Cut a program? This one seems obvious...

Donate To GopherHole
I see "typical Minnesota thinking" rear its head on Gopherhole all the time. I am a life long Minnesotan and I love nearly everything about this state. Of the things that do frustrate me, perhaps the biggest is this mentality that we need to think small and "nice things are for other people." Let's add a sport and talk about which ones are most worthy, rather than rub our nickles together and look for ways to shrink.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
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...

Oh oh, you are most certainly right, but the vultures are going to come out of the wood work to attack that fact...
 

Cut a sport? What are we Iowa State? We should be adding. We are one of the biggest universities in a power five conference with a new athletes village on the way. This is crazy talk.
 

maroonfive said:
Cut a sport? What are we Iowa State? We should be adding. We are one of the biggest universities in a power five conference with a new athletes village on the way. This is crazy talk.
Click to expand...

I'm with this gent. Harvard offers 20 men's and women's sports. It's a sign of a world class institution to offer as many classic university level sports as possible. Do we aspire to be Oklahoma Panhandle State with 5 men's sports?
 

If anyone thinks that eliminating the so called non revenue sports would boost men's football and basketball programs into elite status they also believe in the Easter bunny.
Title IX is here to stay not matter what dear old Sid thinks -mistake- about it.
 


Bo Darville said:
I'm with this gent. Harvard offers 20 men's and women's sports. It's a sign of a world class institution to offer as many classic university level sports as possible. Do we aspire to be Oklahoma Panhandle State with 5 men's sports?
Click to expand...

The U has 23.
 


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...

No, wrong.
 

From wiki, the only other B1G schools that offer more than us is Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State (kinda surprised about that one) and Michigan. Does this sound about right? If this is true, I'd say having a good football team, and a big stadium full of fans is a step in the right direction.
 



minibeaver said:
From wiki, the only other B1G schools that offer more than us is Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State (kinda surprised about that one) and Michigan. Does this sound about right? If this is true, I'd say having a good football team, and a big stadium full of fans is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

It is pretty clear we're not doing enough.

I propose a Pokemon Go team!
 


IMO. It's a little embarrassing that a school the size of the U has club level lacrosse for Men and Women. Put's it on par with school like SMSU in Marshall with a student body of 1500. Adding Maryland, Rutgers, John Hopkins to the Big Ten made this a legit lacrosse conference along with Ohio State already being a top team. I know Wisconsin and Iowa don't have lacrosse yet either but we don't always have to trail the cheese heads and pig farmers in everything do we?
 




Sparlimb said:
Oh oh, you are most certainly right, but the vultures are going to come out of the wood work to attack that fact...
Click to expand...

I'm still not following the logic and math. What is the football program revenue vs costs? Clearly there may end up up being debt service payment payments along with other costs...but the football program will be bringing in ~ $70 million according to the other thread on ticket revenue. I am NOT advocating cutting any sports....I'm just curious about the initial statement:

"Remember, football is not a revenue sport. It is big black sucking money hole but a hell of a lot of fun."

Seems clear to me the non-rev sports are the lampreys but I'm waiting on proof. What are their costs vs revenue? I have a rough idea in my head and it isn't pretty.
 


dpodoll68 said:
OK, so what's the difference?
Click to expand...

Unlike the academic departments you mention, athletics are meant to be a window into the University. They can achieve this either through through local connections with the community or through broadcast media. For non-revenue sports, the connection with the community is important. It shows up in several ways, among them:

- HS sports coaches relationships with the Gopher program
- Gopher clinics for (mostly) local kids
- High School athletes with inter-generational ties to Gopher athletics (think Marion Barber III)

If you've been to a lot of Gopher events then you've certainly witnessed local youth teams from the same sport going to the game wearing their jerseys. This is what I'm referring to, nothing more nothing less. Could local gymnastics clubs attend the game together? I suppose both of them could. Not quite the same as soccer or lax from all over the metro however.
 

badgergopher said:
Unlike the academic departments you mention, athletics are meant to be a window into the University. They can achieve this either through through local connections with the community or through broadcast media. For non-revenue sports, the connection with the community is important. It shows up in several ways, among them:

- HS sports coaches relationships with the Gopher program
- Gopher clinics for (mostly) local kids
- High School athletes with inter-generational ties to Gopher athletics (think Marion Barber III)

If you've been to a lot of Gopher events then you've certainly witnessed local youth teams from the same sport going to the game wearing their jerseys. This is what I'm referring to, nothing more nothing less. Could local gymnastics clubs attend the game together? I suppose both of them could. Not quite the same as soccer or lax from all over the metro however.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but why should the MSHSL dictate what sports the University offers?
 

LakerFan said:
IMO. It's a little embarrassing that a school the size of the U has club level lacrosse for Men and Women. Put's it on par with school like SMSU in Marshall with a student body of 1500. Adding Maryland, Rutgers, John Hopkins to the Big Ten made this a legit lacrosse conference along with Ohio State already being a top team. I know Wisconsin and Iowa don't have lacrosse yet either but we don't always have to trail the cheese heads and pig farmers in everything do we?
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree...it is a strong sport in HS now and actually very fun to watch. Question is what do you eliminate from Men's sports?
 


PMWinSTP said:
I pretty much agree...it is a strong sport in HS now and actually very fun to watch. Question is what do you eliminate from Men's sports?
Click to expand...

What lacrosse needs is a U of M equivalent of Terry Pagula. The owner of the Sabres bankrolled Penn State hockey (both men's & women's).
 


dpodoll68 said:
I get what you're saying, but why should the MSHSL dictate what sports the University offers?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't. I should have said they should sponsor sports aligned to local interest or something along those lines. The MSHSL could just as well be behind a trend as in front of it.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
I'm still not following the logic and math. What is the football program revenue vs costs? Clearly there may end up up being debt service payment payments along with other costs...but the football program will be bringing in ~ $70 million according to the other thread on ticket revenue. I am NOT advocating cutting any sports....I'm just curious about the initial statement:

"Remember, football is not a revenue sport. It is big black sucking money hole but a hell of a lot of fun."

Seems clear to me the non-rev sports are the lampreys but I'm waiting on proof. What are their costs vs revenue? I have a rough idea in my head and it isn't pretty.
Click to expand...

Bump. Nobody?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Bump. Nobody?
Click to expand...

I guess this is directed at me. Here you go:

http://www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-football-profitable/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/college-football-is-steal_b_8282690.html

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

A bit dated but probably still mostly relevant:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx

There's a ton of stuff if you look for it hidden behind the profitability propaganda. This is a bit off topic but part of what all this money is doing college athletics.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

Anyway, like I said before, college football is a big black money sucking hole but a hell of a lot of fun. Nuff said.
 

I live in Maryland now and lacrosse is huge here. However, it is not a revenue sport anywhere. Minnesota doesn't even have a men's soccer team, do we? I would think with an MLS team in the state and long established soccer in MSHL. It would make more sense to add soccer than lacrosse.

And yes, cut gymnastics. It's a freaking club sport for rich limber kids!
 

- Big time football programs, eg Big Ten are not the same as and cannot be compared to G5 or lower programs on revenue. That's ridiculous.
- Still no evidence said football programs are running a deficit. The department as a whole is brought down by the non-rev sports.
-cherry-picking data, eg single years at Auburn where they had a confluence of things happen is shaded journalism. That student should be ashamed.

I'm still waiting for evidence that football is not profitable, and the costs vs revenue associated with non-rev sports at the U. Anyone?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
- Big time football programs, eg Big Ten are not the same as and cannot be compared to G5 or lower programs on revenue. That's ridiculous.
- Still no evidence said football programs are running a deficit. The department as a whole is brought down by the non-rev sports.
-cherry-picking data, eg single years at Auburn where they had a confluence of things happen is shaded journalism. That student should be ashamed.

I'm still waiting for evidence that football is not profitable, and the costs vs revenue associated with non-rev sports at the U. Anyone?
Click to expand...

I'm also not sure every school uses the same accounting methodology and etc.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom