Reusse: Budget cuts for Gophers? Start with football

[MaxyJR1]

PR is not entirely off base. Like other mega businesses, the spending is out of hand. Yes, a huge money maker and it supports all the other sports. I always wondered why we need 110 players of which half never need to even show except to be tackling dummies. How many travel? Maybe 50-60? Obviously take care of your revenue machine but now might be a good time to take a look and what is really important and what can be saved on the expense side...NCAA wide.

I agree. Teams hit and have physical practices less than ever. People are transfering all the time. Cut the rosters down. I would say about 15 per class and only allow 10-15 true walk-ons.

QB's will less likely transfer if there are fewer on the team as will be the case with other positions.

There are 110 players on the team and starters are sill playing special teams.

 

[skiumah1]

The other actually really good point that he brings up, that is very much worth discussion: the idea that the NFL needs to kick in money, for one reason or another, but especially if (let's face it, when) college players get paid.

More than any other sport, major colleges are the defacto minor/development football league for the NFL. It's strictly a (North) American game. There is no Euro league for guys to go to. There is Canadian, but that is incredibly small time compared to the NFL. And all other attempts to start up another pro league have failed.

Like the point and I'll follow up with it looks like the NCAA makes more money than the NFL does. From the one article I found, granted it was from 2003, estimated total retail sales from that year: NCAA - 2.35 Billion, NFL - 1.3 Billion, NBA - 750 Million. NCAA more than NFL/NBA combined. So is the NCAA really similarly in trouble financially because of this whole thing? It would be hard for me to believe. I know there's a lot more to it but seems like something could be done.

I don't know what the numbers look like today but I would imagine those numbers have just increased for all sports. The question to me is: doesn't the NCAA have enough money to bail out it's participants(schools)? Or contribute significant amounts of money to where it needs to go to help out?

 

[skiumah1]

You want to cut something? Cut the sports that dont make money. Easy as that. Sorry, this is the most illogical column I have ever read. It doesnt even make any sense. Cut down on the revenue generator??? What???

I totally agree. I know the fight for equality in sports is a good one, and I enjoy womens sports, but in times like this you need to cut what is not profitable.

 

[MplsGopher]

Like the point and I'll follow up with it looks like the NCAA makes more money than the NFL does. From the one article I found, granted it was from 2003, estimated total retail sales from that year: NCAA - 2.35 Billion, NFL - 1.3 Billion, NBA - 750 Million. NCAA more than NFL/NBA combined. So is the NCAA really similarly in trouble financially because of this whole thing? It would be hard for me to believe. I know there's a lot more to it but seems like something could be done.

I don't know what the numbers look like today but I would imagine those numbers have just increased for all sports. The question to me is: doesn't the NCAA have enough money to bail out it's participants(schools)? Or contribute significant amounts of money to where it needs to go to help out?

I think the thing is that it’s the big conferences that actually make the money (and then pass it to their schools) as opposed to the NCAA.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

They are revenue-generating sports that are part of an athletic department that doesn't show a profit at the end of the fiscal year. Every dollar in...every dollar spent.

I agree. I'm not saying there isn't waste in the Athletic Department. I just wouldn't look for that waste in the two sports bringing money in. The waste is from the ones not bringing in money. Having successful football programs (they all do the things you've listed) is a proven revenue generator.

Taking a football team to a Beyonce concert is a waste. A different tshirt with a different message every week is a waste. 4-5 different helmets is a waste. A team of analysts made up of 40-60 year old former head coaches is a waste (not MN). Staying overnight in a hotel before a home game is a waste. A bonus given to a coach for things such winning six games is a waste. Paying a coach millions of dollars years after you've fired them is a waste.

All of that is required to succeed in college football today. All of that is waste that could and should be spent on better things. What entity in the real world with a 130-150 million dollar budget lives paycheck to paycheck?

A lot of them. You'll see a number of companies run into serious financial problems. A lack of cash is a problem for a lot of large companies. However, your analogy stinks. The football prgram (you know the one responsible for all of the "waste", would not be living pay check to pay check if it didn't have to support all of the other waste (see programs not generating $). So yes, if a large corporation had to financially support every other failed corporation, they would be living pay check to pay check.

As far as not paying money to a coach after you've fired them? Well yeah. However, you're never going to get a good coach to sign unless you guarantee a portion of their contract. The alternative is to never sign the best coaches.

The University survives without the athletic department. The athletic department doesn't survive without the University.

Well yeah. I realize that there are not athletic departments are part of schools. You just put together words and pretend they make a point. The University survives without the College of Science and Engineering. The College of Science and Engineering doesn't survive without the University. See how dumb that is?

You have a entity that costs a ton of money but it also makes a ton of money (Big 10 football). It makes an astronomical amount of money. Things that make a lot of money sometimes have fairly lavish costs. That does not make those costs waste. There is a crap ton of waste within universities, the fact that you are targeting one of the only sources of revenue is the typical backwards nonsense that flows out of academia.

 

[MplsGopher]

The point of a (public) university's athletics dept is not to maximize, or even make, profit. No more than that's the point of the school's library.

The point is to have athletics teams, that represent the university on the field of competition, and secondarily create excitement and exposure for the school's overall name brand to the general public.

That's it. Every dollar that comes in, that isn't spent towards those goals, is then actually a "waste" in that sense. If there is leftover, it just goes back to the school's general fund, where it will indeed be spent by the school on something else. So the AD might as well spend every dollar that comes in. And they in fact often do.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

You can't spend money you don't have.

Revenues are going to be reduced. We don't know by how much, but it's almost certain that D1 schools will see a drop in revenue. I believe the Gophers' "best-case" scenario was a $10-million reduction in revenue.

so - you head a department, and you have $10-million less revenue than expected. The budget has to be adjusted.

the question is whether you cut from the bottom up - by starting with the smallest programs....

or whether you cut from the top down, by starting with the largest programs.

or you go with an across-the-board approach - cutting every program by the same percentage.

While needing to stay in compliance with Title IX and other considerations.

No matter how you approach it, some tough decisions will need to be made.

 

[hello-world]

You can't spend money you don't have.

Revenues are going to be reduced. We don't know by how much, but it's almost certain that D1 schools will see a drop in revenue. I believe the Gophers' "best-case" scenario was a $10-million reduction in revenue.

so - you head a department, and you have $10-million less revenue than expected. The budget has to be adjusted.

the question is whether you cut from the bottom up - by starting with the smallest programs....

or whether you cut from the top down, by starting with the largest programs.

or you go with an across-the-board approach - cutting every program by the same percentage.

While needing to stay in compliance with Title IX and other considerations.

No matter how you approach it, some tough decisions will need to be made.

It's called debt. They have plenty of capacity for it. They won't need to make any tough decisions unless they want to.

 

[harley_gopher]

per Pat:

The guess here is that’s too optimistic, even with a full football season. And guess what? The first $10 million cut in expenses should not come in low-revenue sports; it should come from football.

Football pays the bills, you scream. So what?

This is a university that exists through the residents of Minnesota. Those residents are men and women, football families and gymnastics families. There’s an obligation to continue to present valid sports opportunities for a wide spectrum of students.

It’s absurd FBS teams can offer 85 scholarships — with another 25 walk-ons for Power Five programs. That scholarship number should be 70 (or fewer), and with 90 bodies total.

It’s absurd P.J. Fleck came here making $1 million (with incentives) and, in his fourth season, he will be kicking off a new contract at $4.6 million.

Also absurd: The ever-growing football support staff; a $170 million athletic facility devoted largely to football, and a drain to the university’s more vital fundraising; and colleges footing the bill as the developmental arm of the NFL, the most profitable sports league in U.S. history.

The first post-virus gouge in athletic budgets should come in football — at Minnesota, and across the Power Five landscape.

Budget cuts for Gophers? Start with football

The first post-coronavirus gouge in athletic budgets should come in football — at Minnesota, and across the Power Five landscape.

www.startribune.com

Go Gophers!!

he's nothing a big old grumpy lard-ass. Have another drink fat pat. You're one person that can't find anything nice to say if you had to. I feel sorry for your family...if you have one.

 

[GoGophersUMN]

Like the point and I'll follow up with it looks like the NCAA makes more money than the NFL does. From the one article I found, granted it was from 2003, estimated total retail sales from that year: NCAA - 2.35 Billion, NFL - 1.3 Billion, NBA - 750 Million. NCAA more than NFL/NBA combined. So is the NCAA really similarly in trouble financially because of this whole thing? It would be hard for me to believe. I know there's a lot more to it but seems like something could be done.

I don't know what the numbers look like today but I would imagine those numbers have just increased for all sports. The question to me is: doesn't the NCAA have enough money to bail out it's participants(schools)? Or contribute significant amounts of money to where it needs to go to help out?

What exactly do those numbers look at?

I see the NCAA broke $1 billion just a few years ago, only looking at the NCAA's direct income. Most of that comes from March Madness tickets and TV rights.

If the NCAA made $1 billion this year, had no expenses, and distributed all of their revenue evenly to all D1 teams that would be less than $3 million per team. That's not much in the Gophers athletic budget. It is more to a team not in the Power 5 or not in the FBS at all but those are also schools who are making less money on football or even losing money on football who need the money.

The NCAA is already giving most of the money to schools or spending it on necessary expenses. There is a breakdown on their website. About $150 million to put on NCAA tournaments, $90 million to D2 and D3, $50 million in administrative expenses, $450 million directly to D1 teams and conferences, and over $100 million to support student-athletes. It's not like they're making hundreds of millions of dollars per year to keep in the bank and give to schools when needed.

And for this year, they lost nearly all of their revenue. They're probably going to have to cut back significantly on what they give schools, conferences, and student-athletes as it is.

 

[skiumah1]

What exactly do those numbers look at?

I see the NCAA broke $1 billion just a few years ago, only looking at the NCAA's direct income. Most of that comes from March Madness tickets and TV rights.

If the NCAA made $1 billion this year, had no expenses, and distributed all of their revenue evenly to all D1 teams that would be less than $3 million per team. That's not much in the Gophers athletic budget. It is more to a team not in the Power 5 or not in the FBS at all but those are also schools who are making less money on football or even losing money on football who need the money.

The NCAA is already giving most of the money to schools or spending it on necessary expenses. There is a breakdown on their website. About $150 million to put on NCAA tournaments, $90 million to D2 and D3, $50 million in administrative expenses, $450 million directly to D1 teams and conferences, and over $100 million to support student-athletes. It's not like they're making hundreds of millions of dollars per year to keep in the bank and give to schools when needed.

And for this year, they lost nearly all of their revenue. They're probably going to have to cut back significantly on what they give schools, conferences, and student-athletes as it is.

Fair enough. I didn't really have much information and didn't look to much into it. Good to know.

Seems like the easiest answer is just for schools to cut back the sports that are costing the most. Will vary from school to school.