Joel Maturi's "Retirement", Big Ten's college football playoff proposal, and Gopher hockey moves up by doing absolutely nothing
by Jeffrick on Feb 7, 2012 9:38 AM CST
in Gopher Football
Email
PrintSo Joel Maturi is "retiring" as the athletic director at the University of Minnesota. Interesting, as we guessed that Maturi's ideals of a balanced athletic department where every sport is treated equally would differ from new president Eric Kaler's ideals of an athletic department where the revenue-generating sports produce, you know, revenue.
Also interesting because while Maturi won't be the school's athletic director after June, he'll sure still be getting paid like it. Some folks at in the Minnesota legislature are a wee bit puzzled why Maturi will still get his full athletic director's salary AND full benefits to be a special assistant to Kaler. It means that the University of Minnesota will be paying TWO people to do the job of athletic director, and you can bet whomever they hire isn't going to take less to do the job than what they'll be paying Maturi to NOT do the job.
Should that matter to Gopher fans? We're not the one's paying his salary, except that we kind of are with ticket sales and all the rest. And isn't the full AD's salary he'll be getting next year money that could be going to help fund Maturi's beloved NR's? Maybe there's a precedent here that I'm not aware of. Maybe there's plenty of other BCS schools who give their ousted AD's golden parachutes despite the athletic department needing revenue in a down economy. Maybe, but I'd feel better if Maturi were a special assistant on an assistant's salary, or, maybe he could just actually retire and live off what I'm sure is a hefty pension.
Gopher Hockey moves up in the rankings
As weekend's off go, the one the Minnesota Gopher hockey team just enjoyed was about as good as it gets. The boys got some time to rest up and prepare for the rest of the season while everybody else played some games, and the results for Minnesota were mostly good. Or about as good as expected. The Gophs started the weekend tied for 8th in the Pairwise Standings with a 5 point lead over UMD for first in the WCHA, with the Bulldogs holding two games in hand. UMD played those two games against UAA, and after the Seawolves and Bulldogs split, Duluth was able to only pick up two points on the Gophs. So not only is Minnesota still three points up in the WCHA, but they moved up one spot in the Pairwise too, now sitting tied for 7th with Merrimack.
Now down to fifth? That'd be UMD, and while the national polls don't mean much, it still looks good for the Gophers to be ranked second and UMD third. Or maybe it just feels good. Of course, we don't want our dear rival Bulldogs to fall TOO far, since they're still by far Minnesota's best pair of wins this year, and will be for the rest of the regular season. To keep moving up the Pairwise, Minnesota needs to keep winning, but really, so does Duluth- just not too much. Minnesota gets a chance to help themselves on the ice this weekend when they travel to Denver to play the #17 Pioneers, who are 4th in the WCHA and 14th right now in the Pairwise.
Big Ten's College Football Playoff Plan
How quickly things change; it wasn't long ago- like less than 2 months ago- when B1G commish Jim Delaney was squarely against the idea of a college football playoff. Yet according to the Chicago Tribune's Teddy Greenstein, Delaney is not only now willing to listen to proposals for a playoff, he now has one of his own. Delaney wants a 4 team playoff where the top two seeds host, and the championship game site goes to the highest bidder, much like how the Super Bowl site is selected now. On the surface this seems like a relatively modest proposal, which is fine by me. I think anything more than 4 waters down the best regular season in sports, and this idea would also keep more of the big bowl games on or around January 1 where they belong.
But of course, this is a plan that benefits the B1G too. If the Big Ten gets a team in the top 2, it means someone from the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 12 is coming north in December to play in cold weather in a hostile environment. And if they get the third or fourth best team, well, then they'll just head down to a sunny, warm destination to play the semi-final game- you know, like they already do for bowl games. Sure, Death Valley or Bryant-Denny Stadium or Autzen or Oklahoma Memorial would be a lot tougher to play in than a neutral site like the Rose, Gator or Outback, but it's less of a disadvantage for the cold weather Big Ten teams to have to go south than the possibility of a southern school coming north- in December.
Not only that, but you can be guaranteed that if/when the B1G would place a team in the top 4 of the rankings and out of the regular bowl lineup, the Big Ten is NOT about to lose their Rose Bowl berth. The second best B1G squad would go to the Rose Bowl as I'm sure the second best Pac 12 school would take the place of Oregon or SC or Stanford if they made the top 4. So in Delaney's plan, the B1G gains a possible advantage by hosting a cold weather semi-final game AND still keeps its coveted tie-in with the Rose Bowl.
Now that's what I call a win-win.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bigger deal than weather
Is the $$$$ that come from hosting.
I wouldn't be surprised...
…if that money was still split between the participating conferences once host site expenses are taken care of. But who knows? That would be a nice perk to hosting to be sure.
I sure hope
we see this 4 team format play out. If it gets done, they will wonder why they took so long to implement it.
Yes
I can’t wait for everyone to start bitching the Utah didn’t make the top four even though they had a better record than #3. Everything will be all better.
Utah, or whomever, would have a weaker argument than a #3 team like the undefeated Auburn team of a few years ago.
A #5 team arguing it was unfairly left out of a playoff has a weaker case than a #3 team arguing it was unfairly left out of the MNC game.
But yes, you’re right that if a four-team playoff comes to be, the slippery slope to an eight-game playoff, and beyond, will open. I just don’t think a #5 team, much less a #9, has the same weight behind their claim of unfair exclusion from the playoff format.
I like the four-team playoff proposal, although I don’t believe Delany’s version of it will pass.
Certain warm-weather conferences are not going to accept a proposal that could hypothetically make them play an outdoor playoff game in a Midwest or Northeast winter.
The BCS Bowl juggernauts will not allow any playoff proposal to pass without a tooth and nail fight.
by Midnight Rambler on Feb 7, 2012 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
Not really
Either way, you get the mid-major with the good record complaining about discrimination.
They won’t argue that they are really number #4. They’ll argue that are number 1 or 2.
Anyway, I just think the mission to find the “real” football champion is a fool’s errand and there isn’t really anything better than the old system of polls.
Anything is better than the old system of polls.
I remember the days when the national champion or champions were selected most years; the current BCS system, for all its flaws, is still an improvement over the beauty pageant approach.
Why not just cancel the season altogether, run the squads through some no-contact drills, and just vote on #1 in August?
by Midnight Rambler on Feb 7, 2012 11:55 AM CST up reply actions
Because Michigan and Notre Dame would win every one?
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
by Marshmoose on Feb 7, 2012 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
To put it another way, you would prefer having #2 complaining every year over #3, #5, or #9?
Because that’s what happened in years where the poll voting was close, or there was a split title.
by Midnight Rambler on Feb 7, 2012 12:06 PM CST up reply actions
My point is
That everyone bitches about it anyway, and you can’t do a real tournament, so there isn’t really any difference between the new system and the old.
Personally, given that you can’t improve it, I’d take the tradition of the bowls over constant tinkering that just moves around who complains.
Also, everyone debating the polls is a good thing for college football. At least’s it the AP and the coaches who are the ones “discriminating” against whoever feels jilted, rather than the BCS conferences.
Why can't they do a real tournament?
32 teams would only take 5 weeks. There would be 31 bowl games for TV to air. I bet they would make more money that way.
Reasons I've read as possible reasons for avoiding this...
1) Money gets split more equitably. In the current framework, the bigger conferences get more b/c they control the process (where a tourney like that would be run by the NCAA)
2) Bowls oppose it and the bowls still have sway with the AD’s, school presidents, and conference commissioners
3) TV partners oppose it b/c it costs more money to broadcast and they’re happy with the current arrangement
I think the real answer is that they would limit it to 32 teams or less
No more bowl games for mediocre football teams. Right now there are 35 bowl games which means the #70 team gets to play in a “bowl” game. You would think the networks would rather have 31 games with top schools that people would actually watch rather than Temple-Wyoming or Toledo-Air Force.
I think they could appease the Sugar, Orange, Rose and Fiesta Bowls by making them the hosts of the quarterfinals, plus they could bid on the neutral site for the semifinals and finals.
I would like to see them limit to the top 12. Top 4 conference champions get a bye the first week.
I sincerely doubt that this placates any bowls.
The Rose will be pissed b/c it loses its tradition. The others are pissed b/c they lose their power. If you go to a tourney this big then the bowls are done. But a tourney this big isn’t happening anyway so it’s really a moot point. The people who can block it (like Delaney) don’t want it.
Not to mention traveling fan bases
If you’re trying to fill a 50k+ seat arena, there’s few fan bases that could consistently fill the arena for every game, and there’s be a lot of angry die-hard fans not being able to fly to the next game on a week’s notice.
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
Because it would mean
Taking away half of the regular season. And shorten the season for any team that doesn’t win, thus costing them money.
I suppose they could, but I don’t know why that would be preferable, or really why anyone would think the result would be more “accurate” in such and “any given saturday” sport.
"Accuracy" is stupid
Make them win the games. Does anyone care if the Super Bowl was “accurate”?
To crown a champion
It’s not to determine if the power rankings were correct.
I disagree
I don’t like playoffs—at least one this size. It renders the regular season meaningless.
Were the Giants the best team in the NFL just because they won a Super Bowl? It’s very debatable they were the best team in the NFC. Any team that loses nearly half of its regular season games hardly deserved a shot. They just won the “right” games.
That's the point
People complained about the old sister, because they thought having the AP vote for who was best was inaccurate.
So we got the BCS, seeking to pit the two best teams together (and the third and fourth). Now people complain because it’s inaccurate and hard for non-BCS teams.
Now Delaney is talking about a four team playoff, to try to more accurately select a champion.
The entire motivation for changing from the old system was accuracy in selecting the champion.
Utah's in the Pac-12 now
Same deal though. It’s a lot easier to discern the top 4 rather than the top 2, especially because of what happened last season with Alabama/LSU. Delany just waited for the right time to talk
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
But...
8 would all but guarantee that undefeated teams would be rewarded with the chance of proving it on the field. I like #4, but there will still be instances where a team finishes undefeated and gets ranked behind a few 1-loss teams.
I like the computers MUCH better than any polls. Computers don’t care what you were ranked to start the season.
I think this solution takes some of the Computer vs. Voter craziness out of it
or at the very least, lowers the volume some. With the situation now, it’s all or nothing for that #2 spot, but a 4 team playoff is the right balance between “Deserves to play for the national title” and March Madness. It settles a lot of the “Any Given Saturday” discussions by including #3 and #4, but really separates what the BCS was designed to provide – a definitive National Champion in CFB.
My big questions revolve around logistics, especially in the northern schools. If you play your final conference game the first week of December, then the NC Playoff games the next weekend, you’re getting dangerously close to most school’s finals weeks. On top of that, the weather and what goes into weatherizing a football field and what kind of infrastructure you’d need to add to every B1G school’s football field to keep it un-frozen if/when that game came. I remember the frozen field for the Vikings/Bears game at The Bank being a pretty big issue. A team like Iowa probably doesn’t have the kind of money to put heating in their trash heap stadium, with all the trophy redesigns and all….
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
Logistics
I don’t think it would be as big of a deal as you think. The fiasco at the Bank came about because the Metrodome collapsed. They only had a week or so to prepare. And if you prepare for one game, it isn’t that hard to turn it around for a second game. Either way, there is no way a national championship game will be played at someone’s home stadium. The SEC, Pac12, and BigXII aren’t going to go for it.
Also, am I the only one who misses seeing games played in snow? They always clean all snow off the field now. I liked it when fields didn’t have heating coils to remove snow. I loved snow bowls. They were fun to watch. You didn’t know what you were going to get.
Yea...
…what changed is the chance to abolish AQ bids. If that happens, the B1G is in the running to get 2 BCS bowl tie ins. If this proposal happens as well you also have the chance for another B1G squad to be in the 4 team tourney. That’s a lot larger share of the big money pie. And Delaney never misses a chance to improve revenue.
Anything to the rumors Gary Barta might be a replacement for Maturi?
That rumor has floated around Iowa City, but I’ve heard nothing substantial to back it up.
by Midnight Rambler on Feb 7, 2012 10:45 AM CST reply actions
Yes, I want to stress again that the Barta-to-Minnesota rumor is nothing more than that.
I’ve got no inside info., nor has anyone who might have knowledge of Barta’s possible intentions said anything to support that rumor.
by Midnight Rambler on Feb 7, 2012 3:25 PM CST up reply actions
No
Not only do I have a distinct dislike for That State Down South (TSDS), but we don’t need him monkeying around with our trophies, lest we end up with the abomination they tried to roll out for the Cy-Hawk game
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
Actually, we aren't paying JM's new salary...
Should that matter to Gopher fans? We’re not the one’s paying his salary, except that we kind of are with ticket sales and all the rest.
At least, not via athletic department revenues or donations. His new “assistant to the President” position is being funded via the University of Minnesota Foundation. That’s the wider fundraising arm of the University.
Also, it sounds like his job will be to do fundraising of some kind or another, though whether it’s for athletics or not doesn’t seem to have been specified. He’ll also be teaching. So it’s not really accurate to say the U will be paying for two people to do the job of athletic director at the same time.
And I think calling it a golden parachute is a mistake.
Kaler has no ties to JM and no reason to give him a golden parachute. While they haven’t clearly articulated Joel’s new role yet, I think it is much more likely that Kaler has something in mind besides just collecting a paycheck. He’s not an idiot after all.
The fact that he's being paid from a general fund is even worse
At least if the money were earmarked for athletics, they would have some justification for paying him half a million per for doing nothing. This way, they waste money on him when it could have been spent on things like, I don’t know… academics, which are the reason the University exists, instead of jacking up tuition 300 percent over the past 20 years.
Rant over.
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
It isn't from the general fund perse.
It is from the general fundraising arm of the U. The money that they raise gets used for all sorts of stuff. If donors to the foundation didn’t want their donations in the big pot then they should earmark what they did want it used for. I’m not a U alumn so I don’t give money via the UM Foundation, but if my small liberal arts college lets me do that in its general fundraising I have no doubt the U allows for it too.
If he fundraises more money then he costs (which seems like one of the logical goals of having him stay on) then it’s not really wasted money then is it?
On Maturi
Also interesting because while Maturi won’t be the school’s athletic director after June, he’ll sure still be getting paid like it. Some folks at in the Minnesota legislature are a wee bit puzzled why Maturi will still get his full athletic director’s salary AND full benefits to be a special assistant to Kaler.
The paying of Maturi and keeping him on as special assistant comes from the idea that the University of Minnesota is making a transition and, as much as you all might hate Maturi, it’s necessary to keep him on to make sure the process is smooth. He won’t be making any major decisions, so chill out. The position he’s shifting to is largely peripheral.
by Meager Reader on Feb 7, 2012 3:38 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
A few more Maturi details...
…from Kaler’s recent PiPress interview:
- JM’s salary will be $350,000 (less than originally reported), which works out to be 70% of his current salary.
- his primary role will be fundraising.
Key quote:
There’s a real job for Joel to do, and he’s going to do it. He works harder than anyone I know. His principal job next year is going to be fundraising. He will raise for the institution far more money than we’re paying him in this salary. The salary is a big number. I get that. But it’s 70 percent of the total compensation he’ll get this year. And he will earn it.
Other nuggets:
- Previous ties to the U are not a primary factor in hiring a new AD
- Kaler won’t single out Fiore for SUNY Stonybrook as a candidate publicly (which is to be expected)
- Plan is to have new AD in place by end of JM’s contract
- Tubby extension probably won’t happen without new AD, but he won’t rule it out
At least he kept them honest.....
While football and basketball were sometimes hard to be a fan of under Maturi’s watch, at least he kept them honest. He also did a lot of good things, such as keeping other sports alive (the U of M actually is one of the most successful programs overall) and getting TCF Bank stadium built. In the end, I think he will be fondly remembered as the man who hired Jerry Kill (yes, I am a believer)! He was a man who could learn from his mistakes.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
