DEEP ROOTED PROBLEM......

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

Agreed--in fact a good coach and recruiter could spin this the other way and tell his players if they truly want to get to the NFL (where it snows and is cold in many cities), then come play for me and I'll get you there.
 

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.

Well put.
 

I think it's a mistake to look at our woes in terms of the last 50 years. The reason our program sucks is because of landscape of the 70's and 80's. Things have changed. We were at a severe disadvantage until about ten years ago. It might be hard for some of the younger folk to remember. But there was a time when we were lucky to get one game a year on national TV. There was no cable TV, and then when there was there was only one more outlet in ESPN. The major programs hogged up those slots. ND was on every week, as was Michigan, OSU, and the southern schools. We couldn't recruit out of state well because nobody knew anything about Minnesota football.

Also once upon a time there were higher scholarship limits which basically meant that the bigger schools could hoard more athletes and there were fewer to go to the other schools. Couple that with the fact that there were just fewer athletes. Also recruiting services were not digitalized, which meant much more difficulty in finding diamonds in the rough. Schools really only had established pipelines and word of mouth to find these guys. Things were different.

We were at a severe disadvantage.

That all changed during Mason's tenure. He however failed to change with it.

What this really meant is that while other schools were plugging in and taking advantage we languished. Enter Brew, and we're already ten years behind. The schools we are chasing are 10-15 years into their building effort, we are four.

The disadvantage we now have in recruiting is slight. We still can't out recruit the top 15 programs, but you don't need to go that high to get to the next level. Brew has shown you can get kids here.

The administration is still behind funding. The proof is the size of the staffs of our competitors. We employ fewer people than the schools we are chasing. Maturi and Bruiniks can say all they want that we're not at the bottom, but until we're funded to the level that we're staffed as well as our competition we are underfunded. However we have come along way, TCF is proof enough.

I think it's an error to blame our woes on the NFL. It's only a coincidence that TV revenues became a factor at the same time as the NFL flourished. We now have the Big Ten Channel and have revenues. We also have a very large market for marketing which we've never invested well in. The opportunities for revenue in this state far exceeds what Wiscy or Iowa could ever hope to have. The difference is that we have to compete for that revenue. The U does not compete for it. It needs to.

So what difficiency do we have? Mostly we need to cap off our investment and close off the last little bit that we are shorting the program. We also need to agressively market the brand to pay for it. We then need to continue to focus on recruiting and upgrade the talent level. Lastly we need to understand that it takes 10-15 years of consistent committment to get to where we're heading. The AD needs to manage the consistency in the program better. Flip flops to the spread and back again cost time and money to this process. Not that you don't ever change, the game does, so too must the program, but it should be better thought out.

Mostly we're doing most of the right things right now. Even though most are unhappy with Brew he has elevated the program and plugged into the national media and recruiting more. We are more visible, and have more open doors than ever before. These are the types of things that Maturi must manage well if he makes a change. We shouldn't have to backpedal with a good hire, they should pick up where the previous coach left off. Which means Maturi needs to act before the program begins to backslide like it did under Mason.
I'm not convinced that the underlying program is backsliding yet but certainly the makings for that to happen are present. Maturi needs to be ready to act decisively this year if the recruits start backing out, and/or he loses the team.
 

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.

I can't do anything to change your mind if you want to focus on a number that the group who did the report NOTES AS INACCURATE. In fact, here is the text: "Cautionary Note: Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution." There is no link I can give you that will hand you a nice table that magically lists things to the Nth detail. That's because the schools don't calculate things the same way (something you apparently know but choose to ignore). If you somehow believe that Indiana is spending more then the U overall while A) their coaches get paid approx 600K less per season, B) our recruiting budget is significantly larger then theirs, and C) we're paying for a brand new stadium that cost almost 6 times as much as their expansion then I don't know what to tell you. Anyone using logic can figure out that we're not last. If you are too lazy to look at it, here's FBT's breakdown for you. Warning, there is no chart.

And yes, I am using the 2009 numbers because they are the only ones that are available and accurate across all schools. So let me rephrase. You'd like the U to suddenly start paying what would likely be in the Top 10 for cost of staffs in all of football? When our Big Ten brethren like Wisconsin and Northwestern are winning for way less? I'm in favor of upping the funding, but paying out like that for a coaching staff won't result in the school fixing the true issues of funding less. Those happen to be things like fewer strength coaches, practice facility upgrades, etc. Paying more for the coaches is only 1 part of it. There is also the fact that a true big name coach worthy of that money (like a Saban) isn't going to come here because of the other missing pieces. So what your plan results in is the school paying Saban money for non-Saban quality.

I also like how you ignored that I am cool with hiring a "name" coach. I just don't think paying Top 10 money is going to get the results we need b/c of the other structural deficits the program faces.
 

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???

Boy, it's a good thing that the states of Wisconsin and Iowa are burgeoning with 5-star prospects, or they too might have a difficult time recruiting.
 


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.

And our hockey program is in the toilet.

In state players would rather go to Mankato State, St. Cloud State, Bemidji State or UMD, than come to the U.

By everyone's logic, we are no longer a hockey school, either.
 

Wrong.

We do get the pick of the Minnesota talent. With one or two going to wisky or UND.

The problem with the hockey team is that nobody who has any real talent plays past their sophomore year. They all go pro.

When the Gophers lose to UND, it is freshmen and sophomore kids straight out of high school against the Junior and Senior Sioux players who had a year and a half of Junior hockey in the states or in Canada before they were freshmen.

And the reason that UMD and SCSU and BSU are so competitive is because there is way more than just one collegiate varsity squad's worth of talented hockey players who come out of our state.

There are a ton of great Minnesota athletes who choose to focus on hockey over football from an early age.
 

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.

This article quotes the U of MN Sports Information Director - is that verifiable enough?

In truth, several Big Ten schools put stadium costs in their football budgets, and the university puts those costs elsewhere, and that greatly distorted the numbers that were given to Hartman.

The university, through Gary Bowman, the head of the sports information department, was quick to refute Sid's information. The athletic department insisted the Gophers are in the middle of the Big Ten when it comes to football spending.

You're hitching your wagon to Sid. I'll choose to listen to the 'S.I.D.' instead.
 

If I recall from the Article the sports director says that amount is not accurate, but does not provide an accurate number. The S.I.D then offers a very general "middle of the big ten". What does that mean are they 4th or 8th. I don't think he refuted anything, he just claimed something was incorrect but offered no tangible proof. If bonding costs are the big difference as claimed they should be simple to figure out to a reasonable amount calculate a specific standing in the Big Ten. Which your source has not done.
 



Mr Gopher,

Your age statement for hockey is as tired as it is incorrect and you would be best served not to use it.
 

Holtz is the only coach that was successful here and we need another "name" coach to be able to recruit to this POS program.

How many of the 6 national titles did Holtz coach us to? Maybe the only recent successful coach.
 

The age statement for hockey isn't correct, because UND is going to start to suffer the same problems that the U is - namely that they get top players, who then bolt for the NHL and big fat signing bonuses. Mr. Gopher is correct in that case. Good teams come together by playing as a team, which is how BSU made it to the Frozen Four a couple years ago. The Gophers the last several years have been a bunch of great prospects thrown together, each with the objective of getting some seasoning to go pro.

I'm a big NHL fan, but the NHL is more detrimental to NCAA hockey than any other pro sport is to their college equivalent, including basketball.
 

Holtz's programs have also had NCAA Sanctions at every place he has coached. So what good he brought is most likely offset by the penalties he left behind.
 



BSU made the Frozen Four by winning the easiest conference in college hockey and riding a hot goalie through the regional tournament. Hard to compare hockey to football. But they would have been the Boise State the year they upset Oklahoma. Got to the BCS on softer schedule, which they took care of business. Then they had nothing to lose which allowed them to run multiple trick plays.
 

If I recall from the Article the sports director says that amount is not accurate, but does not provide an accurate number. The S.I.D then offers a very general "middle of the big ten". What does that mean are they 4th or 8th. I don't think he refuted anything, he just claimed something was incorrect but offered no tangible proof. If bonding costs are the big difference as claimed they should be simple to figure out to a reasonable amount calculate a specific standing in the Big Ten. Which your source has not done.

That's because nobody can accurately quantify the number because no one is sure how the other schools are reporting things. What they do know is that these numbers don't represent the full truth about anything. There is no logical way Indiana is actually spending 3 million more per year then MN. Do you really think MSU is spending more than Michigan by 1 million per year? Etc, etc.

There is plenty missing with these numbers. I suspect the reason you get the U hedging is that they know some of the schools they are outspending (like I said, Indiana is a no brainer for instance) but they may not be sure about others. This results in hedging about being in the middle of the pack.
 

How do you know Indiana is a no brainer? What costs are there to hedge on other than Stadium costs?

So the report about Minnesota being last is incorrect in factual numbers, but since no one can know the actual numbers it is therefore wrong that Minnesota is last because....? All you know is what the Minnesota true costs may be, you can't know by your logic what the other schools true costs are.
 

Prior to Brew we played in the Dome and that sucked. Now we have a amazing venue but a bad coach. Once you get a qualified guy it should all come togehter and we should begin to compete in the Big Ten. We have talent, it is just the coaching staff we have does not know what to do with them.
 

How do you know Indiana is a no brainer? What costs are there to hedge on other than Stadium costs?

So the report about Minnesota being last is incorrect in factual numbers, but since no one can know the actual numbers it is therefore wrong that Minnesota is last because....? All you know is what the Minnesota true costs may be, you can't know by your logic what the other schools true costs are.

How can I compare to another school like Indiana? By using some numbers that are clearly reported combined with some logic. From a little earlier in this thread:
If you somehow believe that Indiana is spending more then the U overall while A) their coaches get paid approx 600K less per season, B) our recruiting budget is significantly larger then theirs, and C) we're paying for a brand new stadium that cost almost 6 times as much as their expansion then I don't know what to tell you.

I may not be able to know the other schools true costs, but I can look at some of the specifics behind their numbers (like coaching salaries or recruiting budget), consider factors like the U's significantly larger stadium debt, and make some educated deductions. [One note...in that other post I mentioned TCF costing 6 times more...that would only be true if I ignored the private donations (which I wasn't thinking of at that time). However, take those away and the U still put over 3x the money into TCF that Indiana did to their expansion.]

You asked what besides the debt isn't being included in the FB budget. Per the U, here are some area's that the U doesn't count in the FB budget: strength and conditioning, equipment room, athletic medicine, event management, facilities, debt, administration, athletic communications, ticket office, development office, marketing, technology services. The big one's I see that other schools are putting into their FB budgets are strength and conditioning, athletic medicine, facilities, and debt (with the latter 2 being the true difference makers).

To assume we're in last place given all this info (plus the U's statements) means that you think the U is straight up lying about where they feel they are. Look, in the end no one is right or wrong here because no one can prove that they "win" the argument. But it just seems more plausible to me that when you add in factors like the facilities, debt, S&T, and training to the stuff we know about (coaching salaries, recruiting budget) that the U isn't last or near to last.
 

Perhaps a good comparison for what a likely salary range for a recently hired top-rate coaching staff would be Florida State. Jimbo Fisher and his staff are drawing $4.4 Million, with Fisher's salary at $1.8 Million. The following link breaks it down by coach. Bobby Bowden and his staff received $4.73 Million last year. This type of information is readily available in Florida due to the state's open record laws.

www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/seminoles/fsu-notebook-football-coaches-salaries-announced-195301.html If this link doesn't work just google "Florida State Football Coaches Salaries".
 


Or the Vols new staff:

Derek Dooley Head Coach 6 years $1,800,000

Charlie Baggett Assistant Head Coach/WR 3 years 375,000

Jim Chaney Offensive Coordinator/RB 3 years 425,000

Harry Hiestand Offensive Line 2 years 200,000

Darin Hinshaw Quarterbacks 2 years 150,000

Terry Joseph Recruiting Coordinator/DB 2 years 175,000

Eric Russell Special Teams/Tight Ends 2 years 200,000

Chuck Smith Defensive Line 2 years 225,000

Lance Thompson Linebackers 3 years 375,000

Justin Wilcox Defensive Coordinator 3 years 600,000


Tennessee also announced the hiring of Bennie Wylie as head football strength coach under a two-year contract for $225,000 a year.

All funding for the athletics department, including coaches' salaries, is from monies generated by athletics' resources and not from appropriated funding by the state of Tennessee or other university-related revenues.

In my head, that comes to somewhere around $5.7M. This kind of money needs to be spent to get a coach that the southern kids have heard of and will at least initially listen to. Their expectations of turning the program around would be greater with someone who has previously done it in the HC position.

It all starts with a HC and staff that can get some stud recruits and coach them up. If the AD spends the money and the team is successful, getting more money from boosters and alumni for other needs is much easier. Plus the U could charge more for priority seats, add more boxes, etc. to generate more revenue.

My whole point was, I don't care if we rank 11th or 8th or maybe even all the way up to 6th in spending. It is obviously not enough. Just like the old adage, we need to spend more to make more.
 

The money argument gives me a headache. First, each school accounts for things like game day operations and parking revenues differently. Without full audit-level disclosure you're never going to have full apples-to-apples comparisons. Second, different schools re-distribute different levels of football revenue to their athletic departments.

Iowa's football program makes a lot more money then ours. But it also has to fund almost thier entire department. Carver-Hawkeye is a morgue and I can almost guarantee no other sports make a profit. On the other hand, the Gopher men's basketball program is among the most profitable in America (think high ticket prices and an above average arena size) and our men's hockey program is the gold standard and turns a nice profit too. Even some of the minor sports at least make enough to come close to breaking even (women's BB and wrestling.) Therefore, there's less burden on football to flow money to the overall department and it can keep a larger % of it's smaller revenue for itself.

Bottom-line is that MN doesn't spend anywhere near as much as OSU, PSU, Michigan or Wisconsin. It's also almost certainly behind MSU and Iowa. It's almost certainly ahead of Indiana and Northwestern and probably in a virtual tie with Purdue and Illinois. Notice a trend? We spend less then all of the football schools and about the same as the basketball schools. Guess what, we're a basketball school too.

But we hold our own with our football budget and we have a shiny new stadium. There's no reason we can't compete to at least crack the upper-half of the Big 10. What's holding us back isn't money or facilities, it's coaching. If we ever want to fully reach the upper-level, we'll need more $$ (think TCF with 80,000 seats.) But let's first focus on getting back where we were with Mason, then getting into the top 5 on a regular basis before we worry about that.
 




Top Bottom