Twin Cities Market: Good or Bad?

Donate To GopherHole

Sweet Jesus if he didn't hit every nail on the head.
Kinda hurts to read, but it's true.
One could even say he held back a bit.
Gotta agree, win and alot of this is solved, win consistently over time and you may overcome alot of what he lays out.
 

That was a quality read IMO. He covered a TON of bases there, and I pretty much agreed with all of it. I said this in another thread, but our city and fanbase will show out for a winner. Our state rallies around winners. But there's just too many options to be a "loser" around here. You will lose fans quickly if they feel like your program or franchise is a joke, as is the case right now with Gopher football and the Timberwolves. But both of those teams can easily turn it around and become the "hot ticket" in Minneapolis, simply by winning. We had 60K+ at that infamous Michigan game, and they were rocking. Win and they will come. Keep winning, and they might do enough to establish themselves to the point where even in 6-6 seasons, we're selling out and people are still excited about the program as a whole.
 

It is simple. Show me another college football team that is supported as well as the Gophers that hasn't sniffed a conference title in almost 45 years. Add in the pro sports influence on the area and Gopher fans don't look so bad. This town would go nuts for college football if we had a winner.
 

"However, stating that it is the only factor would be an easy cop-out for 40 years of misery. Minnesota only has to look in the mirror to understand a good part of the reason for this futility."

Though the issues he raised are all legitimate, I thought he summarized it well with this. The U put football as secondary intentionally because it wanted to be know for scholastics, which is not wrong in itself mind you and in that day may have been a reasonable if not shortsighted decision, but it did have its consequences. Now they are having to restore the long settled ruins.

In fairness though, cities with just college sports do get the bulk of the sports income that the U does not get to see to go along with the favored attention. That should be considered as well when thinking about the condition of the U sports department.

BTW - Another thing was a lot of the marketing depended on the new stadium. To me this was a mistake that Mason promoted. I am not against the stadium being used, but the football atmosphere should have had some enthusiasm regardless of the stadium. Hopefully Coach Kill can develop this.

It is a pretty spot on article as well
 


This has been my biggest beef as well. It's inexcuseable. A couple Carlson kids could do better marketing for free.

"As a student at Minnesota, I can attest to this as fact: The marketing department at the University is in need of some serious improvement. Being as I did not become passionate about the U of M until my enrollment in 2008, I am unsure if this has always been the case, but they sure have dropped the ball since I have been here. Rarely are there any signs, billboards, or other messages displayed across campus pertaining to team news and events. Occasionally, ticket holders will receive e-mails from the school concerning different issues, but that is about it. Does the University ever do fun promotional activities or employ any advertising strategies in an attempt to broaden the fan base? I think when “Crank That Gopher Boy” is your biggest marketing triumph in a given year, maybe you should look into a different career.
The marketing department has made some impressive efforts to get incoming freshman excited about the new stadium and, by extension, the football team, but they should be doing more to energize the fan base and get them excited and passionate about Gopher football, particularly the students."
 

Fairly good article. Rambled on a bit, but that speaks to the point that there are MANY factors that have gone into the futility of this team.

Even though there are many things that need to change, the main point of the article is that the Twin Cities Market affects the Gophers in a big way, and based on the evidence laid out, that overall effect is negative.

You can argue to what degree being in a major city - specifically one with pro teams - affects the team, but you cannot dispute that the effect is there, and that it is negative.
 

Good article.

Win, and a lot of problems are solved. I think we all remember the 2003 game vs. Michigan (even if it is like a punch to the gut every time I remember it). Everybody was captivated by that team when they went into that Friday night game. I remember the energy all week and the excitement in the Dome. Start off like that season again and capitalize on games like that (instead of losing a heart breaker) and everybody is going to be talking about Gopher football.

And yes, the marketing is in need of serious improvement. It can't be that hard! Beautiful stadium, great home schedule, afternoon/night games, Gray, McKnight, Bennett, Kill...lots to market there.
 




Great article.

One thing I think the writer neglected was the passive aggressive nature of MN sports fans. Not only is it not fashionable to be a Gopher fan but most Minnesotans go out of their way to criticize and disassociate themselves from unsuccessful sports teams. Somehow it's thought that if we punish the team for under performing it will teach them a lesson and whip them into shape. If we shame them to the point of embarrassment they will wake up and start improving.

Unfortunately, all it does is contribute to the lack of school spirit and ruin opportunities to land the top MN kids.
 


FThe white on black script has got to go. My eyes were crossed by the time I finished reading.\
 

I'll play devil's advocate here and say the article is a hack job. Nothing presented is new or enlightening, and his points have been discussed ad nauseum. For each negative he brings up, I see a positive and opportunity.

Being in a major market should be a huge plus with all Mpls has going for it. Play a recruit some P.O.S or take him to First Ave. I can almost guarantee Madison & Iowa City can't match that.

How is having the Vikings in town not a plus? I get the economics about people paying to see a winner. But a top recruit's primary concern is will you prepare me for the NFL. The Vikings practice ten miles from campus -- set up a clinic day for the Gophers with the Vikings coaches at their facility. I'd like to see a better relationship built between the Gophers and Vikings. No other B1G school can offer that.

The biggest problem I see with Gopher fans is that they dwell on the past. You hear it all the time, "You can't win at Minnesota." B.S. Yes, the Metrodome sucked. Yes, the administration left athletics out in the cold. Yes, the Vikings are kings. But slowly and surely, I see the perception changing. The admin and alumni now see the benefit of a premier football program and have started to back it.

I liken the Gophers situation to the Badgers & Twins. The Badgers were horrendous until they got a coach & admin to truly back the team. I believe we have that potential with Kaler & Kill. The Twins were a joke between '91 and '01; I remember people disassociating themselves with the Twins then much like they do with the Gophers. As others have said, win and that all changes.

Being in a major market has its challenges. But if positioned right, I see huge benefits.
 



Interesting points.

Nokomis said:
Being in a major market should be a huge plus with all Mpls has going for it. Play a recruit some P.O.S or take him to First Ave. I can almost guarantee Madison & Iowa City can't match that.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You don't think they've tried (or are currently doing) that? I think if it worked so well we'd land better recruits.

Nokomis said:
The Vikings practice ten miles from campus -- set up a clinic day for the Gophers with the Vikings coaches at their facility. I'd like to see a better relationship built between the Gophers and Vikings. No other B1G school can offer that.
Click to expand...

What's in it for the Vikings? The Vikings have been amiable towards gopher football but at the end of the day they know they're the top dog in town and they don't need the gophers for anything. In fact, they probably quietly see them as a small (very small) piece of competition for media, etc.

Nokomis said:
The biggest problem I see with Gopher fans is that they dwell on the past. You hear it all the time, "You can't win at Minnesota." B.S. Yes, the Metrodome sucked. Yes, the administration left athletics out in the cold. Yes, the Vikings are kings. But slowly and surely, I see the perception changing. The admin and alumni now see the benefit of a premier football program and have started to back it.
Click to expand...

Now I totally agree with you here. Since TCF Bank Stadium was built I've seen more and more people who are genuinely pissed off about the state of Gopher football, which is a good thing!! In the past, most would have just put them out of mind and moved on to the next thing. I think the average MN sports fan wants the Gophers to have a competitive team, more so than any other time in the past 30-40 years IMHO.

Nokomis said:
I liken the Gophers situation to the Badgers & Twins. The Badgers were horrendous until they got a coach & admin to truly back the team. I believe we have that potential with Kaler & Kill. The Twins were a joke between '91 and '01; I remember people disassociating themselves with the Twins then much like they do with the Gophers. As others have said, win and that all changes.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree. It is possible for the gophers to win and I believe MN Sports fans want that but it's going to take some changes in the things the author pointed out IMHO.
 

Seriously? You don't think they've tried (or are currently doing) that? I think if it worked so well we'd land better recruits.
Click to expand...
-I'm sure they do. I remember St. Paul Slim wrote a song for the Gophers a couple years ago. My point is that being in Mpls sounds a lot better than Iowa City. How much that factors into a recruits choice, I don't know; but it can't hurt.

What's in it for the Vikings? The Vikings have been amiable towards gopher football but at the end of the day they know they're the top dog in town and they don't need the gophers for anything. In fact, they probably quietly see them as a small (very small) piece of competition for media, etc.
Click to expand...
-Good point. I honestly never looked at it from the Vikings POV. Strictly have the Gophers in mind. But if they aren't really in competition, why not? Public perception would improve. Pay the coaches for their time, and they may listen.
 

In the past the Gopher admin didn't believe the Gopher fb program was a business. Now they do and for good or bad they need to make more money for the "u". Has somebody asked Maturi why they don't market their own fb program?
 

4four4 said:
In the past the Gopher admin didn't believe the Gopher fb program was a business. Now they do and for good or bad they need to make more money for the "u". Has somebody asked Maturi why they don't market their own fb program?
Click to expand...

Amen.
 

Nokomis said:
-I'm sure they do. I remember St. Paul Slim wrote a song for the Gophers a couple years ago. My point is that being in Mpls sounds a lot better than Iowa City. How much that factors into a recruits choice, I don't know; but it can't hurt.
Click to expand...

I would rather go to Iowa City, Madison, Columbus, Ann Arbor and just about any other Big 10 city than Minneapolis if I was a student or student/athlete. You are discounting the "college experience" and overplaying the "urban experience." Nearly all of a student's time will still be spent on campus and not downtown. I'm not a U grad, but I'm a Minnesota native and a Gopher fan. Nonetheless, I've never stepped foot on the U campus and felt a "collegiate" atmosphere that you feel and experience in a real college town, whether it be a Big 10, MIAC or any other level of collegiate town.
 

I've never stepped foot on the U campus and felt a "collegiate" atmosphere that you feel and experience in a real college town
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me!? How deep into the campus did you get? The Arby's off Washington? The U's campus is gorgeous and every bit as "collegiate". I've been to many campuses on away games, and honestly the only campuses to rival the U's as far as "feel" IMO are Indiana & Michigan. Yes, Mpls doesn't turn maroon on games days like Madison or Lincoln turn red. That's why we left the Dome.
 

Swede said:
I would rather go to Iowa City, Madison, Columbus, Ann Arbor and just about any other Big 10 city than Minneapolis if I was a student or student/athlete. You are discounting the "college experience" and overplaying the "urban experience." Nearly all of a student's time will still be spent on campus and not downtown. I'm not a U grad, but I'm a Minnesota native and a Gopher fan. Nonetheless, I've never stepped foot on the U campus and felt a "collegiate" atmosphere that you feel and experience in a real college town, whether it be a Big 10, MIAC or any other level of collegiate town.
Click to expand...

There have been movies made here with the "U" as the backdrop for Ivy league schools. I didn't graduate from the U of M and even I feel the college experience they are on par with Augsburg college.:p
 

Nokomis said:
Being in a major market should be a huge plus with all Mpls has going for it. Play a recruit some P.O.S or take him to First Ave. I can almost guarantee Madison & Iowa City can't match that.
Click to expand...

You would think being in a major city would be a plus but it has been proven time and time again its not. I'm sure its not for lack of trying.

Nokomis said:
How is having the Vikings in town not a plus? I get the economics about people paying to see a winner. But a top recruit's primary concern is will you prepare me for the NFL. The Vikings practice ten miles from campus -- set up a clinic day for the Gophers with the Vikings coaches at their facility. I'd like to see a better relationship built between the Gophers and Vikings. No other B1G school can offer that.
Click to expand...

Kids want to play for a team that will help you prepare for the NFL and have the best chance at being drafted. Not just watch NFL players and take part in a couple drills. Even if for some ridiculous reason the Vikings would ever agree to this clinic day, it wouldn't really benefit the kids that actually have a shot at the league.

Nokomis said:
The biggest problem I see with Gopher fans is that they dwell on the past. You hear it all the time, "You can't win at Minnesota." B.S. Yes, the Metrodome sucked. Yes, the administration left athletics out in the cold. Yes, the Vikings are kings. But slowly and surely, I see the perception changing. The admin and alumni now see the benefit of a premier football program and have started to back it.
Click to expand...

The fans only know losing. How can you blame them for thinking any different? But why do you think everyone uses the Gophers as a punchline? Because they learn it from the media. To the media the Gophers are second fiddle, thus, they are that way to the public as well. In a real college town there aren't any punchlines...no cheapshots. Just passion for the team. It transfers down to the fans, even when the team is losing. That doesn't happen in a pro market.


Nokomis said:
Being in a major market has its challenges. But if positioned right, I see huge benefits.
Click to expand...

It only has advantages if you are the the #1 team in town. It is possible for the Gophers to attain that status. But the chances of it ever happening, especially with the Vikings in town, are slim.

You seem to have the right attitude, which is commendable, however you don't really offer any solutions other that what has been tried over the years.

At the end of the day the solution is winning. Unfortunately because of our circumstances we need to find a coach who can both out-coach and out-evaluate his peers in order just to get a chance of that happening. I believe we had a guy like that in Glen Mason. But even he couldn't get us over the top.

It is a tough task indeed.
 

minngg said:
Show me another college football team that is supported as well as the Gophers that hasn't sniffed a conference title in almost 45 years.
Click to expand...

Notre Dame
Kentucky (only 35 years since their last conference title, though)
 

It only has advantages if you are the the #1 team in town. It is possible for the Gophers to attain that status. But the chances of it ever happening, especially with the Vikings in town, are slim.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day the solution is winning. Unfortunately because of our circumstances we need to find a coach who can both out-coach and out-evaluate his peers in order just to get a chance of that happening. I believe we had a guy like that in Glen Mason.
Click to expand...
I disagree. As hard as it is to admit, the Vikings will always be #1 in town. However, I am yet to be convinced you can't have sustained success without being top dog. To me, and as others have said, the biggest detriment to Gopher football in the past was internal. The admin, the alumni, the fans, Glen Mason all bought into a culture of losing. That mentality has changed; I think the admin seems the benefit of a successful team and the alumni are on board. It's not going to happen over night, but the groundwork is being laid for renewed success.
 

josh087 said:
Unfortunately because of our circumstances we need to find a coach who can both out-coach and out-evaluate his peers in order just to get a chance of that happening. I believe we had a guy like that in Glen Mason. But even he couldn't get us over the top.
Click to expand...

And what part of Glen's illustrious career at Minnesota suggests he was capable out consistently out coaching his peers? The ability to follow up huge wins with unexplicable losses? The inability to build a defense that could stop a pee-wee team? Or the ability to blow leads in games that should be in hand?

I'm not saying he was a complete failure because that would be silly. But if "out-coaching" is one of your criteria then Glen can't be your guy.
 

GoAUpher said:
And what part of Glen's illustrious career at Minnesota suggests he was capable out consistently out coaching his peers? The ability to follow up huge wins with unexplicable losses? The inability to build a defense that could stop a pee-wee team? Or the ability to blow leads in games that should be in hand?

I'm not saying he was a complete failure because that would be silly. But if "out-coaching" is one of your criteria then Glen can't be your guy.
Click to expand...

If you take out the creampuff non-conference schedules, there's nothing special about his time here. Two 5-win Big Ten seasons and two 4-win Big Ten seasons. I'm not saying he was an awful coach, but if he was so great, wouldn't some BCS school have taken advantage of Minnesota's mistake and hired him? I'm sure he could have gotten a job at a non-BCS school, but that BTN job pays a lot better.
 

GoAUpher said:
And what part of Glen's illustrious career at Minnesota suggests he was capable out consistently out coaching his peers? The ability to follow up huge wins with unexplicable losses? The inability to build a defense that could stop a pee-wee team? Or the ability to blow leads in games that should be in hand?

I'm not saying he was a complete failure because that would be silly. But if "out-coaching" is one of your criteria then Glen can't be your guy.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Glen Mason is the greatest coach ever or anything. But he was able to do more with less. Good coaches do that. Did he build a great defense? No. He relied on playing base defense and capitalizing on other teams' mistakes, while the offense was predicated on ball control. Against mediocre/bad teams, the defense worked. Against good teams who made no mistakes, it didn't.

You can't just look at one or two games and say Mason couldn't coach. If you dock him for inexplicable losses you have to give him credit for big wins too.

You also can't look at the imbalance between offense and defense and say the same thing about his coaching. Perhaps he could have built a better defense, but at what expense to the offense? Again, if you knock his defense, you have to equally praise the amazing offense we had under his tenure.

In the end, Mason had run his course here and it was rightly time to go. But IMO Mason was both above average as a coach and recruiter. We were close with him, but just because he never won a BTT doesn't mean he is a bad coach. Heck, if Chris Perry's fumble had bounced any other way than it did, he might still be the coach here - with an additional banner hanging somewhere in the practice facility.
 

josh087 said:
I'm not saying Glen Mason is the greatest coach ever or anything. But he was able to do more with less. Good coaches do that. Did he build a great defense? No. He relied on playing base defense and capitalizing on other teams' mistakes, while the offense was predicated on ball control. Against mediocre/bad teams, the defense worked. Against good teams who made no mistakes, it didn't.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with all of this. Which is why I just smile when people say he was a terrible overall coach since that isn't true. But you missed the point that I was going after...you're requirement for outcoaching opposing coaches. Glen just didn't do very much of that.
josh087 said:
You can't just look at one or two games and say Mason couldn't coach. If you dock him for inexplicable losses you have to give him credit for big wins too.
Click to expand...
When the number of inexplicable losses far outweighs his big wins then it doesn't really matter. You can credit him for wins like @ PSU in '99 but the fact is that he lost far more big games then he won and he lost unimportant games at inopportune times. Oh, and he and his staff didn't know how to adjust on the fly at all as evidenced by the horrible comeback losses. None of this speaks well of the "out coach" requirement you laid forth.

josh087 said:
You also can't look at the imbalance between offense and defense and say the same thing about his coaching. Perhaps he could have built a better defense, but at what expense to the offense? Again, if you knock his defense, you have to equally praise the amazing offense we had under his tenure.
Click to expand...
Good coaches build both. Or at least they build a defense that can bend but not break. Again, this doesn't back up your out-coach requirement because since the imbalance was a known issue he should have been finding ways to make it work.
josh087 said:
In the end, Mason had run his course here and it was rightly time to go. But IMO Mason was both above average as a coach and recruiter. We were close with him, but just because he never won a BTT doesn't mean he is a bad coach. Heck, if Chris Perry's fumble had bounced any other way than it did, he might still be the coach here - with an additional banner hanging somewhere in the practice facility.
Click to expand...

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I'm calling Glen terrible across the board. I'm not. I think he was a pretty horrid gameday coach and I don't think he typically outcoached his opponents. That said, I think he built a great offensive system, ran it to perfection, and did it while maximizing his talent. But I think if you make out-coaching peers one of your 2 main criteria for what a MN coach needs then Glen can't be on the list.
 


Put me in the camp that says this "market" will explode if and when the Gophs ever turn the corner. I know a lot of people who want to be fans but they can't stand the heartache so they only pay attention in the background. Is that being fairweather, I'll let you decide.
 

GoAUpher said:
Completely agree with all of this. Which is why I just smile when people say he was a terrible overall coach since that isn't true. But you missed the point that I was going after...you're requirement for outcoaching opposing coaches. Glen just didn't do very much of that.

When the number of inexplicable losses far outweighs his big wins then it doesn't really matter. You can credit him for wins like @ PSU in '99 but the fact is that he lost far more big games then he won and he lost unimportant games at inopportune times. Oh, and he and his staff didn't know how to adjust on the fly at all as evidenced by the horrible comeback losses. None of this speaks well of the "out coach" requirement you laid forth.


Good coaches build both. Or at least they build a defense that can bend but not break. Again, this doesn't back up your out-coach requirement because since the imbalance was a known issue he should have been finding ways to make it work.


You seem to have the mistaken impression that I'm calling Glen terrible across the board. I'm not. I think he was a pretty horrid gameday coach and I don't think he typically outcoached his opponents. That said, I think he built a great offensive system, ran it to perfection, and did it while maximizing his talent. But I think if you make out-coaching peers one of your 2 main criteria for what a MN coach needs then Glen can't be on the list.
Click to expand...

We can disagree. Its not a no-brainer either way. I happen to think that it is a lot tougher to win here than people think, so I give Glen a lot of credit. At the end of the day I don't think there is much difference between the coaching of a guy like Mason and Jim Tressel, other than ethics. You put a guy like Glen at OSU with that talent, and I really believe you'd have similar resullts to what Tressel produced.

I'm definitely not a Glen die-hard or anything - it was his time to go after the TTech loss. In watching the Gopher coaches over the last 20 years I've come to appreciate the level of coaching and gameplanning that Grinning Glen had, even through the ridiculous collapses. People forget the level of play required to be up by 3 TDs against Michigan. I mean, you'd have to go back 50 years probably to find the last time we were up by 3TDs vs. Big Blue. Collapse or not, that says something.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom