Long STrib article: Maroon and gold vs. black and red (will all 25 sports survive?)

[mplsbadger]

It would work for sports like tennis, gymnastics, golf, swimming - all equally draw flies. Therefore they both (men's/women's) get zero scholarships.

You need to balance the opportunity across the whole department, so you'd still have about 110 FB, BB, and hockey scholarships to offset.

 

[6 Nov 1999]

Follow the Money!

True. But on the other hand, the Packers don't have a gymnastics team...

We need to get a life after Voelz. The current business model is responsible for Defensive Coordinator salary of $130,000 / year under Glen Mason, specifically David Lockwood. Look at the money and figure out what kind of defense we were paying for, and why we had the defense that we had. This is no slam on David Lockwood, who I am sure was doing his damndest under difficult circumstances. But you get what you pay for. Once the Mason regime was removed through absolutely horrific financial mismanagement of contracts and buyouts which would definitely have resulted in Donald Trump telling somebody in charge, "Your Fired!", suddenly we had over $300,000 / year to pay for defensive coordinators. However, by this time the 2 port side engines on our B-24 were on fire, we went into an uncontrollable spin, and I don't need to tell you how our flight ended.

 

[Killjoy]

6 Nov. 1999

Thursday, June 16, 2011, USA Today, Sports, Section C, Page 6C Colleges, "Most big-time schools winning the profit game" provides an interesting table of statistics. It lists 22 of the 228 Division 1 public universities who turned a profit in 2009-2010. Of these 22 institutions listed, 8 of them are in the expanded Big Ten conference. They are, in descending order of profit, Penn State, Michigan, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, Nebraska, Indiana, and Ohio State. Listen folks, if Iowa, Purdue, and Indiana can turn a profit, there is absolutely no reason Minnesota should not be turning a profit. These schools all have their business model / economic model heads screwed on straight. Our is screwed on backward, the threads are stripped, and we need a tool and die kit to extract ourselves from our broken Marxist / Leninist business model.

I am not sure what your trying to say to me with the above to comment to me but my response to wren you which you included in your post was my response to his 3:06 pm post yesterday which read: "Who is a Hudson here?

Where the hell is killjoy...that's what I want to know... You two form quite the little tag-team. Funny thing...it looks as though killjoy has the hots for you dopodoll. Are you two pretty close? He certainly tries to build you up, in his own little way...

But, I really kind of am surprised the way that killjoy just about always comments on my posts. It is good to see that he always reads them. He might learn something...and his reading skills should improve. It always seems to bring attention. killjoy isn't very good at what killjoy does, but he/she tries really hard. So, if you see your buddy killjoy around, tell him/her to get with it and to start carrying some weight around here with all his/her cheap little tricks, games and shots, dopodoll. P.s, you could stand a new look yourself, dopodoll. Update just a little bit. It might help. Your presence and your personality just never seem to match your little avatar... Give my regards to killjoy!"

I just thought it was a little childish and inappropriate and that is what I was trying to comunicate to him.

 

[AO54]

"cutting non revenue sports does not guarantee more success in revenue sports."

Well if they're not going to guarantee me a rose bowl, I'm just going keep my donations and stay at home.

 

[BisonGopher]

You need to balance the opportunity across the whole department, so you'd still have about 110 FB, BB, and hockey scholarships to offset.

Of course. I'd have to research the numbers - but lets just say that full scholarship men's and women's teams offset each other in hockey and basketball. Then you just have to fund enough scholarships to offset football.

Maybe women's rowing, volleyball, soccer and softball would be enough? The rest of the sports get the scholarships slashed unless they can prove they offset them with revenue. Wrestling might be an exception, for example.

It's too bad there is no women's football. You wouldn't need any new facilities and you wouldn't have to have pretend sports like women's rowing (what a joke). It would just be another sport that no one cares about because it's a women's team - but they get to have their interest and abilities prong satisfied.

 

[Killjoy]

Amazing

Some of you seem to believe that:

• The world rotates around football
• Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage

I hate to be the first one to break it to you but you are wrong. Both these view points are red herrings and are distractions to what needs to be done to turn the football program around.

 

[BisonGopher]

Some of you seem to believe that:

• The world rotates around football
• Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage

I hate to be the first one to break it to you but you are wrong. Both these view points are red herrings and are distractions to what needs to be done to turn the football program around.

Can football become a winner without doing anything different on the other sports? Yes.

But it would be better and easier if they did.

 

[Rosemountian]

Some of you seem to believe that:

• The world rotates around football
• Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage

I hate to be the first one to break it to you but you are wrong. Both these view points are red herrings and are distractions to what needs to be done to turn the football program around.

While I agree with some of what you say,

1) in america the sporting world does revolve around football
2) in major college athletics, most budgets revolve around football.

 

[Killjoy]

Earlier I said....

Some of you seem to believe that:

• The world rotates around football
• Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage

I hate to be the first one to break it to you but you are wrong. Both these view points are red herrings and are distractions to what needs to be done to turn the football program around.

To which Rosemountain replied "While I agree with some of what you say,

1) in america the sporting world does revolve around football
2) in major college athletics, most budgets revolve around football."
----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Rosemountain’s first point and certainly understand the importance of football to a division I athletic department’s budget. The problem is that football fans don’t realize that a University has a very diverse set of stakeholders and they don’t necessarily hold the same set of values as football fans. Title IX is just one example of this. In academia a university president needs to be very astute in politics. The smart ones understand the importance that football can play but they also understand that the other stakeholders need to be listened to. That is what I was trying to point out.

My second point was that the belief that "Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage" is a fallacy. The question of money is fair one but it is much more complex than that. It is more likely that success drives money than money drives success in college football. Money is often a simplistic answer that people like to fall back on when programs are not successful. It is a symptom not necessarily the cause.

 

[imthewalrus]

One of the problems with what bjm is doing...

xyz

 

[Rosemountian]

To which Rosemountain replied "While I agree with some of what you say,

1) in america the sporting world does revolve around football
2) in major college athletics, most budgets revolve around football."
----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Rosemountain’s first point and certainly understand the importance of football to a division I athletic department’s budget. The problem is that football fans don’t realize that a University has a very diverse set of stakeholders and they don’t necessarily hold the same set of values as football fans. Title IX is just one example of this. In academia a university president needs to be very astute in politics. The smart ones understand the importance that football can play but they also understand that the other stakeholders need to be listened to. That is what I was trying to point out.

My second point was that the belief that "Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage" is a fallacy. The question of money is fair one but it is much more complex than that. It is more likely that success drives money than money drives success in college football. Money is often a simplistic answer that people like to fall back on when programs are not successful. It is a symptom not necessarily the cause.

I don't disagree with the first point at all.
I slightly disagree with the second point.....
money does not drive winning by itself - True
Money helps you win in most (if not all cases) - True
Success drives money more than money drives success - False (IMO)
Success drives money as much as money drives success - True (IMO)...I think they go hand in hand. Can't really have one without the other in division 1 football.

 

[imthewalrus]

"...My second point that was that the belief that "Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage" is a fallacy. The question of money is far one but it is more likely that success drives money than money drives success. Money is just a simplistic answer that people fall back on when programs are not successful. It is a symptom not necessarily a cause..." (quote from killjoy)


Ok then killjoy: maybe bjm should cut money from all the Title IX and non-revenue sports! Any money not spent on competetive rowing and baseball and wrestling and softball and any of the other non-revs and title IX sports they can make up for by having money flow to them based upon their success! Because, as you said: "...it is more likely that success drives money more than money drives success..."

Heck killjoy, football and men's hoops and men's hockey haven't been very successful lately and some of the olympics and non-rev sports have been. Based upon your reasoning, it would make sense to take money from the Title IX and non-revenue sports that HAVE been successful and give that money to football, men's hoops and men's hockey trying to help bring those programs to a more successful place so that the newfound success can drive the money they make.

OR...cut funds & financial resources from ALL 25 programs! They will all do just as well or better any way.

It sure does sound good.....


; 0 )

 

[Killjoy]

Why do you do it wren?

Rosemountain was able to respond to my comments without having to twist what I was trying to communicate. You though seem to feel that you need to read a great deal more into my comments than I said. We are not at war. We are just having a discussion.

 

[imthewalrus]

Why would you make comments if you don't expect them to be...

xyz

 

[6 Nov 1999]

To which Rosemountain replied "While I agree with some of what you say,

1) in america the sporting world does revolve around football
2) in major college athletics, most budgets revolve around football."
----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Rosemountain’s first point and certainly understand the importance of football to a division I athletic department’s budget. The problem is that football fans don’t realize that a University has a very diverse set of stakeholders and they don’t necessarily hold the same set of values as football fans. Title IX is just one example of this. In academia a university president needs to be very astute in politics. The smart ones understand the importance that football can play but they also understand that the other stakeholders need to be listened to. That is what I was trying to point out.

My second point was that the belief that "Any money that is not spent on football puts us at a competitive disadvantage" is a fallacy. The question of money is fair one but it is much more complex than that. It is more likely that success drives money than money drives success in college football. Money is often a simplistic answer that people like to fall back on when programs are not successful. It is a symptom not necessarily the cause.

How many yards from your office to Joel Maturi's office? Or is it one and the same?

 

[Killjoy]

6 Nov 1999

How many yards from your office to Joel Maturi's office? Or is it one and the same?

Good one but you forgot to call me a Brewster apologist. I have to say that you certainly refuted my comment with your well conceived retort.

 

[6 Nov 1999]

Good one but you forgot to call me a Brewster apologist. I have to say that you certainly refuted my comment with your well conceived retort.

I must have hit a soft spot. Care to comment on the 25 sport business model?

 

[CrocShots]

I jsut saw this pop up in my news feed. http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8400&ATCLID=205174947

really? Cut it.