"How Many Of Us Have Them? Scapegoats...Ones We Can Depend On..."

Donate To GopherHole
thailleagle

thailleagle

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,137
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I'm starting to notice a trend of excuses that fans use to...I guess feel better about the Gophers not being able to compete with the Top Tier Schools in the Big Ten...

First it was...

"But...but...but...we need better coaching!"

Exit Wacker...Enter Mason...

Mason was able to do something Wacker couldn't...win games. Even though he pretty much *PWNED* Joe Paterno in his tenure & beat every team in the Big Ten, it wasn't enough...

Then...

"But...but...but...we need better talent!"

Exit Mason...Enter Brewster...

I remember Brewster had this board so hyped up on Star Ratings & Recruits & a lot of people got so caught up in the hype they fail to realize talent means nothing if it can't be nurtured & polished properly & that lies on the Coach.

Now?

"But...but...but...we need a bigger budget!"

Really? Now some people are so desperate to feel better about the program not being able to capture a Big Ten Title that they are now looking at the money? A couple plays going different & Mason could've won a Big Ten Title in 1999, 2003 & 2005...*WITHOUT* a big so called Budget & without all the "Superior" talent someone like Brewster has supposedly brought in.

A couple plays going the other way & Brewster could've won 9 or 10 games in 2008. Did anybody talk budget during that 7-1 stretch? No. Brewster was 1 or 2 plays away from beating Wisconsin & Northwestern (that last play still stings) & had he done it nobody would talk about the budget just like no one did during Mason's days, it was all about the talent.

Now I'm just ranting...too tired...gotta go watch this stupid movie...
 

Not sure they're scapegoats as much as trying to find something controllable. If it's not talent, coaching or budget, it's basically down to luck. Do we just need to get lucky? If that's the case, we may as well hang with Brewster, right?

I'm hammering on budget right now since I think it's where it all begins and ends. Larger budget gets you a better coach who can recruit better talent and coach that talent to perform better. I'm probably wrong and am using it as a scapegoat, to your point. But I can't accept the fact we're stuck in a 50-year cycle of bad luck.
 

MBAGuy said:
Not sure they're scapegoats as much as trying to find something controllable. If it's not talent, coaching or budget, it's basically down to luck. Do we just need to get lucky? If that's the case, we may as well hang with Brewster, right?

I'm hammering on budget right now since I think it's where it all begins and ends. Larger budget gets you a better coach who can recruit better talent and coach that talent to perform better. I'm probably wrong and am using it as a scapegoat, to your point. But I can't accept the fact we're stuck in a 50-year cycle of bad luck.
Click to expand...

I agree. I do not think that it is merely coincidence that OSU has one of the largest budgets for fb and also has one of the best football programs in the nation. Now I am not saying that if we spend the most money on fb that we will get a national championship, but I do think that there is a correlation between the amount of money a school spends on fb and the success that fb program has.
 

MBAGuy - to continue our dialogue, I'm with the poster of this thread that budget is a scapegoat that is not the source of the problem. You say "larger budget gets you a better coach." I say that larger budgets had very little to to with Iowa's hiring of Hayden Fry from North Texas State, or hring Kirk Ferentz from the pros as a largely unknown postion coach, or Wisconsin's hiring of Alvarez from Holtz's Notre Dame staff, or Kansas State's initial hiring of Bill Synder, or UConn's hiring of Randy Edsall. Those are the kind of coaches the U needs to find, which, of course, is easier said than done. Luck and good judgment had far more to do with the hiring of these guys than budgets that could compete with the Ohio States of the world. While Brewster was an untested commodity who Maturi thought might have the right stuff, Wacker and Mason were retreads who had already proved at TCU and Kansas that they could not win a conference championship in a big time conference.
 

If you're going to be at the top level of anything you have to do everything well. Not perfect or best but at least well. If we can point to something we don't do well it's not a scapegoat, it's a realistic deficiency. It needs to be addressed. Or as MBA said, we need to get lucky.

I for one think that counting on luck is a terrible plan.
 


I'm hammering on budget right now since I think it's where it all begins and ends. Larger budget gets you a better coach who can recruit better talent and coach that talent to perform better.

I am really questioning the budget numbers in that report.

Where is Northwestern spending 6 million more than Minnesota? Yachts and marinas for all the coaches at Lake Michigan?

I have been up closeto the NU campus andfacilities and I do not see how they are putting 60% more into football than Minnesota.

Iowa is paying Ferentz a lot of money. What else are they spending money that we are not? They practice in a facility like Augsburg's in the winter.
 

It is absolutely ridiculous to deny the fact that year in and year out the most successful DI football schools in the country are the ones that have dedicated the most resources to building and maintaining their programs. Of course it is possible to point out a few examples here and there of football teams that have risen to prominence with budgets that are similar to what the Gophers have. But those are few and far between. If it was easy to do many more schools would have done it.

I would also argue that administration, alumni, and fan support are as important as the budget for a winning program. The U fails in all three areas for reasons that have been debated endlessly in GopherHole over the years. The Board of Regents and Administration are particularly at fault for this. Starting in the 1960's the U's academic reputation as well as the fortunes of the Gopher football team were allowed to decline by the people making the big decisions. What was lost and has never been fully recovered is a commitment to excellence and a sense of pride that was felt by people all over the state that the University of Minnesota was one of the finest public research universities in the country. During that period of time the quality of undergraduate education at the U was considered to be substandard and most of the top high school students never gave the school a second thought when choosing where they would attend college. Fortunately, that is starting to change but restoring the U's reputation is not going to happen overnight.
 

For those who say money doesn't matter, just take a look around and see which Universities have successful programs. At the same time, choices can be made to improve our football team, but it's very difficult. Diamonds in the rough (what you need without the budget support) are are called that for a reason. Maturi gambled and lost with Brewster.

I'd rather have us gamble with someone who could be excellent or terrible, than to settle for someone who will be mediocre. That said, I would absolutely prefer if we hired someone who was proven to be excellent...I just see the chances of that happening as zero. Sure, the basketball team lucked out with Tubby, but there aren't too many Tubby Smith's out there, especially when it comes to football.
 

thailleagle said:
I'm starting to notice a trend of excuses that fans use to...I guess feel better about the Gophers not being able to compete with the Top Tier Schools in the Big Ten...

First it was...

"But...but...but...we need better coaching!"

Exit Wacker...Enter Mason...

Mason was able to do something Wacker couldn't...win games. Even though he pretty much *PWNED* Joe Paterno in his tenure & beat every team in the Big Ten, it wasn't enough...

Then...

"But...but...but...we need better talent!"

Exit Mason...Enter Brewster...

I remember Brewster had this board so hyped up on Star Ratings & Recruits & a lot of people got so caught up in the hype they fail to realize talent means nothing if it can't be nurtured & polished properly & that lies on the Coach.

Now?

"But...but...but...we need a bigger budget!"

Really? Now some people are so desperate to feel better about the program not being able to capture a Big Ten Title that they are now looking at the money? A couple plays going different & Mason could've won a Big Ten Title in 1999, 2003 & 2005...*WITHOUT* a big so called Budget & without all the "Superior" talent someone like Brewster has supposedly brought in.

A couple plays going the other way & Brewster could've won 9 or 10 games in 2008. Did anybody talk budget during that 7-1 stretch? No. Brewster was 1 or 2 plays away from beating Wisconsin & Northwestern (that last play still stings) & had he done it nobody would talk about the budget just like no one did during Mason's days, it was all about the talent.

Now I'm just ranting...too tired...gotta go watch this stupid movie...
Click to expand...

People have NEVER shut-up around here about Maturi not spending enough on the football program, but following the premise of the post your scapegoat is Brewster and it has been for a couple of years now. Unless of course the premise is nothing else matters, just fire Brewster.

You may be correct, but if you thought that this approach would create a lot of "Of course nothing else matters, we should fire Brewster!" it was a waste.

Next time just get some sleep or add to the many, many threads advocating the same thing.
 



oak_street1981 said:
I'm hammering on budget right now since I think it's where it all begins and ends. Larger budget gets you a better coach who can recruit better talent and coach that talent to perform better.

I am really questioning the budget numbers in that report.

Where is Northwestern spending 6 million more than Minnesota? Yachts and marinas for all the coaches at Lake Michigan?

I have been up closeto the NU campus andfacilities and I do not see how they are putting 60% more into football than Minnesota.

Iowa is paying Ferentz a lot of money. What else are they spending money that we are not? They practice in a facility like Augsburg's in the winter.
Click to expand...

Facilities would typically be covered under the capital budget and not the annual operating budget, but your point about the numbers being suspect is fair. MV has done a good analysis on FBT and points out the lack of consistency in how schools account for their budgets. It's possible we're spending as much as Wisky and Iowa but just account for it differently. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Like I said, the budget issues may very well be a red herring and, consequently, a scapegoat. With that said, I don't see any harm in pressing the university to provide some detail regarding the football budget to see if we are at parity with some of our peer schools. If we are and the budget isn't the issue, then we'll start the coin flipping process to choose our next coach. :)
 

Iceland12 said:
People have NEVER shut-up around here about Maturi not spending enough on the football program, but following the premise of the post your scapegoat is Brewster and it has been for a couple of years now. Unless of course the premise is nothing else matters, just fire Brewster.

You may be correct, but if you thought that this approach would create a lot of "Of course nothing else matters, we should fire Brewster!" it was a waste.

Next time just get some sleep or add to the many, many threads advocating the same thing.
Click to expand...

No sir...this is not a "Fire Brewster" related thread...which why I mentioned how he was 1 or 2 plays away from winning 8-10 games back in 2008 *WITH* the current budget...

I understand money *DOES* matter...I just don't think it's the "End All, Be All" of what's keeping us from being Top Tier in the Big Ten or at least keeping us from having a Rose Bowl year...
 

I try to drive my car and then you tell me the car needs to have an engine. Fine, I go put an engine in it. Then you tell me the car needs wheels. So I go ahead and put wheels on the car. THEN you tell me the car needs gas. So what is it? Does a car need an engine, does it need wheels or does it need gas?
 

I've...been ... pushing. .. money... every..time...vikings .. .comes ... up...not sure...when... i ...started....however...money...has...always...been...a..factor...just saying...
 



thailleagle said:
I understand money *DOES* matter...I just don't think it's the "End All, Be All" of what's keeping us from being Top Tier in the Big Ten or at least keeping us from having a Rose Bowl year...
Click to expand...

So what is it that's keeping it from happening? Is it really just luck?

That's a wicked streak of bad luck, man. We may need to start sacrificing chickens to save the program. Is the U built on an ancient Indian burial ground or something?
 


-Its not bad luck, we have not found in a coach the right combination of recruiting and coaching ability
 

Egg or Chicken

Which came first success or money? I would say in all successful programs, they brought in a coach that built a quality program, they began to win and the money started to flow in.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Which came first success or money? I would say in all successful programs, they brought in a coach that built a quality program, they began to win and the money started to flow in.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to that. ... In my limited work history I've worked for a couple of places that invested heavily .... first and then reaped the benefits later. I don't ....know enough about the economics of college football to see if it follows a different pattern.'...

Edit: added dots since this is a dots only thread.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Which came first success or money? I would say in all successful programs, they brought in a coach that built a quality program, they began to win and the money started to flow in.
Click to expand...

This is my belief. The greatest college programs were not built on money initially, but by coaches who constantly improved. Can anyone name a University that built winning tradition by buying a big name coach? This is essentially what the budget bangers are asking for here. If Minnesota builds and maintains a winning tradition the money will flow in.
 

goldengophers said:
This is my belief. The greatest college programs were not built on money initially, but by coaches who constantly improved. Can anyone name a University that built winning tradition by buying a big name coach? This is essentially what the budget bangers are asking for here. If Minnesota builds and maintains a winning tradition the money will flow in.
Click to expand...

The greatest college programs were built at a time when money was MUCH less of a factor. We've got the new stadium, it's bringing in more money.
 

RodentRampage said:
The greatest college programs were built at a time when money was MUCH less of a factor. We've got the new stadium, it's bringing in more money.
Click to expand...

Right but it shouldn't supersede the fact that a better coach can be hired at the Brewster's pay grade. I think new coach and budget need to be parallel goals, lets hire a better coach at Brewster's pay grade while looking for ways to increase the budget going forward...one does not need to come before the other.
 


Watching that can actually turn you into a woman. Check your junk.
 



thailleagle said:
I'm starting to notice a trend of excuses that fans use to...I guess feel better about the Gophers not being able to compete with the Top Tier Schools in the Big Ten...

First it was...

"But...but...but...we need better coaching!"

Exit Wacker...Enter Mason...

Mason was able to do something Wacker couldn't...win games. Even though he pretty much *PWNED* Joe Paterno in his tenure & beat every team in the Big Ten, it wasn't enough...

Then...

"But...but...but...we need better talent!"

Exit Mason...Enter Brewster...

I remember Brewster had this board so hyped up on Star Ratings & Recruits & a lot of people got so caught up in the hype they fail to realize talent means nothing if it can't be nurtured & polished properly & that lies on the Coach.

Now?

"But...but...but...we need a bigger budget!"

Really? Now some people are so desperate to feel better about the program not being able to capture a Big Ten Title that they are now looking at the money? A couple plays going different & Mason could've won a Big Ten Title in 1999, 2003 & 2005...*WITHOUT* a big so called Budget & without all the "Superior" talent someone like Brewster has supposedly brought in.

A couple plays going the other way & Brewster could've won 9 or 10 games in 2008. Did anybody talk budget during that 7-1 stretch? No. Brewster was 1 or 2 plays away from beating Wisconsin & Northwestern (that last play still stings) & had he done it nobody would talk about the budget just like no one did during Mason's days, it was all about the talent.

Now I'm just ranting...too tired...gotta go watch this stupid movie...
Click to expand...

Perhaps the most intelligent thing i've ever read on here. Bravo!!! It reminds me of "situational ethics", which is so pervasive. The reasoning just keeps changing so that the reasoner can look smart. Come to think of it, sounds just like a guy named Brewster.
 





You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom