Reusse: Is P.J. Fleck the answer to lift the Gophers out of mediocrity?

Donate To GopherHole

2nd Degree Gopher said:
Interesting numbers, thanks for the effort. What is the source for the estimate of $1M-$2M in increased annual ticket revenue? Is that the estimate of how much in donations they anticipated that the scholarship seating program would bring in? Do all of your numbers include those donations as "ticket revenue"?
Click to expand...
The source of the anticipated new revenue wasn't indicated in the old media reports but I would assume that is the case.

I don't know the answer to your second question. The reporting that the U makes to the NCAA doesn't break out the sources of what it refers to as "contributions." In the ticket revenue reporting instructions, the institution is directed to report amounts paid above face value for preferential seating under category 8 "contributions" rather than category 1 "ticket revenue."

In 2014, the U had "contributions" of $10,000,000. Today it has contributions of $24,000,000. But "contributions" is a broad category of reporting that includes:

Amounts received from individuals, corporations, associations,foundations, clubs or other organizations designated for theoperations of the athletics program.•Funds contributed by outside contributors for the payment of debt service, lease payments or rental fee expenses for athletic facilities in the reporting year.•• Amounts received above face value for tickets.

There isn't data available to quantify the positive effect, if any, of the scholarship seating program. Its reasonable to assume that some amount of the "contributions" is attributable to the program though.

Overall department revenue in 2014 was $105,000,000. In 2024, that amount was $151,000,000. The practical effect is that the U is generating slightly more overall revenue today than in 2014. However, and curiously enough, the 2024 revenue figure included $50,000,000 in media rights revenue under category 11. The corresponding, but differently labeled category in 2014 reports 0, as in zero, dollars in media rights. If in fact the U was not reporting media revenue in 2014 for whatever reason (the U certainly had media revenue) then from sources other than media revenue, the U is bringing in quite a lot less each year from all categories, ticket revenue included.

None of this takes into account skyrocketing expenses. When all of this is taken into account, its not hard to see why the U and other similarly situated institutions are finding venture capital attractive.
 

swede2 said:
The source of the anticipated new revenue wasn't indicated in the old media reports but I would assume that is the case.

I don't know the answer to your second question. The reporting that the U makes to the NCAA doesn't break out the sources of what it refers to as "contributions." In the ticket revenue reporting instructions, the institution is directed to report amounts paid above face value for preferential seating under category 8 "contributions" rather than category 1 "ticket revenue."

In 2014, the U had "contributions" of $10,000,000. Today it has contributions of $24,000,000. But "contributions" is a broad category of reporting that includes:

Amounts received from individuals, corporations, associations,foundations, clubs or other organizations designated for theoperations of the athletics program.•Funds contributed by outside contributors for the payment of debt service, lease payments or rental fee expenses for athletic facilities in the reporting year.•• Amounts received above face value for tickets.

There isn't data available to quantify the positive effect, if any, of the scholarship seating program. Its reasonable to assume that some amount of the "contributions" is attributable to the program though.

Overall department revenue in 2014 was $105,000,000. In 2024, that amount was $151,000,000. The practical effect is that the U is generating slightly more overall revenue today than in 2014. However, and curiously enough, the 2024 revenue figure included $50,000,000 in media rights revenue under category 11. The corresponding, but differently labeled category in 2014 reports 0, as in zero, dollars in media rights. If in fact the U was not reporting media revenue in 2014 for whatever reason (the U certainly had media revenue) then from sources other than media revenue, the U is bringing in quite a lot less each year from all categories, ticket revenue included.

None of this takes into account skyrocketing expenses. When all of this is taken into account, its not hard to see why the U and other similarly situated institutions are finding venture capital attractive.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the thorough response.
 

TurfGopher said:
uggh Cignetti is the exception to the rule that program ascension doesn't happen over night. Look at Nebraska, Look at Wisconsin, Look at us post Mason. It took us 20 years to get back to middle of the pack in the big ten. We are finally filling up the stadium on a regular basis. The students finally give a damn. I don't like losing to Iowa all the time either but at least our stadium isn't Kinnick North anymore when they come to town. The greed and impatience of the casual fan is so annoying. Glen Mason's best teams had several heartbreaking, embarrassing losses at home. At least PJ's are on the road. Kills teams would lose bowl games to G5 teams every year.
Click to expand...
Cignetti is a unicorn who also got lucky with some NIL, too. Can’t expect other coaches to be him. But in terms of game strategy, you can expect coaches to study deeply what Cignetti does and how he attacks an opponent. PJ likes James Franklin (right down to the haircut). IMHO, junk the modeling onFranklin—shift to Cignetti. BTW, Cignetti started, if I recall, by paying big money to get experienced, canny Coordinators. Smart.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Cignetti is a unicorn who also got lucky with some NIL, too. Can’t expect other coaches to be him. But in terms of game strategy, you can expect coaches to study deeply what Cignetti does and how he attacks an opponent. PJ likes James Franklin (right down to the haircut). IMHO, junk the modeling onFranklin—shift to Cignetti. BTW, Cignetti started, if I recall, by paying big money to get experienced, canny Coordinators. Smart.
Click to expand...
Thing is, Indiana had nothing to lose hiring Cignetti. They had a history of almost total suck. If Cignetti bombed, it's another in a long line of below average Indiana coaches. If the U took the approach of firing Fleck for a Cignetti type hire and it bombed, we lose almost a decade worth of stability and consistency across the board. Fleck is a US treasury note in an environment full of junk bonds. He doesn't produce at a high rate, but he produces at a predictable level.

The U and donors need to step up for that to change.
 


Reusse is ranting on his podcast that he never used the word "mediocre" in the column and the Star Tribune now does "clickbait" headlines like MSN.
 

mngg11 said:
Thing is, Indiana had nothing to lose hiring Cignetti. They had a history of almost total suck. If Cignetti bombed, it's another in a long line of below average Indiana coaches. If the U took the approach of firing Fleck for a Cignetti type hire and it bombed, we lose almost a decade worth of stability and consistency across the board. Fleck is a US treasury note in an environment full of junk bonds. He doesn't produce at a high rate, but he produces at a predictable level.

The U and donors need to step up for that to change.
Click to expand...
We tried a Cignetti once. His name was Brewster. Didn't work that time, as I recall.
 





mngg11 said:
Thing is, Indiana had nothing to lose hiring Cignetti. They had a history of almost total suck. If Cignetti bombed, it's another in a long line of below average Indiana coaches. If the U took the approach of firing Fleck for a Cignetti type hire and it bombed, we lose almost a decade worth of stability and consistency across the board. Fleck is a US treasury note in an environment full of junk bonds. He doesn't produce at a high rate, but he produces at a predictable level.

The U and donors need to step up for that to change.
Click to expand...
PJ is a CEO type coach. A leader, sets the tone, etc. He knows we need explosive plays; he knows we need a positive turnover ratio; he knows field position matters. Always talking about his 78% rule. But he relies on Coordinators to put these things into motion. And those coordinators, in games in which we are at some athletic disadvantage (except annually for Nebraska!) seem to move away from those goals not toward them. We don’t have a talent advantage against several teams. In those games, if PJ actually wants to achieve his 78% thingie, his OC has to be creative not just dial up what the opponents are expecting and have planned for. We will always lose those games if we let the superior athletic team also outthink us. I believe the road to victory in these games is to outthink the opponent; don’t do the expected; try to destabilize the opponents defense, don’t just feed into their strength. Might be something as simple as playing with high tempo. For PJ, the plan in these games seems to be try to hang around and hope the more athletic opponent makes a whole bunch of mistakes. History has shown this is a bad plan against Kirk, Parker, et al.
 
Last edited:

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom