If any of the ADs or school leaders reading this want to chat about how to better capture the revenue you're giving away outside the Athletic Dept., shoot me a DM or email anytime, and let's chat!
Washington and Oregon are on the list.Why is UCLA listed as a BIG school but none of the other soon to join are.
And USC is private so that's why their information isn't available.Washington and Oregon are on the list.
Ditto for Northwestern.And USC is private so that's why their information isn't available.
I would think based on stadium size and attendance that the order is likely accurate, but numbers may be a bit off. Based on ticket price alone, Michigan and tOSU are making $2M per game more than MN.They didn’t do FOIA requests for every school here.
Again I question the source of information and how it was obtained.
Being a public school does not mean you are required to open your books to the public.
That is a great point.I would think based on stadium size and attendance that the order is likely accurate, but numbers may be a bit off. Based on ticket price alone, Michigan and tOSU are making $2M per game more than MN.
This, all parking revenue for all sports events at the U goes to the University General fund.Apples to watermelon. Every school does everything differently. Any possible source of data is from some basic form that each school self-reports. None of the “sources” cited have anywhere near an actual look at the AD’s financial books.
At the U, the AD doesn’t get to “count” a single cent of money collected to park any vehicle on any U owned parking facility as revenue for the department. That’s likely different from other schools.
That is a great point.
Again why these are apples to watermelon numbers.
They should be normalized by attendance, to be average revenue per ticket sold. We’d still be way down, but at least fairer analysis.
Indiana higher than us?I would think based on stadium size and attendance that the order is likely accurate, but numbers may be a bit off. Based on ticket price alone, Michigan and tOSU are making $2M per game more than MN.
Maybe based on fans from nearby schools filling their stadium? Mich, Mich St, Pur, OSU, Penn St plus a Wisc crossover year, if you get 3 of those in a season that could have an impact.Indiana higher than us?
Doesn't look like Required Scholarship Donations are included.Interesting if accurate. Just from games alone we are at least $11.2M to $16.1M behind our rivals in revenue each year.
The general fund most likely paid for building the parking facilities, and pays to operate and maintain them.as I read Altimore's post, I think he is making a different point.
Some schools recover more income from game-day activities - parking, concessions, merchandise sales, etc. as I read it, the reason why MN is ranked lower is because some of those sources of revenue do NOT go to the athletic department or the football program - while at other schools, similar sources of revenue ARE counted as income for the athletic department or football program.
so the point is that schools like MN - if possible - should try to change the way that those sources of revenue are accounted for.
so for instance, if I go to a Gopher FB game and buy a sweatshirt, some food and pay for parking, that money should be used to benefit the athletic department or the football program - NOT go into some general fund account to make the administration's bottom line look better.
athletic programs at MN - to the best of my knowledge - get little or no support from the general fund - but the general fund then turns around and siphons off revenue from the athletic department.
The general fund most likely paid for building the parking facilities, and pays to operate and maintain them.
The general fund therefore should get the revenue. Or do you also believe the Gopher Athletic Dept should get the revenue from the green line light rail on game days.
I remember Norwood saying at one his talks to donors that even if schools like Iowa & Wisconsin had the same capacity as The Bank, the U would still be $3-4 million less in revenue to the athletic department than those two schools.the point is that it's not an even playing field. some schools recover a larger share of revenue from game-day operations and auxiliary activity, while other schools like MN recover a smaller share of revenue. If Neb gets a cut of parking, that gives them more resources than MN.
Football fans use the parking lot on game days. football fans purchase concessions on game days. football fans purchase merchandise on game days. that revenue would not exist if no game was being played. so I think it's fair that at least some of that revenue should go to the athletic department. Or - how about this - a share of those revenue sources go to the NIL collective?
the light rail is not running only for the football game. non football fans use the light rail on game days. so it is not specific to the game.
Hence, I presume, the Scholarship Seating that was implemented during his tenure.I remember Norwood saying at one his talks to donors that even if schools like Iowa & Wisconsin had the same capacity as The Bank, the U would still be $3-4 million less in revenue to the athletic department than those two schools.
True but there was a part of the message talking about fans contacting their AD to suggest improvements.I don't think it's about being fair. Schools either get the bucks or not, regardless of the "average ticket price" and budget accordingly.
My understanding is Scholarship seating was always in the plans for new stadium even under Maturi. It was just first implemented under Teague. Sure seems like a lot of empties in the premium and expensive seats since that time. Does not seem that the Loge seats and suites are sold that well.Hence, I presume, the Scholarship Seating that was implemented during his tenure.
I agree, it was going to happen regardless. It might have been more tempered to begin with under different leadership, but no doubt something would have been in place.My understanding is Scholarship seating was always in the plans for new stadium even under Maturi. It was just first implemented under Teague. Sure seems like a lot of empties in the premium and expensive seats since that time. Does not seem that the Loge seats and suites are sold that well.
I think the Vikings premium seating liscense fees and suites along with stadium naming rights has really hurt the Gophers, ever since US Bank opened our premium seats and stadium revenues have declined. It's a smaller marker to have to support all the pro teams and major college sports. Sure seems like since Vikes added a lot more expense to premium seats and suites this has affected Gophers sponsorship and premium football seating. Sports fans have finite resources on spending. If they do remodel the bank they need to redo the premium seating areas in the stadium, too high up and not perceived value.I agree, it was going to happen regardless. It might have been more tempered to begin with under different leadership, but no doubt something would have been in place.
His point wasn't about being fair, it's about having a more accurate (fairer) assessment to take out more of the obvious differences that are not accounted for, like stadium size.I don't think it's about being fair. Schools either get the bucks or not, regardless of the "average ticket price" and budget accordingly.
With the population of the Twin Cities our stadium should be 75,000 capacity. Why the low interest?Does anyone have recent data, 2022 or 2023, for actual attendance at Gopher football games? Hard for all the no-shows counted in the announced attendance to contribute to non-ticket game-day revenue.
You're new here, aren't you?With the population of the Twin Cities our stadium should be 75,000 capacity. Why the low interest?