Tubby: Gophers "desperately" need practice facility to stay competitive in recruiting

Donate To GopherHole
BarnBurner said:
Probably wouldnt be a bad thing, especially for Wilf.

If they put slots anywhere, why in the world should the Vikings benefit>??????? They are a privately held company. Unless, of course zygi would share the profits with the taxpayer?

The point is there may be higher priorities than funding a practice facility.
Click to expand...

This type of thinking is exactly why we're behind the times. You have to spend money to make money. Having a successful basketball programs helps fund other programs. That $20 million will earn it's way back within 5 years. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the rowing team folding. You could keep Tubby for another 5 years and have a quality replacement when he retires. Don't assume we'll stay competative without it. Indiana, Michigan, and Iowa haven't had success lately. We need to take the necessary steps to insure that the basketball program has the tools to remain successful.
 

GoAUpher said:
You don't have to cut non-revenue sports to make it work. There are many athletic departments with the same number/more sports than MN. And not all of them are the OSU's of the world. If we're being accurate, the U has funded non-revenue sports at a level that is consistent with other comparable BCS level universities.

The U's problem with the Big 3 isn't solely a money issue. Throwing money at the football program doesn't result in wins just because. I'm not saying the savings couldn't be helpful. But to pretend that simply cutting non-rev sports will solve the issue isn't a very helpful or accurate position to take.

There are also other options available. For instance, let the dept keep the proceeds from gameday parking (something most other universities do).
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why I always find it amusing to read/listen to the ongoing "we need to sacrifice everything for revenue sports" angle. I would argue that non-revenue sports have thrived at the U in spite of sports like football, not because football funded them and here's why: The football program hasn't held up it's end of the bargain for about 40 years now. A lot of it has to do with stupid decisions by the administration (Maturi hiring Brewster was just the latest epic failure by an administrator in this regard). But the non-revenue sports success has not come because of sports like football, but rather in spite of their continued failures.
 

Alumni T. Denny Sanford just donated 100 million to breast cancer research, I think he'd be more than happy to have his name on another building.
 

Thank you for this post. It seems as if there are a few more people than me who really want to get underneath the reasons why Gopher Athletics are so far behind the other Top schools in the Big 10 and in the country. It is clear that some trimming of Non-Revenue sports are going to be required to help with budget and funding issues.

A first step would be to conduct a serious financial audit and the reallocation of resources should be completed to direct funds to the Athletic Departments priorities. Unfortunately, these priorities and the current funding models promote the "performance mediocrity" we experience and most accept today. An Athletic so Atheltic Department prioritization and cultural transformation is step one in this process if we are serious.

Step two requires that the "Top" of the University is COMMITTED to success in Revenue Athletics. These sports include Womens Hoops, Mens BB, Football, and Hockey. The trick is to optimize the department so it remains Titi1V compliant while creating an environment that allows most of these Athletes recruited to remain in good standing in school. The fact that Oregon, Florida,OSU, Wisconsin ,etc create a course load and curriculum geared towards student Athletes (Not exclusive to SA's to remain legal) gives those schools a competitive advantage as well. Without a commitment from the presidents office to enable a successful program, and a change in the AD priority scheme, I think Tubby will never get his facility and the program will be mired in the mud. Dienhart and Boston were on the right track. However, the knee jerk reaction to condemn the whole department for one persons actions has set the U back 10 years.

Step 3 is to hire quality coaches and to properly fund top assistants.

By the way, some of revenue sucking sports can become club teams that will provide ample opportunities for Athletes to play the prots they love in a competitive environment.
 



SoMpls said:
That $20 million will earn it's way back within 5 years. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the rowing team folding.
Click to expand...

This is just silly hyperbole. Once built, the practice facility will not result in the department making $4 million more dollars per year for 5 years.
 


upnortgopherfan said:
Little do most know, even though U of Mn is a public school, only 20-30% of the funds that operate it are publicly funded (state funds). Now on the other hand, MNSCU schools are 100% publicly funded.
Click to expand...

Currently it is 18%.
 

andy said:
When the team is good, it definitely makes money. For three or four years they had rather large crowds in the Barn.
Click to expand...

Even with the large crowds you have to get fairly creative with the accounting to show a profit in women's basketball. Scholarship expense, training table, travel, coaching salaries, etc., adds up fast and high. There's virtually no TV revenue directly tied to WBB, no direct radio revenue tied to WBB, not much in the way of other big revenue generators tied directly to WBB. Ticket sales alone (even with large crowds) very rarely, if ever, get you to profitability.

Now, if someone wants to call WBB a revenue sport because it brings in some revenue on ticket sales, fine. But, bringing in revenue and turning a profit are two different things. Volleyball brings in revenue on ticket sales, too (with some nice crowds that are larger than this year's WBB crowds). But, volleyball isn't anywhere close to making money, either.
 



andy said:
When the team is good, it definitely makes money. For three or four years they had rather large crowds in the Barn.
Click to expand...

For three or four years it made some nickels and dimes, all other years it has lost money and a lot of it.
 

Revenue producing sports do not equate to profit producing sports....WBB can be a revenue producing sport. Probably not with Pam Borton involved however.......
 

RoundFrog said:
I don't think we can underestimate how important this issue is to the future of the basketball program. We have a fallen behind from a facilities stand point. We have an AD who seems to be more concerned about being marginal across the board rather than make tough decisions and set priorities. Budgets are not going to become more friendly. What are our priorities- what programs should we invest in? While ignoring uncomfortable and questionable coaching situations in the golf and woman's bball program he also fails to properly commit to what (IMHO) should be our flagship programs. Hell, California is very close to dropping baseball (http://ballparkdigest.com/201101263...news/cal-baseball-enters-final-season-maybe)- are we thinking about this?
Click to expand...

No, we are not considering dropping baseball....Nor should we.
 

Most schools either have mens baseball or soccer. the U of M of course has baseball. However, a basketball practice facility is a higher priority than a new baseball stadium. Anyone who disagrees needs check the drugs they are smoking and look at reality and facts. Basketball is more important to the University than baseball. Basketball means more financial,socially, Nationally, and can enhance the U of M's global reputation with exposure only football could
top.
 



millions2spare said:
Revenue producing sports do not equate to profit producing sports.....
Click to expand...

If we don't look at profits, then, technically, all college sports would be revenue sports. They all bring in revenue, no matter how small. What's the point of calling WBB a revenue sport if it losing money?

Volleyball (and to a lesser degree baseball and wrestling) plays before some large crowds. Why don't you include them in your list of revenue sports that deserve priority?
 

millions2spare said:
Revenue producing sports do not equate to profit producing sports....WBB can be a revenue producing sport. Probably not with Pam Borton involved however.......
Click to expand...

Did you ever feel like the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes.:cool02:
 

I hear what you are saying regarding revenue and profits. In a pure financial accounting sense the U is a Not for Profit entity. Common sense tells us that in college athletics, teams that bring in more revenue than their direct expenses are "profitable" . From a financial accounting perspective most sports probably lose money. However, in the simple revenue minus expenses measure of a department, WBB (potentially profitable), Hockey, MBB, and Football are considered Revenue producing by most people.
 

millions2spare said:
I hear what you are saying regarding revenue and profits. In a pure financial accounting sense the U is a Not for Profit entity. Common sense tells us that in college athletics, teams that bring in more revenue than their direct expenses are "profitable" . From a financial accounting perspective most sports probably lose money. However, in the simple revenue minus expenses measure of a department, WBB (potentially profitable), Hockey, MBB, and Football are considered Revenue producing by most people.
Click to expand...

There are probably no more than five WBB programs in the nation that turn a profit (likely fewer than that when true accounting practices are implemented). I'm not sure why anyone would consider that a revenue sport. UConn lost money last year. Tennessee lost money last year.

The bigger problem comes in this --- the simple fact of the matter that at a lot of schools WBB is a bigger drain than most other non-revenue sports. WBB is trying to keep up with MBB (whatever the men get, we get). That is absolutely the case at Minnesota, so it can be bad. Tubby got new office furniture? Then, Pam gets new office furniture. The men get new uniforms? Then the women get new uniforms. The men travel a certain way, the women get to travel that way. So, the expense side of the WBB ledger goes even more out of whack than what it should when compared to what they bring in. It is not just a MN problem, either.

See this article on the highly successful North Carolina women's team, which lost just shy of $2 million while trying to keep up with the rest of the nation. The problem is when you are spending money like the 4 or 5 schools turning a profit, but cannot bring in revenue like them, then the WBB program becomes a bigger drain on your budget than does men's gymnastics or women's golf.

Obviously, WBB will never get dropped, as as a supporter of the program myself, I'd never advocate that. But, I wish people would understand when bringing up the budgets and stuff, to never, ever include WBB as a positive when it comes to overall budget...even in years where we are drawing big crowds.
 

Exactly, WBB while it does produce some ticket sales is a much larger drain than people think. Most profits in college athletics are tied to TV deals, which unless you're UCONN and a few others you're losing money.

A very interesting article was written a few months ago on ESPN and I'm unsure how much/or if it was discussed on here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

In essence, the article demonstrates how bloated athletic departments all across the nation are losing money (including the U). I suggest reading the article if you haven't, but to quickly break it down only 14 of 120 FBS school athletic departments made money last year. You can argue that some of this is due to increased coach contracts and football spending; however, look at the programs that made money and its clear they are the best, highest paying football programs. Additionally, 68 of the 120 football programs DID turn a profit further demonstrating they are playing within their means. To top it off, of the 98 D-I colleges without football, all of them lost money.

In relation to basketball, the article states it is merely identical across the board. At the U, we also have Hockey fortunately but I'm not certain how much profit they generate (I have no idea what the numbers are), but again it isn't nearly as much as football and basketball because they have minimal TV contracts in comparison. The mens basketball and football programs fund the entire athletic department, which in this day, has become increasingly bloated with every team and coach trying to get their "fair share" of the pie. At the end of the day, ADs are giving in, awarding larger contracts, additional travel expenses and new buildings to programs that on a yearly basis lose university money. Meanwhile, powerhouse programs such as OSU who have invested a TON into the revenue producing sports are rewarded with larger tv contracts, national exposure, and larger profits, which in turn creates a stable environment where non-revenue sports can feasibly survive.

The current state of the U and many other schools in the nation are forced to be react to this, not just in part because of the economy, but because of near-sighted ADs (Maturi) who have failed to adequately address looming issues (basketball practice arena/25 years in the dome), and have also increased spending in non-revenue sports to "keep up." Maturi boasts having good teams across the board, but in reality, his near-sightedness (sp?), will cost them down the road.

At the end of the day, there will be major reform in college athletics. And it will not be with decreased spending in basketball and football. ADs now have to react to trying times and it will be through cutting/trimming non-revenue producing sports budgets or cutting them altogether. The spending is just to high to justify keeping some of them around. Times have changed.
 

TJgoper and Glove...Thank you and you are correct....WBB is now a net drain on the program. Also, your collective insight is of great value. Maybe you should start a consulting firm to advice Joel Maturi and the AD Office....wait...Dave Mona already beat you to it!

Great work.
 

Not sure if that was sarcastic or not. But I guess my point was simply that for the athletic department to be financially successful, it often requires a large investment in revenue producing sports (like the football stadium and hopefully a basketball practice facility) which you hope translates in to success, tv contracts and more money to distribute throughout the department. Problem is, these investments were too little too late to save some of the non-revenue producing sports' budgets in light of the current economy and in order to turn the tables and correct the books, money has to be freed up from those programs, attributed to the right investments and hopefully down the road it will be better for all (including non-revenue sports). Especially considering you can turn a non-revenue producing sport around in minimal time compared to revenue producers based on exposure and lack thereof.
 

Exactly, which is why I always find it amusing to read/listen to the ongoing "we need to sacrifice everything for revenue sports" angle. I would argue that non-revenue sports have thrived at the U in spite of sports like football,...
Click to expand...

It is far from amusing. Non revenue sports are indeed a drain on revenue generating sports at the University of Minnesota. Tilte IX requires we have some non revenue sports on the women’s side and I strongly support those. However to say that the baseball team for example, is not a drain on our athletic budget is absurd. John Anderson made $159,000.00 in salary alone in 2007 (http://ww3.startribune.com/dynamic/salaries/employees.php?dpt_code=Athl&ent_code=UMTC) and that does not begin to address the costs involved with his teams annual spring training trips to Florida and/or Arizona.

Add to that the monies trying to be raised privately for an unneeded Gopher Baseball Stadium and you can see the costs are far from minimal. These are real costs that the athletic department must cover.

By the way, some of revenue sucking sports can become club teams that will provide ample opportunities for Athletes to play the prots they love in a competitive environment.
Click to expand...

This is the most logical statement that has been presented here today. Club sports would give the student athletes the thrill of participation without the money drain. Why should a golfer be given monetary aid just because he can play golf better than someone else but a water polo player gets no monetary aid even though he may be the best water polo player in the country. Neither sport brings in a dime of revenue.

I am as interested in Gopher baseball as most sports fans but I have never knowingly spent any money to watch a Gopher baseball game. They can play at the Dome (when it gets fixed) or at Target Field or share in the new Saints Stadium in St. Paul. The need for a new and separate Gopher baseball Stadium has never been lower.

Yet Joel wants to put that before Tubby’s "desperately" needed Basketball facility.

If you want to know what’s wrong with Gopher Athletics that is all you need to know.
 


Cutting non-revenue sports is no guarantee of success in football or basketball. To me it wouldn't be the end of the world to drop the golf, tennis, and gymnastics teams. The athletes and coaches would suffer, but in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't have much effect on everyday life as we know it.

But, to think that cutting those sports and pushing that extra money toward the football and MBB budget would magically put the Gophers in Pasadena is just something short of a pipedream. It could help. But, there is no guarantee whatsoever. None. There are teams in the Big Ten spending less on football than we do right now and going to bowl games more often. So, spending more might mean nothing.

Iowa is a perfect example. They have knowingly allowed non-revenue sports to suffer (baseball, swimming, track, volleyball, etc., are all pretty low level priorities). Yet, they have the worst basketball team in the Big Ten and have for 3-4 years.

At the end of the day, I think there are ways the Gopher football team can someday play in the Rose Bowl. But, dropping gymnastics and tennis teams and giving football that money would rank about #89 in the Top 100 ways to easiest get the Gophers to the Rose Bowl.
 

All I can say on this issue is if the University of Minnesota touches the Baseball program, I will never set foot inside TCF, Williams or Marriucci Arena's again and my involvement with any sport at this University will be dead. and I want to see the football and basketball teams win as much as anybody and I want to see a practice facility built but i couldn't disagree any stronger that it should get priority over the new baseball stadium.
 

JohnnyGopher said:
All I can say on this issue is if the University of Minnesota touches the Baseball program, I will never set foot inside TCF, Williams or Marriucci Arena's again and my involvement with any sport at this University will be dead. and I want to see the football and basketball teams win as much as anybody and I want to see a practice facility built but i couldn't disagree any stronger that it should get priority over the new baseball stadium.
Click to expand...

I am with you Johnny. Without the Metrodome the Gophers baseball team has nowhere to play unless they can work out a deal with the Twin. The new baseball park is the highest priority at the U. If it gets passed over for the BB practice facility I am out. Permanently. No more football season tickets and no more hockey season tickets.
 

TJGopher--you're correct on some aspects, but take TCF stadium for an example. The ONLY chance (emphasis on chance) this program has to be a perennial contender in the Big 10 one day was to have their own stadium and be put on a level playing ground with the rest of the Big 10. That isn't to say we couldn't have had a few fluke years here or there or that we are guaranteed anything, BUT hopeful consistency requires a HUGE investment. The hope (especially within the athletic dept. right now) is that this comes to fruition and makes the department as a whole more profitable. In part, some of these difficulties are being highlighted despite the new stadium because of past cost-cutting measures (hiring a budget coach who took our team back 10 years). In basketball, we are fortunate to have Tubby and they are the ONLY team garnering national exposure and should be rewarded and properly funded to maintain a level of success. I am not calling to cut any sports, just pointing out financial difficulties and the needs the U will be having to address. I would hope it would not come to cutting any sports all together, but some of the budgets need to be severely trimmed. There is too much misplaced spending.
 

I have no problem with a baseball stadium, as long as it is a cheap baseball stadium. No overspending on bonuses and luxuries not required by non-revenue producing teams. Case in point--The U of M Boathouse in 2007.
 

I have no issue with the baseball stadium either. But the MO of the current AD is that we can only do one thing at a time. Therefore, if I can't get the money raised for the baseball stadium, no practice facility. I can't have things operating on separate tracks. They've been trying to get this baseball stadium for 10 years. At this point they need to take what money they have raised and go in with the Saints somewhere near campus in St. Paul if possible. It's the only real chance they have and it's silly for both of those teams to be building separate facilities.
 

I hate the don't use taxpayer money argument. Think of the difference in revenue and profits that a top notch basketball program brings. There is also a strong correlation between solid athletics and research and grant money. If two programs are acedemically similiar - having name recognition in sports can carry a competitive advantage. I think Kansas State amoung other schools have made this argument saying in order to get more grants they needed to improve their sport program. Wish i had time to back this up with links, but getting a 15 - 25 million dollar facility to help us stay in the top twenty-five would probably pay for itself in five years.
 

First classes are usually good. Two MN players. Want to see more players like that (frequently)? Then yes, a practice facility is necessary. If you don't think recruits care about that, well...

BarnBurner said:
Not sold on the "need" of a practice facility to "stay competitive in the recruiting world". Sounds like excuses.

How did White, Williams, Colt, RS, the departed Mr Joseph ever sign here without a practice facility?

Taxpayer $$ should not be used.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom