if Kill succeeds some folks will say it was Brewsters Boys.

[Go4Broke]

Especially QB. There's no doubt Gray comes to Minnesota no matter who our coach was. He was just like the Olson brothers, born to be Gophers.

You can't possibly believe that about Gray. His only connection to Minnesota was Tim Brewster. Mason and Kill would not gotten in the front door of Gray's house, and the four guys from Dallas would have spent their entire careers at Texas Tech.

 

[wait!what?]

Masterkill is a Masterpiece. loved it!
When Brew was 7-1 he got votes in the gubernatorial race that Nov. He got votes.

 

[Dr.Don]

You can't possibly believe that about Gray. His only connection to Minnesota was Tim Brewster. Mason and Kill would not gotten in the front door of Gray's house, and the four guys from Dallas would have spent their entire careers at Texas Tech.

How do you know this? Is your schizoid alter ego talking to yourself again?

 

[GophersInIowa]

You can't possibly believe that about Gray. His only connection to Minnesota was Tim Brewster. Mason and Kill would not gotten in the front door of Gray's house, and the four guys from Dallas would have spent their entire careers at Texas Tech.

I was being sarcastic. I responded to this comment which is totally not true.

There is not one positive aspect of this program that you can point to right now and give Brewster credit for, not one.

 

[DMB123]

I'm sure that players like Gjere, Edwards, Hageman, Cooper, Stoudermire, Carter, Reeves, Wilhite, Green, Alipate, Garin, Kirkland, Manuel, KGM, Vereen, Wright, Matilus, K. McAvoy, L. McAvoy, and Westerhaus, all Brewster recruits with multiple BCS offers, would be glad to know that they are not "positive aspects" of the program right now.

Twist my words much? I can't believe how easily impressed you guys are. Wow, you mean Brewster actually recruited average players to Minnesota for 4 years? You're giving him way too much credit. To think that Brewster brought in better talent than any other coach Maturi could have hired would have brought in is ridiculous.

People who defend Brewster's recruiting have one thing on their side, and that's the amount of stars given by the recruiting rankings. Never mind the fact that Brewster's recruits made up a TERRIBLE TEAM. To the Brewster defenders the record of the team doesn't mean anything. 3-9? Who cares. And you know why? Because look at all those stars behind our recruits names!! Wow!! What a stud Brewster is! His recruiting is amazing!!

Wait, you mean all those great recruits never won more than 3 games in the Big Ten? You mean by year 4 all those great recruits led us to one of the worst Gopher teams of all time? How could that be? But those kids had all those stars by their names!! And that automatically means they are better recruits than, say, other kids with less stars, right? Glen Mason knew more about recruiting in one finger than Tim Brewster ever will. I'll take the guy who recruited future All-Americans and All-Big Ten performers over someone who recruits his players based on the star system.

 

[Sportsfan24]

I could somewhat see this argument if we ran a pro style offense or if we had a running game, but our running game last year without Gray at QB would have been awful. He was/is the best playmaker we've had running the ball since Gary Russell. He had to be QB.

I think you can always play devil's advocate and say that if Brew had played Gray more and never switched him to QB, the 2011 team wins more games.

I would argue that if we had a passing game (even a threat of one), defenses would have had to soften and the running game would have opened up. As it was defense stacked the line of scrimmage and dared us to throw, which did later in the season as Gray got better/experienced. As a result the run game improved.

Devils advocate? Easy to play after the fact huh? If Kill went the other way and it didn't work I would be saying that he should have started Gray!

 

[Sportsfan24]

You should watch Gopher football sometime. What are you basing this Parrish was the best QB on? He never played. We would have been 1-11 at best without Gray last year. He was our only run game.

And to the poster that said our best players are still Brew guys: not as much as there should be. Our best players at RB, TE, probably WR, DE, second best DT (likely Roland), and probably 1 of the safeties are Kill guys. Brew is responsible for some great players, but a team with good depth would not have had this much turnover.

I may still be wrong but....I doubt there are 5 people on this board (except of course the coaches and staff who are on here) who have seen more gopher games and practices than I have the last 4 years. Remember I don't claim to be right....it's just one mans opinion.

My Parrish opinion is not entirely me own, part of it is based on what I saw as a lay person and the rest is what I was told my members of the previous staff. At the end of the day, Gray will have the final say and it will based on what he does on the field.

 

[Sportsfan24]

How do you figure? Where is Parish now? What has he done at the collegiate level? What would have happened to the Run Game w/o Gray.



Ummm because Kill has had 2 recruiting classes and the 1st was made up of mostly Brew recruits due to Kill honoring all commitments. Football players tend to get better with time meaning that upper class man generally are better. However IF you watch practice, read articles or watched games from last year you would see that we are playing a lot of Kill recruits because they are better.

There was NO accountability under Brew and Michael Carter is a perfect example of this. Brew allowed Carter to walk all over him with Kill at the helm look at his turn around. Not only has he become a better football player but he has become a better student and person under Kill. Brew could land HIGH STAR recruits there is no question but he could not develop them nor did he hold them accountable. From the GPA, classroom attendance, preparation, study, weight room and coaching ability the difference between Brew and Kill is night and day!

My man, I know of a certain player who was told he was to small to be effective in the run game at the Big Ten level as a defensive back. I wouldn't put all my eggs in the basket based on who plays and who doesn't.

Coaches argue over who should play and the head coach has final say. Just because a player plays doesn't mean there aren't members of the staff pissed off that someone else isn't playing.

No accountability? You are a victim of the GPA, classroom attendance lie. This is coach speak for don't focus solely on the W's and L's to judge if we are getting better as a team...I will create something for you. Funny...when a certain coach was called on it, the numbers were never furnished. I believe we have the right guy but BS like that annoys the hell out of me.

Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that Kill squashed that "I'm a super star" thing that some of the players had. I'm just saying the preparation, weight room, speed thing has been greatly exasagerated.

 

[Monty519]

Twist my words much? I can't believe how easily impressed you guys are. Wow, you mean Brewster actually recruited average players to Minnesota for 4 years? You're giving him way too much credit. To think that Brewster brought in better talent than any other coach Maturi could have hired would have brought in is ridiculous.

People who defend Brewster's recruiting have one thing on their side, and that's the amount of stars given by the recruiting rankings. Never mind the fact that Brewster's recruits made up a TERRIBLE TEAM. To the Brewster defenders the record of the team doesn't mean anything. 3-9? Who cares. And you know why? Because look at all those stars behind our recruits names!! Wow!! What a stud Brewster is! His recruiting is amazing!!

Wait, you mean all those great recruits never won more than 3 games in the Big Ten? You mean by year 4 all those great recruits led us to one of the worst Gopher teams of all time? How could that be? But those kids had all those stars by their names!! And that automatically means they are better recruits than, say, other kids with less stars, right? Glen Mason knew more about recruiting in one finger than Tim Brewster ever will. I'll take the guy who recruited future All-Americans and All-Big Ten performers over someone who recruits his players based on the star system.

It's not about stars (though that's an obvious measurement as well), but about the demand for the players that Brewster brought in. He simply won far more recruiting battles with better schools than anyone had around here in ages. I'll give you that just cause more schools want a player or they have a higher star, does not automatically make them a better player, it is a projection based on athletic traits and high school production, meaning right now they're raw goods, you gotta put the ingredients together and cook them right to make a winning dish.

High school players aren't going to be better players in college without proper development. From all accounts, that was lacking, along with strong structure and order. It takes more than just recruiting good players to win games at the college level, and I never really truly understood that until I watch Brewster suck at it. How many guys came thru the last few years and they'd show signs of greatness or just being at least a really good player and they just never really got better? It felt like it happened here more than it should have, but that's just my opinion there.

 

[dpodoll68]

Blah, blah, blah, ignoring my post completely and pushing his anti-Brewster hate speech agenda.

Look, as I said, I'm not going to argue this with you. Mason is/was a much better coach than Brewster, and Brewster is/was a much better recruiter than Mason. These aren't opinions. These are facts. If you think differently, you are wrong. You appear to be content in your wronghood, and that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to not tell you that you are wrong. Mason being a better developer of mediocre recruits doesn't negate Brewster's vastly superior recruiting abilities. Just give it up. You are wrong. Embrace it. Hopefully, change it and fix your understanding to the correct one.

 

[DMB123]

Look, as I said, I'm not going to argue this with you. Mason is/was a much better coach than Brewster, and Brewster is/was a much better recruiter than Mason. These aren't opinions. These are facts. If you think differently, you are wrong. You appear to be content in your wronghood, and that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to not tell you that you are wrong. Mason being a better developer of mediocre recruits doesn't negate Brewster's vastly superior recruiting abilities. Just give it up. You are wrong. Embrace it. Hopefully, change it and fix your understanding to the correct one.

First of all, the amount of arrogance in which you speak to people is astounding.

But the bolded part... You obviously have no clue what an opinion or a fact is. Were you serious with that remark?

By your definition Michael Carter is a better recruit than Tyrone Carter. Enough said. You're wrong, deal with it slappy.

 

[FreakyDeke]

First of all, the amount of arrogance in which you speak to people is astounding.

But the bolded part... You obviously have no clue what an opinion or a fact is. Were you serious with that remark?

By your definition Michael Carter is a better recruit than Tyrone Carter. Enough said. You're wrong, deal with it slappy.

Tyrone Carter was a Wacker recruit, slappy.

 

[mplsbadger]

The question is how should a coach's recruiting ability be evaluated?

One camp says it is based on stars or offer list because it is objective, arguing that the eventual performance is influenced by coaching ability and other factors that water down the ability to isolate recruiting ability from these other factors. He obvious problem with this is that it doesn't address the ability to choose the better among two equal recruits. At Alabama and LSU if Saban and Miles each have five five star recruits and eight four star recruits the question then moves to, "who got the good ones?"

The other camp says it is about recruit performance because this indicates an ability to select, find the diamond in the rough, etc. the obvious problem with this is that it discounts the subsequent factors of coaching, etc. The other obvious issue with this is that, if he could somehow do so without compromising his integrity, Jerry Kill would trade his guys for Urban Meyer's guys on signing day every year.

Personally, I think the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. You want your coach to get the highest star guys he can get, but you want him to get the right high star guys. Do you factor into it the fact that a guy like Kill or Bielema is going to build a program where he is usually playing 4th year juniors & 5th year seniors? Because while JK would trade his class for UM's class on signing day, UM would probably similarly trade his sophomores for Bielema's seniors at the start of fall camp (if he could trade back at the end of the season).

 

[DMB123]

Tyrone Carter was a Wacker recruit, slappy.

And your point is? Of course Tyrone Carter was a Wacker recruit, who said he wasn't? I know he was recruited by Wacker. I was making a point about dpodoll's view on the importance of stars in recruiting. By his definition Michael Carter is a better recruit than players like Marion Barber III, Tyrone Carter, and Greg Eslinger. I wasn't making any point at all about who specifically recruited those players.

 

[dpodoll68]

And your point is? Of course Tyrone Carter was a Wacker recruit, who said he wasn't? I know he was recruited by Wacker. I was making a point about dpodoll's view on the importance of stars in recruiting. By his definition Michael Carter is a better recruit than players like Marion Barber III, Tyrone Carter, and Greg Eslinger. I wasn't making any point at all about who specifically recruited those players.

Yes, Michael Carter was a better recruit than any of the others you mentioned. Much like you are unable to differentiate between recruiting and player development, it appears that you are unable to distinguish between recruits and players.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

And your point is? Of course Tyrone Carter was a Wacker recruit, who said he wasn't? I know he was recruited by Wacker. I was making a point about dpodoll's view on the importance of stars in recruiting. By his definition Michael Carter is a better recruit than players like Marion Barber III, Tyrone Carter, and Greg Eslinger. I wasn't making any point at all about who specifically recruited those players.

I think you guys have different definitions of "recruiting".

Dpo is clearly talking about the ability to get the guys you want to attend the U to choose the U over other schools. He isn't saying that every kid who is tougher to recruit is the better player. For instance, Mason gave Decker a last second offer. He turned out to be an incredible college football player but that was despite the fact that he wasn't a very difficult recruit to get to sign at the U. Mason didn't have any competition to land Decker.

Purely as a recruit, it took much more to convince Michael Carter to come to the U. This is NOT saying Carter is a better football player than Decker, he clearly is not. However, every single coach in the country would have rated Carter a significantly better recruit. If anyone had any idea that Decker was going to be the kind of player he turned into, he would have gotten an offer from every single school in the country. But he didn't.

Using a Kill example, if you look ONLY at the recruitment of certain players, the recruitment of McDonald was a coup compared to Isaac Fruechte. Fruechte we offered, he accepted and he never received another offer. That doesn't automatically make McDonald the better of the two players. A lot of things can happen because of the uncertainty in regards to evaluating talent, the ability of coaches to get the most out of kids, how hard the athletes work, etc.

So I believe what Dpo is getting at is that Brew won a lot more recruiting battles than Mason. Mason rarely beat out other BCS schools for players.

Mason likely was a better evaluator, Mason did a better job of keeping his kids in school, Mason did a better job of developing players, and Mason was simply a much better coach. That said, you can look at the different classes, Brew won more recruiting battles for kids with multiple offers. Before Brew, we didn't win many of those battles.

 

[TrapperDoo]

Matters not. Though this is an enjoyable thread I think one thing is clear - even if you believe that Brew could recruit, he then clearly got less out of more. Compare that with JK, who has a history of getting more out of less; a pattern which I believe will continue. It starts with coaching and Brew sucked at it, without qualification. Good coaching will beget wins, and wins will beget recruits. Brew was an embarrassment from day one ("I met with the players and they were all erect..") JK is a smart man who makes things work, even with to the extent that (for now) it involves Brews recruits. I look forward to the talent that is going to sign on with coach Kill in the seasons to come. I believe JK will leave Minnesota with a reputation as a "Great Recruiter". Go Gophers!

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Matters not. Though this is an enjoyable thread I think one thing is clear - even if you believe that Brew could recruit, he then clearly got less out of more. Compare that with JK, who has a history of getting more out of less; a pattern which I believe will continue. It starts with coaching and Brew sucked at it, without qualification. Good coaching will beget wins, and wins will beget recruits. Brew was an embarrassment from day one ("I met with the players and they were all erect..") JK is a smart man who makes things work, even with to the extent that (for now) it involves Brews recruits. I look forward to the talent that is going to sign on with coach Kill in the seasons to come. I believe JK will leave Minnesota with a reputation as a "Great Recruiter". Go Gophers!

It doesn't really matter. I think it's just a matter of people being a little more realistic when it comes to judging things. I mean, I agree with you, Brew failed here as a head coach. However, that doesn't make him a terrible person, that doesn't mean that he every single thing he did was bad. Ultimately, like you said, it turned out he wasn't a success while he was here.

That said, we did go to 2 bowl games. I know they were lousy games and he wasn't able to build on that limited success. I also believe he had all of the best intentions.

I just think these debates exist because some people only look at things in black and white. To some, Brew was a snake oil salesman who didn't do anything right and Kill does everything perfectly. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Gold Vision]

Matters not. Though this is an enjoyable thread I think one thing is clear - even if you believe that Brew could recruit, he then clearly got less out of more. Compare that with JK, who has a history of getting more out of less; a pattern which I believe will continue. It starts with coaching and Brew sucked at it, without qualification. Good coaching will beget wins, and wins will beget recruits. Brew was an embarrassment from day one ("I met with the players and they were all erect..") JK is a smart man who makes things work, even with to the extent that (for now) it involves Brews recruits. I look forward to the talent that is going to sign on with coach Kill in the seasons to come. I believe JK will leave Minnesota with a reputation as a "Great Recruiter". Go Gophers!

Embarrassment from day one? Lets see Kill get to two bowl games his first three years before we start crowning him an upgrade. Sure he is likable, lets see some results. Gophers were flat out embarrassing for the first half of the season last year.

 

[FreakyDeke]

And your point is? Of course Tyrone Carter was a Wacker recruit, who said he wasn't? I know he was recruited by Wacker. I was making a point about dpodoll's view on the importance of stars in recruiting. By his definition Michael Carter is a better recruit than players like Marion Barber III, Tyrone Carter, and Greg Eslinger. I wasn't making any point at all about who specifically recruited those players.

Tyrone Carter was pre-rivals, so I'm not sure what your point was. What a player becomes is not recruiting. You are confusing evaluating and development with recruiting.

 

[mplsbadger]

Good point. My earlier post made the same mistake. Both skills are important but when we distinguish clearly between evaluation and recruiting, Brewster was an excellent recruiter. His top 25 class was extraordinary.

If we were debating a term that covers both such as 'talent acquisition' then the argument is open, but if we're just talking about winning recruiting battles, Brewster is likely the best since at least Holtz and maybe Warmath.

 

[John Galt]

Recruiting is made up of two parts:

1. Identifying talent regardless of how many stars or offers they have
2. Convincing a recruit to attend your school

Brewster was good at #2 (initially), and failed at #1. Someone who is a very good or great recruiter can do both of these. Since he was inadequate at #1, he fails to get the title of "great recruiter." The 2008 class, on signing day, was no doubt one of the best we've seen. What the Brewster apologists who continue to rave about this class fail to realize, is that not all offers are created equal. How many of the 2008 recruits had other schools back off them at the end for reasons that may have included academics or character issues? Kevin Whaley looked good for us on signing day, but how many other coaches realized ahead of time that he was a head case and quit recruiting him? Vince Hill, another "coup" for us on signing day 2012, he never even made it to freshmen camp, I believe for academic reasons. How many others coaches saw this and backed off? If these types of obvious errors were made, no one in their right mind can call him a very good or great recruiter.

I brought this next part up in a thread 6 months ago, but I'll rehash it again. If you look at the Brewster classes post-2008, the number of players with multiple offers continues to decline steadily throughout each class. The 2010 class included such stalwarts as the Lackawana boys (Tillman and Thornton) and Marquise Hill who never made it to campus. The quality of the recruits and the offer lists for the 2010 class was inferior to Kill's class in 2012. No one in Brewster's 2010 class had nearly the offer list of McDonald, Pirsig, Hayes, or Harbison. So please, for the last time, let's quit with the GH lie of all lies that Brewster was a "great recruiter." If he was as great at it as you think he was, no doubt he would have been hired as a position coach at a BCS school by now and given this responsibility.

 

[Maximus]

When your crowning achievement - a 31 person recruiting class in 2008 - produces one second team all conference player - Traye S. - in four seasons (one to go!), change "brew was an excellent recruiter" to "brew could trick 17 years old better than nearly anyone else in the country".

 

[oak_street1981]

I'm not going to go round and round with you on this again, but it's absolutely

I am sure you do not want to go round and round with him again, because as usual you are wrong.

 

[station19]

When your crowning achievement - a 31 person recruiting class in 2008 - produces one second team all conference player - Traye S. - in four seasons (one to go!), change "brew was an excellent recruiter" to "brew could trick 17 years old better than nearly anyone else in the country".

Or Brew was a salesperson, plain and simple. Could sell but not manage.

It started with the sales job he did on JM.

Oh yeah, he was a cheerleader too. He could lay on his belly and pound the turf at TCF as well as anybody.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

When your crowning achievement - a 31 person recruiting class in 2008 - produces one second team all conference player - Traye S. - in four seasons (one to go!), change "brew was an excellent recruiter" to "brew could trick 17 years old better than nearly anyone else in the country".

Tricking 17 year old boys? What do you mean by that? That's what recruiting is, getting 17 year old boys to commit to your school.

That class also includes Gray, Cooper, Rallis, Stoudermire, Green (who haven't finished) and McKinley, Lawrence, Brock, McKnight, Lair. At the end of the day THAT class is going to have a significant number of players who played in the NFL and a significant number of good college football players. People who feel the need to rag on THAT class. . .I think it's safe to say that aren't capable of having a conversation about Brewster. Their hatred for them blinds their common sense.

If every one of our classes produced as many good football players as the 2008 class, we'd be a very good football team. The 2008 class is one of the only positive things Brew did while he was here.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Recruiting is made up of two parts:

1. Identifying talent regardless of how many stars or offers they have
2. Convincing a recruit to attend your school

Brewster was good at #2 (initially), and failed at #1. Someone who is a very good or great recruiter can do both of these. Since he was inadequate at #1, he fails to get the title of "great recruiter." The 2008 class, on signing day, was no doubt one of the best we've seen. What the Brewster apologists who continue to rave about this class fail to realize, is that not all offers are created equal. How many of the 2008 recruits had other schools back off them at the end for reasons that may have included academics or character issues? Kevin Whaley looked good for us on signing day, but how many other coaches realized ahead of time that he was a head case and quit recruiting him? Vince Hill, another "coup" for us on signing day 2012, he never even made it to freshmen camp, I believe for academic reasons. How many others coaches saw this and backed off? If these types of obvious errors were made, no one in their right mind can call him a very good or great recruiter.

I brought this next part up in a thread 6 months ago, but I'll rehash it again. If you look at the Brewster classes post-2008, the number of players with multiple offers continues to decline steadily throughout each class. The 2010 class included such stalwarts as the Lackawana boys (Tillman and Thornton) and Marquise Hill who never made it to campus. The quality of the recruits and the offer lists for the 2010 class was inferior to Kill's class in 2012. No one in Brewster's 2010 class had nearly the offer list of McDonald, Pirsig, Hayes, or Harbison. So please, for the last time, let's quit with the GH lie of all lies that Brewster was a "great recruiter." If he was as great at it as you think he was, no doubt he would have been hired as a position coach at a BCS school by now and given this responsibility.

Brews biggest issues were attrition and lack of development. But you do make a good point that the post-2008 classes weren't very good. However, the 2010 class had some guys who were more highley recruited than Hayes and Harbison.

Lamonte Edwards had an Iowa and WI offer.
Jimmy Gjere had a WI offer.
Devon Wright had Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Boston College and WI
Brock Vereen had a Stanford offer.
James Manuel had a Michigan State and Iowa offer.
Kirkwood had a Kansas State, Pitt and Rutgers offer

Those guys all had as good of or better offers than Hayes and Harbison. Pirsig and McDonald were elite recruits and Kill deserves credit for landing those two kids.

Those WI and Stanford offers are certainly as good as Hayes offer from Virginia Tech or Harbison's Virginia or West Virginia offer.

2010 was also Brew's worse rated class.

The 2009 class was filled with guys with elite offers.
Michael Carter - Florida, Georgia, West Virginia, Miami
Hageman - Florida, tOSU, Nebraska, Oklahoma, WI, Iowa, MSU
Hayo - Florida, ASU, Oregon St.
Garin - ASU, Stanford, West Virginia, Colorado, UCLA
Bryant Allen - Iowa, WI, Missouri, Kansas
Michel - NC State, Kentucky

Most of the players in these classes have ended up not having good careers and I'm not trying to get into a Kill v. Brew argument. However, the idea that the 2010 class didn't players with as good of offers as Harbison and Hayes is wrong. Additionally, the 2009 class, as far as offers goes, blows away the 2012 class (Pirsig, McDonald, and all). I'm not saying that the 2012 class is worse, because I actually think it will be considerably better. However, the idea that he didn't continue to land players with significantly better offer sheets than we'd had before him and after him is false.

 

[Maximus]

That class also includes Gray, Cooper, Rallis, Stoudermire, Green (who haven't finished) and McKinley, Lawrence, Brock, McKnight, Lair. At the end of the day THAT class is going to have a significant number of players who played in the NFL and a significant number of good college football players.

Of those five that are done and the five with one year left, could you list the "significant number of players" who played or will play in the NFL?

As of now, the only one is Brock (who finished his college career at Belhaven College).

 

[Wouldn't You like to Know]

My man, I know of a certain player who was told he was to small to be effective in the run game at the Big Ten level as a defensive back.

Who? and in what way does this apply to what we are talking about?

No accountability? You are a victim of the GPA, classroom attendance lie. This is coach speak for don't focus solely on the W's and L's to judge if we are getting better as a team...I will create something for you. Funny...when a certain coach was called on it, the numbers were never furnished. I believe we have the right guy but BS like that annoys the hell out of me.

First of all the G.P.A rising and player eligibility is FACT. How do you figure that Brew was holding players accountable when kids were being kicked out of school/leaving/not meeting their potential?

 

[DMB123]

I think you guys have different definitions of "recruiting".

Dpo is clearly talking about the ability to get the guys you want to attend the U to choose the U over other schools. He isn't saying that every kid who is tougher to recruit is the better player. For instance, Mason gave Decker a last second offer. He turned out to be an incredible college football player but that was despite the fact that he wasn't a very difficult recruit to get to sign at the U. Mason didn't have any competition to land Decker.

Purely as a recruit, it took much more to convince Michael Carter to come to the U. This is NOT saying Carter is a better football player than Decker, he clearly is not. However, every single coach in the country would have rated Carter a significantly better recruit. If anyone had any idea that Decker was going to be the kind of player he turned into, he would have gotten an offer from every single school in the country. But he didn't.

Using a Kill example, if you look ONLY at the recruitment of certain players, the recruitment of McDonald was a coup compared to Isaac Fruechte. Fruechte we offered, he accepted and he never received another offer. That doesn't automatically make McDonald the better of the two players. A lot of things can happen because of the uncertainty in regards to evaluating talent, the ability of coaches to get the most out of kids, how hard the athletes work, etc.

So I believe what Dpo is getting at is that Brew won a lot more recruiting battles than Mason. Mason rarely beat out other BCS schools for players.

Mason likely was a better evaluator, Mason did a better job of keeping his kids in school, Mason did a better job of developing players, and Mason was simply a much better coach. That said, you can look at the different classes, Brew won more recruiting battles for kids with multiple offers. Before Brew, we didn't win many of those battles.

The part I bolded... that statement is exactly right, and it's also the exact same thing as saying Mason was a better recruiter than Brewster. Evaluator? Recruiter? Same thing. Brewster truly cared about the star ratings, Mason simply didn't. They had different recruiting philosophies, but Mason recruited better players here than Brewster did, and the records show that. Who cares if Brewster won more recruiting battles with other BCS programs than Mason did? Mason didn't try to engage much in those battles becuase he knew it was a waste of time, much like Kill believes. The talent level at Minnesota from 2003 thru 2005 was as high as we've seen here in a long time. Brewster's classes didn't bring even close to that type of talent here.

Again, if it wasn't for star ratings Brewster defenders would simply have NOTHING else.