Progress - how should it be defined? Your input requested!!!

[Clyde Tester]

How do you define progress? How do you evaluate the state of a football program?

Over the course of this season, I’ve read many posts on this board stating that Brewster “has the program going in the right direction” or that posters “see progress” with the football program. For a GopherHole poster to say that he/she is happy with the way the program is headed is certainly a defensible position to take.

There are also those who say that progress is not being made….that they don’t see any forward movement at all. That is also a defensible position to take. In other words, both position have evidence to back them up.

But the crux of either argument is based on how you define progress.

prog.gress
-noun
1 – A movement toward a goal or to further or higher the stage
2 – Advancement in general
3 – Growth or development; continuous improvement
4 – The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level

The textbook definitions certainly make sense when looking at a university football program….but it fails to quantify in any way what “forward movement” might look like for the Gophers….how “advancement in general” can be objectively judged….would we know it when we see it? Can we trick ourselves into seeing it when it really isn’t happening?

When we consider whether progress is being made in a football program, there are many criterion that must be considered. In my opinion many of the criterion are OBJECTIVE in nature – measurable. There are some more subjective ways to evaluate progress as well - but can they be quantified? Can we be sure that subjective progress is legit? Is subjective evaluation as accurate or valid as objective evaluation?

The problem as fans, of course, is that we WANT to believe that things are good – we are fans after all. But I’d think that because of the inherent bias of fandom, that objective measures will be far more valid than subjective ones. (I will denote subjective measurements where applicable.) Is it possible for fans or Maturi to look past their “fan” bias to be fair about subjective measurements?

So let’s try something here at GopherHole – let’s try to put together a list of measurements for the Gopher Football Program/Brewster. Consider it a performance evaluation or a program litmus test or whatever you want (I know there is a performance evaluation thread that was started this week as well – that seemed to have more of a goal-setting vibe to it – this is geared solely on looking back at the past season(s).

Here’s a list I came up with that might include the perspective of the A.D. and U Prez, coaches, players and fans:

On-Field Performance:
- Is the overall record and conference record improving? Has the team finished in the top 3 of the conference along the way? Is the team getting better within the conference?
- Is the team beating teams they should beat? Are they pulling off any upsets? Are they winning any trophy games?
- Is the team improving statistically (both nationally and in the Big Ten)?
- Is there discipline on the field (as measured by penalties or on-field confusion/mental mistakes)?
- Is the team bowl eligible? How good is the bowl game? Do the Gophers match up well with their bowl opponent?
- If the team loses, how do they lose? Are they competitive (subjective)? Are games close in score/stats? Are the Gophers over-matched?
- If the team wins, how do they win? Do they blow teams out? Do they overpower teams statistically? Are the games close? Closer than they should be (subjective)?
- Are the players faster on the field than previous Gopher teams (subjective)? Do they appear to be more athletic (subjective)? Have on-field weaknesses been addressed with talent/coaching (subjective)?
- Can the team be considered “in the hunt” for a Rose Bowl bid?
- Do the players appear to “buy-in” to the coaching philosophy (subjective)? Do they remain competitive when losing (subjective)? Does it ever appear that players “give up” (subjective)?
- # of players on the All-Conference team?

Coaching Measurements
- How is recruiting going (highly subjective)? Is the team landing blue-chip recruits? Are the players highly rated? Are the players being recruited by other schools?
- Are positional needs being met by recruiting? Are juco athletes recruited to fill positional needs? What is the success rate of juco transfers?
- What is the retention rate of the recruited players? How many contribute each year vs. how many transfer out?
- Are the coaches improving their in-game performance (subjective)? Better clock management? Better use of timeouts/challenges? Better in-game adjustments?
- Are the coaches maximizing or making the best use of their talent (subjective)?
- Does the team improve as the season goes on? Does the team plateau or even regress?

School President/Athletic Director/Business measurements:
- How much money is the program making? Are they maximizing revenue opportunities?
- Are the coaches being mindful of program costs?
- Are all game tickets sold out? Are fans attending games (realizing that empty seats = lost concession/apparel revenue)? Are season ticket holders renewing their seats year over year? How much turnover?
- Are football related monetary donations up? Down? Are the big-time donors “happy” (subjective)?
- Are the fans engaged and supportive (subjective)? Are the fans supportive of the on-the-field product (subjective)? Are fans disappointed/angry about the team’s performance but yet they remain engaged (subjective)? Or are they disappointed/angry and are checking out (subjective)?
- Do fans buy tickets and travel to the bowl game (if there is one)?
- Are students involved/engaged with the program (subjective)? Are they attending games?
- Have academic standards/rankings improved? How do the academic rankings compare to our peers in the Big Ten? Nationally? # of Academic All-Americans? # of players on Big Ten All-Academic team?
- Have there been any negative off-the-field incidents? How many? How severe (subjective)? How much time/energy or even money have been devoted to those issues? Do the incidents involve players, coaches or both?
- Is the team’s publicity/PR positive (subjective)? Neutral? Negative?
- Is the coach a good ambassador of the University and state?

Please understand – my intent here was not to try and answer any of the above questions (that will come later) but instead to try and make a list of the things that Maturi or Bruniks might take a look at when evaluating the state of the Gopher football program (or things that Brewster himself should be evaluating in an ongoing improvement effort). What things have I missed? What needs to be added, taken out or changed?

This was just a brainstorming exercise for me so I’m certain I’ve missed some things (maybe even some very obvious things). What other items might be evaluated? Are they objective or subjective? Is it possible for us to collectively come up with a list of items that can/should be used when judging this program?

I’ll monitor this thread and add things to the list above as they come up (as long as they make sense or have general support I guess). It would be fun to compile an inclusive list so that we can then dive in and actually try to evaluate the program against it.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Great post!

To sum up my opinion....

I think next season we need to establish that Brewster can develop talent. What I mean is that after next season, we need to be have reasons to expect that the 2011 Gophers will challenge for a January 1 Bowl. For example, I think we can all agree that there are some young guys on the defensive side of the ball that we are all excited about for next season (Cooper, Kirksey, Edwards, Carter, Tinsley, etc.), if we don't have that same excitement over guys on the other side of the ball after next season (Green, McKnight, Huff/Whaley, Gray, Allen, our OLine), and we are still expecting a .500 team in 2011, I will become a Brewster basher.

 

[LesBolstad]

Pretty Simple

Go 5-3 or better in B10 at least once every five years. Win approx. 50% of games against Iowa and Wisconsin.

 

[glovedgopher]

You could add something about in state recruits maybe. Pretty nice list.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You could add something about in state recruits maybe. Pretty nice list.

Just out of curiousity, what would you expect to be the standard for success for instate recruiting? I just think it's difficult to blame a guy like Brewster for losing Henderson/Floyd to D1 powerhouses. I would personally be more annoyed if Beau Allen committed to Wisconsin (losing a very "gettable" player to a school like Sconny or Iowa.

 

[GopherHomer]

Personally I don't really care where our recruits come from. It's always fun to root for the in-state kids, but I just want the best players we can get regardless of where they are from.

 

[glovedgopher]

Just out of curiousity, what would you expect to be the standard for success for instate recruiting? I just think it's difficult to blame a guy like Brewster for losing Henderson/Floyd to D1 powerhouses. I would personally be more annoyed if Beau Allen committed to Wisconsin (losing a very "gettable" player to a school like Sconny or Iowa.

Wasn't blaming anyone. I was just trying to add to his list which has a few things that are hard to grade. I would never blame any Minnesota coach for losing Henderson/Floyd.

 

[Clyde Tester]

You could add something about in state recruits maybe.

This is a good thought - is the measurement simply "is the coach recruiting any in-state kids"? Is it based on numbers or "star-rating" of the in-state kids he does land? I'd like to add this one to the list but am not sure how to phrase it.

 

[Clyde Tester]

Another thing I thought of is the walk-on program. Does it even exist? Is it growing? Does it produce players who contribute?

Is that a valid measurement?

 

[glovedgopher]

This is a good thought - is the measurement simply "is the coach recruiting any in-state kids"? Is it based on numbers or "star-rating" of the in-state kids he does land? I'd like to add this one to the list but am not sure how to phrase it.

Maybe some sort of a % of the total number of stars the coach lands. I'll try an example to explain this: Let's say Minnesota has ten "mid to high" level football recruits with an average rating of 2.5. stars.( a mixture of 2 star, 3 star and 4 star players) Take 2.5 multiply by 10 to get a number of 25. So if the coach gets 4 three star players to stay home he earns a score of 12 which we divide by 25 to get 48%. Maybe 45-65% is a C grade, 65-80% is a B, and 80-100% is an A. I don't know just trying to help.

 

[Goldmember]

2010
At least 7 wins
At least 4-4 in the conference
A victory over Wisconsin and/or Iowa

2011
At least 9 wins
At least 5-3 in the conference
A victory over Wisconsin and/ or Iowa
New Year's Day Bowl (current equivalent to the Sun Bowl in 1999 and 2003)

2012
Beat Iowa and Wisconsin into the ground
"In the Rose Bowl discussion" going into the last week of the Big Ten season (to use Jack Swarbrick's language).

 

[Schnoodler]

Very nice work. Seems a bit baited though.

I think for an established program I like your list a lot. A great starting point.

Not so much for a building program. Although there are quatitative numbers that would come into play, they deal almost exclusively with the inputs in a building program. It's difficult because until you're better than your opponent improvement doesn't necessarily mean you're better than the competition. Linear ability improvement does not lead to linear result improvement. OSU is still likely to beat us. And while it's nice to get lucky now and then, I'm not going to judge a program because it didn't roll a snake eyes in the first ten rolls of the dice.

Unfortunately in a building phase you are looking at alot of subjective criteria. It makes it difficult no doubt.

 

[Clyde Tester]

Very nice work. Seems a bit baited though.

I think for an established program I like your list a lot. A great starting point.

Not so much for a building program. Although there are quatitative numbers that would come into play, they deal almost exclusively with the inputs in a building program. It's difficult because until you're better than your opponent improvement doesn't necessarily mean you're better than the competition. Linear ability improvement does not lead to linear result improvement. OSU is still likely to beat us. And while it's nice to get lucky now and then, I'm not going to judge a program because it didn't roll a snake eyes in the first ten rolls of the dice.

Unfortunately in a building phase you are looking at alot of subjective criteria. It makes it difficult no doubt.

So are there criteria you'd add to the above list? Are there any subjective criteria I've missed that you think would be fair to add? Are there any that are unfair to a new coach?

You say it's a "baited" list - the point is to figure out exactly how we SHOULD evaluate this program. I can assure you I have no agenda here rather I'm trying to figure out exactly how we ought to make judgments about the program. Some scream the sky is falling while others scream that we need to back off the coach and program....I'm wondering if it's possible to at least find common ground as the points of data/evaluation are concerned.

 

[Go Gophers Rah]

In the case of the Gophers under Tim Brewster, I think progress is exceeding the accomplishments of the Gophers under Glen Mason. I know people get sick of always hearing about Mason, but he got fired for not doing "enough", so it seems to me that the baseline has been established.

The bigger question is how much time should be required to show that progress.

My metric is 5 years to meet or exceed Mason's 1st 5 years. During those years (1997-2001), the Gophers were:
14-26 in the Big Ten (Brewster would have to have 8 conference wins in the next 2 years)
4-6 versus Iowa & Wisconsin (Brewster would have to go 4-0 against our foes in '10 & '11)
3-14 versus ranked teams (Brewster would have to beat 3 ranked teams over the next 2 years)

People will argue that Mason "left the cupboard bare." To be honest, I don't know how valid that is or isn't. I don't have a good feel of whether Mason inherited a better team from Wacker than Brewster inherited from Mason (I kind of doubt it though).

If Brewster can't meet Mason's performance in 5 years and we fired Mason because his teams failed to meet certain expectations, then I think we'd have to find someone else.

Does that mean we'd have to wait until the end of 2011 to make a decision? No. We can't. A decision must be made no later than November 2010. At that point Maturi should have a clear picture, though, of whether it is realistic for a 5th year under Brewster to culminate in as good or better performance as Mason's teams experienced in his 1st 5 years.

 

[Schnoodler]

I think you've got too much. Too many things that do not pertain to a team in a building stage. Things that are fine for an established program. If you apply them to a team in building stage you are prone to false conclusions.

All criteria in a buiding stage have to be directed towards inputs. Stats say little, wins and losses say little. Except on the extremes.

It is all very subjective. Your chances of making a good decision locked in a room pouring over data are slim to unlikely.

Mostly, I'm opposed to your on field criteria. And also I think much of what you attempt to hold the coach responsible for, outside of basic management items, has a delay to it. Which again doesn't matter once a program is established and has a track record. Inadvertantly you are going to hold Brewster accountable for Mason's program and angst associated with program change. And much of it will be a result of onfield efforts now which by definition of 'building phase' are less than the eventual finished product. So much of what you've listed is dependent on a good on field product. Until the product is finished I'm not sure how you can judge it's impact.

Am i saying quantitative data is meaningless? Absolutely not, but it carries significantly less weight now than it will in two years. Very valuable on the extremes. Such as three winless seasons would be extreme, or a trip to the Rose Bowl.



So as for me, hold on to this and pull it out in two more years. As for now, i don't believe it applies.

For now there is only two questions that need to be answered. The first is if the program improved over the year prior. And is there any reason to believe it can't improve next year? Very subjective.

 

[Clyde Tester]

For now there is only two questions that need to be answered. The first is if the program improved over the year prior. And is there any reason to believe it can't improve next year? Very subjective.

But I think that's exactly what I'm trying to ascertain - how do we KNOW if the program is improving over say 2006, 2007 and 2008...by what measures can we determine that? That's exactly the heart of the question I'm trying to get at.

And as much as I want to follow you that on-field performance doesn't really count for a re-building program, I'm pretty sure that those programs that have turned around more quickly than the Gophers definitely point to their new-found on-field success as a reason they are happy with a coach. It seems just a bit too convenient to just totally dismiss it because we aren't happy with the results to date. That's why I think both kinds of measurements matter.

I think what you are suggesting, Schnood, is that we weight certain criteria as more important than others. That year over year the weighting system can change. I can buy that as long as we don't just dismiss some categories as irrelevant at this time - I think they all matter. But weighting would allow us to say how much.

 

[Too Long in the Wasteland]

Totally agree. I was reading about Weis's downfall this evening. One question I asked myself was "what did the nd administration realistically expect to improve after 4 years?" Hindsight is 20/20 on that one. But if a year from now Brewster's game management still resembles a fire drill from a certain Asian country, pull the plug before Thanksgiving.

Also, looking back at Mason's record, he benefitted during his early years of playing Iowa during their brief swoon. You want a coach that left the cupboard bare, look at Hayden Fry. He stayed a year or two too long, much like Bowden. And I stand by my earlier statement in another thread that if Brewster can't beat either UW or Iowa in 8 tries, I see no reason to let him go for oh fer ten.

 

[Schnoodler]

I'm not dismissing anything Clyde. What I'm saying is the preponderance of the info needed isn't found in stats in a building program. Your question is good in that it shows how tough it is to determine such things. But it is leading in that it assumes it's largely a quantitative discovery. It minimizes how difficult this job is for Maturi.

I think you could come up with a check list of items you'd want to derive an opinion about such as recruiting. What would be very bad, what would be very good. But you need to look for extreme outcomes. In the case of recruiting given that it's suppose to be the trademark of Brewster, i'd pick a good extreme of top fifteen, and a poor extreme of say forty five. Anything in the middle is a check mark. Or if you want to use a mid point to shed light fine. Or the mark I like is the differential between sangarin rank and team recruiting ranking.

You're not trying to come up with a grade, or score, but rather be sure you're getting the whole picture. Thus while I'm not opposed to this technique for win and losses using extremes, I am opposed to using wins and losses as a bench mark in a growing program. Thus 0-3 wins is an extremely bad outcome, and 8+ is extremely good. 4-7 means nothing other than it's not really bad or really good. But saying we have to achieve a certain number of wins to validate growth I think misses the mark. Or saying we have to rank at such and such a level again misses the mark. Although it would be very easy to say we've achieved a negative extreme on offense.

You might want to break it down try to quantify team character issues. And say did the team show character and tenacity. And look for ways to quantify it. possibly looking to see what happened when we trailed at the half. Or what happened when we led at the half. You could achieve quite a list of items, and use some quantitative data in that way. So i'm not saying quantitative measures are meaningless or useless, what I'm saying is that they're secondary to the larger questions and useful in helping to answer them. Eventually the only stat that matters is wins and losses, and the only question that matters is did we win enough. But right now the only questions that matter are if we are making the necessary inputs to achieve that success level we are aiming for.

And that's a very good question. What are the necessary inputs? What is the groundwork that needs to be done? Can we measure it. Even if we can't compare it now, can we find a measurment that we can use later when we can compare?

I would really like some objective criteria in judging Brewsters program, but almost always the programs is being graded as if it's an established program, based on outputs. It tells us very little if the program is actually improving or not. It only tells us what we know, and that is that it's a work in progress. If we set about grading the inputs, and trying to quantify those items it would be a much more valuable analysis.

 

[dpodoll68]

People will argue that Mason "left the cupboard bare." To be honest, I don't know how valid that is or isn't. I don't have a good feel of whether Mason inherited a better team from Wacker than Brewster inherited from Mason (I kind of doubt it though).

In 1999, Mason fielded 14 players who would go on to play in the NFL. Of these, 9 were Wacker recruits.

In 2009, Brewster fielded only 1 Mason recruit who is a sure-fire NFL player. If you're going to be VERY optimistic, maybe N. Tow-Arnett, Campbell, or Triplett will play in the league someday. But I don't think it's very realistic to say any Mason player left on the roster outside of Decker will ever play on Sundays.

I think 9 vs. 1 speaks volumes about the quality of rosters left behind by Wacker and Mason.

 

[Go Gophers Rah]

In 1999, Mason fielded 14 players who would go on to play in the NFL. Of these, 9 were Wacker recruits.

In 2009, Brewster fielded only 1 Mason recruit who is a sure-fire NFL player. If you're going to be VERY optimistic, maybe N. Tow-Arnett, Campbell, or Triplett will play in the league someday. But I don't think it's very realistic to say any Mason player left on the roster outside of Decker will ever play on Sundays.

I think 9 vs. 1 speaks volumes about the quality of rosters left behind by Wacker and Mason.

I think this is good information. I still don't know if it tells the whole story. Did Mason "coach up" Wackers players? Would Brewster would have been able to help 9 Wacker recruits find their way into the NFL? I honestly don't know.

 

[50PoundHead]

Very thoughtful and comprehensive post Clyde and a solid attempt to try and get at a number of things that really do need to be discussed. I tend to agree with Schnooder that it's difficult to put hard objective goals into place as there are simply too many subjective elements over which a coach has more control and should contribute to the judgment of him.

I truly believe it was the subjective elements relating to fan base and ambassadorship that got Mason shown the door. I wasn't overly enamored of his on-field product after ten years, but it was sufficient given the tepid interest in the Gopher program and you really can't put numbers on that. Mason had lost the support of the high school coaching establishment in the state and that is important to note. I don't think you can build a strong fan base without the college team--and there is only one major college team in this state--being noticeably present. Mason really dropped the ball on that one and I think that's what got him booted more than anything else.

The element I would add to your list is one of coaching staff stability (didn't see it). I think the turnover in coordinators has really hurt the program and Brewster's ability to keep the present regime in place and rise or fall with it is going to have a lot to do with his future.

Things I am going to be watching for in the coming year is hopefully a more mature Brewster. He has to let Reusse and company say what they are going to say and leave it at that. His reacting to the criticism--as childish as it might be and Reusse is a better writer than having to resort to the low-ball crap--only puts more fuel on the fire. I also think he needs to be a bit less bombastic and verbose. Maybe that isn't who he is, but I think the verbiage just leads to more cheap shots from the media.

This isn't that tough of a sports town in regard to the media. Go to New York, Boston, or Philadelphia if you want to see half-cocked character assassination in all its ugly glory. What we do have in Minnesota is a half-bandwagon, half-cynical bastards set of sports opinion makers. I don't think any coach can come into the Gopher program after over 40 years of wandering the wilderness (granted with some stops at a nice oasis or two) and win over this state. There's no "morning in Minnesota" that's going to accompany a new hire save Dungy. So Brewster needs to throttle it back a bit and create a new, more realistic, approach in the media.

I like Brewster and I like his energy, but in my estimation he's been a bit too childish to be taken seriously. We all have eyes and we can all see that things aren't quite where they should be. What needs to happen now is a realistic assessment of what needs to happen on the field and steps taken to improve performance. He's got the ambassador part down. It's time for the coaching part to begin.

 

[Clyde Tester]

Sorry I've been awol for a few days. Time to circle back with some thoughts.

Let's say that I agree a new coach should be judged by more subject measures. I think that's fair. So we judge things like recruiting (subjective), team athleticism (subjective), team morale (subjective), game-day coaching improvement (subjective), etc. and weigh those things heavier than more objective things like w/l record, conference record, comparative stats, etc.

The box that puts us in is this...some will argue that the subjective things look great! That the team looks more athletic, the recruits have more stars and have more hope than past classes, team morale seems great and the coaches seem to be "getting it" more. And there is no way to prove those folks wrong!

But then there are those who would say just the opposite...that the recruits have the stars but we've seen none of it on the field, that the level of athletic ability on the field seems the same because the players are producing the same old results, the team seems to quit late in the season and the coaches make the same stupid in-game blunders as before. And you know what? They are right too!

So the box is that if we can agree subjective measurements are more important for a young coach/program, then we can't complain when people interpret those subjective measurements in wildly differing ways! In other words, those that say the program is progressing are correct! And so are those who say the program is going nowhere! In other words, if we rely on subjective measurements, there is NO WAY to say that one evaluator is correct while the other is wrong. It's all just opinion.

Basing it all on subjective measurements (opinion) just seems far to convenient to me I guess. For example, here are the top "Pro-Brewster" sentiments I've read around here:

- The players are far more athletic and faster on the filed than we've seen in years!
- The recruiting classes are stronger than in the past - he really is bringing in great talent!
- The players love his optimism - his positive attitude can only help the program!
- You have to give a new coach time to get his players on the field! You don't know what the team can do until Brew's guys play!

And for all four of those things, there is no way to prove the Brew-backer right or wrong. Yet when someone questions any of the above, they get basically shouted down. "You'd have to be crazy to not see the team is faster on the field!" or "The young kids need time to learn and grow so you can't expect Freshman or Sophomores to step in and contribute - you idiot!" It's impossible to prove those statements correct - or incorrect. Yet this board is filled with child-like arguments about those very things!

Those who are anti-Brew seem to weigh the objective measurements more heavily - the stats, conference record, etc. The problem, of course, is that they then typically don't use the subjective measurements that might be positive to offset the negative objective ones. So here's what you end up having on the board:

- Those who support Brew who point to subjective measurements as more important than the objective ones
- Those who are anti-Brew who point to the objective measurements as proof of their negative evaluation of the subjective ones

But here's where the middle ground is IMO:

- The objective results are not positive. Even if we say we "expected" a 6-7 season, the stats behind the results are dismal at best. I think we can all agree upon that.
- There are some positive subjective results - they aren't ALL positive nor are they ALL negative, despite most poster's desire to paint them that way. There certainly are positive signs that anti-Brew people should try to grab onto, and there certainly are very negative signs that Brew supports need to acknowledge. The evaluation of a program is very GRAY, not just black or white.

As an interesting exercise, we can go down the line item measurements I listed out in my original post. For the objective measurements it would be tough to argue them one way or the other - they are what they are. But the subjective measurements would generate arguments on either side - and that is healthy I guess. But it really makes clear the tough job that Bruniks/Maturi would have in evaluating Brewster and his performance/progress. I'm glad I don't have to evaluate Brew at this point - that's a tough job (and I'm in HR so I understand the challenges that performance evals can present)!

 

[Clyde Tester]

I'm going to edit the OP to include Big Ten academic honors.

In addition, I'm going to send GopherPops a PM and ask him his thoughts about how he'd measure the program from a parent's perspective. It would be interesting to know if any football programs in the country actually ask the parents of players for feedback - like in a post-season survey or anything like that. If they don't, I wonder why not? 360-degree evaluations are used all the time in business (and they typically include all different kinds of stakeholders) - do college football programs do the same thing? I sort of doubt it I guess.

 

[maxwellsmart]

I'm going to give you a couple of other pro-Brewster items, both subjective, but important to me. First, I like the way he's incorporated our past into our present. There have been others who either did not appreciate anything but their future or could not figure out how to put the university's football history front and center. Secondly, I just plain like the guy's work ethic. His motor is always running, and for all the chaos at times, one thing we never have to wonder about is if he's giving all he's got. Doesn't mean he gets off free on objective measurements, but tilts the scoreboard in my mind.