I found it very odd...

Donate To GopherHole
Big Ten Mind

Big Ten Mind

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
236
Reaction score
4
Points
18
...that Brew turned to the "you have to wonder why MN hasn't won a championship in 50 years" card like Sid often does when speaking with Joe Schmidt. As if there is some mysterious ghost preventing it from happening.

Look, I'm not convinced that Brew will be Pasadena bound anytime soon but I am sure of one thing: If the right coach is hired at the U of M (Tiller at Purdue, Alverez at WI, Fry/Ferentz at Iowa) it can be done here.

I also heard that Brew said he changed from the spread to more of a pro set because "that's just who I am"...What? If that is really true than why did he employ the spread in his first two seasons? Now we are trying to out execute WI, IA, and to a lesser degree OSU with a power running game? Hope he is not fooling himself.
 

Big Ten Mind said:
...that Brew turned to the "you have to wonder why MN hasn't won a championship in 50 years" card like Sid often does when speaking with Joe Schmidt. As if there is some mysterious ghost preventing it from happening.

Look, I'm not convinced that Brew will be Pasadena bound anytime soon but I am sure of one thing: If the right coach is hired at the U of M (Tiller at Purdue, Alverez at WI, Fry/Ferentz at Iowa) it can be done here.

I also heard that Brew said he changed from the spread to more of a pro set because "that's just who I am"...What? If that is really true than why did he employ the spread in his first two seasons? Now we are trying to out execute WI, IA, and to a lesser degree OSU with a power running game? Hope he is not fooling himself.
Click to expand...

2 interesting observations.
I'd bet Brewster really is perplexed as to why there simply has not been success here for so long. Current state of affairs have several obstacles to overcome, and whether you think they are being overcome is debatable, but historically it really is curious that Minnesota hasn't had even a flash in the pan season of good luck and high achievement. I do agree that it must be the coaching history here, which quite simply hasn't had "that" guy. Several mediocre stints, several bad, but never a solid foundation to build off of for the next regime. Even Mason's moderate success was negated by the bare cupboards and neglected recruiting pipelines when the coaching change was made.
As for the pro set v spread, I think the comment about "that's who I am" probably is attributed to the internal struggle he had with Dunbar. Running an off tackle sweep out of the shotgun on 4th and inches with the game on the line is not Brewster's style,I'd guess he'd rather be able to punch up the gut with a FB or iso play.
 

Seroiusly tho, 50 years? Something isn't right and if Brewster can't figure it out, I hope that at least he laid a foundation where another coach coming in isn't left with little to work with toward that goal of a title.

Pro vs. spread, I'm pretty sure he did the spread cause that draws athletes (recruiting), and to a degree it worked as we did get some athletes here. But obviously the results weren't what he was hoping for, so he decided to go to a pro style that apparently is more his personality, which makes sense. But with that change probably means that he won't garner the lofty recruiting rankings he had his first two years, so he's gonna have to make sure he gets some results from this switch, otherwise, he's toast.
 

Monty519 said:
Seroiusly tho, 50 years? Something isn't right and if Brewster can't figure it out, I hope that at least he laid a foundation where another coach coming in isn't left with little to work with toward that goal of a title.

Pro vs. spread, I'm pretty sure he did the spread cause that draws athletes (recruiting), and to a degree it worked as we did get some athletes here. But obviously the results weren't what he was hoping for, so he decided to go to a pro style that apparently is more his personality, which makes sense. But with that change probably means that he won't garner the lofty recruiting rankings he had his first two years, so he's gonna have to make sure he gets some results from this switch, otherwise, he's toast.
Click to expand...

I think he chose the spread largely for the reason Monty519 cites. You can get into shoot-outs and pull out a game here or there with the spread, but I don't think it's a long-haul offense if it isn't run correctly. There's a lot of half-baked spreads out there that don't stack up against physical defenses. Dunbar's schemes fall into that category in my opinion.
 

1. Money
2. Institutional Support
3. Recruiting Base
4. Facilities
5. Crappy Coaches
6. Almost zero luck....
 


" I found it very odd...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...that Brew turned to the "you have to wonder why MN hasn't won a championship in 50 years" card like Sid often does when speaking with Joe Schmidt. As if there is some mysterious ghost preventing it from happening."

That's what you came up with. That's quite a reach.
 

Pro vs. spread, I'm pretty sure he did the spread cause that draws athletes (recruiting), and to a degree it worked as we did get some athletes here. But obviously the results weren't what he was hoping for, so he decided to go to a pro style that apparently is more his personality, which makes sense. But with that change probably means that he won't garner the lofty recruiting rankings he had his first two years, so he's gonna have to make sure he gets some results from this switch, otherwise, he's toast.[/QUOTE]

I agree. After listening to him when he came on board, I was surprised he went with the spread as he impressed me as taking the old school approach to the game. He talked about playing hardnosed and agressive D and that seemed to reflect his personality yet choose Dunbar and his version of the spread.

Brewster's inexperience as a HC has manifested itself. But its not what he did three years ago but what he is trying to put in place now that is most important. I happen to like the current approach and am confident we will see better results with the current roster. I think that he has learned that he can recruit good players no matter the offense he uses.
 

1) Pro Sports Town/Fan Base
2) Local lack of H.S. talent
3) Same Conference as Michigan/Ohio St/ & recently Penn St.
4) Not playing in a 2-division conference recently
5) Bad luck (ex. if the Chris Perry fumble bounces in any other direction, 2003 could have been very very different)
 

it can be done at minnesota, but its going to take a special coach.
 



gophmeister said:
1. Money
2. Institutional Support
3. Recruiting Base
4. Facilities
5. Crappy Coaches
6. Almost zero luck....
Click to expand...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I think that this list is pretty accurate. Numbers 5 and 6 are the ones that I find most interesting. I'm not sure that 5 isn't true, but how could we get that many crappy coaches in a row? Were/Are Stoll, Salem, Holtz (maybe could have done it with more time), Gutey, Wacker, Mason, and Brewster all crappy. What are the chances that we would get 7 consecquitive crappy coaches? Its clearly possible, but I doubt it. I think that items 1-4 above have been factors and under other circumstances a couple of these guys could have succeeded. The zero luck one is also interesting. Surely it could be said that good teams make their own luck. But we have had none. I know that I sound like a whiner, but we have had zero luck with Big 10 officials at critical points in tight games. I know that officials call what they see, but when a call is close, it goes to Michigan, Ohio St, even Pudue, or whoever.
 

All this being said, I think that Brewster has been on a huge learning curve. I think he went to the spread because at the time that was the big thing. But, I agree I think that he is a more smash mouth guy. I do think that he is now more settled in as to what he wants to do and has a staff in place. He is building the program the right way, by redshirting kids that could probably have played earlier. This will all take longer than most people want to give him. But, I do feel this will be the first yr. that we will see the results. But having a better team and record might not correlate. 6-6 record and we still could have amuch better team. 2011 and 2012 should have us competitive at the top of the Conf., but I question if they will give him that long. I hope so because if they don't we go right back to having a few more transition yrs. But we do have alot of good coaches and talent but it is young. To compete at the top levelweneed 4th and 5th yr. kids not 2nd and 3rd.
 

gophmeister said:
1. Money
2. Institutional Support
3. Recruiting Base
4. Facilities
5. Crappy Coaches
6. Almost zero luck....
Click to expand...

Your are missing one important factor that belongs in the Top 3 - Pathetic Fan Base.

The Gophers do not have a fan base that is really invested in Gopher football results on Saturday because the results of the Vikings game on Sunday is much more important to them. For the large majority of football fans in Minnesota, the Gophers game is just a mild diversion for them while they make their plans for watching the Vikings game with their family and friends the following day.

Other than a relatively small group of diehard supporters, Minnesotans (including the majority of U students) do not really care what happens to the Gophers. If every once in awhile the team has a good season the fair weather fans will be happy to jump on the bandwagon. If not, they will ignore the team except to ridicule them whenever they have the opportunity.

Because of this attitude the Board of Regents and the Administration have not really cared about the lack of success of the football team during the last 40 years. Unlike with other successful BCS teams, the Gophers do not have a large enough fan base to be able to demand that heads roll when the team loses.
 

I agree with Big Ten Mind's post though I don't want to make too much of Brewster's question because I think his tone of voice and the context in how he said it are important (and I haven't heard him say it). My initial reaction was "oh great another excuse maker", but I am not sure that is fair.

Couple points brought up in this thread: Recruting base only explains why Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State are stronger programs. By the same logic, we should have a better program than Iowa and Wisconsin, but we don't.

Fan base: This isn't even a chicken or the egg argument. Entire generations have never seen the Gophers win. There's a reason so many Gopher fans tend older, they are the only one's who have experienced a good season.

In my lifetime, the administration has been painfully slow in making changes when things obviously were going the wrong way. Wacker was kept too long, Mason was kept too long, and now we have Brewster. Decisive decision making has not occurred.

Who in the administration has a burning desire to see football succeed? Who's willing to take the heat for something that may not be popular with the general public, but necessary to compete at a higher level? A small example: why was the U so quick to give in to lowering the music volume at TCF? This seemed to hurt the atmosphere.
 



Ole said:
2 interesting observations.
I'd bet Brewster really is perplexed as to why there simply has not been success here for so long. Current state of affairs have several obstacles to overcome, and whether you think they are being overcome is debatable, but historically it really is curious that Minnesota hasn't had even a flash in the pan season of good luck and high achievement. I do agree that it must be the coaching history here, which quite simply hasn't had "that" guy. Several mediocre stints, several bad, but never a solid foundation to build off of for the next regime. Even Mason's moderate success was negated by the bare cupboards and neglected recruiting pipelines when the coaching change was made.
As for the pro set v spread, I think the comment about "that's who I am" probably is attributed to the internal struggle he had with Dunbar. Running an off tackle sweep out of the shotgun on 4th and inches with the game on the line is not Brewster's style,I'd guess he'd rather be able to punch up the gut with a FB or iso play.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I used to lay the inability to win a championship at the feet of the coaches, but now believe the business / academic end of the U has hurt our once proud FB program. One of the reasons I believe this is Jim Wacker. Yes, he is still the butt of jokes here, but think about it, this was an experienced, successful coach at multiple schools (had been awarded National Coach of the Year) not long before coming here) who came to Minnesota and suddenly forgot everything he had learned about winning football. I don't think so.
 

Brewster, if you are listening, I will tell you why we 'for some odd reason' haven't turned this around. The first reason (now non-existent) is the stadium issue. But we have that now, so the glass ceiling is gone.

All you have to worry about is two days out of the year, and everything else will take care of themselves. If you don't at this point know which days I'm talking about, you should leave..... right now. I'm not talking about signing day.....I'm not talking about Rose Bowl Day. I'm talking about the game against wisconsin. And the game against Iowa.

That's it. Beat those teams. It will shut their fanbases up. It will hinder their recruiting. It will boost our recruiting. You will be able to show off some hardware. It will put butts in the seats, and coin in the coffers. It will put students in the student section, and noise in the Bank. Sports radio might not be afraid to talk about you for once. And alumni wont even be tempted to be embarrassed by the football program.

If you lose all your games this year, but beat Iowa and wisconsin, I don't think you should be fired. I would take those two wins over three wins over USC, OSU, and PSU any year. Hear me? Any year.

I'm not saying that only two wins a year is enough. But nothing more special will ever happen here until you beat our rivals.
 

I love the thought that Iowa is held in such high regard by recruits that a Gopher win over the mighty Hawkeyes could sway them, but the truth is the kids don't care if you beat Iowa and Wisconsin. They care about winning records and big time bowls. The IA-MN-WI circle jerk is important to the fans, not high school kids in FL, TX, CA, or even OH.
 

tbebell said:
I love the thought that Iowa is held in such high regard by recruits that a Gopher win over the mighty Hawkeyes could sway them, but the truth is the kids don't care if you beat Iowa and Wisconsin. They care about winning records and big time bowls. The IA-MN-WI circle jerk is important to the fans, not high school kids in FL, TX, CA, or even OH.
Click to expand...

Nope, my friend. We aren't talking about the difference between being average and being proud. We are talking about the difference between being average and being ashamed. It is shameful that we haven't competed with Iowa and wisconsin.

The implication given by your exaggeration is right. Iowa is not that special. But losing to them is embarrassing. It tears the whole program down.

And yes, it is important to the fans. Guess what recruits enjoy.... excited fans! If you can't be king even of your immediate rivals, how are we going to lure these oh, so glorious TX,FL, and CA boys to play for the Gophers?
 

Jim Wacker may have been an "experienced, successful coach at multiple schools," i.e. North Dakota State and Southwest Texas State (or whatever it may now be called), but it is simply incorrect to suggest (as maxwellsmart does) that he was a successful Division 1 coach before he came to Minnesota. His conference record at TCU was 21-48-1, and his conference record at Minnesota was 8-32. He was a bad coach at both places, and a good guy at both coaches. He was over .500 in conference play once at TCU, and never at Minnesota. He was simply a super nice guy who was a terrible hire from day 1.
 

Ole said:
2 interesting observations.
I'd bet Brewster really is perplexed as to why there simply has not been success here for so long. Current state of affairs have several obstacles to overcome, and whether you think they are being overcome is debatable, but historically it really is curious that Minnesota hasn't had even a flash in the pan season of good luck and high achievement. I do agree that it must be the coaching history here, which quite simply hasn't had "that" guy. Several mediocre stints, several bad, but never a solid foundation to build off of for the next regime. Even Mason's moderate success was negated by the bare cupboards and neglected recruiting pipelines when the coaching change was made.
As for the pro set v spread, I think the comment about "that's who I am" probably is attributed to the internal struggle he had with Dunbar. Running an off tackle sweep out of the shotgun on 4th and inches with the game on the line is not Brewster's style,I'd guess he'd rather be able to punch up the gut with a FB or iso play.
Click to expand...

Two quick thoughts:

1. If IIRC Mike Martz, and Mike Shanahan were assistants here at one time. Jim Wacker was a success everywhere he went except here. Lou Holtz couldn't get out of here fast enough. Add on to this, when has the program had the money or willingness to support/ pay a coaching staff longterm?

2. With the exception of 03' in the backfield, name an era or even a season where our Gophers were even legitimately two deep at any position since the 60's.
 

Wacker

I hate to be Johnny one note about Jim Wacker, but when STPGopher says "Jim Wacker was a success everywhere he went except here," he's just wrong. He went 21-48-1 in conference play at TCU, and finished above .500 once in conference play at TCU. He went 40-58-2 overall at TCU. Those numbers are the opposite of success. For success at TCU, one only need look at Dennis Franchione and Gary Patterson. Wacker is not in their league. He failed at both TCU and Minnesota.
 

I have a lot more tolerance then the long time sufferers still in me. I've only been suffering for about 12 years now. I'd rather not get old and bitter, and end up on the 'Trib comments section, so here is to creating out own luck!
 

denguegopher said:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I think that this list is pretty accurate. Numbers 5 and 6 are the ones that I find most interesting. I'm not sure that 5 isn't true, but how could we get that many crappy coaches in a row? Were/Are Stoll, Salem, Holtz (maybe could have done it with more time), Gutey, Wacker, Mason, and Brewster all crappy. What are the chances that we would get 7 consecquitive crappy coaches? Its clearly possible, but I doubt it. I think that items 1-4 above have been factors and under other circumstances a couple of these guys could have succeeded. The zero luck one is also interesting. Surely it could be said that good teams make their own luck. But we have had none. I know that I sound like a whiner, but we have had zero luck with Big 10 officials at critical points in tight games. I know that officials call what they see, but when a call is close, it goes to Michigan, Ohio St, even Pudue, or whoever.
Click to expand...

1. Recruiting
2. Recruiting
3. Recruiting
4. Recruiting
5. Getting better players
 

BigGopherFan said:
1. Recruiting
2. Recruiting
3. Recruiting
4. Recruiting
5. Getting better players
Click to expand...

Ask Notre Dame how that's going.

They get the recruits, they have the money, they get the press, they pack the stands, they have epic history to draw on.

Yet they have been mega-disappointing.

What have they not done? Can't compete vs. USC. In no sense do they own either Mich or MSU. Lose to Navy!

Rivalry games, my friend. It's where it all starts.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom