Great FBT article for the Brew haters to chew on

[AhliBobwa]

http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?p=1225&cpage=1#comment-311

The point here is show where the Gophers have been and to ask ourselves, as fans and stakeholders in the program, why is the current coach somehow different from the previous lead men over the past 42 years that he doesn’t deserve his 5-6 year shot to get the Gophers over the hump? Where the program is today, in 2010, roughly where it has been since the wake of the Glory Years: it’s too early to write off Brewster’s plan to move the program beyond just yet.´

Brew has recruited the talent. Now he finally has a solid staff on both sides of the ball (one that´s likely to stick around for awhile, and continuity is important).

The next 2-3 years will see the Gophers climb over the hump and into contention. The haters can squawk all you want but you will eat crow soon enough.

 

[highwayman]

Far too well thought out and analytical for this board. On the flip (red) side, why is there such support (love) for a loutish and continously DECLINING Sconnie coach who still rides the coat tails of his predecessor?

 

[gophmeister]

Far too well thought out and analytical for this board. On the flip (red) side, why is there such support (love) for a loutish and continously DECLINING Sconnie coach who still rides the coat tails of his predecessor?

Maybe that love won't last too much longer.

Matt (Madison, WI)

All rumors from Madtown are that Clay is currently well north of that 250 mark. This worries me

Adam Rittenberg (2:31 PM)


Yeah, I've heard that, too. Don't want to see P.J. Hill, Part II. Isn't there a Whole Foods in Madison?

 

[Word]

I think, to be fair, you have to give Brewster 5 years to see what he can do (so he can entirely have "his" players). If it still isn't going right after that time, need to look for a new coach. Seems simple enough.

 

[Gold Vision]

Far too well thought out and analytical for this board. On the flip (red) side, why is there such support (love) for a loutish and continously DECLINING Sconnie coach who still rides the coat tails of his predecessor?

Remind me how going 10-3 (6 in a row vs. the Gophers) with an impressive bowl win against Miami after a 2008 7-6 season is declining?

I hate Wisconsin as much as the next, but this argument is just dumb.

 

[GoAUpher]

Remind me how going 10-3 (6 in a row vs. the Gophers) with an impressive bowl win against Miami after a 2008 7-6 season is declining?

I hate Wisconsin as much as the next, but this argument is just dumb.

Yea, that pretty much sums up what I thought too (minus the 6 in a row versus us...that has nothing to do with the rise and fall of their overall program). I know from living in Madison that not all Badger fans are sold on BB, but last year's performance really calmed everyone down. He'll need another 7 win season before I think you can say that Wisky is declining (unless you want people to roll their eyes). Hating your rival doesn't mean ignoring common sense.

 

[Jike Spingleton]

Interesting that Rich Brooks at Oregon was mentioned, since that was the guy I constantly compared Mason to on these boards. It took Brooks 18 years to get Oregon to a Rose Bowl, with a few middling bowl games leading up to that point. Whether Mason ever would've gotten the Gophers over the hump, I don't know, but the Mason-led Gophers easily outperformed the Brooks-led Ducks until that Rose Bowl season.

 

[Iceland12]

http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?p=1225&cpage=1#comment-311

The point here is show where the Gophers have been and to ask ourselves, as fans and stakeholders in the program, why is the current coach somehow different from the previous lead men over the past 42 years that he doesn’t deserve his 5-6 year shot to get the Gophers over the hump? Where the program is today, in 2010, roughly where it has been since the wake of the Glory Years: it’s too early to write off Brewster’s plan to move the program beyond just yet.´

Brew has recruited the talent. Now he finally has a solid staff on both sides of the ball (one that´s likely to stick around for awhile, and continuity is important).

The next 2-3 years will see the Gophers climb over the hump and into contention. The haters can squawk all you want but you will eat crow soon enough.

Hate has nothing to do with rationality.

People think of the 1-11 first season followed by the putrid performance of the Offense in many instances last year, to come to the "we need a big name coach" conclusion. People talk about how much 'Defense wins games" but not when the Offense can't score; to often last year it was the ineptness of the Gopher Offense not the strength of the opposing Defense that led to three or maybe even four Gopher defeats.

We've had 26 people over to the house for dinner the last two weekends. 11 of them are current or former Gopher Season Tickets holders. All but two of us kept talking about how the Gophers were going to get "killed" this year. I finally just shut the conversation down. God bless good food and cigars!

That's what Brewster is fighting AlhiBobwa. He's going to have to win early in the season and late to get past that. There's also going to have to be a Trophy win or two, a major upset, no damning losses or some combination thereof to get that crowd back.

"Saints preserve us!"

 

[Iceland12]

Interesting that Rich Brooks at Oregon was mentioned, since that was the guy I constantly compared Mason to on these boards. It took Brooks 18 years to get Oregon to a Rose Bowl, with a few middling bowl games leading up to that point. Whether Mason ever would've gotten the Gophers over the hump, I don't know, but the Mason-led Gophers easily outperformed the Brooks-led Ducks until that Rose Bowl season.

Good comparison Jike, but Brooks never had to compete with the Vikings or the Twins, Wild or Wolves for that matter, when it came to dollars or media support.

 

[gophmeister]

Good comparison Jike, but Brooks never had to compete with the Vikings or the Twins, Wild or Wolves for that matter, when it came to dollars or media support.

And Mase and Brew don't have Phil Knight's money.

 

[GopherGod]

Good comparison Jike, but Brooks never had to compete with the Vikings or the Twins, Wild or Wolves for that matter, when it came to dollars or media support.

Brooks did have to compete with another major division 1 university in his state however as well as having a lower overall population than Minnesota has to pull fans from. Yes there are pro sports here but Minnesota also has a pretty large population base to pull fans from without having an additional division 1 program in the state.

 

[RodentRampage]

People think of the 1-11 first season followed by the putrid performance of the Offense in many instances last year, to come to the "we need a big name coach" conclusion. People talk about how much 'Defense wins games" but not when the Offense can't score; to often last year it was the ineptness of the Gopher Offense not the strength of the opposing Defense that led to three or maybe even four Gopher defeats.

Ah, to have a decent offense and a decent defense in the same year. When our offense was potent, the defense was horrible. Those defenses would have looked even worse if they weren't supported by a potent offense. That meant the offense had to do everything, and they couldn't. There were times when one more score or even one more first down would have won the game, but getting one stop would have done it to, the offense can't be asked to do it all, any more than the defense can be asked to do it all.

We've had 26 people over to the house for dinner the last two weekends. 11 of them are current or former Gopher Season Tickets holders. All but two of us kept talking about how the Gophers were going to get "killed" this year. I finally just shut the conversation down. God bless good food and cigars!

This assessment that the Gophers will get "killed" this year seems to be based on conventional wisdom, what "everyone else" is saying. But one thing that I have noticed is that there are so many predictions seem to be saying the exact same thing. Not that they have come to the same conclusions, but that they are simply repeating what they hear others saying.

It all comes down to two assumptions: 1) assuming that since the defense is losing starters that the defense will be terrible. It's of course quite possible, but unknowns are just that, unknown. You can't assume that the unknowns will all be bad. 2) assuming that the offesne will be terrible. Even if it's as bad as it was last year, that's at least a known quantity, and we went 6-6 with an offense that bad. It's a valid point that we are without Decker, but we were without him for a lot of last season too. We should have at least some improvement on defense with an offense tailored to the abilities of the players, rather than tailored to what NFL players can do.

The upside is that the pundits have driven expectations so low that if the defense remains more or less the same, and the offense makes some improvement, we could really surprise people.

 

[gophmeister]

The one thing this program needs is a breakout season like Wisconsin had in '93. We had some good years in the past decade and some nice wins here and there, but nothing people can really hang their hat on. If we hadn't lost to Michigan in 2003 we'd all get misty-eyed about that season. All people remember about '03 is how embarrassing the Michigan loss was. That's all I remember.

 

[GoAUpher]

Brooks did have to compete with another major division 1 university in his state however as well as having a lower overall population than Minnesota has to pull fans from.

All true, but I don't think the boys in Corvallis compare in fan support to the Vikings. Its not a completely apples to apples comparison as OSU is the bitter rival of Oregon. But since many Vikes fans can't be bothered to support the hometown D-I team it ends up being sadly similar.

 

[GoAUpher]

The one thing this program needs is a breakout season like Wisconsin had in '93. We had some good years in the past decade and some nice wins here and there, but nothing people can really hang their hat on. If we hadn't lost to Michigan in 2003 we'd all get misty-eyed about that season. All people remember about '03 is how embarrassing the Michigan loss was. That's all I remember.

Sad but true.

 

[gophmeister]

Brooks did have to compete with another major division 1 university in his state however as well as having a lower overall population than Minnesota has to pull fans from. Yes there are pro sports here but Minnesota also has a pretty large population base to pull fans from without having an additional division 1 program in the state.

That other team is Oregon St, which is 50 miles away and less successful sportwise. That doesn't equal 4 professional sports teams all competing for the same ticket buyers in the same metro area even if our population is larger (25%+). There's only so much money people are going to allocate for entertainment.

 

[jerdogg1]

why is the current coach somehow different from the previous lead men over the past 42 years that he doesn’t deserve his 5-6 year shot to get the Gophers over the hump?

Whether or not you believe it to be the case, the people who argue that Brew doesn't deserve a full 5-6 years generally seem to believe so because they believe that Brewster inherited a program that was generally in better shape than the one's that Mason, Wacker and Gutie inherited.

 

[GoGophers2005]

I say you can throw at least 1/2 of the Brew haters into the true 'haters' category. Every team has them. They are the same people that think Jim Tressel should have been or should be fired as Ohio State coach.
It's easy to be a 'hater'. Basically every college coach ends up getting fired. Eventually these 'haters' get their way.
Fringe Bowl Guy has it exactly right. Brewster deserves to be around for AT LEAST the amount of time that Wacker was allowed.

 

[lakesgopher]

Whether or not you believe it to be the case, the people who argue that Brew doesn't deserve a full 5-6 years generally seem to believe so because they believe that Brewster inherited a program that was generally in better shape than the one's that Mason, Wacker and Gutie inherited.

I still believe brew inherited a much worse team then mason. I don't even think its close. brew deserves 5-6 yrs and the fan base needs to demand we spend more money on our football program...if brew doesn't work out what big time coach is going to want to coach here w/the worst football budget in the big ten?

 

[GoAUpher]

Whether or not you believe it to be the case, the people who argue that Brew doesn't deserve a full 5-6 years generally seem to believe so because they believe that Brewster inherited a program that was generally in better shape than the one's that Mason, Wacker and Gutie inherited.

Well, if you look at what FBT put together its pretty clear that Brew took over a program that was in better shape than the one that Mason inherited from Wacker. However, with the exception of 2003 Mason never brought us above our 4 decade level of "average" either. People just get to make Mason's time better b/c of the 7 mediocre bowl games in 8 years. So basically people are getting riled up that Brew has only kept us at Mason levels of on field success (minus the 1-11 of course).

I attribute this to a couple of things:
1) While Mason's teams might not have been better than average in W's and L's they excelled in running the ball (and he seemed to excel at getting the most out of unheralded RB/OL recruits). Brew's teams have not established this sort of identity to hang their hat on and I suspect this is a frustration for many even though the W's and L's end up being the same. Thus you get everyone pining for the days of cupcake NC games where we won by 50.
2) People who are no pleased with Brew's style. This one is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Iceland12]

Brooks did have to compete with another major division 1 university in his state however as well as having a lower overall population than Minnesota has to pull fans from. Yes there are pro sports here but Minnesota also has a pretty large population base to pull fans from without having an additional division 1 program in the state.

So in the context of Jike's argument you feel that people should have given Mason as much time as Brooks to get the job done? That people around here will be willing to wait a dozen years let alone 18 without wanting a change or just giving-up.

I still feel that it's far to easy for people around here to "change their allegiance" when things aren't going well. The patience shown towards Brooks just won't ever exist around here.

Of course all that goes out the window if you didn't even bother to read Jike's post and you just wanted to make a point about Minnesota having a large population.

 

[Iceland12]

Well, if you look at what FBT put together its pretty clear that Brew took over a program that was in better shape than the one that Mason inherited from Wacker. However, with the exception of 2003 Mason never brought us above our 4 decade level of "average" either. People just get to make Mason's time better b/c of the 7 mediocre bowl games in 8 years. So basically people are getting riled up that Brew has only kept us at Mason levels of on field success (minus the 1-11 of course).

I attribute this to a couple of things:
1) While Mason's teams might not have been better than average in W's and L's they excelled in running the ball (and he seemed to excel at getting the most out of unheralded RB/OL recruits). Brew's teams have not established this sort of identity to hang their hat on and I suspect this is a frustration for many even though the W's and L's end up being the same. Thus you get everyone pining for the days of cupcake NC games where we won by 50.
2) People who are no pleased with Brew's style. This one is pretty self-explanatory.

If you take away the three players who had to be suspended before the start of the 2007 season it's VERY arguable that on Defense at least, Brewster inherited less talent then Mason did.

As for Mason's running game turnaround, it didn't happen in 1997. Mason, much like Brewster took an Offense and a QB Cory Sauter, who had put-up over 250 yards passing nine times in the previous two years and tried to make him run an option offense !

Thomas Hamner was the leading rusher in 96 and 97. He rushed for 883 his last year under Wacker and 663 his first year under Mason.

 

[RUGoldenAZ]

I still believe brew inherited a much worse team then mason. I don't even think its close. brew deserves 5-6 yrs and the fan base needs to demand we spend more money on our football program...if brew doesn't work out what big time coach is going to want to coach here w/the worst football budget in the big ten?

FBT talks about this here
http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?p=1213
I don't think we can really use that argument unless there are definative numbers from each school.

 

[Ole]

Great breakdown and analysis from MV.

Basically it comes down to the 1-11 season IMO. The metrodomers were SO comfy watching year after year of running over(literally) weak competition, rolling up big numbers so they could brag about the running game, and ultimately beating a rival every 3 years, just enough to keep their dobbers up. Brewster came in and blew it all up. Change is not easy. 1-11 was such an uncomfortable season for folks, and stack on top of that the real lack of rivalry victories, and the Minnesota passive aggressiveness clashing with Brew's outspoken personality, you have now a large faction of our fanbase who simply refuse to see anything positive about the last 2 years, and can't wait for any other coach to come be the savior.

Meanwhile Brewster has done nothing but work his tail off, trying to improve the athleticism and talent level of the team, patching up local recruiting pipelines and laying down new ones.
His approach has been truly long term and all encompassing, perhaps to his own ultimate demise if his critics are satiated after this year. I'm hoping not, 5 years is what it takes to see what a coach can do, no more, no less.

 

[Schnoodler]

Nicely said Ole.

+1

 

[GoAUpher]

If you take away the three players who had to be suspended before the start of the 2007 season it's VERY arguable that on Defense at least, Brewster inherited less talent then Mason did.

As for Mason's running game turnaround, it didn't happen in 1997. Mason, much like Brewster took an Offense and a QB Cory Sauter, who had put-up over 250 yards passing nine times in the previous two years and tried to make him run an option offense !

Thomas Hamner was the leading rusher in 96 and 97. He rushed for 883 his last year under Wacker and 663 his first year under Mason.

I'm not looking at talent so much as on field performance since that is ultimately how a team is judged. It's also the standard by which the average fan will set their expectations. And by that standard Brew was inheriting a more successful program than Mason. Which is why you get the gnashing of teeth about Brew taking a perennial bowl team and "running them into the ground" or somesuch nonsense even though with the exception of 1-11 he's fielded teams that are exactly what the historical norm is here. Average.

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

I still believe brew inherited a much worse team then mason. I don't even think its close. brew deserves 5-6 yrs and the fan base needs to demand we spend more money on our football program...if brew doesn't work out what big time coach is going to want to coach here w/the worst football budget in the big ten?

Right on. Wackers recruits were a big part of the good 99 squad and many of them played in the NFL/CFL: Carter, Hamilton, Wyrick, Riley, Bruce, Rackley, etc. Plus solid players such as Hoffman, Hau, Hass, Hamner, Mezera, Russ and Sr. QB Cockerham. Compare that to the players Brewster was left with, especially his first two seasons.

Brewster was hired to win big and often and elevate the program to where it is competitive. This is an extremely difficult task considering the past history of the program and the negatives fallout from the damn dome. He needs at least 5 years and I hope we see significant progress this Fall. I still think 2011 could be a very good team.

 

[Monty519]

I see three key elements of Brewster's era so far that have, IMO, put him in trouble as far as being on this proverbial "hot seat" in only Year 4 on the job despite two bowl appearances:

1) His first initial press conference. Attended by many, including myself, Brewster had the nerve to even talk about winning Rose Bowls. He set the bar extremely high that day and I'm not gonna lie, I loved it and was hyped for the upcoming season, not expecting really more than 5 or 6 wins, but to see a team play with a little more fire and all of that, and see building blocks for a title. Then we went 1-11. Oops. I know for fact there are many who cannot get over this initial letdown that Brewster set them up for, and that's shaped their opinion of him more than anything else that has occurred in the next two seasons.

2) 55-0. I know this game came on the heels of already losing 4 in a row after a 7-1 start, but the way that Dome finale went down really bruised things badly for Brewster. You CANNOT allow a rival to invade your house, have sex in your bathrooms, and beat you down like that on your field EVER. It was inexcusable.

3) No trophy wins. He needs one BADLY this year.

I'll throw in one more: 4) Offensive offense. People don't want to see bad offenses unless you are winning a ton of games. Brewster is looked at as the guy who took something we excelled at (offense and running game specifically) and turned it into crap. It's okay if we're 10-2, it's not okay if we're 6-6. The offense needs to be far more consistent and more explosive, that's all there is to it.

Those are the elements I think lead us to this upcoming, VERY important season for Tim Brewster. He can't do anything about 1) and 2) so much now, but he can't afford to have 3) and 4) still dogging him after this season ends.

 

[dpodoll68]

1) His first initial press conference. Attended by many, including myself, Brewster had the nerve to even talk about winning Rose Bowls. He set the bar extremely high that day and I'm not gonna lie, I loved it and was hyped for the upcoming season, not expecting really more than 5 or 6 wins, but to see a team play with a little more fire and all of that, and see building blocks for a title. Then we went 1-11. Oops. I know for fact there are many who cannot get over this initial letdown that Brewster set them up for, and that's shaped their opinion of him more than anything else that has occurred in the next two seasons.

You're a good poster, and I almost always agree with you. But I respectfully disagree with you here. It's not Brewster's fault that some morons took his words to mean "we are going to the Rose Bowl in 2007." He never came anywhere close to implying or insinuating that. He did say "sooner rather than later," but again, that doesn't mean anything. Leaders in all fields of work speak in generalities all the time. I don't understand how anyone could crucify him for that. Hell, given that we hadn't been to a Rose Bowl in 40 years when he was hired, I'd take anything less than 20 years to equate "sooner."

And he isn't supposed to utter the words "Rose Bowl" in his first press conference? Really? I don't want a Gopher football coach who doesn't hold the Rose Bowl (at minimum) as his goal.

The rest of your post was spot on. For most fans of any sport, "all offense/no defense" is better than the opposite, and some fans still long for Mason because of that. Also, Mason gets all this credit for talent development, when for the most part he was turning 2s and 3s into 5s and 6s. Brewster doesn't get the same credit, because he is turning 4s and 5s into 8s and 9s.

 

[RodentRampage]

Everyone should want a coach who is going to set high goals and be optimistic. This idea that people dislike Brewster because of his opening press conference is a media created fiction. Some of the local media didn't like his optimism, and the smack talkers ran with it.

A number of times I have seen posters on other boards who claimed that they used to be Gopher fans, but that Brewster turned them off on the Gophers and they are now fans of (insert team here). These posters are simply liars, I've seen that smack technique often enough, they never were Gopher fans.