MN Daily Letter to Editor: New athletic facilities plan is wrong for the University

Donate To GopherHole
Gopherguy0723 said:
Perhaps you didn't didn't read critically, who said anything about hating the stadium?

I love going to multiple games at the stadium every year, that it's outdoors, that it's on campus, and that it has better food and wider concourses.

I'm simply challenging the idea that it's a good recruiting tool, and questioning whether more facilities will make a difference by examining what our newest facility has produced based on actual results as opposed to platitudes that were used to sell it to the public. If you can't handle someone challenging you or holding those beliefs while also enjoying football and basketball that shows your own shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Well it sounded like someone was hating on the stadium. I don't see how it doesn't help recruiting, it's definitely better than playing in the dome. So new facilities don't help out recruiting? that's pretty much what you're saying. Why do you always edit your posted btw? I can handle whatever you have to say, I might not agree with you, but I can handle it.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Does that mean you bought what they're selling, but now you realize it was an empty selling point? Or do you believe the stadium has already produced more wins and better recruits than we would have had otherwise? I suppose there is a third choice. Do you believe the stadium will produce more wins and better recruits in the future (If you believe this to be true then you really are a fool as a new stadium should manifest the results early on not later on because it will no longer be a new or exciting stadium later on)?
Click to expand...

It will always be far superior to the Dome.
 



Gopherguy0723 said:
Really? Oh that's too bad. How foolish of me. Anything can be a tool, even people like you. Perhaps you're implying that the stadium is a good recruiting tool. If so, then I'm afraid you've got me. I afraid those pesky results in team record and recruiting may have led me astray. Perhaps I should have taken those platitudes of the new stadium being a great recruiting tool to heart without any critical thinking. If only I did, I could have been and continued to be part of the uneducated masses with you.

Unfortunately, I'm not one of them, so I'll bore you with what the results of TCF Bank have given us. I do hope you'll sing me a happy song to convince me how wrong I am.

Below are where the Gophers ranked in the Big Ten in recruiting by year per rivals. Nebraska has been retroactively added.

2002: 10th
2003: 4th
2004: 10th
2005: 11th
2006: 10th
2007: 10th
2008: 3rd
2009: 7th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th
2012: 12th
2013: 12th

Twice since 2002 the Gophers have been in the upper half of recruiting in the Big Ten, once at the dome and once at the newer stadium. I don't see anything that indicates that the new stadium was or is a good recruiting tool.

TCF Bank opened in 2009. Our best recruiting year occurred a year before the stadium opened in the first season with coach Brewster, a known recruiter. But, perhaps the promise of the new stadium attracted the good players. However, if like me, you think the stadium is nothing but a nice facility sold with empty promises, then you'll see no appreciable difference in recruiting. Perhaps it made recruiting better for its first few seasons, perhaps the coach known as a recruiter made a slight difference, or perhaps their really is no difference, especially considering the Gophers have ranked last the past two seasons with their shiny new stadium.

But recruiting results aren't the best indicator. After all, recruiting rankings are nothing but opinions, and opinions are nothing but written words, like platitudes are spoken. Words are wind. I prefer action and results, so let's look at team record.

Here are records by year.

2002: 8-5
2003: 10-3
2004: 7-5
2005: 7-5
2006: 6-7
2007: 1-11
2008: 7-6
2009: 6-7
2010: 3-9
2011: 3-9
2012: 6-7

Again, my eyes lie all the time, it's why I'm such a good sleeper. But it sure looks like the dome produced better results than TCF Bank stadium.

I don't know why a basketball practice facility would contribute to better recruiting based on the football results. But they are two different sports.

Perhaps some birds can sing me a few songs to help me understand why the results are wrong and the platitudes and words are right. Words are wind, and how the wind makes birds soar.
Click to expand...

Regardless, one of the first things most recruits say about the U and the football program is how nice the stadium and locker room is. It plays some roll in the recruiting process, no doubt about it. It may not be the most important aspect in a recruits decision, but that doesn't mean it plays no roll either.
 


Gopherguy0723 said:
Really? Oh that's too bad. How foolish of me. Anything can be a tool, even people like you. Perhaps you're implying that the stadium is a good recruiting tool. If so, then I'm afraid you've got me. I afraid those pesky results in team record and recruiting may have led me astray. Perhaps I should have taken those platitudes of the new stadium being a great recruiting tool to heart without any critical thinking. If only I did, I could have been and continued to be part of the uneducated masses with you.

Unfortunately, I'm not one of them, so I'll bore you with what the results of TCF Bank have given us. I do hope you'll sing me a happy song to convince me how wrong I am.

Below are where the Gophers ranked in the Big Ten in recruiting by year per rivals. Nebraska has been retroactively added.

2002: 10th
2003: 4th
2004: 10th
2005: 11th
2006: 10th
2007: 10th
2008: 3rd
2009: 7th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th
2012: 12th
2013: 12th

Twice since 2002 the Gophers have been in the upper half of recruiting in the Big Ten, once at the dome and once at the newer stadium. I don't see anything that indicates that the new stadium was or is a good recruiting tool.

TCF Bank opened in 2009. Our best recruiting year occurred a year before the stadium opened in the first season with coach Brewster, a known recruiter. But, perhaps the promise of the new stadium attracted the good players. However, if like me, you think the stadium is nothing but a nice facility sold with empty promises, then you'll see no appreciable difference in recruiting. Perhaps it made recruiting better for its first few seasons, perhaps the coach known as a recruiter made a slight difference, or perhaps their really is no difference, especially considering the Gophers have ranked last the past two seasons with their shiny new stadium.

But recruiting results aren't the best indicator. After all, recruiting rankings are nothing but opinions, and opinions are nothing but written words, like platitudes are spoken. Words are wind. I prefer action and results, so let's look at team record.

Here are records by year.

2002: 8-5
2003: 10-3
2004: 7-5
2005: 7-5
2006: 6-7
2007: 1-11
2008: 7-6
2009: 6-7
2010: 3-9
2011: 3-9
2012: 6-7

Again, my eyes lie all the time, it's why I'm such a good sleeper. But it sure looks like the dome produced better results than TCF Bank stadium.

I don't know why a basketball practice facility would contribute to better recruiting based on the football results. But they are two different sports.

Perhaps some birds can sing me a few songs to help me understand why the results are wrong and the platitudes and words are right. Words are wind, and how the wind makes birds soar.
Click to expand...

We have had four years in the new stadium. Not ONE of those years we had a winning record. Now.....explain to me how our recruiting classes seem to be about on par with the recruiting classes we had under Mason as we were regularly winning more than half our games. What did you think was going to happen? Crappy records will go out the window once a new stadium comes into play? That is such a stupid argument to make. It has been four seasons in the new stadium under two different coaches. If you think one recruiting class will change the tone of an entire program.....you are sadly mistaken. These yearly records along with the dome as our homefield would undoubtedly be worse.
 


station19 said:
It will always be far superior to the Dome.
Click to expand...

On that, I definitely agree. As for the editing of posts, I find it easier to fix any typos after reading the post after it is posted. As a journalism major from our great university, I have some OCD issues when it comes to such things.
 




Gopherguy0723 said:
Really? Oh that's too bad. How foolish of me. Anything can be a tool, even people like you. Perhaps you're implying that the stadium is a good recruiting tool. If so, then I'm afraid you've got me. I afraid those pesky results in team record and recruiting may have led me astray. Perhaps I should have taken those platitudes of the new stadium being a great recruiting tool to heart without any critical thinking. If only I did, I could have been and continued to be part of the uneducated masses with you.

Unfortunately, I'm not one of them, so I'll bore you with what the results of TCF Bank have given us. I do hope you'll sing me a happy song to convince me how wrong I am.

Below are where the Gophers ranked in the Big Ten in recruiting by year per rivals. Nebraska has been retroactively added.

2002: 10th
2003: 4th
2004: 10th
2005: 11th
2006: 10th
2007: 10th
2008: 3rd
2009: 7th
2010: 7th
2011: 9th
2012: 12th
2013: 12th

Twice since 2002 the Gophers have been in the upper half of recruiting in the Big Ten, once at the dome and once at the newer stadium. I don't see anything that indicates that the new stadium was or is a good recruiting tool.

TCF Bank opened in 2009. Our best recruiting year occurred a year before the stadium opened in the first season with coach Brewster, a known recruiter. But, perhaps the promise of the new stadium attracted the good players. However, if like me, you think the stadium is nothing but a nice facility sold with empty promises, then you'll see no appreciable difference in recruiting. Perhaps it made recruiting better for its first few seasons, perhaps the coach known as a recruiter made a slight difference, or perhaps their really is no difference, especially considering the Gophers have ranked last the past two seasons with their shiny new stadium.

But recruiting results aren't the best indicator. After all, recruiting rankings are nothing but opinions, and opinions are nothing but written words, like platitudes are spoken. Words are wind. I prefer action and results, so let's look at team record.

Here are records by year.

2002: 8-5
2003: 10-3
2004: 7-5
2005: 7-5
2006: 6-7
2007: 1-11
2008: 7-6
2009: 6-7
2010: 3-9
2011: 3-9
2012: 6-7

Again, my eyes lie all the time, it's why I'm such a good sleeper. But it sure looks like the dome produced better results than TCF Bank stadium.

I don't know why a basketball practice facility would contribute to better recruiting based on the football results. But they are two different sports.

Perhaps some birds can sing me a few songs to help me understand why the results are wrong and the platitudes and words are right. Words are wind, and how the wind makes birds soar.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't Mason have done better at recruiting with the Bank? Wouldn't Brewster/Kill have done worse with the Metrodome? The Stadium is mentioned within the first 10 seconds of every recruiting pitch I've ever heard from Brewster/Kill. Even with the Bank we still are behind many other programs in terms of their other facilities. We didn't suddenly catapult into the top 3 in the Big Ten just because our stadium is newer. Control for your variables.
 

Remember the old saying: "There are only 2 things certain in life, death & Taxes."?

Well, I would to add a 3rd one. Willard Shapira complaining in the Daily about the U's spending priorities.

Whether it be spending on athletics, the president's salary, or a fancy new academic building, Willard thinks the U should not spend any money to improve itself.

He claims to be populist, looking out for the students' tuition dollars, but I find him penny-wise but pound-foolish.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom