Revenue share: stop feeding the football furnace

Donate To GopherHole


SplitDecision said:
My view from 10,000 feet would be to ask what the ultimate big picture goal is. Does the UofM want to win a national title in basketball, and do what it takes to give them a decent shot? OR, Does the UofM want to fairly distribute the revenue across the board to evenly represent the student athletes in their athletics programs, provide equally competitive conference teams across the board in men's and women's sports (ie. win the Capital One Challenge)? With Title 9, the teams have to be distributed equally, but how would the distribution compensate for the non-income generating sports in both men's and women's programs? I have to believe that MN just wants to "compete" on a fairly level playing field instead across the board. There are schools otherwise, but I just don't see MN throwing a bunch of money at one sport.

That said, I would love if they did, or somehow had a major donor--Tyson, FedEx, Nike-type of big business, since the Twin Cities just doesn't have any major Fortune 500 companies... Even getting the money doesn't assure anything. Ex: UCLA/ Memphis spent a ton in bb and hasn't done great.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe Title IX is being applied to NIL & revenue sharing.

Additoionally, MN is throwing 75% of their money at one sport. Thats the cost of admission for playing B1G football. If they don’t do that, they may as well fold up the program.
 


GreasyGopher said:
I don’t believe Title IX is being applied to NIL & revenue sharing.

Additoionally, MN is throwing 75% of their money at one sport. Thats the cost of admission for playing B1G football. If they don’t do that, they may as well fold up the program.
Click to expand...
What is the difference, in actual outcomes if we go from ~15.4 (rounded 75% of 20.5M rev share) in football down to say 10 or 11? 2 less wins? At the end of the day, we are never going to the CFP, and we will be stuck in terrible bowls. Does having two less football wins mean more to the U than a potential dynamic basketball team that could re-energize the fan base and draw increased revenues.
 


Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
What is the difference, in actual outcomes if we go from ~15.4 (rounded 75% of 20.5M rev share) in football down to say 10 or 11? 2 less wins? At the end of the day, we are never going to the CFP, and we will be stuck in terrible bowls. Does having two less football wins mean more to the U than a potential dynamic basketball team that could re-energize the fan base and draw increased revenues.
Click to expand...
Spending less than their competition, likely ends up with them being stapled to the bottom of the B1G, PJ leaving and the stadium being half full. Thats far worse than 2 less wins.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Alright, dusting off the old Wet_Blanket_Guy account.
Click to expand...

Who else are you blankie?

Mpls Gopher? He’s got lots of extra ones!!!

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Yes, that one. No, I’m not here to apologize. I’ve always been a Gopher fan — I just refuse to pretend every decision out of that building is automatically brilliant.

I watched my first Gopher game of the year when they played at Illinois. And a few things were immediately obvious:
  • This roster is severely undermanned… and yet they can compete for long stretches with real Big Ten teams.
  • They can even pop a big one occasionally (Iowa, Indiana), and they’ve had tight losses (USC, Wisconsin) that weren’t “embarrassing” so much as “we don’t have enough bodies.”
And most importantly:

Niko Medved can coach.
Like, actually coach. The team looks organized. They play connected. They don’t look like five guys freelancing and hoping the other team misses.

Which is why I’m posting today — not to do the usual “rah rah moral victory” thing, but to stir up a conversation about something that actually matters:

How should the President, AD, and GM distribute revenue sharing?

I haven’t seen Minnesota’s exact plan, but most Big Ten / SEC programs are reportedly allocating roughly 75% of revenue share to football. NIL is on top of revenue sharing, not included.

So the practical reality is: Gopher basketball is probably headed toward $4–5M out of roughly $20.5M.

Here’s my argument:

Invert the ratio.
Basketball should get 75%.

Do the math:
  • 75% of $20.5M = $15.375M to basketball before NIL
  • Add NIL on top and call it ~$17M
In basketball, you don’t need a 100-man operation and five layers of “culture.” You need a few high-end players and a coach who can actually use them.

Could you imagine the Barn with a $15.375M roster?
You could sign a rental star if you wanted and still have absurd money left to build a team. The Barn would be rocking again, you’d have real relevance, and the U would actually see a meaningful ROI in energy, ticket demand, and visibility.

Yes, football would get hit. No question.

But let’s stop acting like the current “football-first” approach is taking us anywhere special:
  • We go from 4–6 Big Ten wins to 2–4
  • We still land in some mid-tier bowl nobody watches
  • Attendance probably stays annoyingly steady because football here is habit, not performance-based
And here’s the blunt truth: unless Minnesota is willing to spend $30M+ annually on football, we’re not winning the Big Ten and we’re not making the CFP. So why keep feeding a furnace that doesn’t heat the house?

Basketball is the sport where money can flip outcomes fast.
Now we have a coach who looks like he can actually leverage it.

If you’re going to invest, invest where you can actually win.

Let’s hear it.
Click to expand...
 


Calling Austen Cargill II, come in Austen. This is Gopher Athletics calling.
 



GreasyGopher said:
Spending less than their competition, likely ends up with them being stapled to the bottom of the B1G, PJ leaving and the stadium being half full. Thats far worse than 2 less wins.
Click to expand...
They are essentially the bottom of the big ten now.

8th out of 18 is essentially the bottom.

As the Common Man says; were the best of the lousiest, and the lousiest of the best.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
They are essentially the bottom of the big ten now.

8th out of 18 is essentially the bottom.

As the Common Man says; were the best of the lousiest, and the lousiest of the best.
Click to expand...
Oh, it can get worse…

As a Minnesota sports fan, you should know that already!
 
Last edited:

GreasyGopher said:
I don’t believe Title IX is being applied to NIL & revenue sharing.

Additoionally, MN is throwing 75% of their money at one sport. Thats the cost of admission for playing B1G football. If they don’t do that, they may as well fold up the program.
Click to expand...
Yes, I meant that there has to be women's and men's sports distributed evenly, not NIL money. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.
 






Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
They are essentially the bottom of the big ten now.

8th out of 18 is essentially the bottom.

As the Common Man says; were the best of the lousiest, and the lousiest of the best.
Click to expand...
@Spaulding!No! Your 🥰for all things KFAN has exposed your alter ego. As no sane person would quote a fifth rate sports talking head

B
U
S
T
E
D
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
They are essentially the bottom of the big ten now.

8th out of 18 is essentially the bottom.

As the Common Man says; were the best of the lousiest, and the lousiest of the best.
Click to expand...
Actually, Common's intro has that quote in it, but it is old tyme broadcaster Paul Harvey who says it. My dad listened to Paul Harvey regularly and I heard that snippet on its original broadcast. Excuse me, I have to go "pimp out" my Rascal scooter
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
What is the difference, in actual outcomes if we go from ~15.4 (rounded 75% of 20.5M rev share) in football down to say 10 or 11? 2 less wins? At the end of the day, we are never going to the CFP, and we will be stuck in terrible bowls. Does having two less football wins mean more to the U than a potential dynamic basketball team that could re-energize the fan base and draw increased revenues.
Click to expand...
two wins per season is the difference between being fired and getting a statue
 

Love this idea. Gophers could actually build a championship caliber basketball program. Never will happen in football.
 



leib0039 said:

I get the premise of this, but here's why that is impossible. Might not be the exact same at every school but I'm sure it's close
Click to expand...
they also have football players lining up in the parking lot in Lambos…different situation with our NIL. Texas Tech and Texas had some of the most expensive football rosters this year (NIL + revenue sharing). We can’t compete. I’m not arguing for shifting NIL dollars as donors will always pick where their money goes, but for the school’s portion (revenue sharing)…be more strategic.
 

Ewert86PC said:
Actually, Common's intro has that quote in it, but it is old tyme broadcaster Paul Harvey who says it. My dad listened to Paul Harvey regularly and I heard that snippet on its original broadcast. Excuse me, I have to go "pimp out" my Rascal scooter
Click to expand...
Paul Harvey was close buddies with J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy.
 


Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
they also have football players lining up in the parking lot in Lambos…different situation with our NIL. Texas Tech and Texas had some of the most expensive football rosters this year (NIL + revenue sharing). We can’t compete. I’m not arguing for shifting NIL dollars as donors will always pick where their money goes, but for the school’s portion (revenue sharing)…be more strategic.
Click to expand...
The point still stands. Football makes the money for the entire department. Texas spends a ton on basketball too and that team still loses money.

If the football team sucks, the department budget won’t come close to balancing.
 

The football team has a much larger roster than basketball.

The common standard across the Big Ten is for 75% of the revenue to the football program with a huge roster and more expenses. 15% goes to the basketball program with a small roster and lower expenses. Pot of money divided by players equals amount per player.

75% divided by 15% means that football is getting five times more than basketball. Look at the roster sizes. Look at the other expenses. Look at who is making the revenue that gets carved up.

The behemoth football TV contract is paying the bill mainly. Football is the cash cow. Basketball also is potentially profitable but not like the monster football TV money.
 

GreasyGopher said:
The point still stands. Football makes the money for the entire department. Texas spends a ton on basketball too and that team still loses money.

If the football team sucks, the department budget won’t come close to balancing.
Click to expand...
TV contracts are locked for years. Our athletic department will be cashing those checks until the next BigTen media rights deal renews.

They pay that ~75m in an equal share to all schools (minus the new-comers I believe). So even if we gutted our football team (not suggesting that) we would still get the $75m.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
TV contracts are locked for years. Our athletic department will be cashing those checks until the next BigTen media rights deal renews.

They pay that ~75m in an equal share to all schools (minus the new-comers I believe). So even if we gutted our football team (not suggesting that) we would still get the $75m.
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't understand your point, but where do you come up with $75 million? Isn't revenue sharing $20+ million per year?
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
TV contracts are locked for years. Our athletic department will be cashing those checks until the next BigTen media rights deal renews.

They pay that ~75m in an equal share to all schools (minus the new-comers I believe). So even if we gutted our football team (not suggesting that) we would still get the $75m.
Click to expand...
The athletic department spent $175 million last year. If every school sees the same p/l by sport as Texas outlined in the tweet above, it’s on football to make up that $100 million difference between total expenses and the media contract.
 

mggoph said:
Maybe I don't understand your point, but where do you come up with $75 million? Isn't revenue sharing $20+ million per year?
Click to expand...
Revenue share and their media contract is different. 20.5 is the revenue sharing today, but over the next 5 years it will go above 30m (if we go to the cap…and a big-ten school better).
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom