Great FBT article for the Brew haters to chew on

[GoAUpher]

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.

dp, I don't think he believes either of the things that you mention. He's simply saying in his opinion/experience, many fans heard Rose Bowl and got excited and were then let down by the terrible season. That doesn't assume they thought he meant Rose Bowl in 2007 (some might have, but typically that argument is used by people who troll or want to be dumb), it just means they are bipolar fans who get jazzed up by preseason comments and then get too negative if a season disappoints them. I happen to agree that his high expectations coupled with such crushing disappointment in his first year really hamstrung him among some fans. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have them. It just means some fans need to figure out that they shouldn't get made at a coach for having high expectations. Don't shoot the messenger, that's all I'm saying.

 

[tikited]

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!

As a season ticket holder I am wondering why I wasn't invited over to the Gopher Roundtable Dinner? I'd for sure be optimistic...

 

[GoAUpher]

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.

Really well thought out Monty. I think you hit the nail on the head several times over here.

 

[RodentRampage]

dp, I don't think he believes either of the things that you mention. He's simply saying in his opinion/experience, many fans heard Rose Bowl and got excited and were then let down by the terrible season. That doesn't assume they thought he meant Rose Bowl in 2007 (some might have, but typically that argument is used by people who troll or want to be dumb), it just means they are bipolar fans who get jazzed up by preseason comments and then get too negative if a season disappoints them. I happen to agree that his high expectations coupled with such crushing disappointment in his first year really hamstrung him among some fans. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have them. It just means some fans need to figure out that they shouldn't get made at a coach for having high expectations. Don't shoot the messenger, that's all I'm saying.

It may be just the trolls that claimed that Brewster was promising a 2007 Rose Bowl, but they kept shouting it repeatedly and loudly, along with KFAN. The 1-win season in 2007 set up a negative attitude that had nothing to do with whether or not Brewster had been optimistic when he was hired. A 1-win season does that. Many fans are just repeating whatever KFAN says, figuring the local coverage is the most positive that a team will ever get, so the negative comments must all be valid.

 

[Monty519]

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.

I hear ya, and it's true, that should be a goal EVERY season, regardless of how talented you think your team is. I know me personally, though, I was kind of "hooked" in, and 1-11 hurt after that. Difference is, in hindsight, my common sense kicked in and I've moved past that and look at his job much more objectively. There are those who can't manage to get past it and it clouds their judgment of him to this day.

BTW, in case it wasn't clear, I was partially sarcastic when I say he "had the nerve to talk about winning Rose Bowls" lol.

 

[RodentRampage]

If Brewster would have set his sights on getting back the the Insight Bowl, would the 1-11 season have stung any less? Would the media have been less critical?

 

[Monty519]

If Brewster would have set his sights on getting back the the Insight Bowl, would the 1-11 season have stung any less? Would the media have been less critical?

True, I guess it isn't even about the expectations as much as just having a new coach, who really sold his ideas and thoughts on the program well (IMO) at that press conference, and then to have a season like that, it just left a really bad taste about him and his abilities to handle this program, moreso than a coach who may have come in more humble with his approach.

Oh yeah, that reminds me of another element that I missed haha:

5) His lack of head coaching experience. If he had any history of success as a head coach, or any experience as a head coach period, we wouldn't probably be having this conversation either.

 

[jerdogg1]

If Brewster would have set his sights on getting back the the Insight Bowl, would the 1-11 season have stung any less? Would the media have been less critical?

Agreed. I don't want a coach who doesn't aspire to get this squad to the Rose Bowl. I don't remember Mason ever talking about the goal being Rose Bowls. It seemed like his goal was just to make bowl games. That kind of stuff can get into the psyche of people, especially young minds.

Brewster has done everything possible, IMO, to make this team a Rose Bowl contender... but it hasn't translated onto the field yet, and THAT is the only measuring stick that matters. This is, IMO, the #1 reason he is perceived to be on the hot seat. While many other things about the program, recruiting especially, are much improved under Brewster, the on-field results have not yet improved.

 

[Ole]

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.

You got it right on.
There have been so many games where if we win, this conversation isn't had, so many close calls and blown chances. Wisky game in 07 took the mother to the end but couldn't tackle anyone, NW game in 08 took it to the end and had a ball bounce into a defender's hands on his way to the endzone, Wisky game in 08 up big at the half faltered in 2nd, Cal game in 09, wisky game in 09, we've taken leads to the half in every game Brewster has played against wisky.
Iowa game in 09 not as close, but was within striking ditance of a huge upset.
Heck I'd even say if Decker is healthy the last 2 years, we win 1-3 more games in each season.
All of these have simply entrenched in critics minds Brewster's uselessness. I dunno, I think one rivalry win and people will calm down a bit. Here's to getting it done.

 

[justthefacts]

I think a lot of handwringing is borne out of unreasonable expectations of recruiting. People saw that 17th ranked recruiting class in 2008 and 39th ranked class in 2009 and immediately had all of those guys being All-Big Ten the next year. The expectations for Marqueis Gray, for instance, were really preposterous. Unfortunately, that's not how football works.

Now, you can argue that given the number of Juco recruits that there have been and given the fact that there are teams all over the country with impact sophomores and even freshmen, 2009 should have been better. But I think it's pretty clear that people got excited about recruiting too soon only to be disappointed when their crazy dreams didn't become reality.

By the way, this happens all the time on the hoops board as well. "Just think, in 2011 our starting lineup will be Trevor, Rodney, Royce, Cory, and Devoe! They'll be unstoppable!" And then, "When is Tubby going to start winning consistently?"

 

[gophmeister]

One thing is for certain, expectations are low going into this season for the average fan. The consensus is they will be "terrible" and one individual told me he heard the team is partying too much. I highly doubt the team parties any more than any other school's players do.

Me, I'm cautiously optimistic this fall. Everyone on the schedule assumes they'll beat us, yes even USD, so someone is going to get an unpleasant surprise this fall. It's us or them.

 

[GophBen]

1 game clearly stands out to everyone (55-0) and 1-11 stung, but I'm cautiously optimistic overall. It looks like for the most part, Brewster's doing a reverse-Mason and putting his best athletes and football players on defense. Does that get frustrating for most idiots? Of course, because defense is boring and unimportant in the game and scoring a lot of points will always lead to wins. 11 of Brewster's 24 losses have been by a TD or less, including 4 in Trinket games. Either those losses were caused by a lack of athletes on offense not putting us over the top, or we were in those games because of a focus on defense.

I'm optimistic for the fall because it's more fun than the alternative.

 

[RodentRampage]

My suspicion is that if we beat the very low expectations that pundits and smack talkers have made, they will not give the Gophers credit for it. If you pick the Gophers to go 2-10, and they go 6-6, then there should be some credit. That's how you tell the difference between a pundit and a smack talker. The pundit will admit that either they were wrong or that the team exceeded expectations. The smack talker will not.

 

[gophmeister]

My suspicion is that if we beat the very low expectations that pundits and smack talkers have made, they will not give the Gophers credit for it. If you pick the Gophers to go 2-10, and they go 6-6, then there should be some credit. That's how you tell the difference between a pundit and a smack talker. The pundit will admit that either they were wrong or that the team exceeded expectations. The smack talker will not.

Exactly. People picked them to go 6-6 last and when they turned out to be right, they were still upset.

 

[anonymous]

Couple of random thoughts after reading this thread:

1. My biggest frustration with Brewster is that there has been little offensive identity. The coordinator shuffle and annual retooling of the offense doesn't instill confidence. If there was consistency, the ship was heading in the right direction and there was progress, it would be easier to watch.

2. It is my belief that a guy who has never called a play or been a head coach isn't qualified to be a head coach in the Big Ten. That's not his fault that he was hired, but the Big Ten is a tough place for on the job training.

3. I get weary of the pro sports competition argument/excuse. The Gophers constantly try to sell recruits on the corportate support/interships/jobs that are available. If you are going to sell the benefits of the big city, you can't have it both ways and say that the big city is the reason why the program has struggled.

4. Programs that are trying to head in a positive direction have to try to sell hope. The problem is that the record in the conference, the performance against rivals and the performances in bowl games doesn't really provide a lot of reason for hope.

 

[EG#9]

I still hate the name of this guys site, but decided to check out the article. Some thoughts:

The Gophers actually likely would have had 4 more bowl games (so 24 up from his projected 20) as there were 4 more seasons where the Gophers won 4 conference games yet did not go to a Bowl. Those 4-4 (and 4-5) seasons in the Big Ten would have got them to a bowl with the non conference schedules of the last 15-20 years.

That said, I still disagree with this statement:

"Gophers have not, sans the Wacker and to some extent the Salem eras, been a “terrible” program as I’ve seen some so-called “fans” proclaim them to be. In this regard, both Coach Mason and Brewster have maintained, but not yet elevated, the program beyond its mean."

The Gophers are one of only two teams in the Big Ten to not win a conference title in this 42 year time period, that's horrible. The Gophers are one of only two teams during the Mason decade to not finish in the top 3 of the conference, again horrible. The conference winning percentage over this 42 year time frame? Horrible. The Gophers have been a "terrible" program when the information is taken as a whole. We'd be in much, much better shape (as a program and a fan base) if there were some significant years in the last 42, but there haven't been. Think about some of the programs that have had them: Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue, Boise State, Utah, Wake Forest, TCU, Oregon, Washington State, Arizona State, and I could go on forever.

"This begs a corollary question: why the talk of Coach Brewster on the hot seat in year 4? If you go back 42 years, every Gopher head coach has gotten the benefit of the doubt for at least 5 seasons, including Salem and Wacker. In fact, if you look at Gopher history, the coaches at the “fringe” bowl level coached here at least 6 years (Gutekunst had 6 years, Stoll had 7 and Mason survived 10 years – longest since Murray Warmath). Minnesota has very little historical precedence to fire a head coach after just 4 years, provided the squad is performing near the traditional program “mean.” "

I could not disagree with this more. If the history has been bad, why repeat it? I knew Wacker was kept too long, I knew Mason was kept too long, why do the same with Brewster? It's clear that giving the coaches above "extra" years did not help them get over the hump and only delayed progress further. I believe recruiting ended so poorly last year in large part because of the Gophers record and the widespread belief that Brewster was on the hotseat. Guess what? If Brewster doesn't win this year, the same thing will happen again. Rival recruiter: "Why would you go to Minnesota? That coach has not even finished .500 in the conference in 4 years, do you really think he will be around to coach you?" The 2010 class was already closer to a Mason class than most would like to admit (especially after losing Hill to grades), what will 2011 look like? If Brewster who's resume was built on recruiting brings in another 7-11th ranked class, what does that say about progress?

I like Brewster's passion, I like that (save for one interview) he hasn't made lame excuses about winning at Minnesota, and I like that he takes the blame for losses. I want him to succeed, but THIS is the year to show some progress.

If a University gives you 4 years to reach .500 in your own conference, that's very generous. If you fail to win a rivalry game in 4 years, that's horrible and you should expect to be fired. Coach Brewster doesn't need to be great in year 4, but he does need to be average. If he can't be average once in 4 years, I think it's time to move on. I personally want to avoid the extra years given to previous coaches who didn't win.

 

[gophmeister]

I knew Wacker was kept too long, I knew Mason was kept too long, why do the same with Brewster?

The coaching fraternity is the reason they were kept so long. We can't fire a coach just because he's not progressing as fast as a few hotheads would like. Wacker only won one conference game each of his last three seasons and had we fired him in '95 no one would have wanted the job. We got Glen Mason because we were willing to throw a big salary at him. What does that tell you? No one is going to risk there career to come here. Would you take a job where you get paid significantly less than your peers and then risk losing your job you don't meet what unrealistic expectations considering the resources at hand? People don't realize what an impediment the dome was, the poor recruiting base and then on top of that to have a deal with all the internal politics of the U and then the bs from the media. No thanks. Thankfully, some things have changed in the past decade. Combining the athletic departments and getting rid of Chris Voelz was a step in the right direction. Hate Maturi all you want, but he seems to have eradicated a lot of the bitterness on the two sides. If Brewster does get fired, we should be in the position to hire someone significantly better thanks to the new stadium, increased revenue and necessity. Any big name coach will command far more control than the usual run of the mill candidate. If there's a new coach in Dinkytown in the coming years, he won't be a retread or someone overmatched. Will he succeed? I can't answer that.