Facilities Race: This is what U is up against

Donate To GopherHole
T

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
1,357
Points
113
Dr. Kaler and other U reps were at the state capitol yesterday, lobbying for funds for infrastructure. Educational and research infrastructure. And, without athletics being brought up, this is what Rochester Democrat Kim Norton stated:

"Our sports facilities often times are state of the art, we spend a lot more attention and spend more money on those than we do on programs that really are the purpose of the state and of our land-grant mission, which is academic education and research."

First of all, there is no doubt TCF Bank Stadium is state of the art, there is a new baseball stadium, the softball stadium is nice, etc. We do have some fine facilities. But, in comparison to other Big Ten institutions, the non-competition facilities (weight rooms, practice areas for ALL sports, track, etc.) are way, way behind and we've easily spent less than almost all counterparts in that area. Tubby was promised a new practice facility seven years ago, and it sounds like we're still years from getting a shovel in the ground.

I think these lawmakers see TCF Bank Stadium and think they've solved all of the athletic facility problems. Certainly, they should be congratulated on that stadium, but they also MUST realize the Gophers are LOSING the overall arms race in the Big Ten and fading fast. Almost all other Big Ten athletic departments have better overall facilities than the Gophers and if they don't, have already begun construction on major upgrades. Even if completed, the proposed $190 million Minnesota wants to spend would likely just keep us in the middle of the pack. Yet, we have legislators who think it is apparently all state of the art and no problem at the U.

I think Norwood needs to take some of these folks on a tour of the Big Ten. My guess is they'd have their eyes opened at the commitment it takes to have a winning athletic department. At some point, we as a state have to make a decision - do we want to truly compete or just keep muddling along, trying to compete. Currently, we are driving a Chevy Lumina in a race of Chevy Corvettes.

I don't believe this is a case of public money going to these facilities. I think this should be private fundraising issue. And, I also believe academic and research infrastructure should absolutely get state money over sports. But, the simple fact of the matter that this supposedly-plugged in lawmaker is so unaware of the athletic facilities situation at the U (that private donations drive it and that we are losing the battle), perfectly illustrates the point that most people have no idea what the U is up against and the public perception is that all is well.
 

tjgopher said:
Dr. Kaler and other U reps were at the state capitol yesterday, lobbying for funds for infrastructure. Educational and research infrastructure. And, without athletics being brought up, this is what Rochester Democrat Kim Norton stated:

"Our sports facilities often times are state of the art, we spend a lot more attention and spend more money on those than we do on programs that really are the purpose of the state and of our land-grant mission, which is academic education and research."

First of all, there is no doubt TCF Bank Stadium is state of the art, there is a new baseball stadium, the softball stadium is nice, etc. We do have some fine facilities. But, in comparison to other Big Ten institutions, the non-competition facilities (weight rooms, practice areas for ALL sports, track, etc.) are way, way behind and we've easily spent less than almost all counterparts in that area. Tubby was promised a new practice facility seven years ago, and it sounds like we're still years from getting a shovel in the ground.

I think these lawmakers see TCF Bank Stadium and think they've solved all of the athletic facility problems. Certainly, they should be congratulated on that stadium, but they also MUST realize the Gophers are LOSING the overall arms race in the Big Ten and fading fast. Almost all other Big Ten athletic departments have better overall facilities than the Gophers and if they don't, have already begun construction on major upgrades. Even if completed, the proposed $190 million Minnesota wants to spend would likely just keep us in the middle of the pack. Yet, we have legislators who think it is apparently all state of the art and no problem at the U.

I think Norwood needs to take some of these folks on a tour of the Big Ten. My guess is they'd have their eyes opened at the commitment it takes to have a winning athletic department. At some point, we as a state have to make a decision - do we want to truly compete or just keep muddling along, trying to compete. Currently, we are driving a Chevy Lumina in a race of Chevy Corvettes.

I don't believe this is a case of public money going to these facilities. I think this should be private fundraising issue. And, I also believe academic and research infrastructure should absolutely get state money over sports. But, the simple fact of the matter that this supposedly-plugged in lawmaker is so unaware of the athletic facilities situation at the U (that private donations drive it and that we are losing the battle), perfectly illustrates the point that most people have no idea what the U is up against and the public perception is that all is well.
Click to expand...


Plugged in? Based on what?

Are others in st paul as plugged in?
 

BarnBurner said:
Plugged in? Based on what?

Are others in st paul as plugged in?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying. You would think and hope that elected officials who oversee state spending would have a better grasp of the situation relating to the University of Minnesota system. But, it is apparent that isn't the case. That's why I said 'supposedly'-plugged in.
 

tjgopher said:
That's exactly what I'm saying. You would think and hope that elected officials who oversee state spending would have a better grasp of the situation relating to the University of Minnesota system. But, it is apparent that isn't the case. That's why I said 'supposedly'-plugged in.
Click to expand...

Remember the leg. discussions when the beer at TCF issue was being discussed? One of the committee members made the comment that Michigan and most of the Big Ten schools sell beer at games. Another committee member responded with 'I didn't know Michigan was in the Big Ten'.
 

station19 said:
Remember the leg. discussions when the beer at TCF issue was being discussed? One of the committee members made the comment that Michigan and most of the Big Ten schools sell beer at games. Another committee member responded with 'I didn't know Michigan was in the Big Ten'.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?
 



I think one thing Ms. Norton and others of her ilk fail to realize is the part athletic excellence plays in developing young leaders and can enhance the solid academic reputation at the U. What good is stressing only academics if young adults aren't able to use what they know to make a difference? Where do these people come from?
 

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
I think one thing Ms. Norton and others of her ilk fail to realize is the part athletic excellence plays in developing young leaders and can enhance the solid academic reputation at the U. What good is stressing only academics if young adults aren't able to use what they know to make a difference? Where do these people come from?
Click to expand...

This is President Kaler's and Norwood Teague's responsibility. They are charged with educating the legislative body who may legitimately not see the benefits of intercollegiate sports for the University. We have to realize that legislator's don't live or breathe the U of M. For them, the U is a blip on their radar. If the U wants money from the legislature then the U needs to educate them.
 

tinyarch said:
This is President Kaler's and Norwood Teague's responsibility. They are charged with educating the legislative body who may legitimately not see the benefits of intercollegiate sports for the University. We have to realize that legislator's don't live or breathe the U of M. For them, the U is a blip on their radar. If the U wants money from the legislature then the U needs to educate them.
Click to expand...

To what extent are the other schools' practice facilities financed by the legislature rather than ticket revenue or private donations? Given the realities of public budgets today, I struggle to see any state legislature wanting to fund high def TVs in showers and slurpee machines for athletes. Are other schools getting the state to pony up. or are they raising the money themselves?
 



I'm guessing you can pretty much forget about state funding for any athletic facilities for the next five or maybe even ten years, with the Vikings stadium being built that is going to be a very difficult faucet to try and tap, if Teague is serious about building these facilities he'd be smart to focus on other financing routes.
 

jovs said:
I'm guessing you can pretty much forget about state funding for any athletic facilities for the next five or maybe even ten years, with the Vikings stadium being built that is going to be a very difficult faucet to try and tap, if Teague is serious about building these facilities he'd be smart to focus on other financing routes.
Click to expand...

I don't think they were asking the state for athletic money, only educational an research. These comments are a little out of the blue.

I will never understand why this state bends over backwards to give money to and help the billionaire Twins, Vikings, and Wild and then scoff at the Gophers building facilities.
 

Cty, State & City

scher215 said:
I don't think they were asking the state for athletic money, only educational an research. These comments are a little out of the blue.

I will never understand why this state bends over backwards to give money to and help the billionaire Twins, Vikings, and Wild and then scoff at the Gophers building facilities.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Hennepin County that bent over backwards for the Twins & the City of St Paul for the Wild. Those 2 entities have little interest in building a practice facility for the Gopher basketball team.
 

Practice facility is much harder sell than a stadium. Stadium can be used for other things and also makes money, practice facilities don't. That's why you won't ever see a professional team asking for money for practice facilities, and is always taken care off by the team itself, its because they know the state/city have nothing to gain from funding them.

Besides, the school isn't seeking public funding for the practice facilities, the guy was trying to make a point that money was needed for academics and incorrectly used "state of the art" sporting facilities to back up his claim that we don't do enough in terms of funding for academics compared to other things.
 



It's just frustrating how horrible our fundraising has been recently. I truly wonder what the hell Maturi did with his time for all those years. The further we get from his tenure the more we realize just how much he set this athletic department back. We have to be the worst fundraising program in the Big Ten and one of the worst among the major conference schools. I have to admit I'm also extremely disappointed with Teague in this area. Teague did a great job hiring Pitino, but other than that he hasn't done much for the athletic department. I have not been impressed with his "selling" of the new facilities proposal and the lack of updates regarding any progress. Can't shake the feeling we'll be in the exact same spot in 3-5 years. We really need to get these basic facilities taken care of because the next thing that is going to need attention is Williams Arena and that will be almost as big of an issue as TCF. I hate the U's mentality of kicking the can down the road in terms of facilities. It just compounds our problems.
 

MadtownGopher said:
It's just frustrating how horrible our fundraising has been recently. I truly wonder what the hell Maturi did with his time for all those years. The further we get from his tenure the more we realize just how much he set this athletic department back. We have to be the worst fundraising program in the Big Ten and one of the worst among the major conference schools. I have to admit I'm also extremely disappointed with Teague in this area. Teague did a great job hiring Pitino, but other than that he hasn't done much for the athletic department. I have not been impressed with his "selling" of the new facilities proposal and the lack of updates regarding any progress. Can't shake the feeling we'll be in the exact same spot in 3-5 years. We really need to get these basic facilities taken care of because the next thing that is going to need attention is Williams Arena and that will be almost as big of an issue as TCF. I hate the U's mentality of kicking the can down the road in terms of facilities. It just compounds our problems.
Click to expand...

I am with you with the frustration of how hard it seems for the U raise and money, we are a HUGE school, it shouldn't be this difficult, you'd think we'd have more proud alums. Teams who just got building their facilities will be working on upgrades before we start working on ours. Whatever they decide to do with Williams arena, they will most likely seek state funding for that project.
 

station19 said:
Remember the leg. discussions when the beer at TCF issue was being discussed? One of the committee members made the comment that Michigan and most of the Big Ten schools sell beer at games. Another committee member responded with 'I didn't know Michigan was in the Big Ten'.
Click to expand...

What is the Big Ten?
 

MadtownGopher said:
It's just frustrating how horrible our fundraising has been recently. I truly wonder what the hell Maturi did with his time for all those years. The further we get from his tenure the more we realize just how much he set this athletic department back. We have to be the worst fundraising program in the Big Ten and one of the worst among the major conference schools. I have to admit I'm also extremely disappointed with Teague in this area. Teague did a great job hiring Pitino, but other than that he hasn't done much for the athletic department. I have not been impressed with his "selling" of the new facilities proposal and the lack of updates regarding any progress. Can't shake the feeling we'll be in the exact same spot in 3-5 years. We really need to get these basic facilities taken care of because the next thing that is going to need attention is Williams Arena and that will be almost as big of an issue as TCF. I hate the U's mentality of kicking the can down the road in terms of facilities. It just compounds our problems.
Click to expand...

+1. I realize that Teague had a few "nodding heads" regarding the fundraising, but at least publicly, this has been a complete failure so far. To think we're approaching his second full year here and no formal big gifts have been announced is amazing. GopherWarrior predicted this long ago.
 


Did they name it after that bar by the university?
 

scher215 said:
I don't think they were asking the state for athletic money, only educational an research. These comments are a little out of the blue.

I will never understand why this state bends over backwards to give money to and help the billionaire Twins, Vikings, and Wild and then scoff at the Gophers building facilities.
Click to expand...

They're not asking for money for the athletic facilities, but the rub becomes 'you could raise $190 million for athletic facilities, why do we need to fund this Science Building for you?'
 

howeda7 said:
They're not asking for money for the athletic facilities, but the rub becomes 'you could raise $190 million for athletic facilities, why do we need to fund this Science Building for you?'
Click to expand...

In all reality, why is the state funding any buildings for any university. Unless there is research being conducted at the request of the governer i dont understand why any university expects the state to pony up money for anything. With tuition going through the roof in the last 10 years, there should be plenty of reserves for projects like these. If not, time to do some fundraising before asking our legislature.
 

Texas A&M raised $740 million in 1 year.
 

rsgopher said:
In all reality, why is the state funding any buildings for any university. Unless there is research being conducted at the request of the governer i dont understand why any university expects the state to pony up money for anything. With tuition going through the roof in the last 10 years, there should be plenty of reserves for projects like these. If not, time to do some fundraising before asking our legislature.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe the state/taxpayers should fund any higher education?
 

rsgopher said:
In all reality, why is the state funding any buildings for any university. Unless there is research being conducted at the request of the governer i dont understand why any university expects the state to pony up money for anything. With tuition going through the roof in the last 10 years, there should be plenty of reserves for projects like these. If not, time to do some fundraising before asking our legislature.
Click to expand...

...because it's a public university?
 

private funding. UVA used all private funds for JPJ. Helps when one donor gives 150 million. UW got the bulk of the Kohl Center done on the backs of two gifts. One for 75 million,one for 25. UM needs alumni to step up.
 

Why not use some of the tens of millions generated from TV contracts every year to help finance a practice facility. I know that isn't exactly an original idea, but it makes makes more sense than complaining, year after year, about not being able to compete with other Big Ten schools due to rotten facilities. If they show a willingness to put some of that money on the table, perhaps it will be easier to get some of the fat cats to open up their wallets.
 

PitinoFan said:
Why not use some of the tens of millions generated from TV contracts every year to help finance a practice facility. I know that isn't exactly an original idea, but it makes makes more sense than complaining, year after year, about not being able to compete with other Big Ten schools due to rotten facilities. If they show a willingness to put some of that money on the table, perhaps it will be easier to get some of the fat cats to open up their wallets.
Click to expand...

It's not like that TV money is just laying around looking for a place to go. That TV money is already part of the money used to balance the budget. What you are saying is to take money away from the current budget.
 

rsgopher said:
In all reality, why is the state funding any buildings for any university. Unless there is research being conducted at the request of the governer i dont understand why any university expects the state to pony up money for anything. With tuition going through the roof in the last 10 years, there should be plenty of reserves for projects like these. If not, time to do some fundraising before asking our legislature.
Click to expand...

Funding for the University provides research that spills over into the business community, you develop an educated talented workforce, the benefits are many, but in all reality the state has backed away from university spending which has resulted in the sky rocketing tuitions. How many Institutes of Technology are there in the state, how about medical schools, it's not a coincidence that these types of programs require state funding. Cutting back in funds to the U will really hurt the states competitiveness in many fields. Tuition back in the 70's and early 80's went from about a grand to what is it now about 16,000. It's not completely inflation that has caused the huge increase in tuition but a combination of inflation and state funding cutbacks. If you want to be a top university investing in academic facilities and programs is critical, one of the worst things that could happen is to cut this back to the bare bones.
 

station19 said:
It's not like that TV money is just laying around looking for a place to go. That TV money is already part of the money used to balance the budget. What you are saying is to take money away from the current budget.
Click to expand...

That TV money has increased exponentially over the past several years. What did they do before? I haven't looked at the books, but I hope it's something that's at least being considered.
 

PitinoFan said:
That TV money has increased exponentially over the past several years. What did they do before? I haven't looked at the books, but I hope it's something that's at least being considered.
Click to expand...

And the expenses keep going up also.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom