If Iowa and Wisconsin can win, why can't Minnesota?

Donate To GopherHole
P

pel76

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Its certainly not facilities. Is it mainly talent? I can't assume Iowa and Wisky are getting that much more talented guys than the gophers are. There's no reason you can't win here.
 

No reason except lack of commitment from the administration.
 

bkrownd said:
No reason except lack of commitment from the administration.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The administration's commitment is there now (and actually was with Brew too but it just turned out to not be the right hire). I firmly believe we're on our way.
 

We CAN win here. A good hire can put us on the track to success!!!
 




More than anything it's consistancy. Ferentz essentially took over from Fry and Bielema took over from Alvarez.
 

Play 4 cupcakes in the non conference helps
 

There's no reason we can't. It's just a matter of making the right hire. Except for Holtz, we have made less than spectacular hires since Warmath was fired. If in 1992, you were asked which two teams of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota would be good in 2010, it wouldn't have been at all obvious. We have good facilities, we don't have any inherent disadvantages.
 



tap said:
Play 4 cupcakes in the non conference helps
Click to expand...

Their schedules weren't that much different than ours.

They played Arizona/Arizona St., which is comparable to USC (Arizona is the best of those three this year). Iowa St. isn't a bad football team, etc.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Their schedules weren't that much different than ours.

They played Arizona/Arizona St., which is comparable to USC (Arizona is the best of those three this year). Iowa St. isn't a bad football team, etc.
Click to expand...

UM
Middle Tenn State: 158
South Dakota: 170
USC: 23
Northern Illinois: 45

UW
UNLV: 129
San Jose St.: 155
Arizona State: 26
Austin Peay: 221


I don't think Wisconsin does a great job with scheduling, but there is nothing wrong with their schedules year to year. Every year it's pretty much 1 BCS team, 2 non-AQ schools, and unfortunately 1 FCS school. I'd like for them to drop the FCS routine and add a better matchup, Austin Peay being the flavor of the year. Swapping them for Northern Illinois, a team the Badgers schedule fairly often, makes those schedules very comparable.
 

I'm kind of sick of this conversation topic (yet I weigh in...)

I think it's pretty obvious that the U's commitment to football is the biggest culprit, by a large margin. You can talk about coaches, scheduling, fans, etc until the cows come home, but the one underlying trait for the past 40 years is that the University just hasn't cared that much, and at times has actively tried not to be good (from deciding not to get caught up in the arms race w/ OSU and Michigan, to the emphasis on olympic sports). That seems to be slowly changing, with the stadium and facilities, and the amounts of money they're talking about for this coach, among other, smaller indications. Give it time.
 

The one underlying trait is that except for Holtz, the coaches that have been hired have not been terribly impressive.
 



We will do it the right way...

We can win here. We just need to learn how. After all it's been 40 plus years.

But remember... we are going to do it "The Right Way" what ever way that is. So far the "right way" has been kind of depressing.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Their schedules weren't that much different than ours.

They played Arizona/Arizona St., which is comparable to USC (Arizona is the best of those three this year). Iowa St. isn't a bad football team, etc.
Click to expand...

We have played more cupcakes than anyone this decade. It has changed in the last 2-3 years, but before that we had a terrible schedule.

Iowa plays Iowa State every year and usually sprinkles in another BCS team. They played AT Arizona this year when the Wildcats were ranked. Iowa has played home/home series with Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Arizona, Arizona State, and Miami (OH) this decade.

Wisconsin has played regular season games against Arizona State, Fresno State, Washington State, North Carolina, West Virginia, Arizona, Virginia and Oregon this decade.
 

sec105 said:
We can win here. We just need to learn how. After all it's been 40 plus years.

But remember... we are going to do it "The Right Way" what ever way that is. So far the "right way" has been kind of depressing.
Click to expand...

Iowa and Wisconsin have done it "the right way." Hire a good coach. Give said coach administrative support. Be patient and let the coach build the program. That's "the right way."
 

RedPoo said:
I'm kind of sick of this conversation topic (yet I weigh in...)

I think it's pretty obvious that the U's commitment to football is the biggest culprit, by a large margin. You can talk about coaches, scheduling, fans, etc until the cows come home, but the one underlying trait for the past 40 years is that the University just hasn't cared that much, and at times has actively tried not to be good (from deciding not to get caught up in the arms race w/ OSU and Michigan, to the emphasis on olympic sports). That seems to be slowly changing, with the stadium and facilities, and the amounts of money they're talking about for this coach, among other, smaller indications. Give it time.
Click to expand...

You are on the right track RedPoo. Make football one of the cornerstones of the UM then we might stand a chance. I hope President Elect Kaler has that vision and can accomplish what he did at Stony Brook. Make football relevant. http://www.twincities.com/golf/ci_16627912?nclick_check=1
 

bkrownd said:
No reason except lack of commitment from the administration.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most important thing, but the right hire is very close behind it. When Alvarez came to Wisconsin, he visited every dorm (about 20 at UW) talking up the football program with students and was on the state-wide rubber chicken circuit, as well as with the HS coaches, constantly. His statement that "If you want to get season tickets, you'd better get them now" proved prophetic. At Minnesota, as at Wisconsin in that time frame, the coach needs to be a coach and a salesman. Unfortunately for the U, Brewster was only a salesman, so the next coach has that level of distrust to overcome on top of everything else.

I think Minnesota can rise to the level of Wisconsin and Iowa, but I think it will take longer, more work, and more patience from fans/administration. It is a long-term commitment; if you are looking for a quick-fix, you will be disappointed.
 


TAW said:
I think this is the most important thing, but the right hire is very close behind it. When Alvarez came to Wisconsin, he visited every dorm (about 20 at UW) talking up the football program with students and was on the state-wide rubber chicken circuit, as well as with the HS coaches, constantly. His statement that "If you want to get season tickets, you'd better get them now" proved prophetic. At Minnesota, as at Wisconsin in that time frame, the coach needs to be a coach and a salesman. Unfortunately for the U, Brewster was only a salesman, so the next coach has that level of distrust to overcome on top of everything else.

I think Minnesota can rise to the level of Wisconsin and Iowa, but I think it will take longer, more work, and more patience from fans/administration. It is a long-term commitment; if you are looking for a quick-fix, you will be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Hard for me to compliment a Badger fan, but this is right on the mark.

I think the other aspect of this, and it's to the Badgers' and Hawks' advantage, is that they are pretty much the only game in town, which can help with the local press. Being the only game in town can have its disadvantages as well, but if it's played correctly and mutual respect is built, you are going to have strong support for, if not a particular coach, the team and program.

You really have to want a vast majority of the entire system--including media--on board and at least neutral. After Brewster's opening press conference, it was obvious he was going to have problems with some members of the local media (I really think this is one of the reasons Mona is involved in this hire, because it was obvious for whatever football knowledge Brewster may have had, he was not prepared to go before a microphone in a press conference). In a larger media market, you are going to have more skeptics and in the era of the 15-second attention span, it is difficult to have realistic discussions about most anything once an initial impression is created.

I think Brewster did a great job with about one-fourth of his duties, a passable job on one-fourth of his duties, and failed miserably on half of his duties. That doesn't get it done.
 

Support from the Top down is required. Support means--pro-athletics academic policies, funding/investment, focus, the right coach, positive energy, and a little bit of luck. When Donna Shalalalala (spelling) was at the helm at Wisconsin, she set the wheels in motion that the whole program is riding today. Look at the success in all sports Wisconsin is having. It is not by luck alone.

Maturi got lucky with Tubby Smith who is winning in spite of the lack of support and commitment from the University as a whole. As a side note, we shall see how long Tubby puts up with the lip service he is getting from the current regime at the U.
 

There's no good reason why thing should take longer to turn around here than they did in Wisconsin. If you look at Wisconsin around the time of Alvarez's hire, Minnesota and Wisconsin look about the same. Minnesota hadn't had a conference title since 1967, Wisconsin hadn't had one since 1962. Wisconsin hadn't had an 8-win season since 1962, Minnesota hadn't had one since 1967, Wisconsin hadn't had one since 1962. Both schools went a long stretch without winning 6 Big Ten games in a season, Minnesota had last done it in 1973, Wisconsin had last done it in 1981. It was making the right hire that made all the difference.
 

wizardofwestwood said:
Support from the Top down is required. Support means--pro-athletics academic policies, funding/investment, focus, the right coach, positive energy, and a little bit of luck. When Donna Shalalalala (spelling) was at the helm at Wisconsin, she set the wheels in motion that the whole program is riding today. Look at the success in all sports Wisconsin is having. It is not by luck alone.

Maturi got lucky with Tubby Smith who is winning in spite of the lack of support and commitment from the University as a whole. As a side note, we shall see how long Tubby puts up with the lip service he is getting from the current regime at the U.
Click to expand...

It definitely looks like the university is heading in the right direction though, and I am confident that it'll keep going the right way. 5-10 years ago both the football and basketball team were mired in mediocrity and football games were played in the Dome. Today, the basketball team has an elite coach and appears to be a Top 25 team and a perennial NCAA Tournament team. The football team now plays back on campus in a great stadium, and the administration is looking for a top coach. It has been said by a coach that the U had an ambitious list (there's a link on one of the threads around here) and was looking for someone good (I just hope we land one of them). I think it's only going to continue going this way when Kaler takes over considering the things he's done at Stony Brook.

We aren't there yet, but I think were getting closer.
 

RodentRampage said:
There's no good reason why thing should take longer to turn around here than they did in Wisconsin. If you look at Wisconsin around the time of Alvarez's hire, Minnesota and Wisconsin look about the same. Minnesota hadn't had a conference title since 1967, Wisconsin hadn't had one since 1962. Wisconsin hadn't had an 8-win season since 1962, Minnesota hadn't had one since 1967, Wisconsin hadn't had one since 1962. Both schools went a long stretch without winning 6 Big Ten games in a season, Minnesota had last done it in 1973, Wisconsin had last done it in 1981. It was making the right hire that made all the difference.
Click to expand...

The reasons I think it will take longer are:

1) As 50lb said, the Twin Cities media will be skeptical. In Madison, the media wanted the new coach to succeed and was/is generally supportive (despite what some of our fans think). In the Cities, there seems to be more of a "show me first" attitude.

2) If you look beyond the dreadful Don Morton 3 years, UW had a history of high football attendance, despite their record. There was a willing fanbase to come back quickly and fill the Athletic Department coffers. Because of the Dome, it will take longer to build the "fan experience" at TCF.

3) Somewhat related to 2) but UW had a lot of alumni who had fond memories of their football experiences. When Donna and Richter put competent people in place on the fundraising side, these alumni were willing to donate to the Athletic Department.
 

we have won here....

I think that people forget that we have a better football history then most teams in the nation. They also forget that not that long ago no one even knew who wisky was
 

acemac said:
we have won here....

I think that people forget that we have a better football history then most teams in the nation. They also forget that not that long ago no one even knew who wisky was
Click to expand...


The problem is that the greatness of that football history ended at the same time of the Eisenhower administration. Richter and Alvarez were hired about 27 years after Wisconsin's last "great" team. With Minnesota you're currently around 50 years since the last great Gopher team.
 

Tom Dace said:
The problem is that the greatness of that football history ended at the same time of the Eisenhower administration. Richter and Alvarez were hired about 27 years after Wisconsin's last "great" team. With Minnesota you're currently around 50 years since the last great Gopher team.
Click to expand...

Ike was president in 1967? Thanks for the info, professor.

Let's not re-write history and pretend that Alvarez took over a program that was just a few years removed from being competitive. They were as irrelevant as a program can get. Not even close to the level of competence the Gophers have seen over the last decade.
 


Prior to the sixties, the Gophers were more than pretty good. Since then, not good. What changed? And what made it possible for Iowa and Wisconsin to pass and dominate Minnesota? Maybe it's not what they have in Iowa City and Madison that we don't have in Minneapolis, but rather something we have in Minneapolis that they don't have in their college towns. And look at other successful programs around the country and see what they don't have in their towns -- e.g. Lincoln, Fayetteville, Manhattan, Norman, Tuscaloosa, Boise, Columbus, Eugene, Austin, Auburn, Gainesville ... We think we have a pretty cool, cosmopolitan town that ought to be attractive to recruits. We're baffled that many don't want to come here. But for some reason, enough top recruits, especially defensive players, stopped coming here in the sixties and went instead to college towns and our program suffered. What changed?
 

FSTF:

few of us younger than 60 gives a rats ass about Gopher football. The football team is not relevant to them like the Vikings are. Hate to say it, but it is true. It is a poisonous combo of a lack of real fan interest, an administration not serious about major athletics, a poor string of coaches and AD's, and an acceptance of mediocrity as a virtue by the administration. All that adds up to 50 years of floundering.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom