Great article from PiPress: Gophers football: Program needs true resources commitment

[supadupafly]

From the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Link to article on website is below.

http://www.twincities.com/gophers/ci_22023572/gophers-football-program-needs-true-commitment-kill-says?source=most_viewed

 

[hungan1]

Both Northwestern & Iowa are upgrading their training facilities. If the Gophers do not want to be left behind, they better get cracking and give the Gophers chance in the recruiting wars.

 

[GopherGod]

If Kill wants to upgrade his facilities, he might start by not wasting 800K on buying out of the UNC game. As far as I am concerned his requests go to the bottom of the pile after pulling that little maneuver. Tubby should get his practice facility first.

 

[supadupafly]

If Kill wants to upgrade his facilities, he might start by not wasting 800K on buying out of the UNC game. As far as I am concerned his requests go to the bottom of the pile after pulling that little maneuver. Tubby should get his practice facility first.

please! this comment smells like a steaming pile of......

as usual, you comments are pretty clueless and self-serving. that is all. btw - hope you enjoyed your huskers beating our gophers on saturday. but you keep right on telling us all that you are a big gopher football fan okay?

 

[westcoastgopher11]

If Kill wants to upgrade his facilities, he might start by not wasting 800K on buying out of the UNC game. As far as I am concerned his requests go to the bottom of the pile after pulling that little maneuver. Tubby should get his practice facility first.

Give it a rest.

 

[1983]

If Kill wants to upgrade his facilities, he might start by not wasting 800K on buying out of the UNC game. As far as I am concerned his requests go to the bottom of the pile after pulling that little maneuver. Tubby should get his practice facility first.

Dear God, get a brain. In the end, the move will produce a profit.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Give it a rest.

I'm actually going to agree with him.. That $800k is lost revenue now that we have a home/home with NMSU. No matter how you slice it, "making up that revenue" through donations could have been done in addition to playing UNC. Know what else is a great recruiting tool? Playing good opponents and telling kids you're going to go on great out of conference road trips to places like North Carolina or Southern Cal. Know what else is a good recruiting tool? Having your whole coaching staff with you in a place with tons of CFB talent (not unlike NC or Southern Cal).

I would also disagree with Kill on our facilities. We have a brand effing new stadium with one of the best locker rooms in the country, one of the biggest video boards in the country, and an upgraded weight room for the football team. While I'm sure the football practice facility is definitely on the facilities master plan, it should absolutely be behind a Bball practice facility and Williams Arena upgrade.

Though I guess I haven't been to NIU to see first hand how nice their stuff is. I'm just guessing that if a 3 year old stadium isn't good enough we are truly in an arms race that will require hundreds of millions of dollars every other year to "keep up."

 

[westcoastgopher11]

I'm actually going to agree with him.. That $800k is lost revenue now that we have a home/home with NMSU. No matter how you slice it, "making up that revenue" through donations could have been done in addition to playing UNC. Know what else is a great recruiting tool? Playing good opponents and telling kids you're going to go on great out of conference road trips to places like North Carolina or Southern Cal. Know what else is a good recruiting tool? Having your whole coaching staff with you in a place with tons of CFB talent (not unlike NC or Southern Cal).

I would also disagree with Kill on our facilities. We have a brand effing new stadium with one of the best locker rooms in the country, one of the biggest video boards in the country, and an upgraded weight room for the football team. While I'm sure the football practice facility is definitely on the facilities master plan, it should absolutely be behind a Bball practice facility and Williams Arena upgrade.

Though I guess I haven't been to NIU to see first hand how nice their stuff is. I'm just guessing that if a 3 year old stadium isn't good enough we are truly in an arms race that will require hundreds of millions of dollars every other year to "keep up."

I can't take complaining about the 800k sunk from the UNC series anymore, its gone. I know we got a lot of rubes in the fanbase that see numbers like $800,000 and crap their pants thinking "oh my god that's a fortune!", GET REAL. In college football 800k is pocket change, and while it sucks that we had to pay it, it doesn't benefit us to harp over it.

Big time college football takes investment, period. If we as a fanbase are going to *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!# the bed over 800k what are we going to do when it comes time to invest the way places like Wisconsin have done? You know what one of the first things Edsall talked about with the news Maryland was going to the B1G was? "New football facility."

If you haven't figured out that football is the engine that drives the gravy train of $$$ in college athletics you need to jump off so we can get people on board that do. Does Williams need renovation? Hell ya it does. Does basketball need a new practice facility? Absolutely. Hell I actually believe basketball has vastly more potential to take steps towards national relevance than football does in the near term. But that doesn't matter, football is what matters, and football needs to be the #1 priority of this athletic department.

 

[GopherFanatic19]

You know what, Minnesota has annually 50,000 plus students attend the U of M yearly. Minnesota has many fortune 500 companies that bring in billions of dollars. Why cant we have a mega booster who attended the U of M and start pumping money into the progam like Phil Knight of Nike does to Oregon. Look how he transformed that program. Minnesota has the resources like that, when will these mega boosters start spending some of that old dusty money they have sitting around.

If I was a billionaire I would pump in 100 million easily to make this program go big time. It would make Ohio State jelous.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

You know what, Minnesota has annually 50,000 plus students attend the U of M yearly. Minnesota has many fortune 500 companies that bring in billions of dollars. Why cant we have a mega booster who attended the U of M and start pumping money into the progam like Phil Knight of Nike does to Oregon. Look how he transformed that program. Minnesota has the resources like that, when will these mega boosters start spending some of that old dusty money they have sitting around.

If I was a billionaire I would pump in 100 million easily to make this program go big time. It would make Ohio State jelous.

I'd take a T. Boone Pickens at this point.

 

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

I'd take a T. Boone Pickens at this point.

I'd take a T. Denny Sanford.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

I'd take a T. Denny Sanford.

Touche.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

I can't take complaining about the 800k sunk from the UNC series anymore, its gone. I know we got a lot of rubes in the fanbase that see numbers like $800,000 and crap their pants thinking "oh my god that's a fortune!", GET REAL. In college football 800k is pocket change, and while it sucks that we had to pay it, it doesn't benefit us to harp over it.

Big time college football takes investment, period. If we as a fanbase are going to *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!# the bed over 800k what are we going to do when it comes time to invest the way places like Wisconsin have done? You know what one of the first things Edsall talked about with the news Maryland was going to the B1G was? "New football facility."

If you haven't figured out that football is the engine that drives the gravy train of $$$ in college athletics you need to jump off so we can get people on board that do. Does Williams need renovation? Hell ya it does. Does basketball need a new practice facility? Absolutely. Hell I actually believe basketball has vastly more potential to take steps towards national relevance than football does in the near term. But that doesn't matter, football is what matters, and football needs to be the #1 priority of this athletic department.

$800k is not pocket change when our AD runs on near razor thin margins each year (negative if you include what the University still puts in to the AD out of the general fund, to the tune of $2M in 2011). $800k is the difference in being able to put money in to a trust for scholarships so we're that much closer to endowment. Just cuz "it's gone" doesn't mean it's taboo or forbidden to talk about or use as an example of places where nearly a MILLION dollars of budget was available that we squandered.

You mean like the $288M state of the art football facility we just built? How's that for investment? And you can think football is the engine driver but basketball and hockey contribute a significant amount to the income simply because of the number of games they bring fans in for (not to mention far lower operating expenses due to the size of the teams).

I understand that football takes investment. And it's true only because we keep swallowing what ADs and conference CEOs and ESPN talking heads keep telling us. At what point is it too much? Clearly you don't see a problem with the rapidly increasing coaches salaries, amount of money funneled in to athletics (benefitting a very, very small percent of the student body), dilution of the teams relevance and relation to each other, or the culture created by the arms race going on where athletics reigns so supreme. When IS it too much?

 

[RailBaronYarr]

I'd take a T. Denny Sanford.

This is where it's at. We have far too many Fortune 500 companies and alumni (including $35M offering T Denny Sanford) who can help build our program to get behind a conference change simply for the money it brings in.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

$800k is not pocket change when our AD runs on near razor thin margins each year (negative if you include what the University still puts in to the AD out of the general fund, to the tune of $2M in 2011). $800k is the difference in being able to put money in to a trust for scholarships so we're that much closer to endowment. Just cuz "it's gone" doesn't mean it's taboo or forbidden to talk about or use as an example of places where nearly a MILLION dollars of budget was available that we squandered.

I never said it was taboo. I asked what good does it do us to harp and complain about it? If you think Teague financially mismanaged that one what are you going to do? Call for the firing of the new AD? Scold him for not valuing money?

You mean like the $288M state of the art football facility we just built? How's that for investment? And you can think football is the engine driver but basketball and hockey contribute a significant amount to the income simply because of the number of games they bring fans in for (not to mention far lower operating expenses due to the size of the teams).

They are the engine driver. Its not something I or anyone with reliable knowledge of college athletics is in any doubt about. Case in point from our newest member Maryland again. Gary Williams: career .651 winning percentage, 3 ACC titles, 2 Final Fours and the 2002 National Championship, absolute royalty in Maryland for what he did for their basketball program. Want to guess what he emphasized in the aftermath of their departure from the ACC?

"This is my view from where I’ve been as a coach, and being a longtime part of the ACC. That’s the important thing, that we as Maryland people — you certainly have your feelings about the ACC, but at the same time — [consider] what’s best for Maryland and the athletic department and the football program."

1. University of Maryland
2. Athletic Department
3. Football

Speaks for itself.

I understand that football takes investment. And it's true only because we keep swallowing what ADs and conference CEOs and ESPN talking heads keep telling us. At what point is it too much? Clearly you don't see a problem with the rapidly increasing coaches salaries, amount of money funneled in to athletics (benefitting a very, very small percent of the student body), dilution of the teams relevance and relation to each other, or the culture created by the arms race going on where athletics reigns so supreme. When IS it too much?

Coaching salaries? They are paid what the market will give them.

Benefits a narrow portion of the student body? Tell that to any grads of the powerhouses like Michigan/Texas/Ohio State/USC/Alabama, they'll laugh at you. Having too much pride in your institution or school spirit is one thing the University of Minnesota has NEVER had a problem with when it comes to sports. We didn't even have a full house for a #3 Minnesota vs Wisconsin hockey game at Mariucci EITHER night. You could see hundreds of empty seats just from the television angle pointed at the action, you didn't even have to pan around the arena.

When is it too much? That's not a question we should be concerning ourselves with as a fanbase. We should be asking ourselves "how can we do more?"

 

[huntster17]

Buck up wealthy locals. Would you rather send the money to dc or the gophers? Can I help you write the check?

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Coaching salaries? They are paid what the market will give them.

A market that continues to get artificially higher simply because conference executives make moves like this when a vast majority of their fan base is not excited about it. Schools like Mizzou and Maryland - their Presidents, ADs, Chancellors, Regents, etc think about the $$ first thinking that money will fix everything and create tradition or a loyal fan base, forgetting the tradition, history, and ways teams have proven they can win in the past. The problem with this arms race argument and supporting everyone doing it is that it's a ZERO SUM GAME. We build up our conference, others will, too. We renegotiate our TV contracts, the SEC, PAC12, Big12 will do the same. We up our facilities, the big programs up theirs more. It's funny to me that we all buy in to the statement that we won't be able to compete without a $5M coach. Or without a $30M weight room. At their heart, these expenses only exist to justify themselves, not better the community, school, fan interest, or attendance. We build up, we're still the lower-tier school. If you want to claim that we do all this to impress a potential class of 28 kids each year in HOPES that they'll be good enough to win after being coached by a $5M coach, I just don't see it. Just because everybody is doing it doesn't mean it's right.

Benefits a narrow portion of the student body? Tell that to any grads of the powerhouses like Michigan/Texas/Ohio State/USC/Alabama, they'll laugh at you. Having too much pride in your institution or school spirit is one thing the University of Minnesota has NEVER had a problem with when it comes to sports. We didn't even have a full house for a #3 Minnesota vs Wisconsin hockey game at Mariucci EITHER night. You could see hundreds of empty seats just from the television angle pointed at the action, you didn't even have to pan around the arena.

Your example of Mariucci illustrates my point EXACTLY. Where were the swathes of empty seats?? They were in the NON-student section. The expensive ones along the sides and on the east end of the bowl where students USED to have seats (which the U cut down) and new season ticket holders came in. Who are these ticket holders? Mostly corporations in the area - the only people who can afford the ticket prices and license fees for a season. What is the result? Empty stadiums/arenas even when the team is good because true fans who care about the program can't attend games. The students were there, packed, loud. I have pointed out on here in pictures numerous times that at TCF the student section, while not always full, has a higher % attendance rate on average than the seats everywhere else. Tons of prime spots between the 20s on both sidelines empty every game. Are there tons of reasons for this not related to ticket prices and the corporate nature of sports? Absolutely - team performance being the chief reason, but I can absolutely say that attendance and atmosphere has been negatively affected in the interest of higher ticket prices and revenues for the U.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

To illustrate the point of spending for the sake of recruiting, etc our very own new conference member Maryland exemplifies that spending does not equal attendance, success, or anything else. Pat Forde sums it up nicely in his article (this time it's really him and not Wetzel) link

It's funny that they opened a brand new basketball arena AFTER winning a national championship - all in the modern era of sports where cash and recruiting advantages of facilities apply. Since opening said arena, they have won the ACC regular season once, the ACC tournament once, and have only made the sweet 16 once (in 2003 where the majority of their starters were recruited before the new arena opened). They have missed the NCAAs 3 times as well.

As Forde points out, they expanded their stadium to 54k seats with disastrous results. I just don't see proof beyond 2 outliers (Oregon and Oklahoma State) vastly increasing their stake in a sport based solely on money and facilities.

Ask yourself this: will Minnesota be any more likely to win a national championship or Big Ten title with the addition of MD and Rutgers?

 

[westcoastgopher11]

A market that continues to get artificially higher simply because conference executives make moves like this when a vast majority of their fan base is not excited about it. Schools like Mizzou and Maryland - their Presidents, ADs, Chancellors, Regents, etc think about the $$ first thinking that money will fix everything and create tradition or a loyal fan base, forgetting the tradition, history, and ways teams have proven they can win in the past. The problem with this arms race argument and supporting everyone doing it is that it's a ZERO SUM GAME. We build up our conference, others will, too. We renegotiate our TV contracts, the SEC, PAC12, Big12 will do the same. We up our facilities, the big programs up theirs more. It's funny to me that we all buy in to the statement that we won't be able to compete without a $5M coach. Or without a $30M weight room. At their heart, these expenses only exist to justify themselves, not better the community, school, fan interest, or attendance. We build up, we're still the lower-tier school. If you want to claim that we do all this to impress a potential class of 28 kids each year in HOPES that they'll be good enough to win after being coached by a $5M coach, I just don't see it. Just because everybody is doing it doesn't mean it's right.

Athletics building up is not a zero sum game, exponentially more value has been created in just the past decade or so across the spectrum. ESPN is taking away money from some deal they were going to give to extreme rollerblading or some other obscure sport, college football creates a substantial return for them.

There are two $5 million dollar men in college football right now, Saban and Brown. Stop being so hyperbolic, we pay our football coach less than Colorado State, Cincinnati, South AND Central Florida pay theirs. Not a single top 25 team is below us in the rankings, and only about a handful of power conference BCS schools.

Your example of Mariucci illustrates my point EXACTLY. Where were the swathes of empty seats?? They were in the NON-student section. The expensive ones along the sides and on the east end of the bowl where students USED to have seats (which the U cut down) and new season ticket holders came in. Who are these ticket holders? Mostly corporations in the area - the only people who can afford the ticket prices and license fees for a season. What is the result? Empty stadiums/arenas even when the team is good because true fans who care about the program can't attend games. The students were there, packed, loud. I have pointed out on here in pictures numerous times that at TCF the student section, while not always full, has a higher % attendance rate on average than the seats everywhere else. Tons of prime spots between the 20s on both sidelines empty every game. Are there tons of reasons for this not related to ticket prices and the corporate nature of sports? Absolutely - team performance being the chief reason, but I can absolutely say that attendance and atmosphere has been negatively affected in the interest of higher ticket prices and revenues for the U.

Minnesota Hockey while a niche sport nationally, probably has the most cache locally. Minnesota is a blue blood in college hockey, the same way Kentucky is for basketball, Texas is for football, etc.

You think corporations don't own seats in Darrell K. Royal stadium? Rupp Arena in Lexington? And yet they still find a way to have butts in every seat when they have big rivalry games. You think a Texas vs Texas A&M game would have swathes of open seats like that? A Kentucky vs Tennessee basketball game?

Performance absolutely does impact attendance, but if we can't get a full house for a #3 nationally ranked hockey program against one of our two biggest rivals what more can the teams do on the ice? These tickets are paid for, and I don't buy that a corporation would think it a smart investment to purchase them and then simply turn around and not use or at the least resell the most valuable games. Target probably has enough Minnesota alumni at corporate to fill Mariucci twice over, the fact is a lot of alumni just don't have school spirit or care. And that's not because they were priced out of games, that's because of the culture that had been created at the school. A culture we are trying to change.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Athletics building up is not a zero sum game, exponentially more value has been created in just the past decade or so across the spectrum. ESPN is taking away money from some deal they were going to give to extreme rollerblading or some other obscure sport, college football creates a substantial return for them.

There are two $5 million dollar men in college football right now, Saban and Brown. Stop being so hyperbolic, we pay our football coach less than Colorado State, Cincinnati, South AND Central Florida pay theirs. Not a single top 25 team is below us in the rankings, and only about a handful of power conference BCS schools.

You said yourself the point of the extra money we receive is increasing coaches salaries and investing in facilities, over and over again. I'm not speaking of coaches salaries in the present tense that were agreed upon BEFORE continued realignments were made, I'm talking FUTURE salary increases at a rate much higher than inflation or economic output growth in the US. It will absolutely happen, particularly if you include bonus money as part of salary for coaches. As others have pointed out, this realignment will be successful money-wise if the BTN is able to "strong-arm" broadcasters in to putting the station on their basic tier programming at the expense of the local subscriber who in all liklihood (80-90% of viewers based on many studies) DOESN'T want it but has no choice. That's how we get to this point - charge subscribers for something they won't use, build expensive facilities that require the universities to charge outlandish seat licenses and require donations to buy seats - pricing out the very people who like to attend (or can afford to).

Minnesota Hockey while a niche sport nationally, probably has the most cache locally. Minnesota is a blue blood in college hockey, the same way Kentucky is for basketball, Texas is for football, etc.

You think corporations don't own seats in Darrell K. Royal stadium? Rupp Arena in Lexington? And yet they still find a way to have butts in every seat when they have big rivalry games. You think a Texas vs Texas A&M game would have swathes of open seats like that? A Kentucky vs Tennessee basketball game?

Performance absolutely does impact attendance, but if we can't get a full house for a #3 nationally ranked hockey program against one of our two biggest rivals what more can the teams do on the ice? These tickets are paid for, and I don't buy that a corporation would think it a smart investment to purchase them and then simply turn around and not use or at the least resell the most valuable games. Target probably has enough Minnesota alumni at corporate to fill Mariucci twice over, the fact is a lot of alumni just don't have school spirit or care. And that's not because they were priced out of games, that's because of the culture that had been created at the school. A culture we are trying to change.

You don't create culture with shiny facilities that only student athletes get to use most of the time. More often than not teams that spend ridiculous amounts of money on these facilities, coaches, etc do NOT become successful on the field. Do the facilities create the gameday atmosphere? Has the $288M TCF bank stadium that has better amenities than any current B1G stadium brought in students by droves?

As for corporations, they absolutely view it as a smart investment. They can deduct the expense as entertainment business expense and use it for business functions as well as an incentive to draw in employees because of the perks. They hand them out and the problem is people DON'T CARE or DON'T GO. The company would never consider selling them because as far as they know it's been a wild success to continue buying them.

Go ahead and keep pointing out programs that have had wild, insane in-field/court success and assume that spending more and upgrading more will make our venues any more attractive to fans or make our teams any better compared to our competition. Those programs continue to win and therefore continue to bring in fans, and by continue to win I mean they have had great success over the last 50 years with few to no "down" years. Gopher Hockey ruined itself by selling out the people who are the hardcore fans - students and recent alums.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

You said yourself the point of the extra money we receive is increasing coaches salaries and investing in facilities, over and over again. I'm not speaking of coaches salaries in the present tense that were agreed upon BEFORE continued realignments were made, I'm talking FUTURE salary increases at a rate much higher than inflation or economic output growth in the US. It will absolutely happen, particularly if you include bonus money as part of salary for coaches. As others have pointed out, this realignment will be successful money-wise if the BTN is able to "strong-arm" broadcasters in to putting the station on their basic tier programming at the expense of the local subscriber who in all liklihood (80-90% of viewers based on many studies) DOESN'T want it but has no choice. That's how we get to this point - charge subscribers for something they won't use, build expensive facilities that require the universities to charge outlandish seat licenses and require donations to buy seats - pricing out the very people who like to attend (or can afford to).

Yes we have to invest in facilities and coaching salaries to build. Why on Earth are fans of the University of Minnesota complaining about salaries for coaches that are unsustainable when ours are among the lowest in a BCS power conference? When we have some of the worst (or lack of) facilities in the conference? What sense does that make? I'm talking about problems the University of Minnesota has, I could give two *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#s if Auburn is going to have to pony up $5 million to fire Gene Chizik two years removed from a National Championship.

TCF Bank was a massive step forward for the football program, but face it, we are still too many steps behind the rest of the conference not to even mention the country. Our facilities are simply sub-par, and when you factor in an apathetic fanbase and sporadic at best success that's a recipe for falling behind quickly.

You don't create culture with shiny facilities that only student athletes get to use most of the time. More often than not teams that spend ridiculous amounts of money on these facilities, coaches, etc do NOT become successful on the field. Do the facilities create the gameday atmosphere? Has the $288M TCF bank stadium that has better amenities than any current B1G stadium brought in students by droves?

As for corporations, they absolutely view it as a smart investment. They can deduct the expense as entertainment business expense and use it for business functions as well as an incentive to draw in employees because of the perks. They hand them out and the problem is people DON'T CARE or DON'T GO. The company would never consider selling them because as far as they know it's been a wild success to continue buying them.

Go ahead and keep pointing out programs that have had wild, insane in-field/court success and assume that spending more and upgrading more will make our venues any more attractive to fans or make our teams any better compared to our competition. Those programs continue to win and therefore continue to bring in fans, and by continue to win I mean they have had great success over the last 50 years with few to no "down" years. Gopher Hockey ruined itself by selling out the people who are the hardcore fans - students and recent alums.

You are right, you create a culture of pride in the community by winning. I haven't met a Michigan alum that isn't PROUD of their football. Same with any Hoosier I met for basketball. Facilities do not a culture make, but when you don't have the tradition or community pride upgrading your facilities is a way to start building a winning culture. Facilities shows commitment to competing and winning.

How does North Carolina basketball manage to have people in all their corporate seats at the Dean Dome? How does Texas manage to have people in all their corporate seats Austin? How does Minnesota hockey have this same problem with the heritage and tradition of hockey excellence that this state always crows about? You're telling me that North Carolina cares more about basketball, or Texas cares more about football than Minnesota does about hockey? I don't buy it.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Yes we have to invest in facilities and coaching salaries to build. Why on Earth are fans of the University of Minnesota complaining about salaries for coaches that are unsustainable when ours are among the lowest in a BCS power conference? When we have some of the worst (or lack of) facilities in the conference? What sense does that make? I'm talking about problems the University of Minnesota has, I could give two *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#s if Auburn is going to have to pony up $5 million to fire Gene Chizik two years removed from a National Championship.

TCF Bank was a massive step forward for the football program, but face it, we are still too many steps behind the rest of the conference not to even mention the country. Our facilities are simply sub-par, and when you factor in an apathetic fanbase and sporadic at best success that's a recipe for falling behind quickly.

Does the average fan care about how nice our weight room is? If the Gibson complex was renovated? I also have a hard time believing a 3 year old stadium is considered sub-par. I have a hard time believing we are below Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, even MSU or Iowa when you factor in the total football complexes and experience the team has, to say nothing of the rest of FBS/FCS college football. And what exactly are you citing is sub-par? Simply because Jerry Kill says so? What changes or upgrades will make our football practice facility more functional than it is today? What are we missing? If you can cite examples, tell me how this makes the team perform any better on the field?

You are right, you create a culture of pride in the community by winning. I haven't met a Michigan alum that isn't PROUD of their football. Same with any Hoosier I met for basketball. Facilities do not a culture make, but when you don't have the tradition or community pride upgrading your facilities is a way to start building a winning culture. Facilities shows commitment to competing and winning.

Go ahead and prove with correlation that investing in facilities helps build a winning culture. take out programs that DO have a history of winning and then see what correlation coefficient is of 1015 year record after major facility investment vs before and tell me it helps or does anything. For every Oregon who spends $280M on facilities (courtesy of Phil Knight, not TV revenue, BTW) or Oklahoma State, there is a Maryland who spent millions on a bball arena and upgrades to a stadium with no effect whatsoever. The burden is on you to prove me wrong that on average it helps.

Keep in mind what I said about it being a zero sum game. Just because we are investing with new money doesn't mean other schools who are ALREADY WINNING aren't as well. All that money comes in to the University and is spent on things that won't impact our on-field performance or gameday atmosphere. I could even argue that atmosphere on campus (which leads to pride as you state) is HURT by the money we get. Why? Because being on TV as part of these big lucrative deals comes with the strings attached for game times. Before all these "nationally televised games" (that supposedly impact recruiting despite the fact that we're 'nationally' televised on the BTN when regular Joes are watching ABC or ESPN1), teams were able to play at noon, 1 PM, 2 PM - MUCH better for the fan experience. Now we get 3-4 11 AM games a year. GREAT!

I'll ALSO argue that this whole civic pride thing you claim will follow all the facilities and coaches salary upgrades existed long before these things happened. Long before color or national tv, the Gophers were the state team, a source of pride. People grew up listening to them on the radio, attending games (because they could afford them), watching the game in a local bar on the local channel. How did teams create civic pride back in the day before $300M gold plated locker rooms and weight rooms? Brass tax - it won't work. If anything, I would bet the sheer amount of money flowing in to the U will somehow create a negative perception of the school as "elitist" to the general MN population. Comments that already existed when we opened our stadium - "why is the U spending all this taxpayer money on a stadium when tuition is so high!? I didn't attend the U and don't plan on going to games, why should I pay for it!?" It doesn't matter how right they are or not. It has happened and will happen.

This zero sum game also applies to the fact that while we add and gain revenue, the ability for schools like Boise, Utah State, North Dakota State, etc etc to get income required to keep up. In a future where we have 4-5 major conferences that share 90% of TV rights (which is a larger disparity than now), it becomes harder for the "long-tail" of schools to have athletic programs. Not just football, but other sports as well. So great, 50 big schools now can fund lavish weight rooms, pay exorbitant salaries to coaches, and give access to a 20 Men's and Women's sports. The rest of the schools out there, well, without any football revenue can't afford to have scholarship athletes or facilities for them to play in. College football is NOT a business. We all sit here an allow them to tell us it is, but it ISN'T.

How does North Carolina basketball manage to have people in all their corporate seats at the Dean Dome? How does Texas manage to have people in all their corporate seats Austin? How does Minnesota hockey have this same problem with the heritage and tradition of hockey excellence that this state always crows about? You're telling me that North Carolina cares more about basketball, or Texas cares more about football than Minnesota does about hockey? I don't buy it.

Absolutely. Hockey is MN's 3rd most popular sport. Sheer number of fans of football and basketball (and baseball at the pro level) outweigh hockey by a LARGE margin, and it's not even close. The radio covers Vikings first, everything else after. Timberwolves get more press and attention as a horrible team than the Wild do when mediocre. Your average Minnesotan, particularly any sort of transplant from any other area, will be more interested in attending a UMN basketball game than a UMN hockey game. So yes, in NC where basketball is a lot closer to football than hockey is to football here, I'd say it is a bigger deal. In texas, football is everything. Absolutely everything. There is no comparison of how popular football is per capita in TX to hockey in MN.

And what hardcore hockey fans we do have here in the cities (at least those that aren't UND, UMD, Wisc, Mankato, SCSU, Bemidji, or otherwise) are largely priced out of Mariucci and even if they weren't the corporations have the tickets and there has been a waiting list behind them. Corps can also make large enough donations to jump up in the priority. That's how it works.

 

[ecoperson]

You Both are Right

RailBaronYarr and westcoastgopher11 both make excellent points.

I agree that the culture surrounding Gopher athletics has suffered over the years. I am hopeful that Teague and Kaler can help generate some school spirit. It is clear that successful sports teams, especially football, can lead to greater overall contributions to the University. Has anyone ever come across any figures that show average contributions per alumnus? I would imagine that the U is lower than many other schools.

That said, I do get a little leary of the excalating arms race that is college sports. The day of the student-athlete is gone. It truly is a business and I think we all need to get used to it or cease being a fan. You have to spend money to make money in business. Athletic departments are now run like a business and doing their best to be successful. I KNOW that part of this includes improving the product on the field AND the fan experience. As mentioned earlier, I think that Teague and Kaler get the importance of the fan experience.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

Does the average fan care about how nice our weight room is? If the Gibson complex was renovated? I also have a hard time believing a 3 year old stadium is considered sub-par. I have a hard time believing we are below Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, even MSU or Iowa when you factor in the total football complexes and experience the team has, to say nothing of the rest of FBS/FCS college football. And what exactly are you citing is sub-par? Simply because Jerry Kill says so? What changes or upgrades will make our football practice facility more functional than it is today? What are we missing? If you can cite examples, tell me how this makes the team perform any better on the field?

The average fan cares about winning above all else. The two parts of winning is having better players and better coaching. Paying more competitive salaries to coaches covers one part of that equation. Building good facilities that these guys will be spending a majority of their waking hours in for four years is the other. Whether it is studying, watching film, eating meals, training, socializing, or practicing, the reality is big time division one football players spend a ton of time in football facilities. The benefits to having competitive and nice facilities that go beyond merely "functional" are obvious.

I would say Iowa, and Michigan State are definitely beyond us in terms of facilities. And if you are aiming to be on a level of Indiana or Purdue in football then that's all you. Irrelevance is not something I want for the University.

If anything, I would bet the sheer amount of money flowing in to the U will somehow create a negative perception of the school as "elitist" to the general MN population. Comments that already existed when we opened our stadium - "why is the U spending all this taxpayer money on a stadium when tuition is so high!? I didn't attend the U and don't plan on going to games, why should I pay for it!?" It doesn't matter how right they are or not. It has happened and will happen.

You don't need to remind me how many rubes this fanbase has, the "elitist" line is embarrassing to keep trotting out. If you are afraid of elitism you are afraid of wanting to be the best. Minnesota has the 6th highest median household income adjusted for cost of living in the United States. This state is among the highest educated and most literate. Stop this stupid charade about us being a bunch of po-dunk "geez whiz look at richie rich over here" types. That might be what Minnesota was for a long time, but that certainly isn't what we are now.

This zero sum game also applies to the fact that while we add and gain revenue, the ability for schools like Boise, Utah State, North Dakota State, etc etc to get income required to keep up. In a future where we have 4-5 major conferences that share 90% of TV rights (which is a larger disparity than now), it becomes harder for the "long-tail" of schools to have athletic programs. Not just football, but other sports as well. So great, 50 big schools now can fund lavish weight rooms, pay exorbitant salaries to coaches, and give access to a 20 Men's and Women's sports. The rest of the schools out there, well, without any football revenue can't afford to have scholarship athletes or facilities for them to play in. College football is NOT a business. We all sit here an allow them to tell us it is, but it ISN'T.

No one cares about Utah or North Dakota State football. Enjoy FCS.

Absolutely. Hockey is MN's 3rd most popular sport. Sheer number of fans of football and basketball (and baseball at the pro level) outweigh hockey by a LARGE margin, and it's not even close. The radio covers Vikings first, everything else after. Timberwolves get more press and attention as a horrible team than the Wild do when mediocre. Your average Minnesotan, particularly any sort of transplant from any other area, will be more interested in attending a UMN basketball game than a UMN hockey game. So yes, in NC where basketball is a lot closer to football than hockey is to football here, I'd say it is a bigger deal. In texas, football is everything. Absolutely everything. There is no comparison of how popular football is per capita in TX to hockey in MN.

And what hardcore hockey fans we do have here in the cities (at least those that aren't UND, UMD, Wisc, Mankato, SCSU, Bemidji, or otherwise) are largely priced out of Mariucci and even if they weren't the corporations have the tickets and there has been a waiting list behind them. Corps can also make large enough donations to jump up in the priority. That's how it works.

Don't compare apples to oranges, we are talking about college sports. There are plenty of other schools with pro sports in their immediate markets.

Still can't answer my question though, how does Kentucky put butts in their corporate seats in basketball, Texas in football, etc? To argue that Minnesota doesn't have enough fan interest in hockey to fill Mariucci is a pathetic joke. If we can't fill Mariucci we don't have a shot in hell at filling TCF.

 

[supadupafly]

I can't take complaining about the 800k sunk from the UNC series anymore, its gone. I know we got a lot of rubes in the fanbase that see numbers like $800,000 and crap their pants thinking "oh my god that's a fortune!", GET REAL. In college football 800k is pocket change, and while it sucks that we had to pay it, it doesn't benefit us to harp over it.

Big time college football takes investment, period. If we as a fanbase are going to *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!# the bed over 800k what are we going to do when it comes time to invest the way places like Wisconsin have done? You know what one of the first things Edsall talked about with the news Maryland was going to the B1G was? "New football facility."

If you haven't figured out that football is the engine that drives the gravy train of $$$ in college athletics you need to jump off so we can get people on board that do. Does Williams need renovation? Hell ya it does. Does basketball need a new practice facility? Absolutely. Hell I actually believe basketball has vastly more potential to take steps towards national relevance than football does in the near term. But that doesn't matter, football is what matters, and football needs to be the #1 priority of this athletic department.

+100. some of the rubes really need to get this FACT through their heads. it is not possible to "over invest" in our football program if we have any desire for long-term success and competitiveness.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

The average fan cares about winning above all else. The two parts of winning is having better players and better coaching. Paying more competitive salaries to coaches covers one part of that equation. Building good facilities that these guys will be spending a majority of their waking hours in for four years is the other. Whether it is studying, watching film, eating meals, training, socializing, or practicing, the reality is big time division one football players spend a ton of time in football facilities. The benefits to having competitive and nice facilities that go beyond merely "functional" are obvious.

Really? Coaches salaries in the Big Ten and $$ per win for those coaches, taken from another thread:

4. Urban Meyer, Ohio State: $4.3 million
6. Kirk Ferentz, Iowa: $3.835 million
12. Brady Hoke, Michigan: $3.046 million
15. Bo Pelini, Nebraska: $2.875 million
18. Bret Bielema, Wisconsin: $2.64 million
33. Bill O'Brien, Penn State: $2.3 million
45. Mark Dantonio, Michigan State: $1.934 million
54. Tim Beckman, Illinois: $1.6 million
61. Pat Fitzgerald, Northwestern: $1.26 million
62. Kevin Wilson, Indiana: $1.26 million
64. Jerry Kill, Minnesota: $1.2 million
65. Danny Hope, Purdue: $970,000

1. Fitzgerald: $157,500 per win
2. Hope: $194,000 per win
3. Kill: $200,000 per win
4. Wilson: $315,000 per win
5. Pelini: $319,444 per win
6. O'Brien: $328,571 per win
7. Bielema: $377,143 per win
8. Hoke: $380,750 per win
9. Dantonio: $386,800 per win
10. Meyer: $390,909 per win
11. Beckman: $800,000 per win
12. Ferentz: $958,750 per win

Ferentz is the 2nd highest paid coach yet has had 3 straight mediocre to bad years. Despite their facilities you cite and extreme coaching salaries. Fitzgerald is the 4th lowest paid coach yet has his squad on pace to win 9 regular season games with 3 gut wrenching 4th quarter collapses away from an undefeated record (and he has a damn good track record of winning despite their terrible football stadium, academic requirements, and higher cost per athlete due to scholarship costs). I would argue that the top programs can afford to pay more simply because of their status and history, and will naturally win more because they continue to draw in talent regardless of their coach or facilities - because of their name.

I would say Iowa, and Michigan State are definitely beyond us in terms of facilities. And if you are aiming to be on a level of Indiana or Purdue in football then that's all you. Irrelevance is not something I want for the University.

I'm confused. Iowa builds a hangar style indoor practice facility with field turf. We have the Gibson Nagurski practice facility with field turf. How is theirs leaps and bounds better than ours? I'm not aiming for being on par with Indiana. I'm saying these TV deals will do nothing to make the income disparity (and therefore facilities arms race) between us and the OSUs/Michigans/etc any different, and therefore will not help our recruiting or games won.

You don't need to remind me how many rubes this fanbase has, the "elitist" line is embarrassing to keep trotting out. If you are afraid of elitism you are afraid of wanting to be the best. Minnesota has the 6th highest median household income adjusted for cost of living in the United States. This state is among the highest educated and most literate. Stop this stupid charade about us being a bunch of po-dunk "geez whiz look at richie rich over here" types. That might be what Minnesota was for a long time, but that certainly isn't what we are now.

I'm not claiming we are, but I sure as hell read enough Strib articles and heard enough people in this state complaining about the money the U spent on the stadium. The way the alcohol thing was turned against the U. Median income has absolutely jack sh!t to do with people's reactions to what the U does and spends their money on. Never once did I claim we're backwater or uneducated. That doesn't mean we haven't been fighting an uphill battle in terms of public perception for a LONG time.

No one cares about Utah or North Dakota State football. Enjoy FCS.

I care about giving access to more athletes across the country in many sports other than football. But that doesn't mean this future model of a bunch of super-conferences where everyone else is SOL means less equitable access to college sports (both in terms of number of programs that can afford it and the number of sports offered). More money to the top programs doesn't mean better experiences for everyone involved in the world of college sports. I also do happen to like watching teams with no budget and from backwater places (like Boise) win on a consistent basis against teams like Oklahoma with every built-in advantage in the world. continuing the decline of these games (and the access they have to marquee matchups) diminishes what makes college football different than the NFL.

Don't compare apples to oranges, we are talking about college sports. There are plenty of other schools with pro sports in their immediate markets.

Still can't answer my question though, how does Kentucky put butts in their corporate seats in basketball, Texas in football, etc? To argue that Minnesota doesn't have enough fan interest in hockey to fill Mariucci is a pathetic joke. If we can't fill Mariucci we don't have a shot in hell at filling TCF.

I'm not - I postulated to you that this state cares about Football first, basketball second, and hockey third. I threw in baseball as an interjection that I believe pro baseball is more popular than pro hockey to show that hockey really does not carry the cachet most people here think it does. Hockey is more popular here than other states, but is still a niche sport within our own population. By comparison, basketball in NC is the #1. Texas football is #1. This, coupled with the nature of their towns (any pro sports competing for attention in Chapel Hill or Austin or Lexington) and the extreme success level their teams have had over many lifetimes, accounts for the attendance they have.

I never said we don't have enough fan interest to fill Mariucci. I've been to plenty of games where that isn't the case. I said the reason is the nature of the price of tickets and who ends up getting them keeps the interested fans out of the arena and makes for a lame duck atmosphere (outside the student section). And it's a prime example of facilities (Mariucci is amazing as far as college hockey goes and recently had a new scoreboard and ribbon system added), coach's salary (in 2009 Don Lucia was paid the highest in the WCHA) and winning (the WCHA regular season and playing in the Frozen Four last year, being ranked #3 now, to say nothing of back-to-back national titles within the last decade and many other conference championships since) NOT being the only factors that contribute to fan interest and atmosphere. If hockey is as popular as you say, and we've done all the right things facilities/coach/winning, tell ME why we aren't getting fans to fill the seats?? I already gave my reason, what's yours??

 

[westcoastgopher11]

Ferentz is the 2nd highest paid coach yet has had 3 straight mediocre to bad years. Despite their facilities you cite and extreme coaching salaries. Fitzgerald is the 4th lowest paid coach yet has his squad on pace to win 9 regular season games with 3 gut wrenching 4th quarter collapses away from an undefeated record (and he has a damn good track record of winning despite their terrible football stadium, academic requirements, and higher cost per athlete due to scholarship costs). I would argue that the top programs can afford to pay more simply because of their status and history, and will naturally win more because they continue to draw in talent regardless of their coach or facilities - because of their name.

The $$$ per win data simply isn't helpful in any way. What argument would you try to make with those numbers? That Kill's 200k per win is somehow a better deal than Meyer's 390k per win? That Danny Hope is the best value in the conference because of the lowest salary and second lowest dollar per win?

Pointing to Ferentz doesn't help your case, he has brought them 4 10+ win seasons, two BCS bowls, and a 100-74 record in Iowa City. He's being paid as much for what he's done for them as much as what he still can do.

Fitzgerald is a unique case no doubt, but he's the exception not the rule. He's an alum who is obviously taking a pretty big hometown discount to coach a place he loves. He would fetch a lot more if he decided to leave.

I'm confused. Iowa builds a hangar style indoor practice facility with field turf. We have the Gibson Nagurski practice facility with field turf. How is theirs leaps and bounds better than ours? I'm not aiming for being on par with Indiana. I'm saying these TV deals will do nothing to make the income disparity (and therefore facilities arms race) between us and the OSUs/Michigans/etc any different, and therefore will not help our recruiting or games won.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth in a tit for tat comparison about whether or not you think Iowa's facility is better than ours, the principle is the same and its true.

I'm not claiming we are, but I sure as hell read enough Strib articles and heard enough people in this state complaining about the money the U spent on the stadium. The way the alcohol thing was turned against the U. Median income has absolutely jack sh!t to do with people's reactions to what the U does and spends their money on. Never once did I claim we're backwater or uneducated. That doesn't mean we haven't been fighting an uphill battle in terms of public perception for a LONG time.

Yea and the longer we keep our voices silent about those issue and let the rubes and haters control the discourse about Minnesota athletics the longer we are going to be in the cellar. Median income speaks to your point about ticket affordability more than anything. And yes we are fighting a sports media machine in the Twin Cities that treats the Gophers like a punching bag because its easy and they are lazy. Win and suddenly Reusse will be fawning over the Gophers.

I care about giving access to more athletes across the country in many sports other than football. But that doesn't mean this future model of a bunch of super-conferences where everyone else is SOL means less equitable access to college sports (both in terms of number of programs that can afford it and the number of sports offered). More money to the top programs doesn't mean better experiences for everyone involved in the world of college sports. I also do happen to like watching teams with no budget and from backwater places (like Boise) win on a consistent basis against teams like Oklahoma with every built-in advantage in the world. continuing the decline of these games (and the access they have to marquee matchups) diminishes what makes college football different than the NFL.

Noble. I don't see how there has been decreased access to college sports though. On the contrary there seem to be more student athletes than ever. There is a clear divide between the top 60-70 programs in division one football and everyone else. Metaphorically speaking just because the richer are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer.

I'm not - I postulated to you that this state cares about Football first, basketball second, and hockey third. I threw in baseball as an interjection that I believe pro baseball is more popular than pro hockey to show that hockey really does not carry the cachet most people here think it does. Hockey is more popular here than other states, but is still a niche sport within our own population. By comparison, basketball in NC is the #1. Texas football is #1. This, coupled with the nature of their towns (any pro sports competing for attention in Chapel Hill or Austin or Lexington) and the extreme success level their teams have had over many lifetimes, accounts for the attendance they have.

Agree to disagree about the emphasis in sports here I guess. The state hockey tournament outdraws the football one, and definitely the basketball tournament as well. Minnesota has a handful of Division one programs. It may be a niche national sport, but hockey does not fit that characteristic here. And again, why does Minnesota have problems putting people physically in these "corporate seats" and other programs not?

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Noble. I don't see how there has been decreased access to college sports though. On the contrary there seem to be more student athletes than ever. There is a clear divide between the top 60-70 programs in division one football and everyone else. Metaphorically speaking just because the richer are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer.

I'll only respond to one as I'm exhausted because we obviously fundamentally disagree. I believe that spending more has not equated to winning more with the exception of a few outliers like Oregon and Oklahoma St (both of which got their money not as an equal share deal like what TV revenue would be but from a slew of massive donations ONLY to that program). Making more money as a whole will not increase our chances of winning more Big Ten games - it didn't help us since the BTN began, didn't help our competitiveness when the B10 first struck an ESPN deal, didn't help when we got what was a new shiny Metrodome pro facility that would "help recruiting," and prominent schools have paid $hitloads of cash to plenty of coaches who have flopped despite their built in advantages (Charlie Weiss, Bill Callahan, Rich Rodriguez, the list can go on and on). You clearly fundamentally disagree. Perhaps your argument is only that things are happening and if we don't follow suit as a CONFERENCE our place in college football fiefdom will slip and slip and soon the TV contracts won't be 1/2 of what the SEC is getting. Perhaps that's true and our ability as a conference to compete will continue to erode. But that's only because everyone keeps buying in to the notion that college football is a business and we need to expand and compete for viewers/money/etc.

As to the bolded point above. Maryland is a prime example of what will happen at schools that are on the outside looking in. Spend money they don't have on facilities (like their bball arena and upgrades to football) in hopes it helps the fan experience. Or go for a big name coach at a big paycheck. They have not had nearly the success the did in bball prior to 2002, and have cut several sports from their athletic program. Access to sports will go down. When conferences get so big that they play 9-10 game schedules, the number of games played to smaller of FCS schools with $1-2M payouts will decrease, lowering their ability to fund football and other sports. Problem is, there won't be room in the B10/SEC/Pac20/Big20 to bail them out like what happened to Maryland. Isn't that the whole point of this spending madness? Spend on things you don't think other schools (particularly smaller ones or ones without your name/brand) can afford to do and price them out of the recruiting and revenue market? Spend more on a stadium with suites and you'll get more. When the amount a B10 school can spend is more than a Mountain West school could dream of spending, how will they compete or continue to get any revenue?

And yes, as far as economics go, inflation adjusted incomes for the average household has stagnated over the past 40 years despite productivity increasing, and the wage gap to the top 10% and 1% earners has increased at a very high rate.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

We lose a million dollars in revenue every time Nebraska, Iowa or Wisconsin play in our dinky stadium. The Huskers have just expanded to 90,000 - think of the extra revenue compared to our 50k - and we can't fill that. Nevertheless, you wonder how Franklin at Vanderbilt is doing in facilities re Alabama, LSU and Florida; but he is doing a heck of a job coaching in that murderous conference.