Did not make anything up. I used Scouts ratings. If those ratings were higher for the Gophers, you would like those better.
Not true. I would use the Rivals ratings regardless of who had us rated higher because I'm a Rivals subscriber and not a Scout subscriber.
Brewster was brought in specifically becuase he was supposed to be a great recruiter. Those are Maturi's words and Brewster is not shy about stating that as well. It is a fair question to ask if he is recruiting at a level that was expected. Based on everything I have read, I don't think he is.
That is the question Maturi is going to have to answer, because he is not going to have the slam dunk results on the field to help decide if he should give Brewster an extension.
Nobody really knows the benchmark that was expected. You either know a lot more than us abour our program or you are full of sh*t. I'm going to go with the latter.
What is clear is that according to the recruiting services we are recruiting at a higher level than we were under Mason. If someone doesn't believe in recruiting services we can use BCS offers for recruits as a benchmark and the recruits in Minnesota's 2008 and 2009 classes had far more BCS offers than previous classes. I believe the metric for our 2008 class was 102 offers from BCS schools other than Minnesota compared to somewhere around 25 in the prior class.
I think Maturi is in a tough position. Do you really think he is convinced that Brewster is the guy to get the Gophers to the next level? If he was, he may have already given him the extension. Do you think he wants to commit 5 or more million to him? What if they fold down the stretch again like last year? Having a coach without an extension makes it difficult to recruit.
First of all an extension isn't inherently a $5mm commitment. Bielema got a 1 year "vote of confidence" from Alvarez this past offseason--was that $5mm? Not even close.
I don't think it is as difficult as you make it out to be.
How are the academics of the program progressing?--The APR hit gives a false read on academics--we lost schollies primarily because our APR under Mason was lower than it should have been and changing coaches and dismissing a few players caused it to go under. In 2008-09 Minnesota actually set a team record for players with a 3.0 or higher GPA and led the Big Ten. Despite the perception in the papers that Brewster is recruiting low achieving students, as a whole the football program has improved its academics.
How is the performance of the team and how does it compare to the past?--2006: 6-7 loss in the Insight Bowl...2008: 7-6 loss in the Insight Bowl. I'll call that a push. 2009 has yet to play out but if you believe ESPN's midseason prediction 6-6 to 7-6 seems the most likely. There was a step back in 2007 but Maturi has even said he knew that would happen (we would have won more than 1 game but even with Mason we weren't going to a bowl in 2007 but that is another conversation).
Has the talent level of the team improved?I think this is a resounding yes. Recruiting services are one measurement but I won't focus on that. Where you can readily see the difference in athleticism in this team vs. previous teams is on the special teams (where most freshman and sophomores make their impact). We currently lead the Big Ten in punt return avg, are at or near the top in kick return avg and have played very well on coverage teams. Also, if you listen to opposing coaches they see the difference. The OC for Purdue (formerly at FAU who played us in 2007 & 2008) commented prior to our matchup that game planning for Minnesota is completely different now because the defense is so much faster than a couple years ago.
Has interest in the program increased?--Obviously one sign would be the sold out stadium but that likely would have sold out either way. Anecdotally the Minnesota Rivals site was the 2nd fastest growing site in the Rivals system. That is a pretty strong indication that interest in the program has increased. I'm sure the athletic dept has other ways to monitor this (road game tix, participation in non-gameday events, donations, etc).
You can talk about recruiting all you want, but in the end, all that matters are the results on the field. Illinois is exhibit A. Still want to follow the Zook model?
We look at the recruiting with such interest because it is new to us and freshman and sophomores (the best athletes in the program) don't usually make an impact in college football. About half of our 2009 class appears to be in line to be redshirted so we haven't even seen them on the field yet. It is hard to judge the full impact improved recruiting will have on our program.
I'm fine with the comparison to Illinois from the standpoint of having a coach that can recruit at a higher level than the program's past history. However, the comparison really should end there. The last time I checked Illinois was 5-7 in 2008 (we were 7-6) and this year they have 1 win on the season (0 against DI-A programs) while Minnesota is 4-3. The Minnesota coaching staff's abilities should be judged on their coaching rather than a comparison to another program that has stumbled badly because of poor execution. Pat Fitzgerald was hired at Northwestern with a background (recruiting coordinator with no OC/DC experience) that is more similar to Brewster than Zook's background (HC at Florida, former DC) but nobody mentions that comparison. By comparing Brewster to Zook your bias shows quite clearly.
Btw--the last time I checked Zook has gone to more Rose Bowls than Bielema has in Wisconsin. Is that jealousy creeping in to your posting?
