Minnesota. They need to up the funding if they want to be a winner again.

 

[Maximus]

"Not Iowa level" ...so how much more does MN spend on football? Can we match UW's budget of $24m? Open your eyes and stop making excuses for Minnesota. They need to up the funding if they want to be a winner again.

Umm...he's actually correcting those of YOU that are using the budget as an excuse. So yeah, stop making excuses.

 

[gopherluv]

Umm...he's actually correcting those of YOU that are using the budget as an excuse. So yeah, stop making excuses.

It's a fact not an excuse. Look at the numbers...the winners spend and the losers don't...

 

[Maximus]

It's a fact not an excuse. Look at the numbers...the winners spend and the losers don't...

Minnesota spends more money than Northwestern. Northwestern has finished 5-3 or 4-4 in the Big Ten in 5 of the last 7 years and 3 Big Ten titles in the last 15 years.

 

[Mother Vandelay]

How good is Mankato State's football team?

I have never felt more proud.

 

[Golden Shower]

There are 3 main "roots of the problem."

1) Administration not committing financially to football, especially in the late 80'/early 90's when college football started to become more prominent in the media.
2) Lack of HS Talent in the area, especially in MN
3) Fickle media and fanbase due to being in a pro sports market

I am with you on number 1 but numbers 2 and 3 are BS. Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska don't have far superior talent to MN. Number 3 has been a overused!

Bottomline is if we spend money and hire a PROVEN coach, then we should be able to turn it around!

Any other reason is just an excuse for losers!

 

[Mulligan]

Good God, stop bringing up this irrelevant example. Please see the above posts for reasons why this viewpoint is simply not true. Boise DOES NOT GET their difference-makers from Idaho! They recruit California for these players! Even if they somehow got all their guys from Idaho, they are the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.

Quick check. 25 Idaho players and 38 California players. Too lazy to keep a tally but a bunch from Washington, Arizona, and Texas. So they aren't the exception even.

I usually disagree with JackieO, and the stance on this is a little extreme in the post, but the point is that with a few rare exceptions we have to go outside the state of Minnesota to find the skill position players we need to win a BT Title.

Because of this, we are at a disadvantage to other teams (not all teams) in recruiting from their own state. As we all know, you are more likely to be able to keep players in state - so the lack of talent does hurt us when compared to other schools.

Could care less about the merits of recruiting services so don't start that dumb argument again. 2011 Rivals Top 250. Not one kid from Minnesota is listed. People keep naming Henderson, Floyd, Fitzgerald, Barber, Laurenitis, etc. as proof of our football talent. There is one, maybe two of these guys a year. A lot of years there is nobody of this caliber. Not an excuse. The right coach can overcome it, but you're an idiot if you don't think it's a huge factor.

On its own, Is comparative lack of local talent something that we can't overcome? No.
On its own, Is being in a pro-sports town something we can't overcome? No.
On its own, Is being in a cold weather climate something that we can't overcome? No.
On its own, Is not supporting football in the past something that we can't overcome? No.

But ALL of these factors COMBINED have played a part. It isn't just one "magic" thing we need to change.

Just because "Wisconsin has won a BT title and plays in a cold-weather state," doesn't mean it isn't still a factor in our inability to win. In Wisconsin's case, they have been able to support their program better with better fans and more resources to help make up for this weather disadvantage compared to other states when trying to recruit nationally.

It is all the factors COMBINED which have contributed to 50 years of futility.

And each year of futility keeps making the job even harder.

Thank you for pointing out it's not just one factor.

Two other issues in this thread that are sort of connected. Not going to be popular but supposedly one of the main purposes of college athletics is to provide opportunity for all students. I know football supports all those non-revenue sports, but I also think you're an idiot if you think cutting men's gymnastics or even baseball will suddenly solve the football problems. Might make it a tad easier but plenty of other schools have all those other sports and still manage to have a decent football program. To stereotype but even if you think I'm the idiot, the opinions of a philosophy student, or a grandmother, or a parent with a daughter on the rowing team are just as valuable as the most rabid posters on GH. I think we need to come up with more money for a better hire, but just whacking some sport isn't the way to do it.

I just can't believe we're operating under that much of a financial handicap. Look at the figures. Wisconsin spends over twice as much on football as we do? How in the hell do you start to do that when you're talking millions? Paying your coaches 50% extra and hiring a few extra recruiters wouldn't close that gap by half even. Where does the other money go?

 

[Golden Shower]

http://scottdo.wordpress.com/2009/0...mparisons-with-iowa-state-notre-dame-big-ten/

I think this might help shed some light on the subject. Coincidence as to the amount of money spent on FB and the success of the program? Look at how much more successful programs spend on FB compared to us. I think not!

 

[JoeDirt]

In my opinion, the reason we have not been successful is because the Gopher fans don't demand it. If we all demanded higher levels of achievment we would've been to a Rose Bowl in the last 50 years. Brewster would have been fired two years ago, Mason would have never lasted a decade, and our stadium would be bigger and more than 2 years old. We settle for giving someone a chance, for "let's just wait and see how next year goes." The fans in the SEC and some Big Ten and Big 12 schools would never settle for 1-11, 7-6 (with a 5 game losing streak), 6-7, and now 1-3. Brewster should have NEVER seen this year. Higher expectations and "real" pressure on the administration from the top down would force higher budgets, shorter leashes, and total investment in WINNING. Right now winning is not the ONLY thing that matters, when it is, Minnesota will do whatever it takes to make it happen.

 

[I'mpayingforthestadium]

You hit it on the head as far as I'm concerned. If the Gophers stink, people forget the next day as the Twins and Vikings are playing. I'm talking about the casual Gopher fans. I think you are spot on with this.

I think if you look across the board in College football, the top teams don't have to compete with a pro football team. When you're the only show in town, you're going to have a more passionate fan base. When your fan base is that passionate, they aren't going to stand for having a mediocre coach or program. How long would Brew have lasted at Bama before they said "f*ck this?"

So essentially, there's probably a correlation between points 1 and 3. The school doesn't invest money or brain power in quality coaches because I, the fan, will just direct my attention elsewhere when things get bad - in this case, YOUR MINNESOTA TWINS

 

[JoeDirt]

You hit it on the head as far as I'm concerned. If the Gophers stink, people forget the next day as the Twins and Vikings are playing. I'm talking about the casual Gopher fans. I think you are spot on with this.

It's so frustrating. I just wish our Gophers could be something we could brag about. I definitely agree with you also.

 

[JackiO]

Anyone who doesn't believe geography is not a huge issue is kidding themselves. It's actually common sense and has been for quite some time. A lot of the other points are valid, but I mean come on now. Everyone in the south refers to our state as the "frozen tundra". We hardly ever bare fruit when it comes to football prospects. Seriously, do you not realize that at the beginning of the year rivals only had a top 5 list for our state???

We are a hockey state plain and simple. That is where our athletes choose to spend most of there time.

 

[LongTimeGopher]

The one word answer is money.

We need to spend whatever it takes to get a big-name, proven head coach and whatever staff he wants here. It is the only way to get big-time recruits here. You can't sell some 17-year old kid from the Miami area on the merits of an education at the U or the benefits of the Twin Cities after graduation. He thinks he is going pro. You need a coach who has put people in the pros recruiting him. A coach who the kid has heard of. You need a coach who has successfully recruited Florida, Georgia and Texas before and has connections there. I moved to FL from the Twin Cities 15 years ago and if you've never seen football here, you have NO IDEA of the differences in the talent level. Look up Dwyer High School from last year or St. Thomas Aquinas or Lakeland High Schools almost any year. One high school team has more high-level D-I recruits than the entire state of MN. We need a coaching staff with enough name recognition to go in and at least have a couple of these kids talk to them. And then that same staff has to be able to coach them up. That is why Holtz is the only good coach we've had - kids had heard of him and he was able to persuade a few to come to the U. Ricky Foggie - anyone remember him? Came here because of Holtz. Do you think if we had a coach by the name of Pete Carroll, Steve Spurrier, Mack Brown, etc. we would have lost out on Henderson, Floyd, Binns, etc? No way!!

Lack of enough money is the main reason, not an excuse. If you are one of the few saying "but look at Northwestern...", Fitzgerald took over a program that was in way better shape than we are in, he has good name recognition in the Chicago and Upper Midwest area, a school with a better academic reputation, and according to some sources their budget is another 33% more than ours.

Boosters, alumni, everyone has to come up with more money to make this program significant again.

 

[Ralph_Wiggum]

Weather is stupid excuse. Michigan, Wisconsin and Michigan State have cold winters with snow and they have had more success recently.

 

[JackiO]

Weather is stupid excuse. Michigan, Wisconsin and Michigan State have cold winters with snow and they have had more success recently.

You should have put more thought into what I wrote. We are known unfairly around the United States of America as the Frozen Tundra, along with Lambeau Field, even though almost every university in the Big Ten plays in a cold weather climate.

 

[Ralph_Wiggum]

You should have put more thought into what I wrote. We are known unfairly around the United States of America as the Frozen Tundra, along with Lambeau Field, even though almost every university in the Big Ten plays in a cold weather climate.

Still not an excuse. Madison is in Wisconsin and they don't get tagged with that. In fact the tv networks play-up the fans in Madison. Weather is still a lame excuse.

 

[JackiO]

Still not an excuse. Madison is in Wisconsin and they don't get tagged with that. In fact the tv networks play-up the fans in Madison. Weather is still a lame excuse.

Did you not read how I wrote that we are unfairly tagged as the frozen tundra even though every other team plays in a cold weather climate?

 

[stevedave23]

In my opinion, the reason we have not been successful is because the Gopher fans don't demand it. If we all demanded higher levels of achievment we would've been to a Rose Bowl in the last 50 years. Brewster would have been fired two years ago, Mason would have never lasted a decade, and our stadium would be bigger and more than 2 years old. We settle for giving someone a chance, for "let's just wait and see how next year goes." The fans in the SEC and some Big Ten and Big 12 schools would never settle for 1-11, 7-6 (with a 5 game losing streak), 6-7, and now 1-3. Brewster should have NEVER seen this year. Higher expectations and "real" pressure on the administration from the top down would force higher budgets, shorter leashes, and total investment in WINNING. Right now winning is not the ONLY thing that matters, when it is, Minnesota will do whatever it takes to make it happen.

While I don't think it's the one and only answer I think you make a good point here. There are a lot of anti-athletics people in this state and many of the sports fans will concentrate on another team the minute things go south.

 

[washgopher]

Boise St is pretty good.

BSU starters (that are good) ARE OUT OF STATE, mainly CA and WA

 

[DocfromDarwin]

Columbus, Ohio is not small. But there is minimal pro sports presence there, so your point still is right.

Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State,

 

[ShushPush]

Too much of a bad thing

I blame it on soda pop, cold cereal, lazy parenting, floridation of the water, sweaty palms, and of course the red menace.

 

[mplsbadger]

Good luck getting baseball eliminated. Too much success, tradition/history and great alumni. Wisconsin's baseball program was horrific and needed to be cut anyway.

I don't mean to say that the U would have to eliminate baseball. I only mean to say that we need to get to the point where we'd pay any price. The price may be getting a football coach a salary of $4MM / year above the objections of the faculty senate. Or the price may be cutting sports that are a drag on the department - no more Sears cup or whatever it is called. Or the price may be more high risk kids being admitted and more off field incidents.

Quite frankly if I were running the AD I'd have a very different strategy. When Jack Welch was at GE their strategy required that they be #1 or #2 in every market they participated in. If they weren't, they either 1) developed a plan to get there with a clear timeline and investment plan or 2) divested the company.

I would do the same if I were running the U of M AD. The markets that companies compete in typically have less than 12 competitors so the equivalent of #1 or #2 might be 'top third'. The department's strategy would be outlined as follows:

1) We endeavor to be among the top four teams in the conference in each sport in which we compete as measured by our average conference finish over a rolling five year timeframe.
2) To support our competitive goals we will provide salaries and budgets for head coaches and staff that rank among the top four in the conference in each of our varsity sports.
3) All existing sports will be ranked by
a) Positive net receipts
b) Historical significance (Big Ten titles, national championships, major women's sports, etc.)
c) Average finish over the last ten years (whcih quartile of the Big Ten)
4) To support the budgets required for #2, we will propose for elimination those sports that are at the bottom of the list, eliminating as many as are required to support the sports at the top of the list at the appropriate funding level. Any eliminations must keep us in compliance with Title 9.
5) All remaining sports will be expected to consistently meet this performance objective. Sports that fail to meet this objective will be subject to a complete review and remedial action will be taken, including coaching changes. The financial committment to success in each sport will remain constant.

Here is what the department might look like when the strategy has been implemented:

Mens
Football, Basketball, Hockey, Baseball, Wrestling, Swimming, Track
Cancelled: Gymnastics, Cross Country, Tennis, Golf

Women's
Basketball, Hockey, Volleyball, Softball, Soccer, Spirit Squad, Swimming, Track
Cancelled: Gymnastics, Cross Country, Rowing

It's harsh but quite frankly I think its what should happen. Only a complete committment will work. You don't see the Vikings trying to pay thier coaches a cut rate salary and expecting excellence. You don't see the New York Yankees supporting a dozen other teams travel budgets.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. I'm tired of hiring cut rate coaches and expecting Big Ten tiltes. It isn't going to happen!!

 

[GopherGack]

I blame it on soda pop, cold cereal, lazy parenting, floridation of the water, sweaty palms, and of course the red menace.

Don't forget Vaccinating our children!

 

[ShushPush]

Ya betcha

Don't forget Vaccinating our children!

+1

 

[GoAUpher]

"Not Iowa level" ...so how much more does MN spend on football? Can we match UW's budget of $24m? Open your eyes and stop making excuses for Minnesota. They need to up the funding if they want to be a winner again.

Ugh...pay attention. I never said we didn't need to spend more. I was correcting the BS number you were using. The 9 million number isn't valid. If you're going to complain about the lack of spending at least accurately describe the lack of spending. Sheesh.

Personally, I think the U needs to be willing to spend at least 500K to 1.5 million more a year on the coaching staff. Not sure that they can do too much to the rest of the budget right now. They already spend at the top in recruiting budget, so if they improve the pay for the coaches and get good ones I think that would be a great start.

 

[LongTimeGopher]

Ugh...pay attention. I never said we didn't need to spend more. I was correcting the BS number you were using. The 9 million number isn't valid. If you're going to complain about the lack of spending at least accurately describe the lack of spending. Sheesh.

Personally, I think the U needs to be willing to spend at least 500K to 1.5 million more a year on the coaching staff. Not sure that they can do too much to the rest of the budget right now. They already spend at the top in recruiting budget, so if they improve the pay for the coaches and get good ones I think that would be a great start.

You keep stating $9M isn't correct, yet a link was provided showing that number. How about providing a link to YOUR correct number and other Big 10 correct numbers?

Sorry but adding the whole $1.5M to Brewster's salary alone isn't going to bring in a big name, turn the program around type of head coach. And that doesn't even address the two coordinator positions. It's gonna take more like $5M more.

 

[GoAUpher]

You keep stating $9M isn't correct, yet a link was provided showing that number. How about providing a link to YOUR correct number and other Big 10 correct numbers?

Sorry but adding the whole $1.5M to Brewster's salary alone isn't going to bring in a big name, turn the program around type of head coach. And that doesn't even address the two coordinator positions. It's gonna take more like $5M more.

You only have 15 posts so its likely that you haven't read the explanations yet. The report that generated that 9 million number took the reported spending from each B10 school. Problem is, each school reports the spending differently. For instance, the U doesn't include the stadium costs (which several other B10 schools like OSU include) in their overall football spending. What it means is that the numbers listed are meaningless...apples to oranges. When factoring in the values others schools include the U has reported that we are basically 7th in the Big Ten. Its late so I don't have time to hunt down all the links for you. Fringe Bowl Team had a nice summary in August I think. There are probably 20 threads on the topic from the last 3 weeks that include the links you're looking for.

As for 5 million more...that just makes me laugh. 5 million more would allow us to hire the highest paid staff in ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL. By 600K. So yes, I'm pretty sure that would hire us a decent staff. Give me a freaking break. Money is a problem, but it is not the only problem. We can find a good coach and he can have a good staff for around 3 to 3.5 million a year. Find the right up and comer and you can do it for what we're paying now.

 

[LongTimeGopher]

You only have 15 posts so its likely that you haven't read the explanations yet. The report that generated that 9 million number took the reported spending from each B10 school. Problem is, each school reports the spending differently. For instance, the U doesn't include the stadium costs (which several other B10 schools like OSU include) in their overall football spending. What it means is that the numbers listed are meaningless...apples to oranges. When factoring in the values others schools include the U has reported that we are basically 7th in the Big Ten. Its late so I don't have time to hunt down all the links for you. Fringe Bowl Team had a nice summary in August I think. There are probably 20 threads on the topic from the last 3 weeks that include the links you're looking for.

As for 5 million more...that just makes me laugh. 5 million more would allow us to hire the highest paid staff in ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL. By 600K. So yes, I'm pretty sure that would hire us a decent staff. Give me a freaking break. Money is a problem, but it is not the only problem. We can find a good coach and he can have a good staff for around 3 to 3.5 million a year. Find the right up and comer and you can do it for what we're paying now.

No, I read all the posts and have been in forums since well before GopherHole. I just choose to not post excessively like others do.

I guess I should rephase my statement. You keep saying $9M is inaccurate, yet you give no FACTS why. Just unverifiable mumbo jumbo about this school included this but that school didn't, blah, blah, blah. Bottom line - we provide less than half of what Wisky and the Hogeyes provide.

You must have old data for your salary info. Mack Brown makes $5.1M and his staff makes over $3M. That's $8.1M (minimum) which is greater than $7.4M (the U's cost). The SEC had 4 head coaches making over $3M/year LAST YEAR (3 of 4 made about $4M and 9 of 12 made over $2M last year). Georgia and Alabama recently gave contracts for $750K to their newly hired DCs. The top staffs are making around $3M/year or more. So for starters we need somewhere around $6M to lure a proven, good coach here with his staff. A couple of years later we need more to keep that good coach and staff here. This isn't a one time payment. We currently allocate less than $2.5M for head coach and staff.

Your comment about finding the right up and comer makes me cringe. That's where we have failed so many times in the past. We need to shell out whatever it takes to get a proven winner here, not continue to pinch pennies. Holtz is the only coach that was successful here and we need another "name" coach to be able to recruit to this POS program.