ARE WE TRYING TO SUPPORT TO MANY SPORT PROGRAMS?

Donate To GopherHole
R

Rog

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
1
Points
38
ARE WE TRYING TO SUPPORT TO MANY SPORT PROGRAMS??

My thoughts.

We have 3 sport programs that bring more money in than they use. The other (22) all are supported by these 3. You know the 3. What is happening is that these 3, are in my estimation, in trouble and now have a decreasing or having trouble increasing attendance and an increasing money income. If this continues all the programs including these 3 are going to get worse and who knows the end results. The BTN income can only balance out our financial situation for only so long.

We have to eliminate some programs!

Only have programs that a MAJORITY of the MN high schools have. Why have to give free rides to students from out of state or try to influence MN kids to enter a new sport they know anything about.
Also take other factors into account: (Title 9 is an issue)

1. The cost of running the program, not only scholarships but the expenses of travel etc.
2. Popularity of the sport from a fan viewpoint or attendance at the events.
3. There are other criteria which others would know better than me.

We have to do something to bring these money makers up to the BTN level, start winning enough to raise the income so these 3 don’t go down hill as they have lately (and not so lately).

A school to the east took this step some years ago. All of their 3 major sports have passed us (You can argue with me on this)
Anyway, my thoughts that have been bugging me lately.
 

We have 23 varsity programs, I think.

I say we improve the three "money making" sports and then we shouldn't have an issue supporting all the programs. Here are the number of sports supported at each Big Ten school:

Ohio State: 35
Penn State: 29
Michigan: 27
Michigan State: 25
Iowa: 24
Indiana: 24
Minnesota: 23
Wisconsin: 23
Illinois: 21
Nebraska: 21
Northwestern: 19
Purdue: 18

We're fairly average, compared to the rest of the Big Ten, in how many sports we're supporting.
 

I don't agree we have too many sports. Don't forget, the revenue situation at TCF is better than what we had with the Metrodome.
 

I would have to be on the side that I believe we have too many sports despite at one time not wanting to believe it. Times have changed. Rowing I believe wasn't thought out very well and I don't think it was a matter of adding a women's sport at the time, but rather the time to eliminate a men's to balance it out. We could go on about Title 9 as while we have many of the sports for women, their programs aren't supported very well by the "gals" here in Minnesota. Even with ticket pricing much lower than men's, (examples: hockey, volleyball, & basketball), they still can't come close to a sell out. Perhaps volleyball comes close, but then they are in a smaller field house.

Yes much pressure on the football, basketball, & hockey programs to make up the difference on the non producing sports for revenue.
 

#2Gopher said:
tle 9 as while we have many of the sports for women, their programs aren't supported very well by the "gals" here in Minnesota. Even with ticket pricing much lower than men's, (examples: hockey, volleyball, & basketball), they still can't come close to a sell out. Perhaps volleyball comes close, but then they are in a smaller field house.
Click to expand...
FWIW, WBB was revenue neutral to revenue positive when they were winning earlier in the 2000's. That forward momentum is now gone.
 


I think this is a good question but I don't know what I'd cut. The issue, in my mind is gender equity. I believe women have a right to compete but if we run college athletics like a business, most of the women's intercollegiate teams have no place in a for-profit society.

I think Minnesota has to find a way to make the sports they currently offer more profitable. I don't think we're alone in struggling right now. At some point, the NCAA is going to have to change the way things work and offer more revenue sharing opportunities or something to even the playing field between the Texas's of the world and Purdue's.
 

Gopher07 said:
We have 23 varsity programs, I think.

I say we improve the three "money making" sports and then we shouldn't have an issue supporting all the programs. Here are the number of sports supported at each Big Ten school:

Ohio State: 35
Penn State: 29
Michigan: 27
Michigan State: 25
Iowa: 24
Indiana: 24
Minnesota: 23
Wisconsin: 23
Illinois: 21
Nebraska: 21
Northwestern: 19
Purdue: 18

We're fairly average, compared to the rest of the Big Ten, in how many sports we're supporting.
Click to expand...

 

Gopher07 said:
We have 23 varsity programs, I think.

I say we improve the three "money making" sports and then we shouldn't have an issue supporting all the programs. Here are the number of sports supported at each Big Ten school:

Ohio State: 35
Penn State: 29
Michigan: 27
Michigan State: 25
Iowa: 24
Indiana: 24
Minnesota: 23
Wisconsin: 23
Illinois: 21
Nebraska: 21
Northwestern: 19
Purdue: 18

We're fairly average, compared to the rest of the Big Ten, in how many sports we're supporting.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link? I believe the U has 25 varsity sports teams. I've heard it repeated often, though I am not sure where that number comes from.
 

year of the gopher said:
Do you have a link? I believe the U has 25 varsity sports teams. I've heard it repeated often, though I am not sure where that number comes from.
Click to expand...

If you go to Gophersports.com they have 23 programs listed...that's where I'm pulling it from (and wikipedia, source of unquestioned knowledge, for the other schools).

Men's:
Baseball
Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Hockey
Swim & Dive
Tennis
Track & Field
Wrestling

Women's:
Basketball
Cross Country
Golf
Gymnastics
Hockey
Rowing
Soccer
Softball
Swim & Dive
Tennis
Track & Field
Volleyball

Anyhow, I don't think it's an issue IF we get the big money maker - football - figured out. In fact, we're in a pretty good position because our hockey and basketball teams pull in pretty good profit compared to other schools (for example, Ohio State loses something like $1m on their men's hockey program annually, whereas we profit about $4m annually and, at least in 2009, our men's bball program was the 5th most profitable in the conference). But fixing football isn't a matter of cutting sports ... it's a matter of winning football games.
 



Is the difference between 23 & 25 indoor & outdoor track being counted as one?
 

At this point it isn't just a knowledge BOMB... it is a knowledge barrage. Thank you Gopher07.
 

A couple of problems here.

If you start dropping 'Olympic sports' on a wholesale basis, you run the significant risk of piercing the whole 'scholastic achievement and opportunity' facade. While this may not be a big deal to the average fan, it would be a b-i-g deal to those who reside in Washington. If all we get down to is the money making sports, the we are essentially running a 'for profit' enterprise, meaning that donations are no longer deductible and more importantly, all revenue can, and will, be taxed.

This isn't some doomsday speculation either, as when realignment first came up last year when it looked like Iowa State was going to be left out, Senator Grassley, the top ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, was already talking about having hearings on the tv network monies being collected and its impact on the 'non profit status' of public universities....throw in the Fiesta Bowl shenanigans, and this is a real threat to D-1 sports programs.

Also, you can't cut all that many women's programs with Title IX....and finally, there will be hell to pay if anyone thinks that Minnesota Wrestling should be dropped!
 

Keep them all. The reason I feel this way is simply keeping them all only helps several, and I mean several, student athletes enjoy the total college experience. And that is important.
 



Nokomis said:
Is the difference between 23 & 25 indoor & outdoor track being counted as one?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it is, as I believe officially they are considered two separate sports.

And no, I don't think we have too many.
 

"To" many sports programs, but not enough English courses.
 

This topic:

beating-a-dead-horse.jpg
 

The problem is football is the most underperforming sports program we have. Followed closely by mens and women' basketball. Maybe we should close up shop in football and concentrate on sports we can do well at.
 

Here's an idea: Don't make massive mistakes in coaching choices in your major revenue sports, then win.
 


Gopher07 said:
We have 23 varsity programs, I think.

I say we improve the three "money making" sports and then we shouldn't have an issue supporting all the programs. Here are the number of sports supported at each Big Ten school:

Ohio State: 35
Penn State: 29
Michigan: 27
Michigan State: 25
Iowa: 24
Indiana: 24
Minnesota: 23
Wisconsin: 23
Illinois: 21
Nebraska: 21
Northwestern: 19
Purdue: 18

We're fairly average, compared to the rest of the Big Ten, in how many sports we're supporting.
Click to expand...

+100000000000

I wish everyone knew this information so they could stop complaining about the revenue/non revenue sports debate. It is a near non-issue, unless your stance is that we should be at the bottom of the big ten.
 

We should cut women's rowing and replace it with women's Lacrosse

Rowing is just not a sport that Minnesotan's do and has never fit the overall sports program at the U of M other than it is big Title 9 for numbers.
Add Women's Lacrosse, this sport has a potential to sell some tickets and actually generate a little revenue. It is a fast growing sport in the High School ranks in the upper
Midwest not just Minnesota. Again this is a sport that could actually sell a few tickets even to casual fans, makes another use for TCF.
This would be a program with a built in recruiting base in 2-3 years and a potential for a lot of success with the right coaching hire. Volleyball sells a lot of tickets,
Women's basketball with the right coach could get back to revenue neutral or money maker and sell tickets if they would just dump the current coach(cannot recruit, pisses parents off and players)
and get some excitement back in that program. Rowing would be a no brainier to dump, sell the boat house to a club group and return that sport back to club status.
 

From reading your lack of knowledge on to vs. Too clearly we need to cut rowing and add a grammar team
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom