Reusse: Kill follows the Mason School of Scheduling; Kill still wants out of UNC game

[Iceland12]

I hear what you're saying, but let's compare apples to apples. Mason played three BCS/BCS-equivalent non-conference opponents in his entire tenure - Iowa St. (1997) in his 1st season, Baylor (2000) in his 4th season, and Cal (2006) in his 10th and final season. That means we went 5 consecutive seasons without playing a power conference opponent in his 5th-9th seasons, a time frame when the team was exclusively comprised of his players and should've been able to compete against even a slightly more difficult set of schedules. Neither Baylor nor Iowa St. were any good when we played them, so one could easily make the argument that we played only one "quality" non-conference opponent in Mason's entire tenure. We are in Kill's second season, and after we play Syracuse, he will have already played 2 opponents better than any non-conference opponent Mason played other than Cal. If we play UNC in 2013 as scheduled, it will be in Kill's 3rd season. Will you give him a pass and a pat on the back if we go 5-7 instead of 6-6 and miss out on a bowl because we played UNC instead of Akron or San Jose St.? If we're still consistently scheduling all non-AQ-type opponents in Kill's 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th seasons, you will have a legitimate gripe. If Kill isn't confident enough in his team by then to play some name competition, he should be on his way out of town and let's bring in someone who will. But let's learn to crawl before we walk. He is trying to build a program that will compete with the best in the conference by years 5-9. What good does it do to go get smoked by a team with much better talent? What purpose does that serve? We might win, but we probably won't. What good will it have done then? Let's play UNC or an equivalent in year 5 and beyond - not now when the team's psyche is fragile and we're attempting to build a culture of winning.

Respectfully dpodoll, in 2013 or 2014 if they go 5-7 and lose to UNC, or go 6-6 and beat Montana State, it would mean they went 2-6 in the Big Ten. Either way wouldn't get Kill a pat on the back or sell a lot of Season Tickets.

 

[dpodoll68]

We are trying to get to a point where we are consistently competitive with our biggest rival, Wisconsin, both on the field and in the standings. I think from that standpoint it's instructive to see how they handled building their program.

Becky under Alvarez:

1990 (1st season)
- home vs. Cal, loss
- home vs. Temple, loss

1991
- home vs. Iowa St., win

1992
- away vs. Washington, loss

1993
- home vs. Iowa St., win

1994
- away vs. Colorado, loss

1995
- home vs. Colorado, loss
- away vs. Stanford, tie

So, in Alvarez's first 6 seasons combined, they played 1 or 2 power conference opponents every year, and failed to beat anyone not named Iowa St. In particular, they got absolutely drilled in both games vs. Colorado. In 1992 (a very interesting parallel since it was Alvarez's 3rd year, compared to what would be UNC in Kill's 3rd year), they lost on the road to Washington and finished 5-6. They shoulda/woulda/coulda went to a bowl game had they played NE Directional St. instead. How much differently would things have gone for them? How crucial for their seasoning and confidence would it have been to have 15 extra practices and a potential victory in a bowl game? Perhaps that could've been the difference in 1993, when they lost to a terrible Minnesota team and tied Ohio St. Maybe they're playing for a national championship instead of in the Rose Bowl. Do you think Barry Alvarez is glad he lost by 17 to Washington on the road in his 3rd season, or do you think he wishes he could've taken his team to a bowl and built confidence for a touchstone 1993 season? I guarantee he has thought about it many teams and wishes things could've been different.

 

[book]

Every div 1 football team should schedule at least one other div team from a major conference once a year - and every div 1 football team should play at least one road game in their non-conference schedule.

 

[dpodoll68]

Respectfully dpodoll, in 2013 or 2014 if they go 5-7 and lose to UNC, or go 6-6 and beat Montana State, it would mean they went 2-6 in the Big Ten. Either way wouldn't get Kill a pat on the back or sell a lot of Season Tickets.

Of course. But we have gone 2-6 in the Big Ten many times before, and we almost certainly will again. Which looks better - 2-6 and sitting at home in late December, or 2-6 and a bowl game appearance/victory? No one would be happy with 2-6 and a bowl in years 5-9, but as an honest Gopher fan, if you're not content with a bowl game in year 3 (no matter how it happened) you're not being realistic with where this team has been and where it's going. The 1992 Becky squad above went 3-5 in the Big Ten in Alvarez's 3rd season (no bowl), and won the Rose Bowl the following season.

 

[MNVCGUY]

What do you people want? Do you want wins or do you want to be "proud" that you got your ass kicked while playing a bunch of name opponents? I, too, wish the Gophers were in a position where we could be competitive with a strong non-conference schedule. Unfortunately, we're just not very good right now. For Kill, it's not about never playing those types of games. It's about not playing those types of games this early. It's too much too soon. I'll say it again for those who weren't paying attention the first time - deal with things as they are, not as you would like them to be.

Read the quote from Kill again. He is not talking about playing those teams down the line he is talking about not playing those tougher teams ever. He wants 4 home non-conf games, the only way you get that is by playing creampuffs that don't require you to come to their place because they are desparate for the payday.

It is exactly what Mason did and we all bitched about. You win 4 con-conf games do the bare minimum in the conference and then pat yourself on the back for getting to a meaningless bowl game by finishing 6-6.

And to echo some of the other sentiments when did North Carolna become a national power. We absolutely should expect to be able to compete with a team like that in year three under Kill. In my opinion next years non-conf schedule is almost perfect. You have 3 "easy" games and one tougher game against a mid tier name opponent from a BCS conference.

 

[e.bigelow]

What do you people want? Do you want wins or do you want to be "proud" that you got your ass kicked while playing a bunch of name opponents? I, too, wish the Gophers were in a position where we could be competitive with a strong non-conference schedule. Unfortunately, we're just not very good right now. For Kill, it's not about never playing those types of games. It's about not playing those types of games this early. It's too much too soon. I'll say it again for those who weren't paying attention the first time - deal with things as they are, not as you would like them to be.

+ 1,000. Dpo hits it spot on. We are not in a place yet where we can do this. We all wish we were in that position, so all we can do is hope it is sooner rather than later.

 

[dpodoll68]

Read the quote from Kill again. He is not talking about playing those teams down the line he is talking about not playing those tougher teams ever.

No, he isn't. He said "we always need three, four would be better." Of course he'd like to get 4 home non-cons every year, but so would everyone else, and no one does consistently. You can easily schedule a home-and-home down the road and have 4 home games one year, 3 the next, or vice-versa, just like he's saying. Like I said, let's revisit this in years 5-9, and if he's still wanting to duck AQ-level opponents, let's bitch about it then.

 

[vinko bogataj]

I hear what you're saying, but let's compare apples to apples. Mason played three BCS/BCS-equivalent non-conference opponents in his entire tenure - Iowa St. (1997) in his 1st season, Baylor (2000) in his 4th season, and Cal (2006) in his 10th and final season. That means we went 5 consecutive seasons without playing a power conference opponent in his 5th-9th seasons, a time frame when the team was exclusively comprised of his players and should've been able to compete against even a slightly more difficult set of schedules. Neither Baylor nor Iowa St. were any good when we played them, so one could easily make the argument that we played only one "quality" non-conference opponent in Mason's entire tenure. We are in Kill's second season, and after we play Syracuse, he will have already played 2 opponents better than any non-conference opponent Mason played other than Cal. If we play UNC in 2013 as scheduled, it will be in Kill's 3rd season. Will you give him a pass and a pat on the back if we go 5-7 instead of 6-6 and miss out on a bowl because we played UNC instead of Akron or San Jose St.? If we're still consistently scheduling all non-AQ-type opponents in Kill's 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th seasons, you will have a legitimate gripe. If Kill isn't confident enough in his team by then to play some name competition, he should be on his way out of town and let's bring in someone who will. But let's learn to crawl before we walk. He is trying to build a program that will compete with the best in the conference by years 5-9. What good does it do to go get smoked by a team with much better talent? What purpose does that serve? We might win, but we probably won't. What good will it have done then? Let's play UNC or an equivalent in year 5 and beyond - not now when the team's psyche is fragile and we're attempting to build a culture of winning.

You make some very solid points dpo. Question for you. In your scenario of 5-7 with a loss to UNC vs. 6-6 with a win over a San Jose St. do you think the program truly gains any additional momentum or benefit. I am truly torn. On one hand, you get an additional share of bowl proceeds, some limited TV exposure and most importantly the additional practice time. On the other hand, generally bowl games are expense items for schools (see Dan Wetzel's Death to the BCS analysis), and an appearance in a low level bowl is not a huge recruiting sell. Meanwhile, a UNC game (using an assumed loss) gets more local media play since they are a known quantity in season which should lead to some minimal added excitement and ticket sales. Water cooler talk is slightly higher and a close loss can be justified. Hard to say which scenario is of more benefit. From a team building standpoint, I think the 6-6 scenario is better, from a program building standpoint I think they are a horse apiece with a slight edge to selling more tickets (if that can be reasonably assumed). I fully agree with you regarding seasons 5-9 scheduling. Let's keep in mind though that UNC is in seasons 3-4 and given todays college football world, they are not likely to be significantly more challenging than a UNLV or Western Michigan. Many of us here have spent the last weeks defending UNLV and WMU ad naseum as challenges on a level with lower level BCS teams. If we really believe that, why not just schedule lower level BCS teams and avoid the argument/perception issue altogether?

 

[Maximus]

Read the quote from Kill again. He is not talking about playing those teams down the line he is talking about not playing those tougher teams ever. He wants 4 home non-conf games, the only way you get that is by playing creampuffs that don't require you to come to their place because they are desparate for the payday.

Minnesota is desperate for a payday and will be for quite some time.

 

[vinko bogataj]

In 1992 (a very interesting parallel since it was Alvarez's 3rd year, compared to what would be UNC in Kill's 3rd year), they lost on the road to Washington and finished 5-6. They shoulda/woulda/coulda went to a bowl game had they played NE Directional St. instead. How much differently would things have gone for them? How crucial for their seasoning and confidence would it have been to have 15 extra practices and a potential victory in a bowl game? Perhaps that could've been the difference in 1993, when they lost to a terrible Minnesota team and tied Ohio St. Maybe they're playing for a national championship instead of in the Rose Bowl. Do you think Barry Alvarez is glad he lost by 17 to Washington on the road in his 3rd season, or do you think he wishes he could've taken his team to a bowl and built confidence for a touchstone 1993 season? I guarantee he has thought about it many teams and wishes things could've been different.

This is highly speculative. If we're going to extrapolate to this degree, couldn't one also argue that if UW had beaten NE Directional Louisiana and went to a bowl game in year 3 that his players would have had an extra 15 practices, lost Brent Moss to a blown ACL in the bowl game, come into 1994 over-confident and dropped a tight road game to SMU (a game they only won by 8), thus unravelling their entire year? You make a lot of great arguments on this board. This one seems like a bit of a leap to me.

 

[Schnauzer]

What do you people want? Do you want wins or do you want to be "proud" that you got your ass kicked while playing a bunch of name opponents? I, too, wish the Gophers were in a position where we could be competitive with a strong non-conference schedule. Unfortunately, we're just not very good right now. For Kill, it's not about never playing those types of games. It's about not playing those types of games this early. It's too much too soon. I'll say it again for those who weren't paying attention the first time - deal with things as they are, not as you would like them to be.

I am sad to see this approach by Kill. I am not suggesting scheduling teams like USC or LSU every year. I would just like to see a formula where 3 of the non-con games are against "easy" opponents and one is against an opponent from a major conference. It doesn't have to be the cream of that conference. Colorado? Oregon Sate? Texas Tech? Syracuse? Boston College? etc. I realize the scheduling is so far out that a team that on paper looks like a midling major conference opponent can improve to be a juggernaught by the time you play them, but it is worth the risk. It seems as though Kill doesn't even want that risk and wants to return to the endless line up of FCS and hyphens for his non conference opponents.

If playing ANY team from a major conference is assumed to be an "ass kicking" of our Gophers, even after 3 or more years of Jerry Kill leadership... I might as well give up my season tickets now. I was hoping the team would be getting better, and capable of matching up against teams like North Carolina once per non-conference season.

 

[Monty519]

I get where Kill is coming from with this, he's trying to get this program running and its not helping his cause having games like USC as his first one (even though that won him a ton of fans right off the bat, and we all know how first impressions work), when he has a team that couldn't even beat NDSU and struggles with UNLV. I can see why playing @UNC next year would not be something he's up for.

When Brew pushed these schedules, the program was supposed to be in place by now. The first USC game was in his fourth season. This would have been Year 5. UNC in Year 6. It made sense then IF he was able to get the program going. Since he didn't, now for a new coach walking into crap, having @USC in your first year, @UNC in your 3rd, is more daunting. Add to it that he's opened his first two seasons on the road as well. Scheduling definitely has not played in Kill's favor.

At the same time, as a fan, I like having @USC and @UNC on the schedule, it's just plain more interesting, and frankly, I've felt better after games against our better opponents so far than against our "weaker" opponents, where we've either struggled to win or lost.

I would hope soon enough, we can have this debate again when we're clowning all our NC opponents 45-7 on a yearly basis, but right now, I can't argue Kill's philosophy cause his program is struggling with the UNLV's of the world right now.

 

[Too Long in the Wasteland]

More cupcakes the better.

2008 the Gophers beat four cupcakes and were one chip shot field goal from Joel Monroe away from being 8-1 and ranked in the top 20.

2009 - it sure would've been nice to start 4-0 as Wisconsin was heading to town. Would've been a matchup of two unbeaten teams. Alas the Badgers won by 3, the Gophers were 3-2 and the entire state went ho-hum, who do the Vikings play tomorrow?

2006 - getting drilled by Cal only accomplished getting Mason fired and Brew hired.

2004 - Four cupcakes led the Gophers to 13th in the country before a meltdown late in Michigan

2003 - Four cupcakes led to the most important Gopher game in 20-25 years?

There's no reason to schedule big time matchups if the rest of the country doesn't care about the matchup.

The counterargument is that playing a bunch of meaningless cooking schools left our team unprepared for adversity once the competition stiffened. At some point in the season SOMEBODY is going to punch you in the mouth. Would you rather it be in September vs. an ACC or PAC12 school, or in November when you're playing in the biggest game in 20 years. Maybe if the Gophers had played a BCS opponent in September of 2003 they would have been better prepared to nut up when michigan came roaring back in the 4th quarter??? I'd gladly have taken a loss vs Arizona State or NCSU in September '03 in exchange for a W in that game.

As someone else said, I really don't care to watch a bowl game the day after X-mas just because Jerry padded his record with a bunch of votechs. If we want to ever get back to Pasadena, you have to win the big ten. And you aren't gonna do that gorging on cupcakes in the preseason.

 

[dpodoll68]

You make some very solid points dpo. Question for you. In your scenario of 5-7 with a loss to UNC vs. 6-6 with a win over a San Jose St. do you think the program truly gains any additional momentum or benefit. I am truly torn. On one hand, you get an additional share of bowl proceeds, some limited TV exposure and most importantly the additional practice time. On the other hand, generally bowl games are expense items for schools (see Dan Wetzel's Death to the BCS analysis), and an appearance in a low level bowl is not a huge recruiting sell. Meanwhile, a UNC game (using an assumed loss) gets more local media play since they are a known quantity in season which should lead to some minimal added excitement and ticket sales. Water cooler talk is slightly higher and a close loss can be justified. Hard to say which scenario is of more benefit. From a team building standpoint, I think the 6-6 scenario is better, from a program building standpoint I think they are a horse apiece with a slight edge to selling more tickets (if that can be reasonably assumed). I fully agree with you regarding seasons 5-9 scheduling. Let's keep in mind though that UNC is in seasons 3-4 and given todays college football world, they are not likely to be significantly more challenging than a UNLV or Western Michigan. Many of us here have spent the last weeks defending UNLV and WMU ad naseum as challenges on a level with lower level BCS teams. If we really believe that, why not just schedule lower level BCS teams and avoid the argument/perception issue altogether?

Good points and a great question from an excellent poster. I think any coach will tell you that the extra practices you get from a bowl game are worth more than any downside that arises. You are also guaranteed to get a quality opponent of at least middling caliber from playing in a bowl game, thus replacing the on-field challenge you would've had in the non-conference game. Not that it makes any difference to Kill, but that extra home game also helps the AD bottom line immensely.

This is highly speculative. If we're going to extrapolate to this degree, couldn't one also argue that if UW had beaten NE Directional Louisiana and went to a bowl game in year 3 that his players would have had an extra 15 practices, lost Brent Moss to a blown ACL in the bowl game, come into 1994 over-confident and dropped a tight road game to SMU (a game they only won by 8), thus unravelling their entire year? You make a lot of great arguments on this board. This one seems like a bit of a leap to me.

It is indeed very speculative. I guess my overall point was that Becky gained nothing from getting thumped by Washington on the road, but a bowl game in year 3 would've been huge on its own merits, and potentially a stepping stone to even greater heights than they ultimately achieved in year 4. By 1992, Becky had gone 7 consecutive seasons with a losing record. Let's assume that we have a losing record again this year (probably more likely than not) - that would make 6 losing records in 7 seasons (though 2 of those as a result of a bowl game loss) going into 2013. We need to get this program back to a state where we are winning more than we are losing, and puffing our chests out about non-conference scheduling isn't conducive to that.

 

[Iceland12]

Why I understand the desire to "pad the wins", can't understand or accept dumping this series. We were upset when Baylor weaseled out of their commitment to us, not going to be a hypocrite when Kill tries to do the same thing. UNC went 8-5 in 2010 and 7-6 in 2011. They are now on probation, losing some scholarships and earning a post season bowl ban. Kill's afraid to play these guys?

Nope, sorry not honoring a contract and running from these guys is just unacceptable.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ina-tar-heels-handed-postseason-ban-2012-ncaa

 

[dpodoll68]

As someone else said, I really don't care to watch a bowl game the day after X-mas just because Jerry padded his record with a bunch of votechs.

You're either lying or you're not a Gopher fan. It sounds macho to bleat about your "standards", but you would absolutely watch a Gopher bowl game regardless of how they got there, or you're not a Gopher fan.

If we want to ever get back to Pasadena, you have to win the big ten. And you aren't gonna do that gorging on cupcakes in the preseason.

This is just not true. Plenty of teams have won the Big Ten by playing nobodies in the non-conference.

 

[mnsports1]

Jerry Kill's rep as a "stand-up" guy is wearing pretty thin.

not sure how his scheduling preferences makes him not a stand-up guy.

 

[Iceland12]

not sure how his scheduling preferences makes him not a stand-up guy.

You honor a contract pure and simple.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Also, teams have gotten to Pasadena WITHOUT winning the Big Ten. See Illinois circa 2007

 

[vinko bogataj]

You are also guaranteed to get a quality opponent of at least middling caliber from playing in a bowl game, thus replacing the on-field challenge you would've had in the non-conference game.

That is a very good point that I didn't really consider. While the home game ticket piece is not correlative, playing a Kansas in Tempe is akin to playing a Kansas in Lawrence. Makes at least part of the argument for playing a BCS team in OOC play moot IMO. (FWIW that is a lot of online abbreviations in one sentence...LOL )

 

[mnsports1]

You honor a contract pure and simple.

I agree about honoring the contract. I don't think he is a bad guy if he schedules bad teams in the NC.

 

[Iceland12]

I agree about honoring the contract. I don't think he is a bad guy if he schedules bad teams in the NC.

Agreed.

 

[diefirma]

I don't understand why this is up for debate.

What is our goal?

If our goal is a Big Ten Title, playing a tough non-conference schedule could prepare the team--- or, could beat the team up so they're weaker heading into conference play.

If our goal is a National Championship, I'll take the 4 cupcake wins and count on the Big Ten competition to give me the strength of schedule necessary to win a BCS birth or playoff birth.

In my mind, it's risk versus reward. I don't see the reward of playing a team like USC, UNC, or Texas before Big Ten play starts.

+1

 

[MNVCGUY]

I think this is a great discussion but can we stop lumping USC and UNC in the same boat? Scheduling UNC in basketball is impressive, scheduling UNC in football is a non-conf game against a quality opponent from a weak BCS conference but it is nothing like scheduling USC, Texas, Oklahoma or pretty much anyone in the top half of the SEC.

 

[mnsports1]

Ultimately, as a fan of the gophers who hopes Kill is the right guy for the job, I am going to trust him on this one until he is proven to be wrong (which I hope doesn't happen).

 

[Maximus]

You honor a contract pure and simple.

The hiring and firing of coaches in the future should be a lot of fun with that view.

What did Kaler, Teague, Kill have to do with the UNC contract?

 

[BarnBoy]

You honor a contract pure and simple.

Yeah, because college coaches have such a history of honoring contracts. Were you mad at Kill for bailing on his NIU contract, or are you only mad at the contracts he breaks that help make your argument?

 

[tikited]

Makes sense (in his mind with the Buzz part), but it has been proven over time that the "on-the-fence" fan still won't show-up if we beat three or four cream puff teams. They still wait for that signature win against a conference team-sadly.

All I want, as a ticket holder, is get one UNC type team on the schedule at least every other year, if not every year. It could be that that team might not even be that good by the time we play them-making it another cream puff. The odds are against that team turning into a USC type team by the time we play them.

I was never in favor of always having a USC-Texas-etc. type team every year on the schedule.

 

[Iceland12]

Yeah, because college coaches have such a history of honoring contracts. Were you mad at Kill for bailing on his NIU contract, or are you only mad at the contracts he breaks that help make your argument?

Yeah, I was. Still upset about how that little d-bag Holtz told his kids at halftime that there was nothing to "those rumors" that he was heading to No-ter- Dame right before he did it. The U said we would play UNC the same as the bleeps in Baylor said they'd come up here and honor the contract they had signed. Many Gopher fans were upset about it then, now many of those same people are coming out as hypocrites.

Just not very good at throwing away basic principles to make things easier. Assume you are?

 

[GOPHER.NATION.]

How would opinions change if the Gophs lost by 60 to USC? I’m guessing Michigan isn’t feeling too great right now after getting pounded horribly both physically and mentally . . .

If you were a recruit, what would sound better? Going to bowl games consistently or playing USC? Tough question . . .

And, to argue against a few opinions earlier in the thread, the Cuse game will draw a slightly larger crowd b/c they are a bigger, more recognized school. However, the bigger draw for the fans will be the simple fact that it is a night game instead of 11 AM. I would estimate that the extra attendance will be 85% from the night game and 15% from the Cuse . . .