Chip: Can every Gophers sport survive the budget cutting ahead?

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
They would be the most likely cuts at Minnesota, in my opinion. Neither has any type of recent long-term investment venue. Men's/Women's Track & Field just a got a brand new stadium ($17 million), men's/women's golf just got a fancy expensive simulator ($4 million). Hard to invest like that and then drop the sport.

That said, when the overall budget is $125 million per year and dropping men's/women's gymnastics might save you $2 million per year, is that really a solution to much?
This is pretty much the problem. There’s no way to really move the needle without inflicting a lot of pain on sports that legitimately have passionate fanbases and TV viewership.

If you cut every single Olympic sport, it won’t move the needle that much and then you’d be below the threshold anyway for minimum number of sports required by the NCAA.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,180
Reaction score
884
Points
113
Like it or not, if it comes to cutting sports, you look at the bottom line. how much revenue does that sport generate and how much does it cost to offer that sport?

Some sports may not be as expensive to operate, based on equipment needs, travel expense, etc. others have a bigger disparity - or run a bigger deficit, so to speak. but if you're talking about cutting, you cut where you have the most to gain. cutting an inexpensive sport really doesn't accomplish anything.

It comes down to a question of what hurts the worst - eliminating an entire sport, or cutting back budgets for all sports. There are ways to reduce expenses in any sport. play non-conf games in the Midwest and take a bus if possible. Fly commercial instead of charters. Do day trips rather than spending the night and flying back the next day. None of that is fun, but there are ways to save $.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
Like it or not, if it comes to cutting sports, you look at the bottom line. how much revenue does that sport generate and how much does it cost to offer that sport?

Some sports may not be as expensive to operate, based on equipment needs, travel expense, etc. others have a bigger disparity - or run a bigger deficit, so to speak. but if you're talking about cutting, you cut where you have the most to gain. cutting an inexpensive sport really doesn't accomplish anything.

It comes down to a question of what hurts the worst - eliminating an entire sport, or cutting back budgets for all sports. There are ways to reduce expenses in any sport. play non-conf games in the Midwest and take a bus if possible. Fly commercial instead of charters. Do day trips rather than spending the night and flying back the next day. None of that is fun, but there are ways to save $.
That is indeed part of the problem. Some of the biggest money losers are sports you'd never cut - i.e. women's basketball, volleyball, women's hockey, baseball and softball. Sports that are more likely to be cut (M/W gymnastics) offer very little in the way of savings to make it worth the heartache.

As to flying commercial or charter, you can save money by flying commercial, but that means more missed class time, more overnight stays, and exposure to a certain virus floating around.

I agree on the non-conference schedule, especially in the non-revenue sports. Baseball, softball, volleyball, soccer, cross country, swimming and diving need to (at least short term) schedule fewer long distance trips where air travel is required and instead add more close bus trips. Utilize the regional non-conference opponents like Iowa State, Northern Iowa, NDSU, UND, SDSU, USD, Creighton, DePaul, Loyola-Chicago, Marquette, UW-GB, Milwaukee, Omaha, Drake and others where taking a bus is an option and both schools are likely looking to cut expenses.
 
Last edited:

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,454
Reaction score
696
Points
113
They would be the most likely cuts at Minnesota, in my opinion. Neither has any type of recent long-term investment venue. Men's/Women's Track & Field just a got a brand new stadium ($13 million), men's/women's golf just got a fancy expensive simulator ($4 million). Hard to invest like that and then drop the sport.

Nothing like that in men's/women's gymnastics. That said, when the overall athletic budget is $125 million per year and dropping men's/women's gymnastics might save you $2 million per year, is that really a solution to much?
I'm guessing (a pretty good guess though) that the budgets for each of those teams is a lot more than $1M each. Harsh to say, but if something's got to be cut, sometimes it's better to cut one or two entire teams than to cut a percentage from every team. Leave the ones remaining in good shape, versus impacting everything across the board.
 

pk2

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
162
Reaction score
26
Points
28
I agree on the non-conference schedule, especially in the non-revenue sports. Baseball, softball, volleyball, soccer, cross country, swimming and diving need to (at least short term) schedule fewer long distance trips where air travel is required and instead add more close bus trips. Utilize the regional non-conference opponents like Iowa State, Northern Iowa, NDSU, UND, SDSU, USD, Creighton, DePaul, Loyola-Chicago, Marquette, UW-GB, Milwaukee, Omaha, Drake and others where taking a bus is an option and both schools are likely looking to cut expenses.
The Gophers‘ volleyball team reached the Final Four again last year. Their coach, Hugh McCutcheon, has coached teams to an Olympic gold medal and an Olympic silver medal. He is quite possibly the best volleyball coach on Planet Earth. He recently signed the #1-ranked recruiting class in the country. The B1G is, by far, the toughest volleyball conference in the US. In non-conference play, they should be playing the likes of Texas and Stanford, NOT SDSU or USD.

The same is true, to a somewhat lesser extent, for the softball team. Yeah, they’re on their third head coach in four years, but they made the College World Series last year, and are one of the top teams in the country. This is another team that should be playing non-conference games against the best in the country.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
The Gophers‘ volleyball team reached the Final Four again last year. Their coach, Hugh McCutcheon, has coached teams to an Olympic gold medal and an Olympic silver medal. He is quite possibly the best volleyball coach on Planet Earth. He recently signed the #1-ranked recruiting class in the country. The B1G is, by far, the toughest volleyball conference in the US. In non-conference play, they should be playing the likes of Texas and Stanford, NOT SDSU or USD.

The same is true, to a somewhat lesser extent, for the softball team. Yeah, they’re on their third head coach in four years, but they made the College World Series last year, and are one of the top teams in the country. This is another team that should be playing non-conference games against the best in the country.
I'm quite aware of the accomplishments. Calm down.

Of course, I'm not suggesting they take NO trips. I'm suggesting in the short-term, they take fewer long road trips. That they schedule good, nearby RPI teams like Iowa State and UNI in home-and-homes or one-offs, so they can bus and save money....and yes, that they forego a road trip or two and instead play a couple of revenue-generating home matches against the likes of NDSU, SDSU or USD.

Sorry, when you're in the in the middle of an unprecedented health crisis as it relates to the business of sports, and there is discussion of cutting entire sports programs, and your sport (volleyball) loses about $3 million per year, then you have to bite the bullet like everyone else. Every volleyball team in the country will be cutting, so it isn't something only the gold-medal winning coach Hugh McCutcheon will be experiencing.

Softball is a bit different, in that much of its season occurs at a time of year (late winter) where long distance travel to warm locations is required for competition. So, yes, as long they are traveling, they should be playing top flight teams.
 
Last edited:

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
I'm guessing (a pretty good guess though) that the budgets for each of those teams is a lot more than $1M each.
Men's gymnastics in FY 2019 (last report made public) spent a total of $865,599 and brought in a total of $40,594.

Women's gymnastics spent a total of $1,393,910 and brought in a total of $56,322.

So, you'd save roughly $1.3 million on women's gymnastics and $825,000 on men's gymnastics, for a total of about $2.2 million, as I mentioned.

Is saving $2.2 million on a $125 million budget worth the heartache of dropping sports? I would say no, but I'm not in the position of having to figure it out.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
That is indeed part of the problem. Some of the biggest money losers are sports you'd never cut - i.e. women's basketball, volleyball, women's hockey, baseball and softball. Sports that are more likely to be cut (M/W gymnastics) offer very little in the way of savings to make it worth the heartache.

As to flying commercial or charter, you can save money by flying commercial, but that means more missed class time, more overnight stays, and exposure to a certain virus floating around.

I agree on the non-conference schedule, especially in the non-revenue sports. Baseball, softball, volleyball, soccer, cross country, swimming and diving need to (at least short term) schedule fewer long distance trips where air travel is required and instead add more close bus trips. Utilize the regional non-conference opponents like Iowa State, Northern Iowa, NDSU, UND, SDSU, USD, Creighton, DePaul, Loyola-Chicago, Marquette, UW-GB, Milwaukee, Omaha, Drake and others where taking a bus is an option and both schools are likely looking to cut expenses.
Volleyball is a revenue sport at the U. They sellout the Pav for every match, and could probably sellout Williams for matches against Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc. if they weren't stupid enough to never have games there.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
I'm guessing (a pretty good guess though) that the budgets for each of those teams is a lot more than $1M each. Harsh to say, but if something's got to be cut, sometimes it's better to cut one or two entire teams than to cut a percentage from every team. Leave the ones remaining in good shape, versus impacting everything across the board.
This would be my preference as well.

For sure cut both genders of gymnastics. If the tennis and golf facilities can be sold and/or rented out profitably, then I see no reason not to cut both genders of tennis and golf.

That's six teams, guessing saving somewhere in $4-6M per year going forward.


I don't see the new track or the newly maintenance (HVAC) aquatic center being able to be profitably sold or rented out, but I could be wrong there too. Maybe more so on the latter, in which case you'd cut both genders of swimming/diving. Maybe save another $1-2M a year.

With track, there is also the newly remodeled fieldhouse (indoor track facility), but this could more likely be rented out.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
Men's gymnastics in FY 2019 (last report made public) spent a total of $865,599 and brought in a total of $40,594.

Women's gymnastics spent a total of $1,393,910 and brought in a total of $56,322.

So, you'd save roughly $1.3 million on women's gymnastics and $825,000 on men's gymnastics, for a total of about $2.2 million, as I mentioned.

Is saving $2.2 million on a $125 million budget worth the heartache of dropping sports? I would say no, but I'm not in the position of having to figure it out.
What heartache?

This is a pandemic. And the athletic dept is going to lose at least $10M this year, and that's with full fall sports playing and fans in the stands, but at a limited capacity.

That model probably even assumes we can go back to full capacity fans for winter and spring sports, which may end up not being true.

Sorry, but this is what we're dealing with.

Those teams can continue to compete, as club teams.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,054
Reaction score
728
Points
113
Volleyball is a revenue sport at the U. They sellout the Pav for every match, and could probably sellout Williams for matches against Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc. if they weren't stupid enough to never have games there.
Mens hockey ticket revenue was $4,000,000 last year and volleyball was $500,000. And that was with volleyball in a run of several good years and hockey in a run of a few down years. That also doesn't take into account any money hockey brings in with TV (FSN separate from BTN).
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
Mens hockey ticket revenue was $4,000,000 last year and volleyball was $500,000. And that was with volleyball in a run of several good years and hockey in a run of a few down years. That also doesn't take into account any money hockey brings in with TV (FSN separate from BTN).
All correct. Thanks for that counter-point.

I was merely thinking in terms of number of tickets purchased, not average revenue per ticket, which clearly people are more willing to pay for a ticket to watch hockey lose to schools like St Cloud St, than pay for a ticket to watch volleyball win championships.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,054
Reaction score
728
Points
113
All correct. Thanks for that counter-point.

I was merely thinking in terms of number of tickets purchased, not average revenue per ticket, which clearly people are more willing to pay for a ticket to watch hockey lose to schools like St Cloud St, than pay for a ticket to watch volleyball win championships.
Gophers actually beat St cloud last year. They were the youngest team in the nation last year (for real-not just copying PJ). They started out rough but came on toward the end of the season and finished with a winning record. They should for sure be top 10 or better the next few years.
 

2nd Degree Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
85
Points
48
Volleyball is a revenue sport at the U. They sellout the Pav for every match, and could probably sellout Williams for matches against Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc. if they weren't stupid enough to never have games there.
Volleyball isn't a profitable sport at the U, but like softball it is very popular and has the potential for significant revenue growth. Might even break even someday. There has been a reluctance at the U to try to maximize revenue from women's sports. For good or for ill, they are seen as part of the "family friendly" portion of the business that brings in fans with lower prices. They could certainly sell just as many tickets for volleyball and softball at higher price points, but have opted not to do so as they court a fan base that is different from the ones for the traditional revenue sports. One main reason that they don't play some of the volleyball matches at Williams Arena is that the coach prefers the atmosphere at a packed Pav to the cavernous, half-full Williams. That's money left on the table that they probably can't afford to forego in the future.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
Volleyball isn't a profitable sport at the U, but like softball it is very popular and has the potential for significant revenue growth. Might even break even someday. There has been a reluctance at the U to try to maximize revenue from women's sports. For good or for ill, they are seen as part of the "family friendly" portion of the business that brings in fans with lower prices. They could certainly sell just as many tickets for volleyball and softball at higher price points, but have opted not to do so as they court a fan base that is different from the ones for the traditional revenue sports. One main reason that they don't play some of the volleyball matches at Williams Arena is that the coach prefers the atmosphere at a packed Pav to the cavernous, half-full Williams. That's money left on the table that they probably can't afford to forego in the future.
With Wisconsin being probably too 5 again this coming year, how does that match not sell out in Williams?

Well, I mean in a normal year with full fans. Not this year obviously.
 

2nd Degree Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
85
Points
48
With Wisconsin being probably too 5 again this coming year, how does that match not sell out in Williams?

Well, I mean in a normal year with full fans. Not this year obviously.
Yeah, it's difficult to predict what will happen this year, but they certainly will have matches in the future that would draw far more spectators than the Pav can hold. They have passed on that revenue over the last few years, I don't think they can do that now. In a landscape where most of the other sports will be trying to figure out how to get their attendance numbers back to where they were prior to the pandemic, volleyball would appear to have a way to increase sales (and revenue) significantly.
 

MRJ

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,951
Reaction score
219
Points
63
At this point, I'm sure everything is on the table, as Coyle stated.

However, in terms of cuts, the U isn't acting alone. Normally when a school cuts programs, it's done on a singular, institutional basis due to lack of revenue or support for an individual athletic program which leads to a singular cut.

This case is entirely different. The U wouldn't be making this choice due to budgetary mismanagement or a lack of internal support. It's operating under a circumstance that was forced upon them.

And that's the big rub imo.

Yes, the U is likely asking questions about moving forward and trying to keep all their sports feasible. But so is everybody else. Literally, almost every school in the country is asking themselves the same questions. Non-Power Five schools are really in the crosshairs here and they'll be far more likely to drop sports than the Power Five schools are.

If unilaterally cutting sports is going to be used on an individual institutional basis (like has been done in the past), get ready for every school in the country to start dropping programs like flies. And it'll happen almost simultaneously, which would create nationwide chaos. Nobody wants that.

So, I think there will be major efforts amongst multiple conferences, schools and the NCAA to pool resources and try to keep as many programs afloat as is humanly possible.

It may come down to mutual agreements regarding travel, number of games and other factors, but I have a hard time believing that there will be sports cut without serious discussion of consultation with other entities (conferences, schools, the NCAA) to try and save as many sports as possible.

In other words, while we may be thinking in terms of the U only, this is not an individual institutional problem. It's nationwide and therefore, will probably lead to unprecedented attempts at keeping everybody's programs intact if at all possible imo.
 

2nd Degree Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
85
Points
48
In other words, while we may be thinking in terms of the U only, this is not an individual institutional problem. It's nationwide and therefore, will probably lead to unprecedented attempts at keeping everybody's programs intact if at all possible imo.
This is a good point. I know Coyle has said that he conferences daily with Big Ten ADs and Kevin Warren and also has regular conferences with ADs from other Power 5 conferences (or whatever they are calling themselves these days). I don't know that they are working on collaborative solutions like you suggest, but I would think that they are.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
What heartache?

This is a pandemic. And the athletic dept is going to lose at least $10M this year, and that's with full fall sports playing and fans in the stands, but at a limited capacity.

That model probably even assumes we can go back to full capacity fans for winter and spring sports, which may end up not being true.

Sorry, but this is what we're dealing with.

Those teams can continue to compete, as club teams.
The heartache of cutting sports. That's not a decision to be taken lightly. The alternative is to fight through it, not suffer cutting sports, cut spending short term in other ways, and when things are back to normal, they are back to normal.

The projection was at least a $10 million dollar revenue loss, not overall loss. That's a key distinction. Of course, it could be a $70 million revenue loss if things go poorly.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
Volleyball is a revenue sport at the U.
No, volleyball is not a revenue sport. It loses $2-$3 million per year.

That said, they do sellout. Therefore, as I said earlier, in the short-term they need to cancel a couple of their long distance road trips and the charter travel and hotel/food expense that comes with it....and instead host a few revenue-producing matches against the likes of NDSU, USD, SDSU, UW-Green Bay, who would be more than happy to save money themselves and bus here to take us on.
 
Last edited:

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,454
Reaction score
696
Points
113
Men's gymnastics in FY 2019 (last report made public) spent a total of $865,599 and brought in a total of $40,594.

Women's gymnastics spent a total of $1,393,910 and brought in a total of $56,322.

So, you'd save roughly $1.3 million on women's gymnastics and $825,000 on men's gymnastics, for a total of about $2.2 million, as I mentioned.

Is saving $2.2 million on a $125 million budget worth the heartache of dropping sports? I would say no, but I'm not in the position of having to figure it out.
Thanks for doing the digging to find the actual numbers. Note that the $2.2M may be something like 20 to 25% of the revenue shortfall, so in that sense it could be a large step towards balancing the budget. Guess we'll see what Coyle does.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
Thanks for doing the digging to find the actual numbers. Note that the $2.2M may be something like 20 to 25% of the revenue shortfall, so in that sense it could be a large step towards balancing the budget. Guess we'll see what Coyle does.
Yeah, that's my point. Is covering only 20-25% of a temporary revenue shortfall with a permanent solution worth shuttering an entire sports program(s) forever? Because once M/W gymnastics or M/W golf are gone, they are not coming back. I would say it is not worth it. I would hope the department could weather it, make temporary spending cuts in lots of other places (as other schools will also do), and allow this thing to play out. Remember, if there are no football/MBB seasons next year, the revenue shortfall will be huge, but so will the decrease in expenses, too. If there is a football/MBB season, then the shortfall won't be as substantial and hopefully they can withstand it.

But, I'm not an accountant, and I don't have to answer to the board of regents or the president of the university.

Definitely an interesting time.
 
Last edited:

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
152
Points
63
Yeah, that's my point. Is covering only 20-25% of a temporary revenue shortfall with a permanent solution worth shuttering an entire sports program(s) forever? Because once M/W gymnastics or M/W golf are gone, they are not coming back. I would say it is not worth it. I would hope the department could weather it, make temporary spending cuts in lots of other places (as other schools will also do), and allow this thing to play out. Remember, if there are no football/MBB seasons next year, the revenue shortfall will be huge, but so will the decrease in expenses, too. If there is a football/MBB season, then the shortfall won't be as substantial and hopefully they can withstand it.

But, I'm not an accountant, and I don't have to answer to the board of regents or the president of the university.

Definitely an interesting time.
Not sure about that. Basketball/football coaching staff salaries have to at least $15-$20 million, plus over 100 scholarships need to be funded for those 2 sports alone.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
Not sure about that. Basketball/football coaching staff salaries have to at least $15-$20 million, plus over 100 scholarships need to be funded for those 2 sports alone.

I'm talking about overall department decrease in spending if there are no football/MBB seasons/games.

If there are no football/MBB seasons, then there will be no seasons for any sports. That means there are no travel expenses, no hotel expenses, no food or rental expenses for road trips, no bus expenses etc for any sport. Those expenses approach $9 million per year department wide.

If there are no home games, there are no gameday expenses for security, insurance, event staff, etc. Those expenses approach $4.5 million per year.

There will be no paying opponents to come play games at your place. That is another $3 million dollars.

Marketing for ticket sales is about another $1 million per year. Probably don't need to market a ticket-selling plan for games that are not happening.

So, there's a decrease of perhaps $15 million in those expenses if there are no games. That doesn't include voluntary staff pay cuts, furloughs, no budgeted bonuses being paid out, decreased expenses in medical needs, and all of the other things that will be happening.

Doesn't make up the difference, but it shows why a $15 million revenue shortfall is different than a $15 million loss. Revenue shortfall has not taken into account the decrease in spending.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
Yeah, that's my point. Is covering only 20-25% of a temporary revenue shortfall with a permanent solution worth shuttering an entire sports program(s) forever? Because once M/W gymnastics or M/W golf are gone, they are not coming back. I would say it is not worth it. I would hope the department could weather it, make temporary spending cuts in lots of other places (as other schools will also do), and allow this thing to play out. Remember, if there are no football/MBB seasons next year, the revenue shortfall will be huge, but so will the decrease in expenses, too. If there is a football/MBB season, then the shortfall won't be as substantial and hopefully they can withstand it.

But, I'm not an accountant, and I don't have to answer to the board of regents or the president of the university.

Definitely an interesting time.
If you cut those sports, those savings continue on into perpetuity. Unless the dept can come up with significant reasons why those sports enhance the dept, they should be axed. In particular, gymnastics and golf. I would throw tennis in there too, but maybe it has just a bit more worth. Don't know. But those six teams would be easy cuts, for me. Gets harder after that.
 

GoGophersUMN

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
808
Reaction score
83
Points
28
Here is the profit or loss by team for 2019 which I assume means the 2018-19 school year.

Mens​
Womens​
Total​
Basketball​
$9,720,054.00​
-$3,449,734.00​
$6,270,320.00​
Football​
$30,612,815.00​
$30,612,815.00​
Baseball​
-$1,797,337.00​
-$1,797,337.00​
Golf​
-$649,641.00​
-$676,653.00​
-$1,326,294.00​
Gymnastics​
-$845,688.00​
-$1,351,884.00​
-$2,197,572.00​
Hockey​
-$362,998.00​
-$2,367,549.00​
-$2,730,547.00​
Rowing​
-$1,529,974.00​
-$1,529,974.00​
Soccer​
-$1,628,374.00​
-$1,628,374.00​
Softball​
-$1,640,407.00​
-$1,640,407.00​
Swimming and Diving​
-$1,174,327.00​
-$1,279,497.00​
-$2,453,824.00​
Tennis​
-$750,803.00​
-$919,500.00​
-$1,670,303.00​
Track and Field and Cross Country​
-$1,536,159.00​
-$2,112,492.00​
-$3,648,651.00​
Volleyball​
-$3,135,540.00​
-$3,135,540.00​
Wrestling​
-$1,245,932.00​
-$1,245,932.00​
Not Allocated​
-$590,596.00​
Total​
$31,969,984.00​
-$20,091,604.00​
$11,287,784.00​

The teams contributing the greatest losses are women's volleyball, track/field/cross country, hockey, basketball, and men's baseball.

Even if they cut all sports that lose money outside of volleyball, hockey, basketball, baseball, softball, and wrestling, that's only $15 million dollars in savings. That's also assuming that all of the expenses instantly go away when they cut sports and that the "not allocated" money doesn't change from the cuts, neither of which are likely to be true. That would also put the Gophers under the 16 team minimum. It would also involve cutting a lot more female scholarships than male scholarships which would cause Title IX problems and likely problems with the state government as well.

No amount or combination of cutting sports will solve the budget problem this year if there is a significant loss of revenue. It could be part of the equation but there would have to be a lot of savings or extra revenue elsewhere.

There are probably going to be pretty significant cuts across the board in the short-term to make the budget work. "Not allocated" comes out about even but it includes over $33 million of expenses. Parts of that which can be changed quickly will be some of the first to go. Looking at individual sports, the most profitable ones are still the most expensive by far. Football has over $32 million in expenses. Men's basketball has over $9 million. The next teams down have less than $5 million in expenses per year. If football and basketball have their budgets cut by 20%, that's more in savings than cutting both genders teams for golf, gymnastics, swimming, diving, track and field, and cross country entirely and is reversible. I'm sure that's not an easy decision and would hurt the teams but that's a lot more reasonable than cutting 8 to 12 teams depending on how you count them.

I'm glad I don't have Coyle's job right now. There isn't an easy answer any possible answer short of getting more donations or funding from the state will hurt the athletic department.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
133
Points
63
If you cut those sports, those savings continue on into perpetuity. Unless the dept can come up with significant reasons why those sports enhance the dept, they should be axed. In particular, gymnastics and golf. I would throw tennis in there too, but maybe it has just a bit more worth. Don't know. But those six teams would be easy cuts, for me. Gets harder after that.
When most years you bring in $125-130m in revenue, spending $5 million on gymnastics/golf seems fine to me. But, the holistic approach appeals more to me. So, let's say you save $5 million a year by chopping those sports. Where does the saved money go on most years when there isn't this revenue shortfall? To increase the pay of the football special teams coach from $300,000 to $500,000 and to pay the offensive coordinator $1 million instead of $650,000?

If we are judging sports on how they enhance the department, why would you keep any that lose money? Women's gymnastics team sold out a meet this year, and was headed for a potential top five finish nationally. Men's gymnastics is two years removed from a national runner-up finish (#2 in the country). Men's golf has won a national title in the past two decades.

Clearly, its a philosophical thing. I like having the array of offerings that we have. If it ever comes to it, I'd love to see the U add M/W lacrosse, as well. Especially with the increased popularity locally. Of course, that will likely never happen or if it does, is likely a decade or two away, if ever, and only if a rich person donates lots of money specific to that. But, I'm a dreamer.
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
When most years you bring in $125-130m in revenue, spending $5 million on gymnastics/golf seems fine to me. But, the holistic approach appeals more to me. So, let's say you save $5 million a year by chopping those sports. Where does the saved money go on most years when there isn't this revenue shortfall? To increase the pay of the football special teams coach from $300,000 to $500,000 and to pay the offensive coordinator $1 million instead of $650,000?

If we are judging sports on how they enhance the department, why would you keep any that lose money? Women's gymnastics team sold out a meet this year, and was headed for a potential top five finish nationally. Men's gymnastics is two years removed from a national runner-up finish (#2 in the country). Men's golf has won a national title in the past two decades.

Clearly, its a philosophical thing. I like having array of offerings that we have. If it ever comes to it, I'd love to see the U add M/W lacrosse, as well. Especially with the increased popularity locally. Of course, that will likely never happen or if it does, is likely a decade or two away, if ever. But, I'm a dreamer.
I respect your opinion.

Being frank: if the savings were put back into football, men's basketball, and perhaps a few other team sports, I'd prefer that.

Individual, Olympic sports, in my opinion, have less appeal to me for school sports than team sports.
 
Top Bottom