Mason with Dan B.

Donate To GopherHole
Paying a coach more money won't get you better results. It may allow you to sign a better coach. Or it can just get you the same results that you could have had from someone else for lower pay. I'm all for opening the purse strings for the right coach. But let's not put the horse before the cart. Right coach first, then worry about money.
 

RodentRampage said:
Paying a coach more money won't necessarily get you better results. It may allow you to sign a better coach. Or it can just get you the same results that you could have had from someone else for lower pay. I'm all for opening the purse strings for the right coach. But let's not put the horse before the cart. Right coach first, then worry about money.
Click to expand...

First, FIFY.

Second, how can you be sure you're getting the right coach if you're not willing to spend the money? If given a choice, wouldn't you rather have, say, 40 options than 30 options? All other things being equal, aren't you more likely to make the right decision if you have more options to choose from? By limiting your pay, all you're doing is ensuring you'll have a lower likelihood of success with your eventual pick.
 

dpodoll68 said:
First, FIFY.

Second, how can you be sure you're getting the right coach if you're not willing to spend the money? If given a choice, wouldn't you rather have, say, 40 options than 30 options? All other things being equal, aren't you more likely to make the right decision if you have more options to choose from? By limiting your pay, all you're doing is ensuring you'll have a lower likelihood of success with your eventual pick.
Click to expand...

I did say "I'm all for opening the purse strings for the right coach." I am not suggesting limiting pay. But just spending the money won't do anything. For first have to find the right coach, and then pay him what it takes to get him here. The wrong coach will still be the wrong coach no matter how much money is spent.
 

dpodoll68 said:
You're citing a link to a poll asking "What is your favorite professional sports team?" and using that as evidence that the Packers are more popular than the Badgers?
Click to expand...

Ah! I am too late. I noticed the same thing. Every state lists their favorite pro team and that is evidence the Badgers aren't popular in Wisconsin? I also noticed the Cardinals are the favorite team in Arkansas. Time to shut down the Razorback football program I guess. 30 posts and I think most of them are in this thread stating how college football can't compete with the NFL.

Perhaps it is time to put the Helga hat back on and head back to the Vikings board, blowing that bone horn the whole way.

Really, does it matter how much MORE popular the Vikings are as long as the Gophers ARE popular? I think there is enough room in this town for both. The Gophers aren't there yet but they will be plenty popular as soon as they reach the level of Iowa and Wisconsin (which by the definition I am seeing here, are mediocre programs). Sheesh!
 

dpodoll68 said:
You're citing a link to a poll asking "What is your favorite professional sports team?" and using that as evidence that the Packers are more popular than the Badgers?
Click to expand...

look again.......it says sports teams not professional sports teams.
 


raragophers said:
look again.......it says sports teams not professional sports teams.
Click to expand...

This is from a survey of over 40,000 Americans asked to list their favorite sports league and professional sports team
 

Gopher07 said:
This is from a survey of over 40,000 Americans asked to list their favorite sports league and professional sports team
Click to expand...

CAN YOU READ?! COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS INCLUDED WITH THE SURVEY


Ranking of leagues by percentage of Americans who chose it as their favorite:
1) NFL
2) MLB
3) College Football
4) NBA
5) College Basketball
6) NHL
7) NASCAR

Also notice the state of Alabama?



Biggest MLB State: Washington
Biggest MLB City: Seattle
Biggest NFL State: Wisconsin
Biggest NFL City: Green Bay
Biggest NBA State: Utah
Biggest NBA City: Sacramento
Biggest NHL State: Michigan
Biggest NHL City: Detroit
Biggest College Football State: Alabama
Biggest College Basketball City: Cincinnati
Biggest College Basketball State: North Carolina
Biggest NASCAR State: West Virginia
 


Let's say for a second that you are correct... Did you notice that for EVERY state, the favorite team is a professional sports team?
 



raragophers said:
it depends what you consider "mediocre". I consider mediocrity contending for a rose bowl 5-6 years. Do you really think the program can eclipse my definition?
Click to expand...

Well your definition doesn't mean *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#.
 

Yes, clearly the Atlanta Braves are more popular in Alabama than the Tide.

Also, the Atlanta Braves are more popular in South Carolina than the Cocks.

Further, the St. Louis Cardinals are more popular in Arkansas than the Razorbacks.

In addition, the Chicago Cubs are more popular in Nebraska than the Huskers.

You, sir, have taken dumbassery to a whole new level.
 

Rara Gophers' point is that the Vikings' Performance - while it might be average compared to other NFC teams - generates more fan interest because of the realistic possibilities of winning a championship.

It has to do with how the NFL is set up. The playoff system allows for a greater number of teams to have a chance to compete in a bracket format for a championship. The Vikings can lose 6, 7, or even 8 games in a season and still compete for a championship, thus keeping fans tuned in longer during the season. 1 or 2 Gophers losses, and you can forget about a BT Title. Thus, for a fanbase in a large city used to the Pro Sports model, they tune out after the team is out of contention (see, 10/18/2003)

It's not that the Vikings are an amazing team. That has nothing to do with it at all. It is the way the NFL is set up.

This isn't even taking into account Free Agency, the Salary Cap, and the Draft, which even further create equality, and inherently better competition with a greater chance of success and - more importantly - quick turnarounds.

The New Divisions of the B10 will start to help out this problem. And when college football finally gets a playoff system, it will help even more.
 

raragophers said:
I am arguing that the gophers consistent level of success will never come close to the Vikings consistent level of success. As a result, fan support will never be there on on a regular basis. You just don't get it.
Click to expand...

raragophers said:
god, you people still dont get it. It does not matter if ITS NOT HARD TO DO. The basis of this argument was that parity on a year in/ year out basis creates more interest in cities where college football programs such as the gophers exist.
Click to expand...

All you've proven is that many NFL fans are bandwagon hopping idiots. Its why I love college football more. Of course parity creates more interest. And of course the NFL is the most popular sporting league in the US. I also wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the sky is blue every day (even the cloudy ones).

This is where I point out that this nonsense has nothing to do with your original point about the U always being viewed as a transitional job. The Gophers never having the following of the Vikings has no direct correlation to whether or not the HC job here is viewed as a stepping stone. It contributes, but only because the lack of on-field success opens that door. That's b/c the bandwagon hopping pro sports fan in MN has no reason to support the Gophers when they struggle. Win and that is no longer a primary issue.

Also, CAP LOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 




raragophers said:
I was listening to KFAN (insert joke here) yesterday when Dan B interviewed Glen Mason. Mason specifically stated that the gophers can not and will not out recruit programs such as Ohio State on a year in/year out basis. Mason also emphasized the importance of putting together a recruiting class that fit a specific system rather than recruiting players based on overall skill level. After hearing these comments it made me realize why people do not follow gopher football as much as other professional sports teams in this market (more specifically the vikings)

I think a vast majority of people (outside of the state of MN) realize that the gophers will not ever become a powerhouse in football because of their inability to recruit top tier players who will ALWAYS go to schools such as USC, Ohio St., Florida, Alabama etc. Due to the parity in professional football, it brings an extra dimension into fan following. The Vikings will see a greater fan following because of the opportunity they have at winning a championship. Unlike the Vikings, the gophers best case scenario would be for them to compete for the opportunity at a rose bowl once every 5-6 years.

Bottom line:the gophers will not ever become the type of team that can compete on a year in/year out basis for a national championship or Rose Bowl. This is the reason why potential coaches consider this a transition job and not a destination job.
Click to expand...

Yes, Mason has missed the mark yet again. How many of you are going to roll over and accept this nonsense? Uh, Boise State has a pile of talent because they're a powerhouse in a state that is loaded with four and five-star recruits. Same goes for Oregon, which has somehow found a way to do it. TCU has a wonderful team because it's the school of choice for top Texas talent.

Is building a perennial winner tough? Yes. Is it likely to happen? Perhaps not in the same way tOSU expects. Should we dismiss the possibility along with the defeatist Mason? Heck no and thank goodness he's not coaching our Gophers. I'd still rather have Brewster. At least he was all in for the team. Yes, he didn't have the right stuff to make it work but he was totally committed, a characteristic which never applied to Mason.
 

Oregon and Wisconsin football are eerily similar. Neither program existed before 1993.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom