Cut a program? This one seems obvious...

Donate To GopherHole
S

Some Day...Is Coming!

Some Day...Maybe?
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Why does the University of Minnesota have men's gymnastics when it's not offered in any high schools in the state of Minnesota? And why does it offer women's rowing when there are no high school programs in Minnesota? Seems silly when they're not even offered in the High Schools. Plus, there are only 6 men's gymnastics teams in the Big and we haven't won a title in 20 years. Lastly, the MSHSL has women's Lacrosse, that would seem to serve the young women of Minnesota much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Women's rowing is needed to counter men's football scholarships as title 9 issue
 

How about cross country? Cut both womens and mens.
 

cut a program that's usually in the top 10?
 



Given the logic being used on this board, football should be cut from high schools. The number of participants has dropped dramatically over the years and it is crazy expensive compared to most other sports. Since college football relies on this high school feeder system, perhaps college football should subsidize high school football to level where it cost the same as, say, boys and girls cross country. Yeah, this will never happen but people are dumb as hell when it comes to the true cost of football compared to most other sports. A lot of people focus on only the revenue side of the equation and conveniently ignore the true costs. Football and b-ball to a lesser degree at the U has made us the third most indebted athletics program in the nation, not these other sports. Hockey is another that should be ditched if you want to start adding up costs.

I'm not suggesting we cut football but give me a break about the mostly stupid arguments to cut other non-revenue sports. Remember, football is not a revenue sport. It is big black sucking money hole but a hell of a lot of fun.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Given the logic being used on this board, football should be cut from high schools. The number of participants has dropped dramatically over the years and it is crazy expensive compared to most other sports. Since college football relies on this high school feeder system, perhaps college football should subsidize high school football to level where it cost the same as, say, boys and girls cross country. Yeah, this will never happen but people are dumb as hell when it comes to the true cost of football compared to most other sports. A lot of people focus on only the revenue side of the equation and conveniently ignore the true costs. Football and b-ball to a lesser degree at the U has made us the third most indebted athletics program in the nation, not these other sports. Hockey is another that should be ditched if you want to start adding up costs.

I'm not suggesting we cut football but give me a break about the mostly stupid arguments to cut other non-revenue sports. Remember, football is not a revenue sport. It is big black sucking money hole but a hell of a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/sauYjWmJJ18xW" width="480" height="354" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/sauYjWmJJ18xW">via GIPHY</a></p>

Can you explain with facts and figures?
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Given the logic being used on this board, football should be cut from high schools. The number of participants has dropped dramatically over the years and it is crazy expensive compared to most other sports. Since college football relies on this high school feeder system, perhaps college football should subsidize high school football to level where it cost the same as, say, boys and girls cross country. Yeah, this will never happen but people are dumb as hell when it comes to the true cost of football compared to most other sports. A lot of people focus on only the revenue side of the equation and conveniently ignore the true costs. Football and b-ball to a lesser degree at the U has made us the third most indebted athletics program in the nation, not these other sports. Hockey is another that should be ditched if you want to start adding up costs.

I'm not suggesting we cut football but give me a break about the mostly stupid arguments to cut other non-revenue sports. Remember, football is not a revenue sport. It is big black sucking money hole but a hell of a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call a 2.5% drop from 2008 "dramatic" but I suppose that's debatable. Hyperbole in all things seems to be the new method of communication regarding political issue 'Du Jour', or CTE, or racial relations.

Participation is way up from the year 2000. Football isn't going anywhere. As smaller towns lose population yes they might struggle to fill teams but as of yet there is no collapse in participation.

"While participation rates for high school football have declined nationwide in six of the last seven years and are down 2.5 percent overall since 2008-09, it would be premature to conclude from that stat alone that high school football is in danger. Even with that drop, there were 1.084 million boys (and some 1,500 girls) playing high school football last year, nearly twice the number of the next most popular sport, track and field."

hs-sports-chart.jpg

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/23/high-schools-dropping-and-adding-football-safety-concerns
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Given the logic being used on this board, football should be cut from high schools. The number of participants has dropped dramatically over the years and it is crazy expensive compared to most other sports. Since college football relies on this high school feeder system, perhaps college football should subsidize high school football to level where it cost the same as, say, boys and girls cross country. Yeah, this will never happen but people are dumb as hell when it comes to the true cost of football compared to most other sports. A lot of people focus on only the revenue side of the equation and conveniently ignore the true costs. Football and b-ball to a lesser degree at the U has made us the third most indebted athletics program in the nation, not these other sports. Hockey is another that should be ditched if you want to start adding up costs.

I'm not suggesting we cut football but give me a break about the mostly stupid arguments to cut other non-revenue sports. Remember, football is not a revenue sport. It is big black sucking money hole but a hell of a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

Don't know anything about non-metro non-suburban schools...but in the suburbs high school football is a money-maker for the districts.
 



What's their budget? I'm in general agreement but I also saw the kid of the longtime coach (can't remember his name) driving around town in a pickup truck with mats and other equipment in the back. My impression was that it's probably a bootstraps operation.

I think maybe a better broader discussion is what should the criteria be for sponsoring sports?

My take:
- Start with football, and men's and women's basketball and hockey
- Add sports until you a) get to the Big Ten minimum, and b) meet or exceed Title IX requirements
Criteria for additional sports:
- Sponsored by Big Ten
- Sponsored by MSHSL
- Reasonable cost per athlete
- History of national excellence
- History of conference excellence

- Cut everything that remains

My list for men's sports (listed in order of sponsored teams):

Keep: Football, Basketball, Track (outdoor), Wrestling, Track (indoor), Cross Country, Hockey
Drop: Tennis, Swimming & Diving, Gymnastics
Add: Soccer, Lax

On the women's side I'd drop rowing and add Lax if the numbers could work (somehow Penn State is making Title IX work without rowing but with field hockey and lax on the women's side).
 

badgergopher said:
What's their budget? I'm in general agreement but I also saw the kid of the longtime coach (can't remember his name) driving around town in a pickup truck with mats and other equipment in the back. My impression was that it's probably a bootstraps operation.

I think maybe a better broader discussion is what should the criteria be for sponsoring sports?

My take:
- Start with football, and men's and women's basketball and hockey
- Add sports until you a) get to the Big Ten minimum, and b) meet or exceed Title IX requirements
Criteria for additional sports:
- Sponsored by Big Ten
- Sponsored by MSHSL
- Reasonable cost per athlete
- History of national excellence
- History of conference excellence

- Cut everything that remains

My list for men's sports (listed in order of sponsored teams):

Keep: Football, Basketball, Track (outdoor), Wrestling, Track (indoor), Cross Country, Hockey
Drop: Tennis, Swimming & Diving, Gymnastics
Add: Soccer, Lax

On the women's side I'd drop rowing and add Lax if the numbers could work (somehow Penn State is making Title IX work without rowing but with field hockey and lax on the women's side).
Click to expand...

Drop swimming? The men's program is a power in the Big Ten, the women's program did not win the Big Ten championship after winning the last 3. Plus there is a top notch facility.

Also on rowing, the facility is there, the boats are there, why cut it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Did I miss something? Are we in budget crisis again? Thought we just found out about a windfall from new TV deal.
 

Some Day...Is Coming! said:
Why does the University of Minnesota have men's gymnastics when it's not offered in any high schools in the state of Minnesota? And why does it offer women's rowing when there are no high school programs in Minnesota? Seems silly when they're not even offered in the High Schools. Plus, there are only 6 men's gymnastics teams in the Big and we haven't won a title in 20 years. Lastly, the MSHSL has women's Lacrosse, that would seem to serve the young women of Minnesota much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The top female gymnasts don't participate in the high schools either. They compete with clubs. It is a dying sport at the high schools.
 



Ski U Mah Gopher said:
Drop swimming? The men's program is a power in the Big Ten, the women's program did not win the Big Ten championship after winning the last 3. Plus there is a top notch facility.

Also on rowing, the facility is there, the boats are there, why cut it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think a Gophers swimmer just won a gold medal at the Olympics, too.
 

IceBoxGopher said:
I think a Gophers swimmer just won a gold medal at the Olympics, too.
Click to expand...

David Plummer won two medals. I think both were bronze. He is currently working as an intern in The "U" AD department as an intern.
 

Here you go pomp...

Yup, we're such a profitable enterprise:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/

http://www.twincities.com/2015/11/15/umn-athletics-budget-shortfall-is-among-biggest-in-big-ten/

Sure, you can blame the x-country runners for those spendy singlets.

And we're a leader in running up our credit card:

PiPress: For Gophers, Ski-U-Mah turning into IOU with $290 million debt load
per the Pioneer Press:

When the University of Minnesota fell short of its goal to privately fund a large athletics department upgrade, school President Eric Kaler recommended last week that the U borrow the shortfall and break ground almost immediately. Twenty-four hours later, the Board of Regents had approved the recommendation.

The decision was a victory for the athletics department and supporters who believe the Athletes Village project is necessary if the Gophers are to keep pace in the increasingly competitive field of big-time college athletics. Some, however, question the wisdom of borrowing an estimated $89 million when the athletics department already has outstanding debt of $201.2 million.

In August, Standard & Poor's -- one of the country's big three credit ratings agencies -- looked at the school's overall debt and lowered its outlook of the U's AA credit rating from "stable" to "negative."

Deficit spending is not uncommon in college athletics, said Dennis Howard, a Philip H. Knight sports professor at the University of Oregon. In fact, he said, "in the new era of college sports," Minnesota's debt "is not excessive," even if combining the current and new debt would give the Gophers one of the most debt-ridden departments in the nation.
(Sorry, but can't retrieve the following link?)
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_...rning-into-iou

http://latenighthoops.com/minnesota-athletics-a-leader-in-debt/#.V99Rllo8KrU

I can only imagine how profitable football must be at the high school level.

Here's the deal, I like football first and everything else is very distant second. My bias is that some sports should probably be eliminated (e.g., men's gymnastics) due to cost and lack of participation. However, I think it is a fools errand to suggest that non-revenue sports in general are somehow holding back football. Football has an insatiable appetite and no amount of revenue will ever satisfy it. Although I don't like it, this is the reality of the arms race in big time college football. As an investor, I mean donor, I'm hopeful our "healthy" investment pays off.
 

I'm not an accountant, but the 1.5 million dollar deficit listed in the WaPo article was for the department as a whole, not the football program. What would the deficit have been if football wasn't bringing in revenue? Is it fair to say most of the 20 or so non-revenue sports are operating at a deficit? More than 1.5 million? Could those sports pay the admin costs, facilities costs, scholarship costs?

Secondly, servicing debt has to be looked at from a cash flow and budgetary perspective. When I bought my first house, car, etc those are all calculated risks. Paying coaching salaries is a gamble they can win and increase revenue. Increased winning brings in more revenue, donations, enrollment. The projected TV revenue is enormous. it's fair to say some years will be more or less profitable than others, just like a home or business budget.

If the department starts student fee hikes, etc ill be the first to howl about it. I'm still stunned by the cost of the facilities project.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
Drop swimming? The men's program is a power in the Big Ten, the women's program did not win the Big Ten championship after winning the last 3. Plus there is a top notch facility. Also on rowing, the facility is there, the boats are there, why cut it? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.
 

I think someone needs to challenge Title IX given that football scholarships are open to both men and women. The notion of gender allocated scholarships in the post-Caitlyn Jenner world seems outdated. /sarcasm.
 

I've wondered as well why the U still has men's gymnastics. Even 25 years ago when I was in high school, I think only about 5-6 high schools had a program. I know Anoka did. Men's soccer would be a far better option.
 

How does the status of a sport in MN high schools play any role whatsoever in whether the U should have that sport?
 

dpodoll68 said:
How does the status of a sport in MN high schools play any role whatsoever in whether the U should have that sport?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for others, but my personal opinion is that, because the University is funded in part by taxpayers, the sports offered should create opportunities for Minnesotans. That's not to say that the crew and gymnastics teams don't have Minnesotans on them, but why not align the two?
 


badgergopher said:
I can't speak for others, but my personal opinion is that, because the University is funded in part by taxpayers, the sports offered should create opportunities for Minnesotans. That's not to say that the crew and gymnastics teams don't have Minnesotans on them, but why not align the two?
Click to expand...

The University is funded in part by taxpayers, so the academics offered should create opportunities for Minnesotans. How many high schools offer mechanical engineering, animal science, or African American and African Studies? I'm guessing we should cut all of those programs as well, right?
 

dpodoll68 said:
The University is funded in part by taxpayers, so the academics offered should create opportunities for Minnesotans. How many high schools offer mechanical engineering, animal science, or African American and African Studies? I'm guessing we should cut all of those programs as well, right?
Click to expand...

Also if we're gonna get all Minnesotan about it why not just build a wall around the university and make Iowa pay for it?
 



Pompous Elitist said:
I'm not an accountant, but the 1.5 million dollar deficit listed in the WaPo article was for the department as a whole, not the football program. What would the deficit have been if football wasn't bringing in revenue? Is it fair to say most of the 20 or so non-revenue sports are operating at a deficit? More than 1.5 million? Could those sports pay the admin costs, facilities costs, scholarship costs?

Secondly, servicing debt has to be looked at from a cash flow and budgetary perspective. When I bought my first house, car, etc those are all calculated risks. Paying coaching salaries is a gamble they can win and increase revenue. Increased winning brings in more revenue, donations, enrollment. The projected TV revenue is enormous. it's fair to say some years will be more or less profitable than others, just like a home or business budget.

If the department starts student fee hikes, etc ill be the first to howl about it. I'm still stunned by the cost of the facilities project.
Click to expand...

I’m no mathlete and I’m certainly not attacking the football program. However, I’m amused at those who want to blame non-revenue sports for our football woes. Yeah, the football program would have more money if we eliminated the non-revenue sports but really?!? It’s not like our competitors don’t have the same situation at their universities.

Furthermore, are we really going to fund only those things that make a profit? I guess we can kiss the physics department good bye! Seriously, we fund all sorts of things for the good of the university which keep in mind is a public place. I’d liken it to just about any public expenditure we make in society. For example, the park down the road just replaced all the playground equipment which doesn’t do me any good because my kid is grown up. The city also built a new soccer field and I hate that sport. But I also get that others do want these things and while it is debatable whether they are good public expenditures, society values all sorts of things and I think we should be careful before going down the slippery slope of cutting non-revenue sports. In the end, others can probably make a pretty good case for cutting football, basketball, and hockey too.
 

dpodoll68 said:
The University is funded in part by taxpayers, so the academics offered should create opportunities for Minnesotans. How many high schools offer mechanical engineering, animal science, or African American and African Studies? I'm guessing we should cut all of those programs as well, right?
Click to expand...

You beat me to it... +1
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom