Amelia: It’s like Minnesota fans are dying for success …unless it costs them anything

[BleedGopher]

per Amelia's Q&A:

From your perspective, what's the popularity of Gophers basketball in comparison to other B1G teams?

--@jk12minnesota

It’s an interesting dynamic, for sure. Because of recent lackluster history, the Gophers don’t have the same national followings as some Big Ten teams. Locally is a different story. Of course, Minnesota is a big state and the Gophers are the only Division I program in it, and they probably steal most of North Dakota support and chunks of South Dakota by geographical default. So on the one hand, it’s obvious there is a large potential fanbase to draw from, and many who follow the team do so obsessively, I’ve found, gettin very, very angry about losses even if there is no reasonable expectation that there should be fewer of them. On the other hand, I’ve been surprised and the lack of financial support from that contingency. Minnesota has never had an easy time raising money – thus the lag in facilities. Even this most recent groundbreaking was only put into action after taking on the majority of the cost – some $90 million – in loans. It’s like Minnesota fans are dying for success …unless it costs them anything. As with anything, I expect that attitude would shift to some extent if the Gophers surged. Perhaps Minnesotans don’t feel now that their dollars would inspire much change.

http://www.startribune.com/amailiab...chedule-pitino-next-year-and-tacos/361892021/

Go Gophers!!

 

[mplarson7]

Pretty spot-on.

 

[bemidjigopher]

Minnesotans are liberal except with their pocket books, were about as conservative and frugal as it gets in that regard.

 

[station19]

Minnesotans are liberal except with their pocket books, were about as conservative and frugal as it gets in that regard.

Speaking of spot on........

 

[vagopher]

It's a shame. For years the University was unwilling to make a serious financial commitment to the revenue sports. That, in my opinion, has changed as evidenced, in part, by the Athletic Village undertaking. But we still have fans who are unwilling to support that effort with their own resources. It's end of the year donation time; this is an opportunity for all us of to start making a change in that culture. If we're not willing to do that, then we have no standing to complain about lack of success.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

Amelia with some solid consecutive words.

 

[howeda7]

As far as the average Gopher basketball fan goes, it's always been my feeling that the U extracts all it can expect in the form of some of the highest ticket prices in the country.

That said, it is perplexing that no one in 8 years has stepped forward to be the lead donor on the practice facility, something schools a fraction the size of MN have no issue with.

 

[Moonlight]

As far as the average Gopher basketball fan goes, it's always been my feeling that the U extracts all it can expect in the form of some of the highest ticket prices in the country.

The U has never figured out how to reward their supporters for being loyal. When they had the hottest ticket in town just having a ticket was its own reward. They could do so many cool things that would inspire support from fans. We've made lengthy lists here in the past.

This is a funny time to whine about people not wanting to cough up additional funds.
Hello - there's been a recession, and many of us have families, current impoverished/indebted college students, research grants, or charities who need our money more than the U needs it to upgrade their athletic facilities.

 

[jamiche]

The U has never figured out how to reward their supporters for being loyal. When they had the hottest ticket in town just having a ticket was its own reward. They could do so many cool things that would inspire support from fans. We've made lengthy lists here in the past. This is a funny time to whine about people not wanting to cough up additional funds. Hello - there's been a recession, and many of us have families, current impoverished/indebted college students, research grants, or charities who need our money more than the U needs it to upgrade their athletic facilities.

I don't have experience with other athletic departments, but I can't imagine that there is another one in the country that demands more of its fans while providing less.

 

[Otis]

It wouldn't hurt to put some more players into the professional sports leagues. Look at what Draymond Green and Magic have donated to MSU. Or Westbrook to UCLA. Humphries could donate some of his Kardashian money.

It's chicken and the egg though. Can't have great players without spending and vice versa.

 

[Bad Gopher]

The U has never figured out how to reward their supporters for being loyal. When they had the hottest ticket in town just having a ticket was its own reward. They could do so many cool things that would inspire support from fans. We've made lengthy lists here in the past.

This is a funny time to whine about people not wanting to cough up additional funds.
Hello - there's been a recession, and many of us have families, current impoverished/indebted college students, research grants, or charities who need our money more than the U needs it to upgrade their athletic facilities.

The bolded is key. It could be that we're not cheap, per se; we just have "different" priorities. Where citizens in Amelia's beloved North Carolina might heap money on their basketball program, our people are more likely to give that money to their church's capital campaign or another worthy charity. I just talked to a friend who works for a church, and she said she's always getting approached by some of the wealthy but humble parishioners, asking what they can help fund as a special donation.

Sports has become a money pit, a hole you can never fill, a bonfire you can never quench. The fan pays so much more for their entertainment than in past years (and in the case of our Gophers, for a greatly inferior product than in the past), and all they get is an article telling them how cheap they are.

 

[station19]

Sports has become a money pit, a hole you can never fill, a bonfire you can never quench. The fan pays so much more for their entertainment than in past years (and in the case of our Gophers, for a greatly inferior product than in the past), and all they get is an article telling them how cheap they are.

So you're saying it is like owning a boat?

 

[Bad Gopher]

So you're saying it is like owning a boat?

At least your boat is still the same old boat. It costs so much to go to Target Field, and baseball these days is so slow and the games so interminably long. I just can't justify spending money on that any more. I and my family can enjoy ourselves so much more doing something else with the same money.

 

[SelectionSunday]

As far as the average Gopher basketball fan goes, it's always been my feeling that the U extracts all it can expect in the form of some of the highest ticket prices in the country.

Yep, I'm in this camp.

As someone who's had basketball season tickets since 1992-93 and football season tickets since TCF was built, I have a hard time listening to people who sit on their couches & rarely/never go to Gopher games tell me I need to pony up more money so the U of M can keep up with the Joneses.

It's easy for Amelia to say that from her comfortable seat on press row. She gets to watch arguably the best basketball conference in the country year in & year out (more so the other teams than the Gophers) without being asked/told year after year we need more from you (and more, and more). ...

 

[swanyj]

As far as the average Gopher basketball fan goes, it's always been my feeling that the U extracts all it can expect in the form of some of the highest ticket prices in the country.

That said, it is perplexing that no one in 8 years has stepped forward to be the lead donor on the practice facility, something schools a fraction the size of MN have no issue with.

Totally agree with the statement about high ticket prices. Most people do not realize that we are in the top 25 in the country in terms of ticket prices. You would think with that and the seat donations that they would be okay financially but no they continue to lose money on athletics.

It all gets down to the fact that the U of MN has historically been one of the most inefficient users of the funds that it takes in. They are always asking for more money from the taxpayers or the students via tuition. They have no incentive to improve. Thus I think the fan base is saying such by not giving them any more money and rightfully so until they clean up their act. Amelia just making an off the cuff remark without researching the real story behind the financial well being of the U of MN and the repercussions that has in regards to fund raising. You can only go to the well so many times before it runs dry.

 

[Golden_Sloth]

The bolded is key. It could be that we're not cheap, per se; we just have "different" priorities. Where citizens in Amelia's beloved North Carolina might heap money on their basketball program, our people are more likely to give that money to their church's capital campaign or another worthy charity. I just talked to a friend who works for a church, and she said she's always getting approached by some of the wealthy but humble parishioners, asking what they can help fund as a special donation.

Sports has become a money pit, a hole you can never fill, a bonfire you can never quench. The fan pays so much more for their entertainment than in past years (and in the case of our Gophers, for a greatly inferior product than in the past), and all they get is an article telling them how cheap they are.

Oh the irony.

 

[Jeshurun]

The bolded is key. It could be that we're not cheap, per se; we just have "different" priorities. Where citizens in Amelia's beloved North Carolina might heap money on their basketball program, our people are more likely to give that money to their church's capital campaign or another worthy charity. I just talked to a friend who works for a church, and she said she's always getting approached by some of the wealthy but humble parishioners, asking what they can help fund as a special donation.

Sports has become a money pit, a hole you can never fill, a bonfire you can never quench. The fan pays so much more for their entertainment than in past years (and in the case of our Gophers, for a greatly inferior product than in the past), and all they get is an article telling them how cheap they are.

Solution: we start a religion and the tenets of belief will center around Gopher Football and Basketball attendance and tithing to the program.

 

[cjbfbp]

It all gets down to the fact that the U of MN has historically been one of the most inefficient users of the funds that it takes in. They are always asking for more money from the taxpayers or the students via tuition. They have no incentive to improve.

Do you really have any empirical evidence for the university being inefficient? I don't know how much you know about the sources of higher education funding, but state support for higher education is way, way below what it was decades ago. Public colleges are required to do much more self-funding now. I would say the biggest causes for escalation of tuition and fees rates are 1) decline of state funding; 2) increase in programs and facilities to improve student retention, student life, and remediation of prior educational deficiencies. There are also increases in levels of administrators which may be related to #2.

It may also be that the U of M supports a broader range of sports than most comparable institutions. I don't know how many schools have men's hockey but the number isn't all that large and only 35 colleges have women's hockey. A lot of universities also dropped wrestling a long time ago. Few state universities in the south field wrestling teams.

I have no particular love for the U of M as I'm not a native of this state and none of my degrees are from there (I'm only a fan because there is no other D1 option in this state), but I'm not going to assume they are inefficient absent comparable evidence.

 

[MattyH]

Solution: we start a religion and the tenets of belief will center around Gopher Football and Basketball attendance and tithing to the program.

So funny! I think I already belong to that religion...

 

[EG#9]

I think Amelia is right in a lot of what she says. I am going to paint with a broad brush here, but I feel like Minnesotans in general are pretty naive to the realities of big time college athletics. I can point to Marcus Fuller writing an article very recently about how much the Gophers paid South Dakota and South Dakota State to come to the Barn this season. This was a completely standard practice that has been going on for decades at every single high major school, but some people were still surprised by it. How about some of the reactions to the Pitino's dog/Stollings makeover spending? These things might have been against University policy, but they were a literal drop in the bucket. I would bet that a booster at Wisconsin or Nebraska would pick up the tab for these types of expenses if the University could not. Another recent example I can think of is the 800K spent to get the University out of playing a home and home with North Carolina in football. I was pretty shocked that the majority of people seemed more upset by the 800K, than the fact that the University was running with its tail between its legs from playing North Carolina.

When you combine a population that appears to be more frugal than most with a population that appears to be naive to the realities of major college sports with revenue sports teams that haven't been very successful in a long time...I think that adds up to a University that really struggles to raise the funds necessary for the arms race that is revenue sports at the highest level. When Teague was A.D., he was on the Barriero show and said that the pitch that we "need" these new facilities to compete with schools X,Y, and Z who already have them was not effective here (meaning Minnesota). He said the most effective pitch was how these facilities would improve the student-athlete experience.

The alarming part of this to me is that Jamiche makes a great point in that it would be tough to find a season ticket base that is asked to give more for less return. The ticket prices for basketball and football certainly don't reflect the product on the field (especially with the increases coming) or the demand in the marketplace. Those of you who actually buy season tickets, see other people getting in to games for 10-20% of face value regularly...and that's to say nothing of the non-conference schedules that have become the norm in basketball (and with a few notable exceptions have been the norm in football). The everyday fan might be able to give $500 or $1K to the University in athletic department donations, but if they feel like they are getting gouged by them in other dealings, the appetite won't be there. I am not sure how much the average fan matters in donations though as the need for donations that are measured in millions will always be there.

Northwestern has found a way to raise enough in donations to cover "most" of a $260 million dollar athletics facility, while the "U" has been unable to come up with half that amount. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...mative-lakefront-facility-20151112-story.html

Finally, I do think their is a lack of trust with anyone associated with "U" athletics. I think there is a prevailing attitude out there that goes like "If I give these guys X amount of dollars, they will still find a way to not compete for B1G championships". I imagine some people still feel burned by contributing to TCF under the guise that just playing on campus would vastly improve Gopher football.

 

[cjbfbp]

I think Amelia is right in a lot of what she says. I am going to paint with a broad brush here, but I feel like Minnesotans in general are pretty naive to the realities of big time college athletics. I can point to Marcus Fuller writing an article very recently about how much the Gophers paid South Dakota and South Dakota State to come to the Barn this season. This was a completely standard practice that has been going on for decades at every single high major school, but some people were still surprised by it. How about some of the reactions to the Pitino's dog/Stollings makeover spending? These things might have been against University policy, but they were a literal drop in the bucket. I would bet that a booster at Wisconsin or Nebraska would pick up the tab for these types of expenses if the University could not. Another recent example I can think of is the 800K spent to get the University out of playing a home and home with North Carolina in football. I was pretty shocked that the majority of people seemed more upset by the 800K, than the fact that the University was running with its tail between its legs from playing North Carolina.

When you combine a population that appears to be more frugal than most with a population that appears to be naive to the realities of major college sports with revenue sports teams that haven't been very successful in a long time...I think that adds up to a University that really struggles to raise the funds necessary for the arms race that is revenue sports at the highest level. When Teague was A.D., he was on the Barriero show and said that the pitch that we "need" these new facilities to compete with schools X,Y, and Z who already have them was not effective here (meaning Minnesota). He said the most effective pitch was how these facilities would improve the student-athlete experience.

The alarming part of this to me is that Jamiche makes a great point in that it would be tough to find a season ticket base that is asked to give more for less return. The ticket prices for basketball and football certainly don't reflect the product on the field (especially with the increases coming) or the demand in the marketplace. Those of you who actually buy season tickets, see other people getting in to games for 10-20% of face value regularly...and that's to say nothing of the non-conference schedules that have become the norm in basketball (and with a few notable exceptions have been the norm in football). The everyday fan might be able to give $500 or $1K to the University in athletic department donations, but if they feel like they are getting gouged by them in other dealings, the appetite won't be there. I am not sure how much the average fan matters in donations though as the need for donations that are measured in millions will always be there.

Northwestern has found a way to raise enough in donations to cover "most" of a $260 million dollar athletics facility, while the "U" has been unable to come up with half that amount. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...mative-lakefront-facility-20151112-story.html

Finally, I do think their is a lack of trust with anyone associated with "U" athletics. I think there is a prevailing attitude out there that goes like "If I give these guys X amount of dollars, they will still find a way to not compete for B1G championships". I imagine some people still feel burned by contributing to TCF under the guise that just playing on campus would vastly improve Gopher football.

You make some good points and I enjoyed reading your post. It must be said that Northwestern alumni, although there are not as many of them, very likely have a much higher income/wealth per capita than U of M alumni. That's pretty big when it comes to raising large sums of money. One alumnus who can spare $500,000 or more makes up for 500 donors making $1,000 contributions. A fair percentage of Northwestern alumni are from wealthy families to begin with. Many undoubtedly land lucrative positions with great income potential in the financial sector (Chicago is a big trading hub). A surprising number of well known celebrities also attended Northwestern. There was an article a couple of years ago listing Northwestern as #13 in schools with the wealthiest alumni.

I only came to this state at the beginning of this century, but I have noticed a few things. I don't think people here are "cheap" at all. One poster mentioned "other priorities" and I think that's probably true. First of all, the majority of state residents who attend in-state schools here do not go to the U of M. Contrast that with Iowa where the majority likely would go to either U of Iowa or Iowa State. This state (especially if you live in the Twin Cities) offers lots of interests where you can spend your funds so college athletics doesn't command the stage as it might in Nebraska, Iowa, or Oklahoma.

Finally (and I'm not trying to bring politics in here), this state is a fairly large taxer. Governmental fees are fairly high, too. While I think those tendencies may contribute to the quality of life here, they also may make people feel that they pay enough to the public sector already.

 

[cjbfbp]

I think Amelia is right in a lot of what she says. I am going to paint with a broad brush here, but I feel like Minnesotans in general are pretty naive to the realities of big time college athletics. I can point to Marcus Fuller writing an article very recently about how much the Gophers paid South Dakota and South Dakota State to come to the Barn this season. This was a completely standard practice that has been going on for decades at every single high major school, but some people were still surprised by it. How about some of the reactions to the Pitino's dog/Stollings makeover spending? These things might have been against University policy, but they were a literal drop in the bucket. I would bet that a booster at Wisconsin or Nebraska would pick up the tab for these types of expenses if the University could not. Another recent example I can think of is the 800K spent to get the University out of playing a home and home with North Carolina in football. I was pretty shocked that the majority of people seemed more upset by the 800K, than the fact that the University was running with its tail between its legs from playing North Carolina.

When you combine a population that appears to be more frugal than most with a population that appears to be naive to the realities of major college sports with revenue sports teams that haven't been very successful in a long time...I think that adds up to a University that really struggles to raise the funds necessary for the arms race that is revenue sports at the highest level. When Teague was A.D., he was on the Barriero show and said that the pitch that we "need" these new facilities to compete with schools X,Y, and Z who already have them was not effective here (meaning Minnesota). He said the most effective pitch was how these facilities would improve the student-athlete experience.

The alarming part of this to me is that Jamiche makes a great point in that it would be tough to find a season ticket base that is asked to give more for less return. The ticket prices for basketball and football certainly don't reflect the product on the field (especially with the increases coming) or the demand in the marketplace. Those of you who actually buy season tickets, see other people getting in to games for 10-20% of face value regularly...and that's to say nothing of the non-conference schedules that have become the norm in basketball (and with a few notable exceptions have been the norm in football). The everyday fan might be able to give $500 or $1K to the University in athletic department donations, but if they feel like they are getting gouged by them in other dealings, the appetite won't be there. I am not sure how much the average fan matters in donations though as the need for donations that are measured in millions will always be there.

Northwestern has found a way to raise enough in donations to cover "most" of a $260 million dollar athletics facility, while the "U" has been unable to come up with half that amount. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...mative-lakefront-facility-20151112-story.html

Finally, I do think their is a lack of trust with anyone associated with "U" athletics. I think there is a prevailing attitude out there that goes like "If I give these guys X amount of dollars, they will still find a way to not compete for B1G championships". I imagine some people still feel burned by contributing to TCF under the guise that just playing on campus would vastly improve Gopher football.

You make some good points and I enjoyed reading your post. It must be said that Northwestern alumni, although there are not as many of them, very likely have a much higher income/wealth per capita than U of M alumni. That's pretty big when it comes to raising large sums of money. One alumnus who can spare $500,000 or more makes up for 500 donors making $1,000 contributions. A fair percentage of Northwestern alumni are from wealthy families to begin with. Many undoubtedly land lucrative positions with great income potential in the financial sector (Chicago is a big trading hub). A surprising number of well known celebrities also attended Northwestern. There was an article a couple of years ago listing Northwestern as #13 in schools with the wealthiest alumni.

I only came to this state at the beginning of this century, but I have noticed a few things. I don't think people here are "cheap" at all. One poster mentioned "other priorities" and I think that's probably true. First of all, the majority of state residents who attend in-state schools here do not go to the U of M. Contrast that with Iowa where the majority likely would go to either U of Iowa or Iowa State. This state (especially if you live in the Twin Cities) offers lots of interests where you can spend your funds so college athletics doesn't command the stage as it might in Nebraska, Iowa, or Oklahoma.

Finally (and I'm not trying to bring politics in here), this state is a fairly large taxer. Governmental fees are fairly high, too. While I think those tendencies may contribute to the quality of life here, they also may make people feel that they pay enough to the public sector already. And, as other posters have mentioned, tickets to U of M football and basketball are hardly dirt cheap.

 

[Twinsfan007]

Pretty spot-on.

+100000 She hit the nail squarely on the head there.

 

[swanyj]

Do you really have any empirical evidence for the university being inefficient? I don't know how much you know about the sources of higher education funding, but state support for higher education is way, way below what it was decades ago. Public colleges are required to do much more self-funding now. I would say the biggest causes for escalation of tuition and fees rates are 1) decline of state funding; 2) increase in programs and facilities to improve student retention, student life, and remediation of prior educational deficiencies. There are also increases in levels of administrators which may be related to #2.

It may also be that the U of M supports a broader range of sports than most comparable institutions. I don't know how many schools have men's hockey but the number isn't all that large and only 35 colleges have women's hockey. A lot of universities also dropped wrestling a long time ago. Few state universities in the south field wrestling teams.

I have no particular love for the U of M as I'm not a native of this state and none of my degrees are from there (I'm only a fan because there is no other D1 option in this state), but I'm not going to assume they are inefficient absent comparable evidence.

I am not making anymore assumptions than you are when you say state funding has declined. What is the basis for that? State funding on a dollar basis has continued to increase year after year and we still are above average for funding on a per pupil basis. The decline in state funding sounds like a media reported statement that the U of MN argues when they want to get more funds or you work for the U and are defending their position. As far as your other points...making up for educational deficiencies etc...comments thrown out there as well without any basis.

The point is they do not use funds efficiently. Just look at the revenues taken in relative to the losses in Athletics compared to other schools. The administration has wasted so much money over the years on their poor decisions and want other people to make up for their mistakes.

Your point about that they may support more sports than others might be true but then they should cut back on those sports and the other inefficient activities that are costing us the ability to have a financially sound University that does not have to whine and complain every year for a lack of funds because they are mismanaged.

I am not going to say anything further in regards to this subject out of fear I may disclose more than I should but lets just say that the wool is being pulled over our eyes.

 

[vagopher]

Bad Gopher’s suggestion that Minnesota donation priorities favor church and other charities over sports I suspect is valid. Some evidence of this might be a 2013 study that ranks the Minneapolis area art economy sixth in the nation, which is obviously disproportionately large for the area’s population. See http://www.artspace.org/ideas-insights/minneapolis-creative-index The fact that the Twin Cities is one of the few metropolitan areas that has a full complement of professional sports franchises also creates considerable competition for whatever local sports dollars are available. As I perceive Amelia’s home state of North Carolina, attitudes and conditions are much different. College basketball there is king and has been for years. But whether Amelia fully appreciates the differences between the two states culturally or not, her point about the need for greater fan financial support - if the Gopher revenue sports are going to become nationally competitive on a consistent basis - is, in my opinion, valid. We can choose to ignore that reality, and continue to live with mediocrity, or we can accept the challenge, and pursue excellence. For me the choice is clear. I want excellence. I have grieved since the 60’s over the University’s lack of commitment to its revenue sports, but that, in my opinion, is changing. But we, the fans, need to join the University in this renewed commitment if our revenue sports are going to achieve their full potential. Yes, I understand that the ability to contribute varies greatly, I can understand the resentment to some of the ploys that have been invoked to enhance revenues, and I can understand the feeling that we aren’t getting an adequate return on our personal Gopher sports investment. Still, the way forward, I believe, is clear. I think what’s important is that those of us who want excellence do what we can. Standing alone, grassroots contributions are not going to put us over the top. Their importance is the demonstration of support that large donors typically look for in responding to donation requests. So even small donations, made in enough numbers, can make a difference.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I think it is a combination of a few things:

- Lack of success
- Bad leadership for many years (AD, administration, etc)
- Competition for $$$. There was an article written awhile back saying that the Twin Cities was the most oversaturated sports market when it comes to advertising and suite sales
- The university is not the center of attention like in places like Iowa City and Madison. The growth of those cities were largely because of the schools.

 

[Mulligan]

I think it is a combination of a few things:

- Lack of success
- Bad leadership for many years (AD, administration, etc)
- Competition for $$$. There was an article written awhile back saying that the Twin Cities was the most oversaturated sports market when it comes to advertising and suite sales
- The university is not the center of attention like in places like Iowa City and Madison. The growth of those cities were largely because of the schools.

You've hit on some of them. I think the fact the U is so large creates a sort of a disconnect between it and many people who graduated from it. Look at student attendance versus the size of the student body. Also, there's also a culture here that doesn't place a priority on athletic success that's much stronger here. I know U graduates and U employees who think the new athletic facilities are basically a waste. And, yes, they understand the basketball and football argument; they just think there is too much emphasis on sports.

I read an article a couple of months ago and the endowment fund in the BIG is surpassed only by Michigan and Northwestern which surprised the hell out of me. Under Kaler, record amounts of money has been raised. So people are giving; they're just not giving to sports at the same rate as in other places.

But in the end, reason #1 is the biggest. It's a never-ending cycle. No success means less money which means no success.

 

[GophersInIowa]

You've hit on some of them. I think the fact the U is so large creates a sort of a disconnect between it and many people who graduated from it. Look at student attendance versus the size of the student body. Also, there's also a culture here that doesn't place a priority on athletic success that's much stronger here. I know U graduates and U employees who think the new athletic facilities are basically a waste. And, yes, they understand the basketball and football argument; they just think there is too much emphasis on sports.

I read an article a couple of months ago and the endowment fund in the BIG is surpassed only by Michigan and Northwestern which surprised the hell out of me. Under Kaler, record amounts of money has been raised. So people are giving; they're just not giving to sports at the same rate as in other places.

But in the end, reason #1 is the biggest. It's a never-ending cycle. No success means less money which means no success.

I've mentioned this before but I think the Rose Bowl wins for Wisconsin under Alvarez came at the perfect time. That was the around the time college athletics was starting to become the multi-billion dollar business it is today. Success and support was at an all-time high at a time when more and more money was needed.

 

[cjbfbp]

I am not making anymore assumptions than you are when you say state funding has declined.

Ah...no...I don't work that way because I have been trained to be better than that. The long-term trend is well known. Here are a couple of links but you could find many others if you had the interest and initiative.

This one tells you that state funding has declined sharply relative to enrollment over time:

http://trends.collegeboard.org/coll...state-funding-and-public-enrollment-over-time

This one shows you the percentage declines in state funding per student (adjusted for inflation) by state over a shorter time period:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ph-on-state-higher-education-spending/274199/

 

[cjbfbp]

Ah...no...I don't work that way because I have been trained to be better than that. The long-term trend is well known. Here are a couple of links but you could find many others if you had the interest and initiative.

This one tells you that state funding has declined sharply relative to enrollment over time:

http://trends.collegeboard.org/coll...state-funding-and-public-enrollment-over-time

This one shows you the percentage declines in state funding per student (adjusted for inflation) by state over a shorter time period:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ph-on-state-higher-education-spending/274199/

I don't expect you to look at these because you strike me as the type of person who doesn't like to let the facts get in the way of his opinion.