recruiting

[lawrence21]

The players need to be put in situations in which they can experience success in Big Ten play. That is the essence of running a Big Ten program. Put the players in a situation in which they can succeed by winning Big Ten football games!

Players put Coaches in situations in which they can win games. A coach can scheme all he wants and come up with different plays to run, but if your guys can't make plays it makes no difference how smart of a coach you are. A Coach can't make an interception or put a sick move on a defender to score a TD. Talent wins over non talent most of the time, unless your talent is equal, then coaching comes into play.

 

[4starrecruit]

"Brewster is not in this camp. He happens to think the program can do better. And even if the team doesn't do so with a vastly upgraded schedule this year, he'll still think that. To me, that's plenty refreshing and easier to get excited about than anything Mason achieved down the stretch of his tenure..." (MRJ @ 10:47am on April 16, 2009)



MRJ: I see. The think method you describe perhaps will prevail over the win vs loss method of evaluating success or failure for running a Big Ten Football Program. You may have a point. I have long thought that expenses could be far better controlled if tenure was granted to the person holding the Golden Gopher Football Head Coaching Position. Let's say, after two seasons, tenure could be granted. Only cola's equal to what other tenured staff members in the academic structure at the U of M would increase the wages of the football coach. What the coach thinks would be far more important than the actual won/loss record. It would lead to stable recruiting, teaching and development of staff and players and would in general be a very good thing. It would be a very civil thing. The University of Minnesota could be a leader and a bright shinning star for the rest of the college football community. The tenured coach could receive a 3 or 4 % cola just like every other educator at the U of M. There would be no need to pay multi-million dollar salaries to the coaching candidate who could be granted tenure after just his/her second year on the job. The negative recruiting talk about a coach being on the hot-seat would be effectively taken away with a process that would quickly grant tenure to the head coach.

I do like this what the coach is thinking about the program is far more important than what the coach is achieving when the actual games are played philosophy and concept MRJ. Very interesting!

 

[GopherGod]

"Brewster is not in this camp. He happens to think the program can do better. And even if the team doesn't do so with a vastly upgraded schedule this year, he'll still think that. To me, that's plenty refreshing and easier to get excited about than anything Mason achieved down the stretch of his tenure..." (MRJ @ 10:47am on April 16, 2009)



MRJ: I see. The think method you describe perhaps will prevail over the win vs loss method of evaluating success or failure for running a Big Ten Football Program. You may have a point. I have long thought that expenses could be far better controlled if tenure was granted to the person holding the Golden Gopher Football Head Coaching Position. Let's say, after two seasons, tenure could be granted. Only cola's equal to what other tenured staff members in the academic structure at the U of M would increase the wages of the football coach. What the coach thinks would be far more important than the actual won/loss record. It would lead to stable recruiting, teaching and development of staff and players and would in general be a very good thing. It would be a very civil thing. The University of Minnesota could be a leader and a bright shinning star for the rest of the college football community. The tenured coach could receive a 3 or 4 % cola just like every other educator at the U of M. There would be no need to pay multi-million dollar salaries to the coaching candidate who could be granted tenure after just his/her second year on the job. The negative recruiting talk about a coach being on the hot-seat would be effectively taken away with a process that would quickly grant tenure to the head coach.

I do like this what the coach is thinking about the program is far more important than what the coach is achieving when the actual games are played philosophy and concept MRJ. Very interesting!

Hilarious post 4starrecruit

 

[tjgopher]

The think method you describe perhaps will prevail over the win vs loss method of evaluating success or failure for running a Big Ten Football Program.

So, if we go by your evaluation process - of judging a Big Ten football program on wins and losses - how would you evaulate a coach who in ten years running a Big Ten football program averaged 3.2 Big Ten wins per season, was 16-games below .500 in his Big Ten coaching career, never finished higher than fourth place in the Big Ten, had a 3-5 Big Ten record in his 10th year, and owned a 10-14 Big Ten record in years 8, 9, and 10? Just curious.

 

[MRJ]

"Brewster is not in this camp. He happens to think the program can do better. And even if the team doesn't do so with a vastly upgraded schedule this year, he'll still think that. To me, that's plenty refreshing and easier to get excited about than anything Mason achieved down the stretch of his tenure..." (MRJ @ 10:47am on April 16, 2009)



MRJ: I see. The think method you describe perhaps will prevail over the win vs loss method of evaluating success or failure for running a Big Ten Football Program. You may have a point. I have long thought that expenses could be far better controlled if tenure was granted to the person holding the Golden Gopher Football Head Coaching Position. Let's say, after two seasons, tenure could be granted. Only cola's equal to what other tenured staff members in the academic structure at the U of M would increase the wages of the football coach. What the coach thinks would be far more important than the actual won/loss record. It would lead to stable recruiting, teaching and development of staff and players and would in general be a very good thing. It would be a very civil thing. The University of Minnesota could be a leader and a bright shinning star for the rest of the college football community. The tenured coach could receive a 3 or 4 % cola just like every other educator at the U of M. There would be no need to pay multi-million dollar salaries to the coaching candidate who could be granted tenure after just his/her second year on the job. The negative recruiting talk about a coach being on the hot-seat would be effectively taken away with a process that would quickly grant tenure to the head coach.

I do like this what the coach is thinking about the program is far more important than what the coach is achieving when the actual games are played philosophy and concept MRJ. Very interesting!

Wow did you take this argument into left field. And for that, I congratulate you. Rarely have I seen a more convoluted response to an original viewpoint. Bravo!!! If I have to spell it out for you, here goes: Mason didn't win enough for you to automatically require Brewster to win the Big Ten or even make a New Years bowl game in his third year. Not in his first year, not in his third year, never in his tenure. And where you started extrapolating this into faculty and tenure positions is a genuine mystery.

Right now, it has to do with philosophy because we simply don't have a big enough sample size of Brewster's performance on the field. If you want to roast the man after two years and then say "Uh oh, Mason went 5-3 in his third year and if Brewster doesn't match it, he's a failure" then go ahead. The bottom line is this, if Mason got 10 years for never being better than 5-3, then Brewster deserves at least a few more years to show what his team can do on the field. If the team falters, then yes, you and all the Masonites can clamor for the good old days of 7-5, 6-6 and 7-6 if you wish.

But to blast Brewster after two years? That's a pretty quick trigger there buddy.

 

[4starrecruit]

Who is blasting anyone? You seem to blast Mason, but that's ok. Brewster will get his two more years. Unless Maturi somehow disappears from the scene. So, Brewster will get to use up at least four out of five of his contracted years. There will be a small problem at the end of this season. What to do about Brewster's contract? He will have only two years left at the end of this season. Will Maturi once again start sending his coach out to recruit with under the mandated three years remaining on his contract? If Maturi feels good about doing that, there is no doubt that Brewster will have the 2009 and 2010 seasons.

However, the record will become more and more important with each passing game. Too many losses will create "demand destruction" in terms of Brewster's popularity with the media and the fans.

For that reason, the number of wins will become increasingly important. Maturi really did want to extend Brewster between the Iowa and Kansas games in 2008. However, that proved to become a lightening rod of protest from the media and many fans who recalled Maturi's expensive buy-out of coaching contracts he had very recently extended.

This has nothing to do with Brewster (for all you Brewster loyalists) or about too many other things than Maturi's track record with extending and then buying out contracts the next year. To a lot of folks, that was a very big and a very bad deal from a fiscal point of view.

Maturi almost has to either extend Brewster's contract, or eventually terminate Brewster's contract while there is still time remaining on that contract. Maturi's timing is not very good, it would seem. If he wanted to extend Brewster, he should have gone ahead and done it. He blinked though and now it will be some kind of big deal unless Brewster finishes very high in the conference in 2009.

 

[MRJ]

Who is blasting anyone? You seem to blast Mason, but that's ok. Brewster will get his two more years. Unless Maturi somehow disappears from the scene. So, Brewster will get to use up at least four out of five of his contracted years. There will be a small problem at the end of this season. What to do about Brewster's contract? He will have only two years left at the end of this season. Will Maturi once again start sending his coach out to recruit with under the mandated three years remaining on his contract? If Maturi feels good about doing that, there is no doubt that Brewster will have the 2009 and 2010 seasons.

However, the record will become more and more important with each passing game. Too many losses will create "demand destruction" in terms of Brewster's popularity with the media and the fans.

For that reason, the number of wins will become increasingly important. Maturi really did want to extend Brewster between the Iowa and Kansas games in 2008. However, that proved to become a lightening rod of protest from the media and many fans who recalled Maturi's expensive buy-out of coaching contracts he had very recently extended.

This has nothing to do with Brewster (for all you Brewster loyalists) or about too many other things than Maturi's track record with extending and then buying out contracts the next year. To a lot of folks, that was a very big and a very bad deal from a fiscal point of view.

Maturi almost has to either extend Brewster's contract, or eventually terminate Brewster's contract while there is still time remaining on that contract. Maturi's timing is not very good, it would seem. If he wanted to extend Brewster, he should have gone ahead and done it. He blinked though and now it will be some kind of big deal unless Brewster finishes very high in the conference in 2009.

So your big problem is with Maturi? Okay, that makes sense. And I never meant that wins and losses weren't important. Obviously they are and will be, especially over the next two seasons. But that would have been the same situation regardless of whether the coach was either Brewster or Mason because of the current situation of moving into a new stadium and how much it cost to build.

I'm fine with the fact that you have issues with Maturi's fiscal decisions. To be honest, I'm in agreement with you on many levels there and there's no doubt that it also increases pressure on Brewster to perform. And certainly, Brewster won't (and shouldn't for that matter) be immune from criticism as things progress. I for one will try to hold off on that one for a little bit longer. However, if things don't move forward the program stays stuck in neutral or going backwards, then I will open up with both barrels.

 

[4starrecruit]

So, if we go by your evaluation process - of judging a Big Ten football program on wins and losses - how would you evaulate a coach who in ten years running a Big Ten football program averaged 3.2 Big Ten wins per season, was 16-games below .500 in his Big Ten coaching career, never finished higher than fourth place in the Big Ten, had a 3-5 Big Ten record in his 10th year, and owned a 10-14 Big Ten record in years 8, 9, and 10? Just curious.

If you say Mason sucked: then Mason sucked. It is as plain and simple as that. He's been fired. He's never coming back. He was horrible. He was awful. He was the worst of the worst. We bought him out at a loss to the athletic department of millions of dollars. That was a very good thing. We hated him. We despised him.

However, right now, a 10-14 Big Ten record in 3 seasons would look pretty good.

I look forward to the days when Brewster will win 10 out of 24 Big Ten games in a 3 year stretch We can then praise him and sign him to a big, multi-year contract. Of course, what ever I have to say about anything really doesn't matter. I guess I just can't care if we ever win very many Big Ten football games.

So, there you have it. You of course are very right about what you think about Mason. Brewster really doesn't have to be accountable for at least 10 years. That is a very good thing. I'm sure it will all work out just fine!

 

[MRJ]

If you say Mason sucked: then Mason sucked. It is as plain and simple as that. He's been fired. He's never coming back. He was horrible. He was awful. He was the worst of the worst. We bought him out at a loss to the athletic department of millions of dollars. That was a very good thing. We hated him. We despised him.

However, right now, a 10-14 Big Ten record in 3 seasons would look pretty good.

I look forward to the days when Brewster will win 10 out of 24 Big Ten games in a 3 year stretch We can then praise him and sign him to a big, multi-year contract. Of course, what ever I have to say about anything really doesn't matter. I guess I just can't care if we ever win very many Big Ten football games.

So, there you have it. You of course are very right about what you think about Mason. Brewster really doesn't have to be accountable for at least 10 years. That is a very good thing. I'm sure it will all work out just fine!

I don't want to jump too far into this area of the conversation, but to my way of thinking, this is the problem right there. Mason never was going to go any higher than this and everyone knew it, especially after 10 years on the job. Will Brewster even achieve this level? Well, he did it last year by making a very Masonesque Bowl, so my early inclination is to say yes. But honestly, at this point it's hard to say. In any case, Brewster at least deserves the chance to see if he can and possibly do even better. And we as a fan base deserve the chance to see as well.

That's ultimately why I think Mason was let go and Brewster was hired. Thus, my original point regarding stagnation with Mason.

 

[GoAUpher]

However, right now, a 10-14 Big Ten record in 3 seasons would look pretty good.

Sure it would. But we'd still be only mediocre/ok. Which is where we are right now. The difference is that we're a mediocre/ok team with improved/improving talent, a new stadium, and a coach who actually believes winning here is possible. None of that guarantees success. But it guarantees us a shot at being much better than Mason ever was or would have been.

 

[grunkiejr]

Are you serious? I was not a huge Mason guy and I think that the move was over due to move on, but you do realize that Brewster took over a bowl team and Mason took over a Wacker team. If you don't realize the magnitude of the difference in the rebuilding jobs then you most not be older than 15. Mason took over the worst program in the Big Ten. Brewster took over a team that had gone to 7 bowls in 10 years. Again, I am NOT a Mason guy, but wow you must think that Murray Warmath was coaching when Mason took over. Brewster needs to go 5-3 this year to keep pace with Mason's first three years. Hopefully it happens, but I thought the goal was to do better than Mason, not keep pace. No?

If you're looking only at W/L in the year(s) following I think it is fairly comparable because Mason's first team had more talent than Brewster's first team (I'll get in to that). If you are looking at ease of building a program from it's current state Brewster's job is easier because the memory of the team from HS players you are trying to recruit is of Maroney & Barber and mediocre bowls rather than the seasons they put up under Wacker.

Our 2007 team was not a bowl capable team under any coach and 2006 shouldn't be the baseline for juding 2007. Mason's 2006 led the country in turnover margin and still finished with a sub .500 record. You'll have a hard time finding a statistic with a stronger correlation to W/L record than turnover margin and I challenge you to find another team in NCAA history that led the country in turnover margin and finished with a sub .500 record. My point with discussion point is that it is an indication of the talent on the team and one has to evaluate the make up of the team to determine whether leading in turnover margin could be repeated.

This is college football and the roster changes from year-to-year. The 2006 Gophers were a team led by a 3-year starter at QB who was incredibly efficient by the time he was a senior. He was gone in 2007 and we had to replace him with a redshirt freshman because there wasn't a better QB in the system. The 2006 team had a 1000 yard rusher that was returning in 2007. However, Pinnix developed a fumbling problem and ended up getting injured so we had to lean on a true freshman RB to carry the load. Our redshirt freshman QB ended up leading the team in rushing. The 2006 defense was one of the worst in the country and featured the #117 (out of 119) ranked pass defense in the country. For 2007 we lost 2 projected starters in the defensive backfield and a projected starter at DE due to off-field issues. The other starter at DE broke his wrist and was largely ineffective after an oustanding sophomore campaign. Mason defenses were never known as strong nor deep and the defense that first took the field for Brewster was weaker than we ever had during Mason's tenure.

I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm apologizing for Brewster but you need to take a more critical look at the 2006 & 2007 teams than just the record to compare the two seasons. We were in more of a rebuilding phase in 2007 than casual fans realize and Brewster should be evaluated accordingly.

I thought Mason was a good coach for the Gophers for a number of years. However, at the tail end of his career the quality of the talent within the program had diminished. It may be fair to blame some of it on the administration (negative recruiting when they failed to extend his contract prior to the Music City Bowl in ~2005) but some of it was because the program was seen as an up and comer until it plateaued after the 2003 Michigan game. I am confident that Mason wouldn't have taken the 2007 team to a bowl either but they probably would have won 4 games (3 wins coming between: Bowling Green, FAU, NDSU & Northwestern) because the turnover margin would have been more favorable than asking Weber to learn the spread in one off season. In retrospect, with Dantonio at MSU stealing the left overs from Ohio I think Mason would have had more problems getting his players and competing in the Big Ten today and we're better off with trying a new coach to take us to a level above Mason's plateau.

 

[Monty519]

Well said grunkie. I've spelled it out multiple times as well. Some just wanna hate regardless of the facts.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Wow, another Mason - Brewster Debate. We have not had enough of those lately. The only thing I have to say is this: Mason's Big 10 record over ten seasons was 32 - 48. If anyone in GopherHole was satisfied with that record you are one of the reasons that the Gophers have not won a Big 10 Championship in over 40 years. Your opinion no longer counts. Take a seat in the back row and keep your mouth shut.

 

[GoAUpher]

Wow, another Mason - Brewster Debate. We have not had enough of those lately.

Oddly enough, I think it has been a while since this particular circular arguement popped up. I guess we were due!