Kill's Scheduling Philosophy

Donate To GopherHole
Rouser4eVA

Rouser4eVA

No longer a lurker...
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
298
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I've been reading about the ideas and perspectives held by Coach Kill with all the media coverage, and its been great. I haven't seen or heard anyone ask him what kind of philosophy he brings to scheduling non-conference games. I liked Brewster's take: To be the best, you gotta beat the best. We all know how that turned out.:( Has anyone seen or heard Coach Kill's ideas about non-conference competition? Does he have any specific schools he's indicated he'd like to play?

Go Gophers!
 

I have heard him talk about it

His philosophy seems to be different from Brewster. If I remember correctly he likes one big time opponent in non conference and the other three teams that you have a good chance of beating and give you confidence. He says the big ten is tough enough without having to have a big name non conference schedule. That is exactly how I feel. I didnt agree with Brewsters philosophy of lining up as many big name schools as you can. You better have your act together to play that kind of schedule and right now--thats now us. I agree with Kill 100 percent. And I think most other schools agree with that even the biggies such as OSU
 

Rouser4eVA said:
I've been reading about the ideas and perspectives held by Coach Kill with all the media coverage, and its been great. I haven't seen or heard anyone ask him what kind of philosophy he brings to scheduling non-conference games. I liked Brewster's take: To be the best, you gotta beat the best. We all know how that turned out.:( Has anyone seen or heard Coach Kill's ideas about non-conference competition? Does he have any specific schools he's indicated he'd like to play?

Go Gophers!
Click to expand...


To be honest, I think he doesn't care who we play. NC games are great, but he wants to win the conference. He doesn't have all that Brew braggadocio, but the fire burns red hot. Don't think Kill doesn't want to win every game and wants to play in a BCS bowl. Winning the division and conference gets you there.

I think he will have little desire to have much input in the process. He's a coach's coach.

Also, we might be losing games on the schedule before we gain any new with the proposed 9 games BT conference schedule (a concept that I still hate).
 

I think he will just ride the schedule until the 8 vs 9 conference games is settled and some open dates are closer. Hopefully we will be an attractive team to schedule then.
 

Doc1001 said:
His philosophy seems to be different from Brewster. If I remember correctly he likes one big time opponent in non conference and the other three teams that you have a good chance of beating and give you confidence. He says the big ten is tough enough without having to have a big name non conference schedule. That is exactly how I feel. I didnt agree with Brewsters philosophy of lining up as many big name schools as you can. You better have your act together to play that kind of schedule and right now--thats now us. I agree with Kill 100 percent. And I think most other schools agree with that even the biggies such as OSU
Click to expand...

That was pretty much exactly what Brewster's philosophy was. He didn't just line up as many big schools as possible. I pretty sure he just wanted 1 BCS opponent plus 3 winnable games (maybe a 2nd non-BCS quality opponent, like an NIU, or Miami this year). Look at our upcoming NC schedule. 2011 we have USC, then 3 winnable games. 2012, we have Syracuse as our BCS opponent and three winnable games. 2013/14 we have UNC. Then in 2017/18 we have Oregon St. We had Texas in the middle there, but not overlapping either of those years.

I get the feeling that Kill isn't as worried about the schedule as Brewster was, but if that's his philosophy, then it's not a whole lot different than Brewster's.
 


Doc1001 said:
His philosophy seems to be different from Brewster. If I remember correctly he likes one big time opponent in non conference and the other three teams that you have a good chance of beating and give you confidence. He says the big ten is tough enough without having to have a big name non conference schedule. That is exactly how I feel. I didnt agree with Brewsters philosophy of lining up as many big name schools as you can. You better have your act together to play that kind of schedule and right now--thats now us. I agree with Kill 100 percent. And I think most other schools agree with that even the biggies such as OSU
Click to expand...

How is the bolded different from what Brewster set up? The primary "hard games" added under Brew were USC and Texas (now off the schedule for other reasons). Both of those additions were the only BCS opponents in those seasons and they still played a 1AA each year. The other MAC level games were already on the calendar when Brew started adding USC/Texas. It's not like the U was going out and setting up NC schedules with 2 BCS opponents or anything.

Was your disagreement with how "big time" the big time opponents Brewster went after were?
 

Does anyone know the ins & outs, the politics engaged in by BCS schools when scheduling opponents? In an email to Maturi, I asked if he was trying to get a game with an ACC team done, and he mentioned he and Brewster had tried unsuccessfully to get UVA scheduled. I'm not sure if UVA was going to be a second BCS opponent for those years.

Go Gophers!
 

Rouser4eVA said:
Does anyone know the ins & outs, the politics engaged in by BCS schools when scheduling opponents? In an email to Maturi, I asked if he was trying to get a game with an ACC team done, and he mentioned he and Brewster had tried unsuccessfully to get UVA scheduled. I'm not sure if UVA was going to be a second BCS opponent for those years.

Go Gophers!
Click to expand...

I'm no expert. From what I've gathered in various articles it seems like the primary issue is often (what else) money. Home and homes have to be added carefully lest you end up with a season with only 2 home NC games (thus costing yourself 1 home game worth of $$$). TV can also play a role by setting up neutral site games where each team gets paid a guaranteed fee that eliminates the concerns of a lost home game.

UVa wouldn't have to have been a 2nd BCS game during the upcoming years. It could have been the replacement for Texas in 2015 and 2016 or it could have been for a far off season (we're still short a BCS opponent for 2019 and 2020).
 

I could be wrong but

I was under the impression that Brewster wanted many more tough non conference opponents for recruiting purposes. He wasnt able to do too much of that as schedules are made out already for about six or eight years ahead with the non conference not as tough as he would have liked it. When they had the chance to add a power opponent they often tried to do it with cases like USC and Texas. I think Maturi was buying into his philosophy.
 



Doc1001 said:
I was under the impression that Brewster wanted many more tough non conference opponents for recruiting purposes. He wasnt able to do too much of that as schedules are made out already for about six or eight years ahead with the non conference not as tough as he would have liked it. When they had the chance to add a power opponent they often tried to do it with cases like USC and Texas. I think Maturi was buying into his philosophy.
Click to expand...

Nope, not within one season. He just wanted one "power" team a year, shooting for the likes of USC and Texas, something we hadn't done in a long time. But more than one power team a year? Nah, even Brewster knew that was suicide, though obviously all it took was the likes of South Dakota and NIU to bring him down lol.
 

Monty519 said:
Nope, not within one season. He just wanted one "power" team a year, shooting for the likes of USC and Texas, something we hadn't done in a long time. But more than one power team a year? Nah, even Brewster knew that was suicide, though obviously all it took was the likes of South Dakota and NIU to bring him down lol.
Click to expand...

This was my understanding.

And I for one loved having at least 1 huge power team on the schedule.
 

I think you never want to schedule someone that you can't beat. Scheduling USC last year was stupid - they couldn't even beat South Dakota so we simply do not gain anything from that. If we get to be a better team and the program is in good shape, THEN you schedule a powerhouse team for increased exposure.

Right now we just added Nebraska to the Big Ten schedule every year - that's enough for right now. If you want to schedule a team that we are comparable with in a game that could go either way (Iowa St. would be really nice if they wouldn't keep ducking us) that's great. If I had it my way, I would schedule the non-conference schedule pretty much like Brewster had it last year with no USC. A Sun Belt team, a Mac team, a South Dakota, but instead of playing a USC I would schedule a team such as an Iowa St./Pittsburgh/Louisville etc that would be a good game for us.

Also, I would prefer to play a "tune-up" game at home for the first game if possible and if I have 4 non-conference games then I would prefer to play the toughest game in week 3.

It's not rocket science.......just be smart about it.
 

Gold Rush said:
I think you never want to schedule someone that you can't beat. Scheduling USC last year was stupid - they couldn't even beat South Dakota so we simply do not gain anything from that. If we get to be a better team and the program is in good shape, THEN you schedule a powerhouse team for increased exposure.
Click to expand...
That's tough to do given how far out these things happen for a non-marquee school like MN. Typically you have to jump on your chances to line up a marquee opponent. If you wait until you are "ready" to add big name teams then typically the big name team is on your schedule multiple years out. In the meantime you get a diet of cupcakes (i.e. a Mason schedule) and there is no guarantee that you'll still be good by the time you get to the better teams.

It seems like better teams can often get these games set with less notice b/c TV partners will pay to set them up at a neutral site and pay for the lesser school you bumped off your scheduled. Minnesota doesn't get that luxury.

I can see your point with USC given the fact that the game was getting scheduled for the following 2 years. But let's face it, we would have lost to any BCS team last year (and possibly this year) so I'm not sure it mattered what BCS level school we got to fill the spot. And USC was still a better get then Northwestern Pastry Academy for the Blind of whoever else they would have filled it with.

Gold Rush said:
Right now we just added Nebraska to the Big Ten schedule every year - that's enough for right now. If you want to schedule a team that we are comparable with in a game that could go either way (Iowa St. would be really nice if they wouldn't keep ducking us) that's great. If I had it my way, I would schedule the non-conference schedule pretty much like Brewster had it last year with no USC. A Sun Belt team, a Mac team, a South Dakota, but instead of playing a USC I would schedule a team such as an Iowa St./Pittsburgh/Louisville etc that would be a good game for us.
Click to expand...
I think they should stop scheduling the 1AA's but I know that isn't happening with how expensive its getting to schedule a MAC level team. I disagree and think you should take a great opponent when you can, but that's me. Personally, I don't think you lose anything. You do if you get blown the eff out I suppose. But otherwise it's a non-con loss. I'm not someone who is satisfied with bowl games earned off a cupcake non-con schedule. If you can't make a bowl game with 1 loss in the NC schedule then you don't deserve to be in a bowl.

Gold Rush said:
Also, I would prefer to play a "tune-up" game at home for the first game if possible and if I have 4 non-conference games then I would prefer to play the toughest game in week 3.
Click to expand...
That's a State Fair related problem for right now. Don't know if they've determined how that will look in the future. For now an away game that first week is just how things are.
 



IMO, at the end of last season the Gopher would have given USC a better game.
 

I actually thought Brewster's aggressive scheduling was the best part about his tenure here. I really don't think Kill's philosophy will be quite different. The difference, hopefully, will be that we only play up to the higher tier foes and not down to the level of our lower-tiered opponents.

The perfect blend for the Gophers is 1 BCS team, 1 MAC team, 1 FCS team, and one other non-BCS FBS team. 3 home, 1 away.

I also think that the perfect time to institute a ninth BigTen game will be when the 13-game schedule is standardized nationwide. 9 conf. games and only 3 non-cons is too much.
 

4four4 said:
IMO, at the end of last season the Gopher would have given USC a better game.
Click to expand...


I thought we played USC pretty darn well at the time, and quite a bit closer than I was expecting us to. We actually led them twice in that game, including the long and beautiful Weber to McKnight 3rd quarter TD that put us up 14-13 with about 5 minutes left in the quarter and filled us with an all too brief hope. I thought that was very impressive, but then of course the worm turned on the very next play when they returned the ensuing kickoff for the TD, and turnovers the rest of the way pretty much aborted any attempt at a comeback completely. Still though, I thought we played them very well relative to how badly we might have gotten beaten, especially since that USC game was book-ended by those two very bad losses against South Dakota and NIU.
 

I want a schedue fit for a Big Ten Team...a really agressive and difficult schedule..

x
 

I want to see MORE Big Ten teams on the schedule every year

I want to see the Gophers play EVERY team in the Big Ten Conference EVERY year. It would get NO better than that. The heck with the MAC's. the WAC's, the ACC or the Big East. Who needs the Big Twelve or the SEC or the PAC-10? Make it all Big Ten all of the time. Play the other conference teams in the bowl games. Have a TRUE Big Ten champion...a REAL Big Ten champion.

So, assuming that no one has the courage to do that: 9 Big Ten games will be better and more profitable than 8 Big Ten games. The MORE Big Ten Games...the better the season will be!
 



Big Ten Games and Big Ten Wins are all that matters. I think we should immediately go to 11 Big Ten Games refuse to play any non-conference games at all. Also only allow the Big Ten Champion to play in the Rose Bowl, no other bowl bids will be accepted. To do otherwise is to diminish the value of Big Ten Games and Big Ten Wins (and also generally leads to Big Ten Humiliation as we get our brains beat in). I feel sorry for any school not in the Big Ten that has to play all those meaningless games. Everyone knows that a Big Ten Win over Indiana trumps a silly non-Big Ten Win over USC or Texas any day of the week.
 


Rosemountian said:
They had a second half lead against USC.
Click to expand...

Exactly,
This was not a Brewster problem, his team's preparedness was.
Alot of what Brewster set up was to use that home USC game as a springboard to the "next level", recruiting with USC as a carrot to top talent, ("we are playing USC in 2011, you can show what you've got against USC, etc)
I have no doubt he was expecting to be preseason ranked by year 4, leading his team in front of top recruits and that the USC game at TCF bank would be against a top 5 team on national TV.

Unfortunately the cart was before the horse again, and a loss to south dakota before he USC game absolutely torpedoed any chance of showing off, combined with the 2009 season that ended in a whimpering loss to ISU, the momentum never built, the season went downhill and we are where we are now.
And even with all of that he darn near beat them, which doesn't say much for USC.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom