$9.25 Million?

[SMU GOPHS FAN]

Seriously that is it?!?! I knew the Gophs weren't the biggest spenders, but only $9.25 million. that explains A LOT!:mad:

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/29/big-spending-ohio-state-could-change-nickname-to-bucks-eyes/

[RodentRampage]

While having college football's deepest pockets couldn't buy Ohio State a perfect record, the Buckeyes still posted an impressive 83.6 winning percentage (excluding games against the military academies and Football Championship Subdivision schools)

I wonder why the excluded the service academies. They may not be the top teams in the country, but they are better than many I-A teams. Army usually isn't too good, but Air Force and Navy go to bowl games quite often.

But there does seem to be a connection between money and winning. The Gophers have done fairly well for having spent so little: we're dead last in spending, but not usually in last place. Playing in the dome was very bad for revenue.

[drinks at Northpoint]

Big Ten

School
Expenses (in millions)

1. Ohio State
$32.30

2. Iowa
$26.90

3. Wisconsin
$22.71

4. Penn State
$19.13

5. Michigan
$18.03

6. Michigan State
$15.86

7. Northwestern
$15.71

8. Purdue
$12.66

9. Indiana
$11.84

10. Illinois
$10.49

11. Minnesota
$9.25

My two cents: Looking for a reason Minnesota has only one victory against Ohio State since 1981? How about the fact Ohio State's football budget is 3½ times greater than Minnesota's. There's certainly nothing golden about the Gophers' Big Ten worst budget. Not so coincidentally, their last winning league record came in 2003. But, hey, it could be worse: they could be Indiana. The Hoosiers haven't had a winning league record since 1993. Penn State's budget ranks as only the league's fourth-highest, but the Nittany Lions' 29 league wins since 2005 are second only to Ohio State. Iowa's budget ranks third nationally, but the Hawkeyes haven't won the league title since a co-championship with Michigan in 2004. Big Ten's best bang for the buck: Penn State. Most financially irresponsible: Iowa.

[FireDaveLee]

Nonsense.....this explains nothing.

Fire the coach! FIRE, FIRE FIRE!!!!!! And when that coach is hired, FIRE HIM TOO!

[Unregistered User]

Wow...between the B10, SEC, B12, P10, ACC, and Big East, only Washington State spends less than the U.

That does explain a lot.

[drinks at Northpoint]

Both spent more than Texas the past five years.
:eek::eek:

[HopHead]

Tressel makes a couple million more per year than Brewster so that is part of it, but what does Ohio St. spend the extra $20 million on? It can't be the quality of pre-game meals. Are their coaches chartering private jets to every recruiting visit while our coaches are sitting in the last row next to the toilets on Southwest Airlines?

[Stargenes]

Big Ten

School
Expenses (in millions)

1. Ohio State
$32.30

2. Iowa
$26.90

3. Wisconsin
$22.71

4. Penn State
$19.13

5. Michigan
$18.03

6. Michigan State
$15.86

7. Northwestern
$15.71

8. Purdue
$12.66

9. Indiana
$11.84

10. Illinois
$10.49

11. Minnesota
$9.25

My two cents: Looking for a reason Minnesota has only one victory against Ohio State since 1981? How about the fact Ohio State's football budget is 3½ times greater than Minnesota's. There's certainly nothing golden about the Gophers' Big Ten worst budget. Not so coincidentally, their last winning league record came in 2003. But, hey, it could be worse: they could be Indiana. The Hoosiers haven't had a winning league record since 1993. Penn State's budget ranks as only the league's fourth-highest, but the Nittany Lions' 29 league wins since 2005 are second only to Ohio State. Iowa's budget ranks third nationally, but the Hawkeyes haven't won the league title since a co-championship with Michigan in 2004. Big Ten's best bang for the buck: Penn State. Most financially irresponsible: Iowa.

Its that low becaus we are still paying for the Mason robbery.

[RodentRampage]

If we can continue to sell out the stadium, that should improve the revenue situation. In the dome, for some of the games, they had to have all sorts of gimmicks to sell any tickets at all: 4 hot dogs, 4 cokes, 4 tickets, $40, $10 tickets, etc. Plus, we didn't get the concession revenue.

So we should see an increase in revenue. Of course, spending on football is no guarantee of winning, but there having more money does seem to correlate into winning.

[SMU GOPHS FAN]

How are the Gophs suppose to contend when a school like Alabama is paying just their head coach more than half of the Gophs budget? I always figured the Gophs were closer to middle of the pack rather than towards the bottom in spending. Now only to find out they were dead last in spending just speaks volumes about why they haven't won anything. I know the Dome played a very large part of that, but does anyone really think they are going to significantly grow the budget now that they are in The Bank? I don't see it happening.

[RodentRampage]

I know the Dome played a very large part of that, but does anyone really think they are going to significantly grow the budget now that they are in The Bank? I don't see it happening.

Yes, I do.

At the dome:

Revenue from concessions: 0$
Revenue from parking: 0$
Half-empty stadium begging people to come to games with $10 tickets.

At TCF:

The U gets all the revenue from concessions.
The U gets all the revenue from parking
Full stadium at full price.

That adds up to a lot of money. It's not going to move us to the top of the revenue charts, but it's going to make a big improvement.

[Unregistered User]

Yes, I do.

At the dome:

Revenue from concessions: 0$
Revenue from parking: 0$
Half-empty stadium begging people to come to games with $10 tickets.

At TCF:

The U gets all the revenue from concessions.
The U gets all the revenue from parking
Full stadium at full price.

That adds up to a lot of money. It's not going to move us to the top of the revenue charts, but it's going to make a big improvement.

But with Maturi at the helm, I can't see 100% of the revenue going to football. I'd be surprised if the majority of that revenue stayed in the football program. I'm sure the boathouse is due for an addition.

[drinks at Northpoint]

Will that added rev translate to added fb related spending. The article pointed out that the teams that spent the most also brought in two to three times what they spent.

[Iceland12]

Yes, I do.

At the dome:

Revenue from concessions: 0$
Revenue from parking: 0$
Half-empty stadium begging people to come to games with $10 tickets.

At TCF:

The U gets all the revenue from concessions.
The U gets all the revenue from parking
Full stadium at full price.

That adds up to a lot of money. It's not going to move us to the top of the revenue charts, but it's going to make a big improvement.

Yep; Mr. R. Rampage is dead on.

We had this discussion dozens and dozen of times on the old board. The Masonites CONSTANTLY referred to the lack of spending but ALWAYS much as the referenced article, never wanted to talk about revenue! That stopped for a time when they found out that Mason's Assistants were going to get their money it was Glen that was holding out for a bigger payday but I digress..

The football revenue at the Dome, how should I put it? Oh yeah, it sucked! Take out Iowa and Wisconsin and a Big Ten game or two and there were always tens of thousands of seats available where you could get a seat, a hot dog and a Coke for about $10.

How many of those bargains do you think were available in Ann Arbor, Madison, State College, Columbus or Iowa City?

Michigan and Ohio State earned more money yearly from parking and concessions then the total yearly revenue earned by the Gophers at the Dome. Discussions always got around to killing baseball, golf, Mens gymnastics and ALL Women's sports to funnel revenue to Glen and his program. Conveniently ignoring Title Nine and the public ire, and checkbook response, to killing of those sports. The Bush administration's lack of support for a Title Nine overhaul based on proportional stats left me saddened, but many of them virtually suicidal. ;)

SMU, the findings mentioned do reflect the importance of spending, though the article does showing some surprising points of disagreement. The lack of revenue numbers makes it distorting to say the least.

Revenue and spending for this past season will be in the middle of the pack for the Big Ten. This despite the vast majority of the House and the Governor's efforts to trim $3,000,000 or so for the benefit:confused: of booze hounds in the cheap seats at TCF.

[metrolax]

....putting $$$ into it like this make make too much logical sense.

I've been saying for years that you cannot buy a Cadillac with
Yugo dollars. You get what you pay for.

The U has had the lowest budget in the Big Ten for years. They
should be last in the Big Ten, logically, every single season. The
reason they haven't been is because they have had some decent
people around.

But let's not let sheer numbers in terms of dollars enter into this at
all. Let's remember that it was the coaches and players who are at
fault. The year they went 10-3....should have been 13-0. Fire the
coach! Fire the AD! Bench the quarterback! (denote my sarcasm).

I also realize that this response will have absolutely no impact upon some
on this board, nor will these numbers.

[Rosemountian]

This is why less of the blame should be at Maturi and more should be at the President and the Board of Regents. If they were willing to spend the money, the U of M is still a place that could win Big, in my opinion. Though we will never know, because the U of M spends little money on the football program.

Maturi does a decent job with what he is given. Wins per dollar spent I bet MN is one of the best programs in the country.

[RodentRampage]

Don't you have to have money to be able to spend it? The dome was a financial disaster.

[Rosemountian]

Don't you have to have money to be able to spend it? The dome was a financial disaster.

It takes money to make money.

Look at a list of the top 20 schools in terms of spending. Look at the top 20 schools in terms of profits......they would look eerily similar.

It is easy to say the reason they are spending is because they turned a profit. But it is very possibly (likely) that the reason the schools are making so much money is because they have spent the money necessary to build a successful product.

[RodentRampage]

I bet they also get to keep their concession and parking money too.

[Go Gophers Rah]

I suspect that the source of these funds is largely charitible contributions to the various athletic departments.
If so, I have seen the enemy and he is... US!

[Goldmember]

It takes money to make money.

Look at a list of the top 20 schools in terms of spending. Look at the top 20 schools in terms of profits......they would look eerily similar.

It is easy to say the reason they are spending is because they turned a profit. But it is very possibly (likely) that the reason the schools are making so much money is because they have spent the money necessary to build a successful product.

It's a chicken-egg argument. Revenue and spending would be correlated too. You have to spend in a way that improves your chances of winning. If the U just doubled its football budget overnight, it probably wouldn't matter.

The U's football revenue took a hit shortly after the Vikings arrived. When you look at attendance data it is clear that the Vikings immediately dinged the U for at least 15,000 at the gate. The U responded by dis-investing in the football program. Meanwhile there was a college football arms race starting in the rest of the country.

Losing started to follow; then less revenue was generated, more disinvestment, and more losing. The decision to mothball Memorial Stadium to save money was landmark as part of this death-spiral. And signing a lease at the Metrodome that literally handed almost all streams of revenue over to Minnesota's professional sports franchises :confused: was arguably the knock-out blow to the football program (though it worked very nicely for the Twins and Vikings organizations).

At some point between firing Geutekunst and hiring Mason the decision was made to make some effort to compete in D1 football again. But Minnesota is far behind in the arms race. TCF should prove to be a major step in catching-up.

At some point early in the Mason era I remember the public finally buying-in to the indisputable fact that the U couldn't continue to play in the dome forever and compete in the Big Ten. I believe the only reason this dilemma ever became part of the public's consciousness was because of the very public revenue discussions that were suddenly going on pertaining to the Vikings, Twins, North Stars, Wild, Timberwolves. Unfortunately, people were naive to the revenue vs. winning relationship in the 60's and 70's when the football program was being disassembled.

[gophersmokes]

What about all the money from the Big Ten Network?! It seems to me that all the realignment talk and activity was based around wanting to get a piece of the cable revenue pie that worked out so well for the Big Ten. Also, it seems pretty clear that when you talk cable revenue you are talking college football. Traditional b-ball power Kansas was awfully close to playing in the Mountain West.

Minnesota athletics ought to get the message that football is where the money is and that there are plenty of other schools that would give an arm and a leg for the chance to play in the Big Ten.

TCF is a great start - but unless there is significant improvement this year, they will need to consider a coaching change. If there is a coaching change, they need to be prepared to spend some money and upgrade.

[RodentRampage]

There was going to be no money for Memorial Stadium renovations so long as the Gophers were being pressured to move to the dome. It was short-sighted, the move cost us a whole lot more revenue than renovation would have cost. But that's done, and we're back on campus.

Having a smaller stadium allows us to make more money - 50,000 people in a 60,000 seat stadium is a problem. Those 10,000 empty seats drive down the price of the ticket. Plus, if people feel they can just walk up and get a ticket, they feel disinclined to get a season ticket.

I know gloom and doom is all the rage here, but the revenue situation is looking up. Optimism is not forbidden.

[gophersmokes]

with the new stadium and revenues from the Big Ten Network, yes, the revenue situation is looking up. But where will those revenues be spent (or invested)? I hope they will be spent overwhelmingly toward football, since money spent there is most likley to produce the most revenue.

[UpnorthGo4]

It's a chicken-egg argument. Revenue and spending would be correlated too. You have to spend in a way that improves your chances of winning. If the U just doubled its football budget overnight, it probably wouldn't matter.

The U's football revenue took a hit shortly after the Vikings arrived. When you look at attendance data it is clear that the Vikings immediately dinged the U for at least 15,000 at the gate. The U responded by dis-investing in the football program. Meanwhile there was a college football arms race starting in the rest of the country.

Losing started to follow; then less revenue was generated, more disinvestment, and more losing. The decision to mothball Memorial Stadium to save money was landmark as part of this death-spiral. And signing a lease at the Metrodome that literally handed almost all streams of revenue over to Minnesota's professional sports franchises :confused: was arguably the knock-out blow to the football program (though it worked very nicely for the Twins and Vikings organizations).

At some point between firing Geutekunst and hiring Mason the decision was made to make some effort to compete in D1 football again. But Minnesota is far behind in the arms race. TCF should prove to be a major step in catching-up.

At some point early in the Mason era I remember the public finally buying-in to the indisputable fact that the U couldn't continue to play in the dome forever and compete in the Big Ten. I believe the only reason this dilemma ever became part of the public's consciousness was because of the very public revenue discussions that were suddenly going on pertaining to the Vikings, Twins, North Stars, Wild, Timberwolves. Unfortunately, people were naive to the revenue vs. winning relationship in the 60's and 70's when the football program was being disassembled.


This is the best explanation I have ever read for the the Gophers 40 years of football futility.

[GoGophers2005]

That study is not telling the whole story. First of all its from 2008-2009 school year. We were in the Dome and we didn't pay ANYTHING to play there. NO RENT. So our 9.25 million in which this study places us last doesn't include a cent for facility upkeep or gameday expenses. So add a couple million onto that and we are smack dab in the middle of the Big Ten.
It's not free to play in Ohio Stadium. There is alot of dough that goes into upkeep on a 100,000 seat stadium every year for every game, plus any renovations they've done in the past 10 years.

I'm sure Iowa and Wisconsin are up there because of their big renovations to their stadiums the past 10 years. Michigan's expenses will skyrocket after their addition is finished as well....almost cost as much as our brand new stadium!

[RodentRampage]

Focusing on the fact that we didn't pay rent at the dome isn't just not telling the whole story, it's barely even reading the cover. Yes, we didn't pay rent there, but that's more than made up for by the revenue streams that we didn't get from the dome: It was a good deal to give us free rent at the dome, but it was a good deal FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

It's like getting a free car that you need to put in thousands of dollars of repairs to keep it running, it's a bad deal.

[Iceland12]

From the US department of Education. Yep, lame football revenue appears to be the difference in total revenue

Big 10 Schools 2008-2009 revenue........................................... ..........................................


School.......................Football Revenue................Athletic Department Revenue

Ohio State...................$68,196,195............... ..............$119,859,607

Penn State...................$61,767,717............... .............$95,978,243

Michigan.....................$52,246,025.......... ...................$95,193,030

Wisconsin....................$40,005,517.......... ..................$89,842,749

Iowa............................$38,896,234....... .....................$79,521,143

Michigan State.............$43,506,725..................... ........$75,624,811

Minnesota....................$25,594,942.......... ...................$70,322,992

Indiana.........................$20,836,473....... ....................$60,615,528

Purdue.........................$18,320,608........ ....................$59,919,102

Illinois..........................$25,710,645..... ......................$55,609,086

Northwestern...............$23,951,794............ .................$48,582,384

Total Athletic Revenue and Expenses:

http://www.mndaily.com/graphic/2010/01/25/012510g1athletics

Funding from University:

http://www.mndaily.com/graphic/2010/01/25/012510g2athletics

2009 Football Attendance:

http://www.mndaily.com/graphic/2010/01/25/012510g3athletics

[Schnauzer]

It's a chicken-egg argument. Revenue and spending would be correlated too. You have to spend in a way that improves your chances of winning. If the U just doubled its football budget overnight, it probably wouldn't matter.

The U's football revenue took a hit shortly after the Vikings arrived. When you look at attendance data it is clear that the Vikings immediately dinged the U for at least 15,000 at the gate. The U responded by dis-investing in the football program. Meanwhile there was a college football arms race starting in the rest of the country.

Losing started to follow; then less revenue was generated, more disinvestment, and more losing. The decision to mothball Memorial Stadium to save money was landmark as part of this death-spiral. And signing a lease at the Metrodome that literally handed almost all streams of revenue over to Minnesota's professional sports franchises :confused: was arguably the knock-out blow to the football program (though it worked very nicely for the Twins and Vikings organizations).

At some point between firing Geutekunst and hiring Mason the decision was made to make some effort to compete in D1 football again. But Minnesota is far behind in the arms race. TCF should prove to be a major step in catching-up.

At some point early in the Mason era I remember the public finally buying-in to the indisputable fact that the U couldn't continue to play in the dome forever and compete in the Big Ten. I believe the only reason this dilemma ever became part of the public's consciousness was because of the very public revenue discussions that were suddenly going on pertaining to the Vikings, Twins, North Stars, Wild, Timberwolves. Unfortunately, people were naive to the revenue vs. winning relationship in the 60's and 70's when the football program was being disassembled.

So true. This should be framed and posted, or inscribed on the tombstone of past 40 years of Gopher football.

[Hates Monikers]

That study is not telling the whole story. First of all its from 2008-2009 school year. We were in the Dome and we didn't pay ANYTHING to play there. NO RENT. So our 9.25 million in which this study places us last doesn't include a cent for facility upkeep or gameday expenses. So add a couple million onto that and we are smack dab in the middle of the Big Ten.
It's not free to play in Ohio Stadium. There is alot of dough that goes into upkeep on a 100,000 seat stadium every year for every game, plus any renovations they've done in the past 10 years.

I'm sure Iowa and Wisconsin are up there because of their big renovations to their stadiums the past 10 years. Michigan's expenses will skyrocket after their addition is finished as well....almost cost as much as our brand new stadium!

I never thought about it in those terms. Thank God we aren't forced to let 80,000-100,000 people in our stadium. I sure hope we don't get too many fans and add on to our sleek, agile 50,000 seat stadium and lose any advantage we currently enjoy. Just thinking of how much we would have to spend on pop, hot dogs and T-shirts makes my head hurt.

[GoGophers2005]

Focusing on the fact that we didn't pay rent at the dome isn't just not telling the whole story, it's barely even reading the cover. Yes, we didn't pay rent there, but that's more than made up for by the revenue streams that we didn't get from the dome: It was a good deal to give us free rent at the dome, but it was a good deal FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

It's like getting a free car that you need to put in thousands of dollars of repairs to keep it running, it's a bad deal.

The story was about EXPENSES, not total revenue of a program. All I was saying was the story didn't tell the whole story from the UofM's perspective. Probably the only University in the country to play lease free and also not be accountable for any expenses towards upkeep of their stadium. If we were we wouldn't be the bottom of the Big Ten as we were.

[Iceland12]

The story was about EXPENSES, not total revenue of a program. All I was saying was the story didn't tell the whole story from the UofM's perspective. Probably the only University in the country to play lease free and also not be accountable for any expenses towards upkeep of their stadium. If we were we wouldn't be the bottom of the Big Ten as we were.

It's a fair point, but it is surprising that even the avowed "haters" of building TCF didn't bring that up again and again. The U supporters also always claim that the University Athletic Department is one of the few that are charged full tuition by their school.

In your research did you find that to be true or not?

[AhliBobwa]

Goldmember--transcendent post. Poster HOF for that alone.

This news actually makes me happy considerin the numbers come from our last season in the Dome. Now, with TCF stadium and the now prolific Big Ten network revenue streams should skyrocket. This should in turn lead to much more spending for the football program (which obviously is already occurring with the advent of the new stadium, new practice field, Brew´s helicopter recruiting stunts which are great for visibility, etc.)

With the giant student population the Gophers should be able to spend as much as any school in the Big Ten not named Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State. If it doesn´t it will be time for us to to grab torches and pitchforks, and apply some public pressure.

[drinks at Northpoint]

The article pointed out that we are 8-2 vs teams with smaller football budgets than our own.
A few years ago, we lost to Bowling Green, Florida International, and NDSU.
That means one of those three teams spent more on their football program than a Big 10 school. We are being outspent by either a team from the MAC, a team from the Sun Belt, or a team from the least important state in the country.
When Maturi announced the decision to bring back Brewster, he said that Gopher football has struggled longer than just when Brewster has been coach. We needed to find out why, well I think we see a reason.

[EG#9]

I don't see revenue improving for the program (beyond concessions/parking from TCF) without a vastly improved product. Will the university spend the money necessary to improve that product and hope that revenue will follow? How did schools, like Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa, and Purdue do it? Did they spend on their football program to improve their product or was it some combination of skill (hiring the right coach) and luck (timing a bad tOSU/Michigan season)?

[GoGophers2005]

Bottom line....Playing in TCF Bank is going to raise our revenues (so we look better compared to other teams in the Big Ten) and also going to raise our expenses (which will move us up on the list of the debated story we all read).

For years the Michigans and Ohio States were playing in huge stadiums with minimal upkeep. Michigan stadium for the most part is a big pit with seats, not much infrastructure to take care of. Most of these Big Ten stadiums were paid off decades ago, maybe even 50-60 years ago. But now, pretty much every team has taken on some sort of debt of financing to pay for remodels and expansions. I think Minnesota got back into the arms race at the right time. Wisconsin or Iowa can't afford to take on any more debt, and Michigan for the time being is also tapped out after their practice and stadium additions. It will be interesting to see where the Gopher program is at in 10 years. Will we be adding 10,000 seats and encroaching the top 1/4 of the Big Ten in revenues? If Wisconsin and Iowa are there, no reason to think we can't be.

[GoGophers2005]

The article pointed out that we are 8-2 vs teams with smaller football budgets than our own.
A few years ago, we lost to Bowling Green, Florida International, and NDSU.
That means one of those three teams spent more on their football program than a Big 10 school. We are being outspent by either a team from the MAC, a team from the Sun Belt, or a team from the least important state in the country.
When Maturi announced the decision to bring back Brewster, he said that Gopher football has struggled longer than just when Brewster has been coach. We needed to find out why, well I think we see a reason.

Read the article again....it said it didn't include any of the military academies or whatever they call the DI-AA.

[skoalvikings]

Yes, I do.

At the dome:

Revenue from concessions: 0$
Revenue from parking: 0$
Half-empty stadium begging people to come to games with $10 tickets.

At TCF:

The U gets all the revenue from concessions.
The U gets all the revenue from parking
Full stadium at full price.

That adds up to a lot of money. It's not going to move us to the top of the revenue charts, but it's going to make a big improvement.

Just imagine how much cash would role in if the concessions were (1) edible, and (2) sold with the aid of cash registers.

[DarrenTheGreek]

I vote we lower expenses by not hiring a security firm that insists on full body cavity searches upon entry into the stadium.

[began11]

Wow! This statistic makes me sick. How can we be one of the biggest schools in the country and only spend $9.25 million on our football program? We have some of the most expensive tickets in the Big Ten. I guess it's because we had to build Ridder Arena and support the rest of the women's sports at the U. This school needs to realize that you need to spend money to make money.

[RodentRampage]

Wow! This statistic makes me sick. How can we be one of the biggest schools in the country and only spend $9.25 million on our football program? We have some of the most expensive tickets in the Big Ten. I guess it's because we had to build Ridder Arena and support the rest of the women's sports at the U. This school needs to realize that you need to spend money to make money.

We had the most expensive tickets in the Big Ten? We had many games where the U begged people to go to games with $10 tickets. The dome situation was terrible for revenue. You have to make money before you can spend it.

[drinks at Northpoint]

Didn't one of the local news stations do a story on this recently?
I seem to remember one of those 'man on the street' stories where they interview random students. The focus of the story was 'why is the football recruiting budget so high'. One of the 'facts' presented was that we spent more on recruiting than Iowa.

[dpodoll68]

Didn't one of the local news stations do a story on this recently?
I seem to remember one of those 'man on the street' stories where they interview random students. The focus of the story was 'why is the football recruiting budget so high'. One of the 'facts' presented was that we spent more on recruiting than Iowa.

The U of M's football recruiting budget is very high. Someone posted a link here a while back (I'll try to dig it up), and if I remember correctly the U's football recruiting budget was 2nd, or maybe 3rd, in the Big Ten. However, it takes up a disproportionately large amount of the relatively miniscule overall football budget.

[josh087]

I think the right approach is being taken - but it is probably futile. Maturi knows in this ultra competitive sports market of Minneapolis WINNING is the only thing that will draw new fans that will increase the revenue of the program.

Instead of spending a bunch of money on marketing, etc, which won't work anyway without the wins - he is putting the money toward recruting. That's also why he hired Brewster. Recruiting. Better players = more wins = the fans we need.

Unfortunately, the area that we have NEEDED to capitalize on is keeping the 4-5 star local players here. These are the kids we inheritently have an advantage in recruiting because they are from MN. However, because of the sports environment in this town that they have been raised in their whole life, these kids have shown time and time again they have no interest in staying and helping the hometown team. Their focus is the NFL.

Goldmember's post is right-on. The Vikings coming here was the beginning of the end of the Gopher football program. It started the attendance slide and eventual move into the dome. It started the apathy of the local fanbase which has trickled down to the high profile kids that have no care to stay home.

If the Vikings were to leave it would start the long process back to where fans will start caring for the football team. Until then, we will be forced to live with a slashed football budget.

[DarrenTheGreek]

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/30/for-longhorns-money-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/

The numbers are out today for the profit. The link actually calls it revenue but when reading it closer I believe they are talking about how much profit each school makes for their football programs.

Of the 66 BCS programs, Minnesota ranks 21st with $16.34M. What makes me mad is when I look at the expenses and the profit and calculate the percentage of all revenue that is being used on football programs, Minnesota is in the top 10 for cheap.
1. Texas 25.76%
2. Georgia 30.41%
3. Penn State 30.97%
4. Nebraska 32.47%
5. Notre Dame 32.92%
6. Michigan 34.51%
7. Florida 34.56%
8. South Carolina 34.81%
9. Minnesota 36.15%
10. Michigan State 36.46%

The other schools on this list can afford to be have a low expense percentage because they bring in so much more revenue. Minnesota doesn't have that luxury. The fact that we aren't in the 50-75% range like most other schools that are of the same caliber is a sign that the administration would rather run a program on the cheap and use the profits to fund the non-revenue sports instead of reinvesting into the football program.

[RodentRampage]

We could gut the non-revenue sports to funnel more money over to the football team. Whether you think that is a good idea or a terrible idea, it's not going to happen. What needs to happen is that, since the non-revenue sports are already well-funded, for the new revenue from TCF to go to the football team.

[GoGophers2005]

Wow! This statistic makes me sick. How can we be one of the biggest schools in the country and only spend $9.25 million on our football program? We have some of the most expensive tickets in the Big Ten. I guess it's because we had to build Ridder Arena and support the rest of the women's sports at the U. This school needs to realize that you need to spend money to make money.

Are you kidding? Some of the most expensive tickets in the Big Ten? I'd say Minnesota is smack dab in the middle of the Big Ten in ticket prices and donations and definately not in the top 4. Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin all are above or equal to Minnesota. Not sure about Michigan State or Illinois.
Secondly your statement about spending money to make money is shortsighted. The University and the athletics program recently spent 180 million dollars to help fund the 300 million TCF Bank Stadium, so I think they realized it. Please remember this was from 2008-2009 school year, the year BEFORE we moved into TCF Bank. So that number will be higher.

[RedPoo]

Goldmember's post is right-on. The Vikings coming here was the beginning of the end of the Gopher football program. It started the attendance slide and eventual move into the dome. It started the apathy of the local fanbase which has trickled down to the high profile kids that have no care to stay home.

If the Vikings were to leave it would start the long process back to where fans will start caring for the football team. Until then, we will be forced to live with a slashed football budget.

I think that's a pretty pessimistic view of the situation. Having the Vikings in town certainly doesn't help our ability to hold the interest of the average rube. But we should have the population base to make up for some of that, and I don't know why any of it would directly correlate to what the U decides to spend on football.
Even if we're second fiddle in the state, the football team is still the revenue engine of the athletic department. What the U spends on football is an internal decision, and the single biggest driver of the decision is the priorities of the people making the decision more than it is the external realities of our place in the hearts and minds of the average Joe.

[minngg]

Yes, I do.

At the dome:

Revenue from concessions: 0$
Revenue from parking: 0$
Half-empty stadium begging people to come to games with $10 tickets.

At TCF:

The U gets all the revenue from concessions.
The U gets all the revenue from parking
Full stadium at full price.

That adds up to a lot of money. It's not going to move us to the top of the revenue charts, but it's going to make a big improvement.

They were estimating the new stadium would bring in $3 Million more in revenue per season, but that was before they outlawed alcohol.

[Goldmember]

I firmly believe Gopher Football and the Vikings can coexist. But the U needs to be smart about protecting its "college football" niche. Unlike the strategy of 60's and 70's, they seem to understand that they are not (and should never desire to be) any sort of direct competitor to the Vikings.

I think that's one of the reasons the U has been sooooo unwilling to waiver on the alcohol issue. They know they need to maintain a product that is very unique and different from the NFL. And part of that is to have protocol that is similar to the most successful programs among the other 119 FBS schools ... not the Vikings, as some politicians demand.

There are other markets of similar size that have been able to find a healthy professional sports/ major college athletics balance. Denver, Seattle, and Phoenix all come to mind. Prior to the 60's, the Gophers just had a very large margin for error. The region was exploding with growth and they were the biggest show in town. The game is more complicated in 2010.

[ncgo4]

Oh, gee! You think the fact that 20,000 season ticket holders in Mich & OSU are willing to pay $5,000 each for priority seating matters tontthe program? Methinks yer correct!!! LOL

[highwayman]

...from MV at the FBT. The parts about parking revenues and "Expenses Not Allocated By Gender/Sport" not included in football expeditures makes much more sense:

http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?p=1213#more-1213