Maturi enthused about U coaching candidates

[Goldmember]

If so they're proven idiots...not for wanting Mason gone but for wanting Mason gone, living through the Brewster Era & still being interested in Marc Trestman...

What is sad is that, while Trestman is woefully unqualified for the position, he is a whole lot more qualified than Tim Brewster was when he was hired. And Trestman was more qualified even at the time Brewster was hired.

What the "boosters" who wanted Glen Mason gone were rembering was Lou Holtz. They remembered the texture of Holtz. They remembered how his words and his attitude were enough to make the bandwagon-jumping, marginal fans get all hot and bothered when Holtz came to town. And they remembered how the dome was filled. So these boosters got-in Maturi's ear day after day after day and tried to convince him that he was taking a pass on easy money by keeping "Grinnin' Glen" around.

This is the only reason why Mason was fired. It has nothing to do with what happened in the Insight Bowl (a game that, if you listened to the local sports media was "totally irrelevant" anyway). And this is also why a legitimate HC (like Bo Pelini... or someone significantly less qualified, but still far more qualified than Tim Brewster, like Marc Trestman, for that matter) could never have been Mason's replacement. The highest priority was someone they thought could deliver the Lou Holtz message from the eaaly 80's.

Regardless of how you felt about Mason in 2006, the criticism of Glen Mason originated from an unhealthy, incorrect pocket of criticism. As a result, the solution was never going to be adequate. The fact that Glen's no-nonsense, realistic demeanor rubbed a few people the wrong way should never have been a consideration as to whether he was given a chance to see what level he could have taken the program to in the building he was instrumental in getting built.

 

[calminnfan]

Well, if there is such a surprise outstanding candidate, then he better hire him rather then tease the fan base with him and hire a perceived lessor accomplished person. I can appreciate the need for confidentiality, but that is not a justification for a misguided attempt to boost morale and hope.

 

[MaxyJR1]

He's a kook, a nitwit, and to think that my hard earned tax payer money contributes to his salary disgusts me.

If 100% of his salary is tax based, which it isn't, you pay between 6.5 and 11 cents a year for his services. Does anyone know if his salary is levied at all.

 

[RodentRampage]

Nope the Texas Tech debacle and Mason's locker room aftermath may have been the final straw but let's kill the old chestnut that everything was fine with the money guys before the 2nd Half of that game.

I'm not claimnig that everything was fine. They were simply a whole lot worse after the bowl game. The boosters weren't saying "If we didn't fire him after the season, don't fire him now!" after the bowl game.

 

[imthewalrus]

iceland: the U of M boosters are very "lower division" compared to boosters of...

other top Big Ten programs. During the past forty years they have been close to the worst of the worst in the Big Ten. Minnesota boosters allowed the inadequate U of M administrators to abandon the Brick House. They sat back as Warmath was forced out, Smokey Joe floundered, hoax came in and cheated his way to not too many Big Ten wins and left the football program on NCAA probation and with penalties. Then they watched Gutey go down the tubes. Wacker was doomed to failure at a place so poorly supported by the inadequate administration and the worst of the Big Ten's booster organizations. Finally, Mason came in and started making a little progress. He had the Gophers at least playing respectably and he beat OSU, Michigan, iowa, wisky, MSU (for the first time in 20 some odd years), PSU, Oregon, Arkansas and Alabama.

So, you say our "cellar-dwelling boosters" started raising a fuss????? So be it. And let them make sure now that maturi doesn't mess this up too badly. Why haven't they acted within the organization and demanded that maturi pay for his sins in the brewster hire????? Why allow him to have ANYTHING to do with selecting the new coach?

Its' up to the boosters to start showing that they are even middle of the pack Big Ten boosters. People like you toss around the boosters at the U of M as if they have been some kind of factor with the football program. During the 50 plus years I have been a Gopher Fan, I have seen the boosters stumble, bumble and at times not only get in the way but also try to do things in not such helpful ways.

It's time for Minnesota Boosters to finally start doing a top of the Big Ten type of boosting. They have tolerated inadequate administrative support for too many decades. Boosters helped run Bierman and Warmath off. Maybe once in a while they try to exert pressure to get a coach fired. That's about all. That is NOT enough. That is NOT what top Big Ten booster groups do.

So, iceland, what's your boy maturi going to do next? Who will "boost him" as this saga of Golden Gopher Football plays itself out?

Minnesota needs top of the Big Ten line boosters...no more of this bottom of the conference stuff.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

Good coach

I won't color you that way, but I'll give you a hint:

He's not 81, but his dad is.

Also, he's looking for a Head Coaching job:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=td-tombowden011310

Went 72-45 at Clemson; 11-0 one of his two seasons at Tulane, not an easy place to win since Bierman left!

 

[RodentRampage]

What needs to be adjusted about the list? It was simply a list of the number of sports offered.

Obviously you would want to "associate" with the schools at the top. However, the argument can be made that the revenue from football at OSU, PSU & Michigan ALLOWS them to sponsor that many sports, whereas Minnesota has strugged with football revenue for years.

If only we had a new stadium that brought in revenue streams that we didn't have before... The number of sports offered at the U is near the middle of the pack. The middle of the Big Ten offers 22, the U offers 25, not a big difference.

It's commonly claimed that the U offers an outrageous number of sports, which is just not true.

I remember seeing a list of all the sports at the U, how much revenue they brought in and how much they spent, does anyone have a copy of that?

 

[Stan The Caddy]

If only we had a new stadium that brought in revenue streams that we didn't have before... The number of sports offered at the U is near the middle of the pack. The middle of the Big Ten offers 22, the U offers 25, not a big difference.

It's commonly claimed that the U offers an outrageous number of sports, which is just not true.

I remember seeing a list of all the sports at the U, how much revenue they brought in and how much they spent, does anyone have a copy of that?

Agreed, there is not an outrageous number of sports.

Throughout this thread you have referenced the stadium in a seemingly sarcastic manner, what is your point exactly? Are you like Sid who thinks the stadium makes no difference?

 

[Goldmember]

I think that's excessive. It doesn't make sense to wait to expand by 10,000 until demand exceeds current capacity by 30,000 for even a game against a I-AA opponent. One demand exceeds capacity consistently by 10,000, then it makes sense to expand.

We're not selling hams. It is not just a simple matter of supply/demand. Scarcity of product is essential in college football.

The cost of construction can't possibly be justified until demand for tickets is so high that people on the waiting list will gladly purchase all of the new seats and pay a significant premium for the privilege of doing so.

Since August 2009, demand has plummeted from about 55,000 to around 30,000 today. A new coach, and a new season, will ratchet that back up to about 40,000-45,000. But that is still at crisis-level.

You will know it is time to think about expanding when the place sold out and full for 5 seasons in a row (with <20% red for the Wisconsin and Nebraska games played over that time), and there is a huge waiting-list. Then it's time to consider expanding. Right now, it isn't even worth thinking about.

I would argue that ticket demand for non-Dakota 1-AA games is the truest indicator of demand. The U has relied on selling tickets to people who are attending strictly to see the opposition for several decades now. And that isn't how the big-guys do it.

 

[Silvio]

What needs to be adjusted about the list? It was simply a list of the number of sports offered.

Obviously you would want to "associate" with the schools at the top. However, the argument can be made that the revenue from football at OSU, PSU & Michigan ALLOWS them to sponsor that many sports, whereas Minnesota has strugged with football revenue for years.

My point is simply that the U has one more revenue generating sport than about half of the schools on the list. Since this is a Men's sport they will be required to carry another woman's sport for title 9 compliance. With the extra revenue generating sport the U can carry more sports than most.

I would be curious to see a list for the number of teams per revenue generating team. I think that would show you a better picture and ranking than what you provided, it would also show the importance of football.

I doubt that PSU has another sport that actually generates money besides football. Northwestern may have none. This doesn't account for BTN money.

Obviously it is football that allows the OSU to have 35 sports, but their basketball team does quite well.

On the other hand I would guess that basketball is on par with football for MSU, which is why they have so few sports. They also have the luxury of being second fiddle to Michigan so they expected to field as many teams either.

 

[thailleagle]

You will know it is time to think about expanding when he place sold-out and full for 5 seasons in a row (with <20% red for the Wisconsin and Nebraska games played over that time), and there is a huge waiting-list. Then it's time to consider expanding. Right now, it isn't even worth thinking about.

I would argue that ticket demand for non-Dakota 1-AA games is the truest indicator of demand. The U has relied on selling tickets to people who are attending strictly to see the opposition for several decades now. But that isn't how the big-guys do it.

THIS...

 

[calminnfan]

Went 72-45 at Clemson; 11-0 one of his two seasons at Tulane, not an easy place to win since Bierman left!

Note were the article said he was looking...it may be an indicator where he may want to live.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

The fact that Glen's no-nonsense, realistic demeanor rubbed a few people the wrong way should never have been a consideration as to whether he was given a chance to see what level he could have taken the program to in the building he was instrumental in getting built.

Goldmember, I always thought you were one of the more informed posters in GopherHole. Now I think you are an idiot.

 

[CentralGopher]

Agreed, we shouldn't expand until we can consistently fill the stadium even in down years. (a 1 win season is worse than a down year) If you can sell more than 50K, that's great, but if you can't, having extra seating merely devalues the tickets. Plus, 50K in a 50K stadium is a fantastic atmosphere, 50K in a 60K stadium is not. This adds to the value of a ticket.

If people feel that they can just walk up and buy a ticket, they will have a lot less urgency and interest in buying season tickets than if they might not get tickets at all if they wait. And a stadium with 10K+ unsold tickets is less of a draw than a stadium with few unsold tickets. It's like when the NSIC used to have games at the dome. The crowd might not be that bad in a small stadium, but in a 60K seat stadium is was an absolute tomb.

I think the U needs to rectify the budget issue sooner rather than later so waiting a few years until we are good enough to fill the stadium on a consistant basis and then expanding may not be the best idea. Any ideas on how the U can boost it's revenue significantly now without cutting sports?

 

[Stan The Caddy]

I think the U needs to rectify the budget issue sooner rather than later so waiting a few years until we are good enough to fill the stadium on a consistant basis and then expanding may not be the best idea. Any ideas on how the U can boost it's revenue significantly now without cutting sports?

Hooray Beer!

 

[RodentRampage]

Throughout this thread you have referenced the stadium in a seemingly sarcastic manner, what is your point exactly? Are you like Sid who thinks the stadium makes no difference?

Quite the opposite. We had very little revenue when we were at the dome. Building the new stadium brings us revenue streams we never had before. But people are still talking about the financial situation as if we are still in the dome.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Quite the opposite. We had very little revenue when we were at the dome. Building the new stadium brings us revenue streams we never had before. But people are still talking about the financial situation as if we are still in the dome.

Good. We are on the same page there then.

 

[Silvio]

Agreed, there is not an outrageous number of sports.

Throughout this thread you have referenced the stadium in a seemingly sarcastic manner, what is your point exactly? Are you like Sid who thinks the stadium makes no difference?

The stadium makes a difference there is no question about that.

The issue is how much of a difference does it make (in this context I'll talking about just from a financial standpoint to the Athletic department)?

1) It is hard to say, we know that parking money doesn't go to the AD (at least it has been claimed on here a million times) - wash compared to the metrodome.

2) Haven't heard any comparison to ticket sales revenue - assumed wash

3) Concessions, none from the metrodome, all from TCF - advantage new stadium

4) Upkeep costs (maintenance, any bond costs, etc.) metrodome none, TCF yes - advantage metro dome.

5) Suite money - advantage TCF


So to me the real question is does the suite & concessions money offset the costs to run and maintain the stadium? I am sure it does and I am sure there additional revenue streams that I didn't list.

In the past couple of years the real increase in revenue stream to the AD has to be the money from the BTN.

 

[gaunt006]

Those Bowdens don't tip their hats.

Saying that he didn't know that Minnesota fired their coach is hilarious. Someone that's been in the game for that long never gets out mentally. That being the case, how come he was on Mike Max? Has he ever been on Mike Max before?

The one clincher is if he would have said, "I've always had a lot of respect for Glen Mason, I feel bad for him. And to be fired mid-year like that."

Now I'm not saying I have any inside information, but with a name like Bowden, hawking motivational dvd's isn't his first choice of careers or would he view it as a way to end it.

He has to do something. 3 years ago his son,that one that doesn't coach, lost a good chunk of his money investing in Florida real estate. At this point he couldn't just sit on a beach some where even if he wanted too.

 

[CentralGopher]

Hooray Beer!

Maybe not everyone is quit as much of a lush as you are.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Maybe not everyone is quit as much of a lush as you are.

Come Again?

I was simply suggesting that allowing alcohol in the stadium was a way to increase revenue without cutting sports.

I guess I should have been more clear.

 

[gopherguy]

Your location says California, so I doubt any of your tax dollars go to the University of Minnesota.

I need to update my profile. I'm now a tax paying minnesotan. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[CentralGopher]

Come Again?

I was simply suggesting that allowing alcohol in the stadium was a way to increase revenue without cutting sports.

I guess I should have been more clear.

Do you really think this would be a significant increase in revenue? A stadium full of drunks and we look like wisconsin or iowa. I don't think allowing alcohol is a bad idea since I enjoy a drink or two but I doubt it would be enough of an increase to allow us to move up even 1 spot in spending. I suppose you could charge $10 a beer but then how many people would be buying beer then. I am sure there are better ideas out there on how to increase revenue significantly I just have not heard them.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Do you really think this would be a significant increase in revenue? A stadium full of drunks and we look like wisconsin or iowa. I don't think allowing alcohol is a bad idea since I enjoy a drink or two but I doubt it would be enough of an increase to allow us to move up even 1 spot in spending. I suppose you could charge $10 a beer but then how many people would be buying beer then. I am sure there are better ideas out there on how to increase revenue significantly I just have not heard them.

1. Define Significant. Most published reports indicate the athletic departmet lost a minimum of $1 Million per year when alcohol was banned from the premium seats at TCF. IF they have to open up beer sales to the entire stadium the revenue would increase above that number.

2. A stadium full of drunks and we look like Wisconsin and Iowa? What does that mean? Neither Wisconsin or Iowa allow alcohol in the stadium. Their fans enjoy tailgating prior to the game and surely smuggle some more in...And what would be so bad about looking like the Wisconsin or Iowa? A sold out stadium and winning program...God Help Us.

 

[pharmacygopher]

Do you really think this would be a significant increase in revenue? A stadium full of drunks and we look like wisconsin or iowa. I don't think allowing alcohol is a bad idea since I enjoy a drink or two but I doubt it would be enough of an increase to allow us to move up even 1 spot in spending. I suppose you could charge $10 a beer but then how many people would be buying beer then. I am sure there are better ideas out there on how to increase revenue significantly I just have not heard them.

Didn't the U predict that the loss of alcohol is the suites/private areas alone would cost them 2-3 million/year? And when the revenue report came out, they were about 2-3 million off, from what I remember. It's been mentioned that they could sell alcohol throughout the entire stadium to help pay the new coaches salary (not sure if it's realistic or not) If you factor in potentially selling to the entire stadium, that is a fairly good amount of revenue. Bringing in a quality coach gets fans interested, sells tickets (more revenue), wins games (more revenue), expands stadium (more revenue), etc.

It all starts with beer people!

 

[RodentRampage]

Give the athletic department a share of parking revenues. These lots would be sitting empty, earning no revenue at all if it wasn't for TCF. I'm not saying that all of the parking revenue should go to the athletics department, split it 50/50.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Maybe not everyone is quit as much of a lush as you are.

I don't think allowing alcohol is a bad idea since I enjoy a drink or two but I doubt it would be enough of an increase to allow us to move up even 1 spot in spending.

So, I bring up beer as a way to increase revenue and labled a lush, then you say allowing alchol is not such a bad idea since you enjoy a drink or two?

What's the deal CentralGopher?

 

[CentralGopher]

Well apparently I was wrong with it not being significant if the numbers being quoted are correct. I don't think it is a bad idea to increase revenue but did not realize a few beers being sold would increase revenue to such an extent without everyone being completely drunk on gameday. Now if you can just convince the legislature to go along with your idea.

 

[stevedave23]

The U served beer for 20+ years at the dome. I'd suggest the U try serving beer for one season at TCF Bank Stadium to see if indeed the aisles are overflowing with drunken brawls like some fear. If not, why not make an extra $1M/year?

 

[Silvio]

Well apparently I was wrong with it not being significant if the numbers being quoted are correct. I don't think it is a bad idea to increase revenue but did not realize a few beers being sold would increase revenue to such an extent without everyone being completely drunk on gameday. Now if you can just convince the legislature to go along with your idea.

It doesn't come down to everyone being drunk on gameday. It comes down to suite X being unsold or heavily discounted becusae Company Y choses to entertain its guests at the Wild/Timberwolves/Vikings game where they can provide alcohol to their guests. I would assume that the U had to discount their suite prices for Mariucci and Williams arena after they were not able to sell alcohol there anymore.