What happened to the mythical three year model?

Donate To GopherHole

It is highly amusing to me that was passed around as gospel truth in these boards just 9 months ago (the Zook Model of Meteoric Success ) is cooling so rapidly amongst the hardcore and the easily deluded amongst you. What happened to the "how-dare-you-question-our-coach's-blather-as-not-verbatim-truths" mantra? Perhaps it is our return our traditional position of bottom third of the Big Ten in recruiting? Or the proud tradition of being an absolute carousel for defensive coordinators? I thought the 'Hole was the bastion of true Gopher believers.

A coach whose greatest quality is his alleged recruiting prowess had better start making a better show of it consistently. Especially if even the most ardent of Kool-aid drinkers are starting to sober.
 

ulfr said:
It is highly amusing to me that was passed around as gospel truth in these boards just 9 months ago (the Zook Model of Meteoric Success ) is cooling so rapidly amongst the hardcore and the easily deluded amongst you.
Click to expand...

Huh? You clearly didn't read the entire thread. You do realize that Minnesota is actually AHEAD of the Zook model, correct? You realize that Zook's model got him three wins in his first two years? So, besides those with a clear anti-Brewster agenda (ie - Gophergod and a couple others), it seems the support is there. I don't see any cooling, as you called it, from any ardent supporters. Can you find one on this thread?
 

god you sound an awful lot like birdy(wren) but your posts aren't long enough are you his evil twin??
 

We heard a lot about Zook's model, and I am sick of hearing about the damn thing, especially from our head coach. For one the parallels are weak. Illinois was rock bottom before Zook's hire; Minnesota conversely was not awful and was supposed to be going to new heights, not the worst season of its memory followed by barely achieving another embarrassing Insight Bowl performance.

Now the Pied Piper of Gold Country is struggling mighty in attracting a decent class. This had better be a sophomore slump, because a continuing dwindling in performance doesn't bode well for Gopher Nation's chances of even maintaining a similar level to Mason, much less surpassing him.

I see the only spin jobs on this board as being by those who struggle to justify continuing patience with a man who has had nothing but awful news of late. The truth is this: Any talk of emulating a "four year plan" will be moot unless we see a dramatic maturing from our young athletes and coach, as the coming schedule is shaping to be quite a bit tougher than any we have seen for a while. This was going to be tough enough before we lost both coordinators! Now it will be quite the challenge indeed.
 


ulfr said:
We heard a lot about Zook's model, and I am sick of hearing about the damn thing, especially from our head coach. For one the parallels are weak. Illinois was rock bottom before Zook's hire; Minnesota conversely was not awful and was supposed to be going to new heights, not the worst season of its memory followed by barely achieving another embarrassing Insight Bowl performance.

Now the Pied Piper of Gold Country is struggling mighty in attracting a decent class. This had better be a sophomore slump, because a continuing dwindling in performance doesn't bode well for Gopher Nation's chances of even maintaining a similar level to Mason, much less surpassing him.

I see the only spin jobs on this board as being by those who struggle to justify continuing patience with a man who has had nothing but awful news of late. The truth is this: Any talk of emulating a "four year plan" will be moot unless we see a dramatic maturing from our young athletes and coach, as the coming schedule is shaping to be quite a bit tougher than any we have seen for a while. This was going to be tough enough before we lost both coordinators! Now it will be quite the challenge indeed.
Click to expand...

Struggling to attract a decent class? It averages 3.0 stars on Rivals -- has any Minnesota class EVER been so highly ranked? We don't have the QUANTITY of players committed that we had last year -- that's the reason the overall ranking is lower. But the QUALITY of players is actually slightly higher.

Struggling to justify patience with Brew because of "awful news of late"? Should we bag him after 2+ years on the job? Last I checked, we went to a Toilet Bowl this year, just like we did with all the Mason teams, and we should be a better team the next couple years. (Although the schedule upgrade will make it tougher to reach a bowl game. But I'd rather go 6-6 against a real schedule than 7-5 against Montana State and the MAC.)
 

"It averages 3.0...." No, let us get this one thing absolutely correct. This is one thing there can NEVER be ANY debate about.

You can NEVER move to the right of a decimal point if the raw data is only to the left of the decimal point. NEVER. So, stop it!

For example: "Ten men in this room are about 6 feet tall. Five men in this room are about 7 feet tall. Therefore the average man in this room is 6.3333334 feet tall." False. All that can be said is that the average man in the room is about 6 feet tall. No decimals to the right.

Nor can you rank such mathematical crap as is done on every recruiting site. The raw data is too rough to rank other than to say those teams who average four stars are better than all those that average three stars IF, and only IF, the raw data is worth spit to begin with.

This is basic Statistics 101 and clearly shows the total folly of the recruiting services.
 

Goldy74s said:
"It averages 3.0...." No, let us get this one thing absolutely correct. This is one thing there can NEVER be ANY debate about.

You can NEVER move to the right of a decimal point if the raw data is only to the left of the decimal point. NEVER. So, stop it!

For example: "Ten men in this room are about 6 feet tall. Five men in this room are about 7 feet tall. Therefore the average man in this room is 6.3333334 feet tall." False. All that can be said is that the average man in the room is about 6 feet tall. No decimals to the right.

Nor can you rank such mathematical crap as is done on every recruiting site. The raw data is too rough to rank other than to say those teams who average four stars are better than all those that average three stars IF, and only IF, the raw data is worth spit to begin with.

This is basic Statistics 101 and clearly shows the total folly of the recruiting services.
Click to expand...

Loon, let's play a little Statistics 101. In your little scenario, what is the mean, the median and the mode? What would be the standard deviation? I bet it would be less than 1. Using your logic, you would report 0. You would not have passed Statistics 101.
 

ulfr said:
We heard a lot about Zook's model, and I am sick of hearing about the damn thing, especially from our head coach. For one the parallels are weak. Illinois was rock bottom before Zook's hire; Minnesota conversely was not awful and was supposed to be going to new heights, not the worst season of its memory followed by barely achieving another embarrassing Insight Bowl performance.

Now the Pied Piper of Gold Country is struggling mighty in attracting a decent class. This had better be a sophomore slump, because a continuing dwindling in performance doesn't bode well for Gopher Nation's chances of even maintaining a similar level to Mason, much less surpassing him.

I see the only spin jobs on this board as being by those who struggle to justify continuing patience with a man who has had nothing but awful news of late. The truth is this: Any talk of emulating a "four year plan" will be moot unless we see a dramatic maturing from our young athletes and coach, as the coming schedule is shaping to be quite a bit tougher than any we have seen for a while. This was going to be tough enough before we lost both coordinators! Now it will be quite the challenge indeed.
Click to expand...


what the hell are you talking about.....last season was mason

start off well.....wear down due to lack of athletes.....start giving up monster chunks of yardage......and lose the bowl and never stop the other team

IF LAST YEAR WASNT MASON I DONT KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS

i keep hearing about "cant even bring it up to mason's level".....what the hell are you people watching and what the hell are you thinking.......LAST.....YEAR.....WAS.....MASON
 



As there is zero accuracy to the original estimates, there can be no accuracy to the averaged numbers. As you have no idea what the original "about six feet" means, you just can not get any sort of super accuracy out of the averages of those 'numbers'. I don't know about you or Loon, but I got an 'A' in Stats.
 

Mason never lost the last five games of the season in row. Mason never lost to Iowa at home by a score of 55-0. Mason never had any sort of O like the O this year. The O-line was a strength under Mason a dark hole this year under Brewster. In any case, why pay an extra $5 million to get this which you say is no better?
 

Goldy74s said:
"It averages 3.0...." No, let us get this one thing absolutely correct. This is one thing there can NEVER be ANY debate about.

You can NEVER move to the right of a decimal point if the raw data is only to the left of the decimal point. NEVER. So, stop it!

For example: "Ten men in this room are about 6 feet tall. Five men in this room are about 7 feet tall. Therefore the average man in this room is 6.3333334 feet tall." False. All that can be said is that the average man in the room is about 6 feet tall. No decimals to the right.

Nor can you rank such mathematical crap as is done on every recruiting site. The raw data is too rough to rank other than to say those teams who average four stars are better than all those that average three stars IF, and only IF, the raw data is worth spit to begin with.

This is basic Statistics 101 and clearly shows the total folly of the recruiting services.
Click to expand...


LOL. Academically, you are correct. But from a practical standpoint, you're kidding, right? The top programs like Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC are loaded with 4- and 5-star players, as rated by these same recruiting services, and they're the teams in the National Championship hunt. You honestly don't believe that the higher the average star-rating, the better the class?
 

"Academically, you are correct." What else is there in this case? You can't go to the right of the decimal with raw data which is an average only to the left of the decimal.

Florida recruiting better than Mankato State has nothing to do with these numbers. Nothing.
 



Goldy74s said:
"Academically, you are correct." What else is there in this case? You can't go to the right of the decimal with raw data which is an average only to the left of the decimal. Florida recruiting better than Mankato State has nothing to do with these numbers. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Rivals gives a high 3-star (5.7) more points than a low 3-star (5.5)
 

Goldy74s said:
Mason never lost the last five games of the season in row. Mason never lost to Iowa at home by a score of 55-0. Mason never had any sort of O like the O this year. The O-line was a strength under Mason a dark hole this year under Brewster. In any case, why pay an extra $5 million to get this which you say is no better?
Click to expand...
Mason OL was his strength, how many JR & SR O-linemen did he leave Brewster with that are starting material? Hopefully the transfers and redshirt, true freshman can step in. The fatal flaw with your argument is Mason, because he got lazy recruiting left Brewster with virtually no above average JR & SR minus Decker & Weber. You do not win in the Big Ten starting freshman and redshirt freshmen. Look at the JR & SR class and tell me who stands out besides those two?
 

Goldy74s said:
Mason never lost the last five games of the season in row. Mason never lost to Iowa at home by a score of 55-0. Mason never had any sort of O like the O this year. The O-line was a strength under Mason a dark hole this year under Brewster. In any case, why pay an extra $5 million to get this which you say is no better?
Click to expand...


NO he only got run out by iowa like 49-7.......we finally stood up to wisconsin once and blew it all over there........and iowa always gets us right after bucky.....which is a joke

do you really judge a guy who has one recruiting class.....i mean please buddy

if you want to think the collection of o-lineman that were left would have been dominant under mason...then i cant help ya

there are actually people who think you will come in and change this pathetic program of football with one class.......my gawd, people.....wake up

wait until his guys are seniors and then we can talk.....i will give brewster a chance at least......and one class and who were freshmen just might be jumping the gun just a little
 

ulfr said:
We heard a lot about Zook's model, and I am sick of hearing about the damn thing, especially from our head coach. For one the parallels are weak. Illinois was rock bottom before Zook's hire; Minnesota conversely was not awful and was supposed to be going to new heights.
Click to expand...

Not true. Minnesota wasn't going to new heights under Mason. What are you talking about? The parallels aren't that weak.

Zook inherited a team that:

1) won the Big Ten title and went to the Sugar Bowl THREE years before Zook taking over.
2) was fifth in the Big Ten TWO years before taking over.
3) was handed elite RB Rashard Mendenhall by the previous coach
4) is 120 miles from Chicago and 90 miles from Indianapolis


Brewster inherited a team that:

1) hadn't won a Big Ten title in 40 years.
2) had never finished better than 4th in the league since the 1970s
3) had finished 8th, 7th, and 6th in the Big Ten in the three previous years
4) had no players part of a recruiting class better than 10th in the Big Ten
5) had his best player kicked off the team before the spring game, along with two other key starters
 

Goldteam said:
NO he only got run out by iowa like 49-7.......we finally stood up to wisconsin once and blew it all over there........and iowa always gets us right after bucky.....which is a joke

do you really judge a guy who has one recruiting class.....i mean please buddy

if you want to think the collection of o-lineman that were left would have been dominant under mason...then i cant help ya

there are actually people who think you will come in and change this pathetic program of football with one class.......my gawd, people.....wake up

wait until his guys are seniors and then we can talk.....i will give brewster a chance at least......and one class and who were freshmen just might be jumping the gun just a little
Click to expand...
Goldteam understands you do not build a winner with one recruiting class. I challenge anyone that is anti Brewster to name any above average players left by Mason other than Decker,Weber, WVS, Sherels. The O-line was left in complete shambles, the DB's were terrible and they had nobody in the pipeline to replace them. The notion that Mason left a bowl team is almost laughable or you just don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 

It doesn't matter whether you have facts or not, these haters haven't and will never accept the fact that Brewster is the coach and is building a pgm. Ten yrs from now they will still bemoan the loss of Mason. So there is no reason to argue with them it will do no good, they are blind stubborn IDIOTS!!!
 

Who IS blind? If you saw a program being build in our last five games you saw what others did not see.

But, all this does not matter. Either the man wins football games or he will be gone along with his side kick the Lone Ranger. The excuses are running out, the true believers are becoming fewer with each loss. Either Tonto starts winning games or he is out. It has ever been thus.
 

Goldy74s said:
Who IS blind? If you saw a program being build in our last five games you saw what others did not see.

But, all this does not matter. Either the man wins football games or he will be gone along with his side kick the Lone Ranger. The excuses are running out, the true believers are becoming fewer with each loss. Either Tonto starts winning games or he is out. It has ever been thus.
Click to expand...

do you ever answer a question?
 

It's fine if you don't like Brewster and don't like the hiring of him two years ago, but when you use that hate to turn everything into a negative, then it's hard to take you serious. No matter how well he does, some will find something to complain about.

There's been a lot of arguing and talking about the same stuff over and over on here (I've been a part of it myself). I haven't seen too many say that Brewster is the guy for sure or anything. But most want to be optimistic, and at least give him a fair chance. If, in two-three years, not much has changed, then maybe he isn't the right guy. But just because things haven't gone perfectly doesn't mean we should throw in the towel.

Some will try to put a negative spin on everything:
anti-Brewster: "We're ranked 7th in the Big Ten in recruiting this year. I thought Brewster was supposed to be a great recruiter? Looks like he sucks at that too."

response: "The rankings are based on number of commitments, and since we have less scholarships to give, we're a little lower this year. But we actually average 3.0 stars per commit which is better than Penn St. and Wisky, and the same as Illinois. They just have a few more commits. It is also a more balanced class with almost every commit being 3 stars or more."

anti-Brewster: "Well, the rankings really don't mean anything."
 

Goldy74s said:
"Academically, you are correct." What else is there in this case? You can't go to the right of the decimal with raw data which is an average only to the left of the decimal.

Florida recruiting better than Mankato State has nothing to do with these numbers. Nothing.
Click to expand...

What is left is the reality you choose to ignore. So take your inane but academically correct mathematical fact to the heathens at Rivals and Scout (who have the audacity to measure recruiting classes by team to a horrifying TWO decimal points), and get laughed at by them.

In the mean time, back in reality-land, where most of us don't live between pages 187-189 of our statistics textbooks, where the class ratings are a rough measure of the caliber of players committed to a program, a Gopher recruiting class rated at 3.000000000000000000 stars is still perhaps the best in school history, using that grossly-flawed measure.
 

Yes, twenty, five star recruits will be better, on average, at playing college football than twenty, two star recruits, all other things equal. That is it. Florida recruits, on average, better than Mankato State and, on average, could be expects to beat them. The rest, like "our 3.43 is a lot better than your 2.95!" is pure nonsense and anyone with a BS or BA should know it. Trying to make something that is quite raw can not be made in any way exact by adding decimal points when none existed in the raw "data".
 

Sorry Goldteam, I did not see any question marks in your post.

Obviously, I don't put any stock in any recruiting class or classes until I see them play. Recruiting guys who have fantasy recruiting 'stars' by 'fantasy recruiters' does not mean anything to me.

What does impress me is how the team plays. After two years I can say that my sample size is now good and I see too many signs of a bad team. When I see otherwise, I will post that view right away. For example, the Iowa loss showed a really bad O. To be frank, our O plays soft under Coach Brewster.

Is that the kind of answer you wanted? No?
 

Goldy74s said:
Yes, twenty, five star recruits will be better, on average, at playing college football than twenty, two star recruits, all other things equal. That is it. Florida recruits, on average, better than Mankato State and, on average, could be expects to beat them. The rest, like "our 3.43 is a lot better than your 2.95!" is pure nonsense and anyone with a BS or BA should know it. Trying to make something that is quite raw can not be made in any way exact by adding decimal points when none existed in the raw "data".
Click to expand...

============================================

"Florida recruits, on average, better than Mankato State and, on average, could be expects to beat them. " <-- Would love to know how you calculated Florida's recruiting superiority over Mankato State without using the ratings. Would love to know how you calculated "on average" without using the ratings. Without using data, how did you reach those conclusions? Psychic Hotline? Jedi Mind Trick?

"our 3.43 is a lot better than your 2.95 is pure nonsense" <-- Would you say Oklahoma's class is clearly superior to Minnesota's? Most of humanity would. Oklahoma's class averages 3.41 stars, Minnesota's averages 3.00 stars, a difference of 0.41 -- which is less than the the 0.48 difference in your hypothetical example that you call "pure nonsense". Personally, I'd bet the vast majority of coaching staffs and recruiters think a half-star difference per recruit per recruiting class is quite significant, despite impurities in the data.

"Trying to make something that is quite raw can not be made in any way exact by adding decimal points when none existed in the raw data" <-- Point taken, but does ANYONE here think rating players and recruiting classes is "exact" in any way, shape, or form? Does ANYONE here believe that if our recruiting class is ranked #42 today that it will be precisely the 42nd best class in terms of on the field performance? Of course not. So what's your point? Didn't see one.
 

Back to my point, if it is not exact then please stop creating artificial decimal points which imply an accuracy that is not present. Now, was that so hard to see?
 

Goldy74s said:
Sorry Goldteam, I did not see any question marks in your post.

Obviously, I don't put any stock in any recruiting class or classes until I see them play. Recruiting guys who have fantasy recruiting 'stars' by 'fantasy recruiters' does not mean anything to me.

What does impress me is how the team plays. After two years I can say that my sample size is now good and I see too many signs of a bad team. When I see otherwise, I will post that view right away. For example, the Iowa loss showed a really bad O. To be frank, our O plays soft under Coach Brewster.

Is that the kind of answer you wanted? No?
Click to expand...

you see a bad team due to lack of talent...........i guess i will ask.......what would our record have been last year with a coach who could actually coach......9-3?

because i got news for ya........we didnt have 9-3 talent

could you expand a little on the the cant coach part?.......what is he doing that says he cant coach?

we are the friggin gophers........and you want it turned around with one recruiting class.......when the cupboard was bare when he came on board

i cant stand the stupidity of it......sorry
 

Goldy74s said:
Back to my point, if it is not exact then please stop creating artificial decimal points which imply an accuracy that is not present. Now, was that so hard to see?
Click to expand...

I’ll grant you this: at least you’re consistently wrong.

You imply I created an artificial decimal point when I stated the Minnesota recruiting class “averages 3.0 stars on Rivals”. Look it up - review my original post. Now go to the Rivals team rankings pages, where you will see they give an average of 3.00 stars to Minnesota. (Please don’t go to Scout. You’ll wet your pants when you see we have 2.89 stars over there.)

So if you’re dying to place blame on someone for creating the artificial decimal points used in the rankings, contact Rivals and Scout as I suggested in a different post. And they, like everyone else, will laugh at you.

Now, was that so hard to see?
 

Goldy74s said:
Back to my point, if it is not exact then please stop creating artificial decimal points which imply an accuracy that is not present. Now, was that so hard to see?
Click to expand...

Loon, the mean is just that -- the mean. Discussion of significant digits is meaningless. The average of 3 and 2 is 2.5. That's a fact, period.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom