Gophers Budget

Donate To GopherHole
M

MspHawk

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
Points
16
One thing that does not help the University of Minnesota is that its football budget is last in the Big Ten.

According to ncaafootball.fanhouse.com,

Ohio State is the Big Ten leader with a budget of $32.3 million.
Iowa is second at $26.90 million
Wisconsin ($22.71),
Penn State ($19.13),
Michigan ($18.03),
Michigan State ($15.86),
Northwestern ($15.71),
Purdue ($12.66),
Indiana ($11.84),
Illinois ($10.49)
Gophers at $9.25 million

The big problem at Minnesota is that the large gate receipts that Iowa and Wisconsin have allow them to have the money to spend on football while the Gophers year in and year out are near the bottom in football attendance and revenue. Perhaps part of the problem are the fans, maybe too many things in the twin cities to attract a regular big time fan base??? Maybe the fans are part to blame? Coaching is part of it, just saying in the grand sceam of things that the big picture includes a lot of folks who live here. I dont however have the opinion that the few hundred on this board are in that group. The budget has a lot to do with the outcome of this football team and the fans are a part of that.

This information comes from Sid so not to pon it off as my thoughts but I think he makes a fair point and should be consider in your quest to be on top of the big ten once again.
 

There's already a thread covering this on the main page, but thanks for sharing it again. Here's an analysis done by one of our bloggers that breaks this down further.

http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?p=1213
 

My question is...if it's all about attendance, then how come Northwestern can spend six million dollars more per year than us?
 

MspHawk said:
One thing that does not help the University of Minnesota is that its football budget is last in the Big Ten.

According to ncaafootball.fanhouse.com,

Ohio State is the Big Ten leader with a budget of $32.3 million.
Iowa is second at $26.90 million
Wisconsin ($22.71),
Penn State ($19.13),
Michigan ($18.03),
Michigan State ($15.86),
Northwestern ($15.71),
Purdue ($12.66),
Indiana ($11.84),
Illinois ($10.49)
Gophers at $9.25 million

The big problem at Minnesota is that the large gate receipts that Iowa and Wisconsin have allow them to have the money to spend on football while the Gophers year in and year out are near the bottom in football attendance and revenue. Perhaps part of the problem are the fans, maybe too many things in the twin cities to attract a regular big time fan base??? Maybe the fans are part to blame? Coaching is part of it, just saying in the grand sceam of things that the big picture includes a lot of folks who live here. I dont however have the opinion that the few hundred on this board are in that group. The budget has a lot to do with the outcome of this football team and the fans are a part of that.

This information comes from Sid so not to pon it off as my thoughts but I think he makes a fair point and should be consider in your quest to be on top of the big ten once again.
Click to expand...

This is actually a good point to make, especially when considering that both men's basketball and men's hockey (also considered revenue sports) are amongst the most profitable programs in the country. Minneapolis is certainly a large Big Ten market, which leads to many other opportunities for entertainment. But honestly, it all comes down to on-field success. People like winners. And the sad fact is that the Gophers haven't been winners in football for quite awhile. Once they start winning and winning consistently, I have no doubt folks will come out of the woodwork to support the program. The question is when will that happen? I have no idea, but at this point, it's becoming painfully obvious that it won't be under Brewster.
 

What should come first. The spending or the winning.
 


Spending. You don't get returns without an investment.
 

MBAGuy said:
Spending. You don't get returns without an investment.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think that people, and administrators in particular, will throw $ at an iffy investment. I work in an academic setting and nearly every dean and department chair is always whining about needing more faculty. I have observed that the departments that actually get more faculty are those that are producing (grants, publications, student credit hours, etc). If our football team does well with what they currently have, the money and resources will follow. Brian Kelly won at Cincinnati and they did not have practice fields. They creatively used the game field for practice, won games and suddenly the new resources were available (e.g., new practice fields). Win, demonstrate progress and the football team will see more resources, but it won't be easy.
 

alltimetwinsfan said:
My question is...if it's all about attendance, then how come Northwestern can spend six million dollars more per year than us?
Click to expand...

Because as MV notes over at FBT, the way the schools report the numbers is way off. When you see Northwestern and Indiana spending more than the Gophers even though the Gophers spend more than most of the B10 on recruiting and even though they have a new stadium to pay off, that's a good sign that this isn't an apples to apples comparison. The U doesn't report things like the stadium debt as expenses for the football team. It comes from a central fund. Basically these numbers don't tell us anything other than the fact that each school uses different accounting methods.
 

denguegopher said:
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think that people, and administrators in particular, will throw $ at an iffy investment. I work in an academic setting and nearly every dean and department chair is always whining about needing more faculty. I have observed that the departments that actually get more faculty are those that are producing (grants, publications, student credit hours, etc). If our football team does well with what they currently have, the money and resources will follow. Brian Kelly won at Cincinnati and they did not have practice fields. They creatively used the game field for practice, won games and suddenly the new resources were available (e.g., new practice fields). Win, demonstrate progress and the football team will see more resources, but it won't be easy.
Click to expand...

That's the philosophy we've followed for the last 40 years. It hasn't worked. Maybe it's time to try something different.

Plus the U just made a massive investment in TCF Bank stadium. I recognize that's now a sunk cost and that capital and operational financing are two different animals. The investment can't stop there, though, unless we want a beautiful, vacant tomb on campus.
 



GoAUpher said:
Because as MV notes over at FBT, the way the schools report the numbers is way off. When you see Northwestern and Indiana spending more than the Gophers even though the Gophers spend more than most of the B10 on recruiting and even though they have a new stadium to pay off, that's a good sign that this isn't an apples to apples comparison. The U doesn't report things like the stadium debt as expenses for the football team. It comes from a central fund. Basically these numbers don't tell us anything other than the fact that each school uses different accounting methods.
Click to expand...

Don't you think, though, that even if it's just an optical problem, it's still a problem? You look at the numbers and you see a program that isn't invested in its football program. Sure, we may fund the program through more nuanced channels; but to someone who hasn't done or reviewed the research, we're getting murdered by Iowa and Wisky 3-1 and 2-1 respectively. And who's to say they don't have program expenses not accounted for in an explicit line item?

I'm just saying that, to a fairly great extent, perception is defining the reality here.
 

Money is not the problem at the U. The U paid two assistants last year (Cosgrove $300,000, and Mike Dunbar $270,000) more than any assistant at Iowa, or Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, or Indiana. Cosgrove's salary puts him in the elite in the Big Ten. He was not hired on the cheap. Recruiting is also not done on the cheap. For 2005-2009, Minnesota's annual FB recruiting budget was $368,842, $150,000+ per year more than Wisconsin's ($208,517). Also more than Iowa's avg FB recruiting budget ($291,517).
 

Football income allocation

the football income helps all the other minor sports. Is this the problem? Are we supporting to many minor sports with the football income and thus putting too big a burden on the football program? It would be interesting to see a list of the total sport budgets of the B10 schools and see where we stand


QUOTE=MspHawk;258485]One thing that does not help the University of Minnesota is that its football budget is last in the Big Ten.

According to ncaafootball.fanhouse.com,

Ohio State is the Big Ten leader with a budget of $32.3 million.
Iowa is second at $26.90 million
Wisconsin ($22.71),
Penn State ($19.13),
Michigan ($18.03),
Michigan State ($15.86),
Northwestern ($15.71),
Purdue ($12.66),
Indiana ($11.84),
Illinois ($10.49)
Gophers at $9.25 million

The big problem at Minnesota is that the large gate receipts that Iowa and Wisconsin have allow them to have the money to spend on football while the Gophers year in and year out are near the bottom in football attendance and revenue. Perhaps part of the problem are the fans, maybe too many things in the twin cities to attract a regular big time fan base??? Maybe the fans are part to blame? Coaching is part of it, just saying in the grand sceam of things that the big picture includes a lot of folks who live here. I dont however have the opinion that the few hundred on this board are in that group. The budget has a lot to do with the outcome of this football team and the fans are a part of that.

This information comes from Sid so not to pon it off as my thoughts but I think he makes a fair point and should be consider in your quest to be on top of the big ten once again.[/QUOTE]
 

BigTenGuy said:
Money is not the problem at the U. The U paid two assistants last year (Cosgrove $300,000, and Mike Dunbar $270,000) more than any assistant at Iowa, or Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, or Indiana. Cosgrove's salary puts him in the elite in the Big Ten. He was not hired on the cheap. Recruiting is also not done on the cheap. For 2005-2009, Minnesota's annual FB recruiting budget was $368,842, $150,000+ per year more than Wisconsin's ($208,517). Also more than Iowa's avg FB recruiting budget ($291,517).
Click to expand...

Not that I don't trust you, but could you provide a link? I'd like to look at that data.

Thanks.
 



David Sayler was named the University of South Dakota’s 12th Athletic Director on June 24, 2010, after extensive experience at several prominent institutions over the last 15 years. Sayler will directly supervise all 17 sports at USD and coordinate the department’s $8 million budget.

I guess you guys need to quit making excuses for the budget. I am tired of hearing about it. When we win against all our crappy foes, we can really complain about it.
 

MBAGuy said:
Don't you think, though, that even if it's just an optical problem, it's still a problem? You look at the numbers and you see a program that isn't invested in its football program. Sure, we may fund the program through more nuanced channels; but to someone who hasn't done or reviewed the research, we're getting murdered by Iowa and Wisky 3-1 and 2-1 respectively. And who's to say they don't have program expenses not accounted for in an explicit line item?

I'm just saying that, to a fairly great extent, perception is defining the reality here.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the problem is with the person who compiled the list without looking to see if the numbers being reported are, ya know, the same numbers. The list is basically BS and was a lazy reporting job.

That said, the second problem is that the U isn't concerned with pushing back on it. That says plenty in its own right. If they were serious about the football budget, they'd be out explaining why these numbers aren't a true representation of what the U is spending.

So while I certainly think more could be spent on the program the true amount spent is not what concerns me. The attitude of those spending it is another story.
 

Add capitol outlays and facility investments and the numbers change completely. That is a bunch of crap.
 

craw0092 said:
I guess you guys need to quit making excuses for the budget. I am tired of hearing about it. When we will against all our crappy foes, we can really complain about it.
Click to expand...

Just so we're clear, we should stop discussing the budget because a) we lost to a team that has a tiny budget and b) you're tired of hearing about it. Is that about right?
 

jovs said:
Add capitol outlays and facility investments and the numbers change completely. That is a bunch of crap.
Click to expand...

Those are part of capital expenses and not operational expenses. Only debt service on bond issuances would be included in an annual operating budget. I suspect other schools aren't issuing bonds on their facilities upgrades (on account of their booster/alumni base being stronger than ours), so they likely don't have as much debt service as a percentage of their overall expenses.

Any lurkers/trolls from Wisky or Iowa care to weigh in?
 

MBAGuy said:
Those are part of capital expenses and not operational expenses. Only debt service on bond issuances would be included in an annual operating budget. I suspect other schools aren't issuing bonds on their facilities upgrades (on account of their booster/alumni base being stronger than ours), so they likely don't have as much debt service as a percentage of their overall expenses.

Any lurkers/trolls from Wisky or Iowa care to weigh in?
Click to expand...

People also need to keep in mind that the EADA figures are from the FY08-09, the year before TCF Bank Stadium opened.

Another thing to keep in mind is in addition to the cautionary note listed on the front page of the EADA website, individual institution reports may also have notes regarding their reporting. For example, both tOSU and PSU didn't include specific debt servicing as an athletic department expense for the FY08-09; including that into their 08-09 reports would shift both ADs from a profit to breaking even.
 


Revenues are up with TCF Bank Stadium. The problem has been that the dome was a blight on the finances, we got very little revenue. I don't think the way to football success is through cutting non-revenue sports. It's not as if we have non-revenue sports that the other Big Ten schools don't have, we don't even sponsor all the sports that the Big Ten offers, we don't have men's soccer or women's field hockey.

What kind of spending are we not doing that is hurting us? Throwing money at the problem won't do any good if it isn't spent well. What sort of spending should we be doing?
 

MBAGuy said:
Just so we're clear, we should stop discussing the budget because a) we lost to a team that has a tiny budget and b) you're tired of hearing about it. Is that about right?
Click to expand...

Dumba$$ - it's coaching that we are lacking, not $$$. Quit making excuses for a football team with superior talent after an embarrassing loss.

Boom. I said it. Maybe you need another MBA to help you understand.
 

craw0092 said:
Dumba$$ - it's coaching that we are lacking, not $$$. Quit making excuses for a football team with superior talent after an embarrassing loss.

Boom. I said it. Maybe you need another MBA to help you understand.
Click to expand...

Hey Dipsh1t, maybe we can get better coaching with more money. You don't think one affects the other? We got stuck with Brewster because he was effing cheap.

Try not being such a c0ckhole and use your effing brain.
 

MBA Guy, happy to provide the backup for my numbers, but don't know how to provide the links. USA Today has a database on coaches and assistant coaches salaries for 2009. It's easy to find. Keep in mind the amount the U paid to Dunbar for 2009 (reported elsewhere in the press at $270,000) is not included in the figures because Dunbar was not an assistant coach for 2009. The recruiting budget figures come from the Tulsa World this summer (google search Tulsa World Recruiting Budgets will find the story with the link to the database). In thinking about money, we should also keep in the mind the $2.2 million buyout to Glen Mason, plus an additional $1.4 million to be paid to him after his termination in deferred compensation. The U has had plenty of money to spread around on Football in the last 5 years. Also, when we think of the football revenue bases of Iowa and Wisconsin, we should think about how things looked when Hayden Fry and Barry Alvarez were hired (of course, adjusted to present day dollars). If the Gophers had a 10-year successful football run that resulted in Rose Bowl or BCS appearances, the revenue numbers would go up appreciably.
 

MBAGuy said:
Hey Dipsh1t, maybe we can get better coaching with more money. You don't think one affects the other? We got stuck with Brewster because he was effing cheap.

Try not being such a c0ckhole and use your effing brain.
Click to expand...


Hey Wizkid - you are very clever in your classless swearing. I do think money matters. That is why we should have beat the crapola out of USD. Are you reading this? Wait, can you read?

Maybe you meant to type "NBAGuy" as your handle, they can't read or write either. Nice work!!
 

BigTenGuy said:
MBA Guy, happy to provide the backup for my numbers, but don't know how to provide the links. USA Today has a database on coaches and assistant coaches salaries for 2009. It's easy to find. Keep in mind the amount the U paid to Dunbar for 2009 (reported elsewhere in the press at $270,000) is not included in the figures because Dunbar was not an assistant coach for 2009. The recruiting budget figures come from the Tulsa World this summer (google search Tulsa World Recruiting Budgets will find the story with the link to the database). In thinking about money, we should also keep in the mind the $2.2 million buyout to Glen Mason, plus an additional $1.4 million to be paid to him after his termination in deferred compensation. The U has had plenty of money to spread around on Football in the last 5 years. Also, when we think of the football revenue bases of Iowa and Wisconsin, we should think about how things looked when Hayden Fry and Barry Alvarez were hired (of course, adjusted to present day dollars). If the Gophers had a 10-year successful football run that resulted in Rose Bowl or BCS appearances, the revenue numbers would go up appreciably.
Click to expand...

Cool, thank you.

Perfectly willing to admit that I'm wrong here, btw. Just want to see the extent to which there's parity in program expense.
 

BigTenGuy said:
Money is not the problem at the U. The U paid two assistants last year (Cosgrove $300,000, and Mike Dunbar $270,000) more than any assistant at Iowa, or Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, or Indiana. Cosgrove's salary puts him in the elite in the Big Ten. He was not hired on the cheap. Recruiting is also not done on the cheap. For 2005-2009, Minnesota's annual FB recruiting budget was $368,842, $150,000+ per year more than Wisconsin's ($208,517). Also more than Iowa's avg FB recruiting budget ($291,517).
Click to expand...

BigTenGuy, good points. Would you mind sharing where youre pulling those numbers from? Not that I dont believe you, I think that kind of thinking is right on and there are some other numbers Im interested in looking up. Good post.
 

MBAGuy said:
That's the philosophy we've followed for the last 40 years. It hasn't worked. Maybe it's time to try something different.

Plus the U just made a massive investment in TCF Bank stadium. I recognize that's now a sunk cost and that capital and operational financing are two different animals. The investment can't stop there, though, unless we want a beautiful, vacant tomb on campus.
Click to expand...

MBAGuy makes a good point here, IMO finance and winning need to inch ahead together. A little more of one brings a little more of the other. Too much of money and not enough winning gets you no where and too much winning with not enough money can’t be sustained most likely. I truly believe the gophers are still on the edge of making it to the next tier, and then games like last weekend happen. I really still think at this level it's mostly about developing your players and finding kids who fit your program. A true identity needs to be established, these coordinators are killing the program, which leads to the head coach which leads to the AD. Given this....its all still one persons (mine) opinion and that’s it. An opinion.

A hawk here hoping the gophers win this weekend. Hawkeyes still have a bitter taste from the thumping by palmer and company in the orange bowl. Kick em in the teeth!
 

BigTenGuy - why did we pay Mike Dunbar last year? Did we have to buy him out?
 

MspHawk said:
MBAGuy makes a good point here, IMO finance and winning need to inch ahead together. A little more of one brings a little more of the other. Too much of money and not enough winning gets you no where...
Click to expand...

Tell that to Oregon.

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but a large injection of money or success can also bring the other along very quickly.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom