Revenue share: stop feeding the football furnace

Donate To GopherHole
GreasyGopher said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not arguing football is the money maker. But if we shift some of those funds in the rec-share bucket away from football and towards basketball…we will probably have 2 more football losses (either way not the cfp). And we could generate significantly more basketball revenue.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Not arguing football is the money maker. But if we shift some of those funds in the rec-share bucket away from football and towards basketball…we will probably have 2 more football losses (either way not the cfp). And we could generate significantly more basketball revenue.
Click to expand...
That math does not work.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Not arguing football is the money maker. But if we shift some of those funds in the rec-share bucket away from football and towards basketball…we will probably have 2 more football losses (either way not the cfp). And we could generate significantly more basketball revenue.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that the bulk of the money that pays for the revenue sharing is coming from additional TV revenue from the Big Ten conference, and the conference is simply not going to allow any of its schools to "tank" their football programs in the way you're suggesting?

For all we know, the generally accepted 70-75% for football, could well be a mandate from the Big Ten and its TV partners.
 


Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Not arguing football is the money maker. But if we shift some of those funds in the rec-share bucket away from football and towards basketball…we will probably have 2 more football losses (either way not the cfp). And we could generate significantly more basketball revenue.
Click to expand...
So, you want to chop the bread winner for the department off at the knees and hope the same amount of revenue keeps rolling in…

If you spend significantly less than the rest of the B1G you will not be competitive. This isn’t a spend x dollars less lose two more games. It’s spend x dollars less and plummet to the bottom of the league.

PJ is NOT staying at a school that isn’t even attempting to be good, fans will stop going to the games, sponsors will pull back. Now, your whole department suffers and you put your ability to spend to the revenue sharing limit in question.

Your whole premise operates under the assumption that if you change the amount spent on football, nothing will change other than the team having a couple more losses every year.
 



GreasyGopher said:
So, you want to chop the bread winner for the department off at the knees and hope the same amount of revenue keeps rolling in…

If you spend significantly less than the rest of the B1G you will not be competitive. This isn’t a spend x dollars less lose two more games. It’s spend x dollars less and plummet to the bottom of the league.

PJ is NOT staying at a school that isn’t even attempting to be good, fans will stop going to the games, sponsors will pull back. Now, your whole department suffers and you put your ability to spend to the revenue sharing limit in question.

Your whole premise operates under the assumption that if you change the amount spent on football, nothing will change other than the team having a couple more losses every year.
Click to expand...
Define competitve? We placed 8th in the Big10 this year. Which programs are we going to leap frog…
Indiana
Ohio state
Michigan
Oregon
USC
Iowa
Washington
Illinois
Nebraska
Penn State (massive off year)

We are maybe fighting with Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Washington on a yearly basis. So maybe bottom of tier 2.

Does that level of mediocrity justify not looking how to invest the money more wisely. Football fans have been living and have accepted average. Losing one of two extra games is not changing anything.
 

GopherGrit said:
Have you considered that the bulk of the money that pays for the revenue sharing is coming from additional TV revenue from the Big Ten conference, and the conference is simply not going to allow any of its schools to "tank" their football programs in the way you're suggesting?

For all we know, the generally accepted 70-75% for football, could well be a mandate from the Big Ten and its TV partners.
Click to expand...
That could be, but then all non-Big East schools would be fighting massive uphill fights. The Big East could spend the entire 20.5m on basketball (no football).

Hopefully, it’s not mandated, and schools can get creative and determine what’s best for their fanbase on a yearly basis.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Define competitve? We placed 8th in the Big10 this year. Which programs are we going to leap frog…
Indiana
Ohio state
Michigan
Oregon
USC
Iowa
Washington
Illinois
Nebraska
Penn State (massive off year)

We are maybe fighting with Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Washington on a yearly basis. So maybe bottom of tier 2.

Does that level of mediocrity justify not looking how to invest the money more wisely. Football fans have been living and have accepted average. Losing one of two extra games is not changing anything.
Click to expand...
If they do what you are talking about, they will be Michigan State/Purdue from this season in perpetuity.

This team is currently competitive. In a good year, they could potentially be on the cusp of the CFP. In a bad year, they will be in a bottom end bowl.
 



The original premise is not that far off. instead of bickering over % allocation and need to be constant year to year, look at the basics. Roster size matters. if you can attract 1 elite athlete, which sport could benefit the most. 1 player can more impact a small basketball roster.

In addition, use the B10 power/brand and raid the rosters of NDSU, SDSU, USD and UST. you think they have NIL to retain players They certainly won't have the same rev share $$ to spend. Cignetti won with a bunch of JMU transfers. make the smaller schools our feeder program in all sports.
 

For top 25 high school basketball recruits, there are hundreds of millions of dollars potentially on the line in the NBA. Are they really going to risk that by going to a lesser program like the Gophers for an extra $500,000 a year? I do not see how that tradeoff makes sense for these players.

I guess the Gophers could go after 21-24 year olds that won’t make the NBA but can dominate the elite freshman that aren’t willing to sign with the Gophers.
 

GOPHERFAN77 said:
For top 25 high school basketball recruits, there are hundreds of millions of dollars potentially on the line in the NBA. Are they really going to risk that by going to a lesser program like the Gophers for an extra $500,000 a year? I do not see how that tradeoff makes sense for these players.

I guess the Gophers could go after 21-24 year olds that won’t make the NBA but can dominate the elite freshman that aren’t willing to sign with the Gophers.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If anything, it feels like NIL and revenue sharing will actually spread out the talent a little more.

If you can play in the NBA, the scouts will find you whether it's at MN, Duke or Todd's School of Dentistry. And the player will have an extra $500K burning a hole in their pocket.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Not arguing football is the money maker. But if we shift some of those funds in the rec-share bucket away from football and towards basketball…we will probably have 2 more football losses (either way not the cfp). And we could generate significantly more basketball revenue.
Click to expand...
How would BB make more money?
 



Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Not arguing football is the money maker. But if we shift some of those funds in the rec-share bucket away from football and towards basketball…we will probably have 2 more football losses (either way not the cfp). And we could generate significantly more basketball revenue.
Click to expand...
HOW??
 

You're all delusional if you think either football or basketball will ever compete for titles.

Hockey was the only hope. It's also way more profitable than basketball. But with hockey not getting its fair share of Rev sharing and NIL being a joke for Gopher sports, they too have been left behind. It has not been harder for Gopher hockey to compete for a title since the 70s or earlier.
 

bonin21 said:
You're all delusional if you think either football or basketball will ever compete for titles.

Hockey was the only hope. It's also way more profitable than basketball. But with hockey not getting its fair share of Rev sharing and NIL being a joke for Gopher sports, they too have been left behind. It has not been harder for Gopher hockey to compete for a title since the 70s or earlier.
Click to expand...
This is another argument for less to football and more to hockey and basketball.
 

gopherbadgerman said:
How would BB make more money?
Click to expand...
Ticket sales and merchandise. I’m assuming the general gopher football fan will still attend and buy tickets if they go from 9/8 wins a year to 7/6. I don’t believe many football fans tnink our program has a shot, they just enjoy the experience.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Define competitve? We placed 8th in the Big10 this year. Which programs are we going to leap frog…
Indiana
Ohio state
Michigan
Oregon
USC
Iowa
Washington
Illinois
Nebraska
Penn State (massive off year)

We are maybe fighting with Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Washington on a yearly basis. So maybe bottom of tier 2.

Does that level of mediocrity justify not looking how to invest the money more wisely. Football fans have been living and have accepted average. Losing one of two extra games is not changing anything.
Click to expand...
You just named 5 of the top 20 teams in the country.

you also named two teams they finished ahead of (one of which they beat)

You also two teams they tied with
Against common opponents all 3 played.
MN 3-0
WA 2-1 and beat Illinois
Illinois 2-1 and lost to Washington


You’re correct though. If the gophers have to clear teams by two games to get credit it will be hard to move from the middle to 4th or 5th
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Ticket sales and merchandise. I’m assuming the general gopher football fan will still attend and buy tickets if they go from 9/8 wins a year to 7/6. I don’t believe many football fans tnink our program has a shot, they just enjoy the experience.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Just my thoughts -
Basketball might gain 4K fans per game if they were better. Over 18 games thats about 70K fans at 40 bucks a ticket - so $280K in additional ticket revenue. If the average fan spends 20 bucks there then thats another 140K which the U gets a percentage of through their vendor - so what maybe another 20K. Call it around 300K total.

If the football team goes in the tank they lose 9k fans per game at 50 bucks a ticket, (they were as low as 37K per game in 2018) thats 450K right here. Add in all of the lower demand for suites and premium seating and the room for growth in mens BB is far less than the room for contraction in football.

Just my opinion. Football is the one sport that can support the entire athletic department. Having a great mens BB team might gain you 500K a year in revenue, having a bad FB team could cost you millions.
 
Last edited:

GreasyGopher said:
If they do what you are talking about, they will be Michigan State/Purdue from this season in perpetuity.

This team is currently competitive. In a good year, they could potentially be on the cusp of the CFP. In a bad year, they will be in a bottom end bowl.
Click to expand...
So they’ve been bad 5 of the last 6 years?
 



GreasyGopher said:
Touche. Bad choice of words. Should’ve said most/normal/average years rather than bad.
Click to expand...
I'd agree. I do not think they have been bad either, although I can see how some people discount the bowl games for sure.

IMO anything above 6 wins should not be considered bad by any means.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Ticket sales and merchandise. I’m assuming the general gopher football fan will still attend and buy tickets if they go from 9/8 wins a year to 7/6. I don’t believe many football fans tnink our program has a shot, they just enjoy the experience.
Click to expand...
They do, Maybe not this year but the year after that, there's a hell of a chance for it to happen. People love football because of the atmosphere and the tradition of a good team. The second they start sucking, no one will show up, the student section is dead, and no possible donors are even remotely interested unless we want to go ask a middle eastern oil baron to come help fund us for his name on something in exchange and that wouldn't even happen either.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
That could be, but then all non-Big East schools would be fighting massive uphill fights. The Big East could spend the entire 20.5m on basketball (no football).

Hopefully, it’s not mandated, and schools can get creative and determine what’s best for their fanbase on a yearly basis.
Click to expand...
The Big East only gives its teams a paltry amount per year compared to the Big Ten. Our report said we got $63M from the Big Ten for the 2024-25 fiscal year. I'm guessing that's up to $80+M for this year and may be on the way up to nine figures.

Does the Big East even give $10M per school? I doubt it.


Regular season basketball is just incredible lower value to TV than regular season football.



Big East schools that opted into the House Settlement (I assume all of them, but I don't know for sure) will also be giving some rev share to women's basketball, volleyball, and such. But I agree with your overall point ... it's the same $20.5M cap without the big chunk going to football.
 

This is a thought-provoking discussion, but a lot of it seems to be ignoring how much bigger the revenue levers are in football. The OP talked about ticket sales, but that's not nearly a big enough lever to justify the type of drastic change proposed.

Football has suites and premium seating areas that generate tens of millions of dollars per year in revenue. For those that want to replace The Barn, this is the business reason to do so. But tanking the football team would be a great threat to this revenue stream.

Both March Madness and bowl games create pools of money for the B1G to distribute. A win in March is worth $2M to the conference. Meanwhile, those "mid-tier bowl games no one watches?" The Duke's Mayo Bowl cut a check to the B1G for $2.4M and the money escalates quickly for more prestigious bowls and exponentially in the CFP. While the conference distributes payouts equally for bowl games, they also allow for teams to claim more expenses for more prestigious bowls. e.g. teams can claim more expenses for the Citrus Bowl than the Rate Bowl. High performance and prestige in CFB is worth more money to the school than basketball. This is a market condition, not a moral position.

Cutting investment in the football program with the expectation that team performance would decline would create significant revenue shortfalls for the entire athletic department that would be nearly impossible to overcome.

All that said, I have loved watching the basketball team this year despite all of the "almost" moments. I'm more excited about the coach than I was when they hired him (and I was excited about the hire) and I hope that Coyle and Co. can find him some incremental money to apply to his roster in the future. I think he can make a little go a long way.

(Edited thanks to @Ski-U-Ham)
 
Last edited:

Scottsdale Gopher said:
The Duke's Mayo Bowl cut a check to Minnesota for $4.8M.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is correct. I believe the money goes to the conference to distribute, not the school. The BIG divides it all equally so every school gets the same cut.
 


gopherbadgerman said:
Basketball might gain 4K fans per game if they were better. Over 18 games thats about 70K fans at 40 bucks a ticket - so $280K in additional ticket revenue. If the average fan spends 20 bucks there then thats another 140K which the U gets a percentage of through their vendor - so what maybe another 20K. Call it around 300K total.
Click to expand...
You missed a digit, I think. It would be 2.8 million in ticket revenue and 1.4 million other game revenue...correct?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom