Revenue share: stop feeding the football furnace

[Wet_Blanket_Guy]

Alright, dusting off the old Wet_Blanket_Guy account. Yes, that one. No, I’m not here to apologize. I’ve always been a Gopher fan — I just refuse to pretend every decision out of that building is automatically brilliant.

I watched my first Gopher game of the year when they played at Illinois. And a few things were immediately obvious:

• This roster is severely undermanned… and yet they can compete for long stretches with real Big Ten teams.
• They can even pop a big one occasionally (Iowa, Indiana), and they’ve had tight losses (USC, Wisconsin) that weren’t “embarrassing” so much as “we don’t have enough bodies.”

And most importantly:

Niko Medved can coach.
Like, actually coach. The team looks organized. They play connected. They don’t look like five guys freelancing and hoping the other team misses.

Which is why I’m posting today — not to do the usual “rah rah moral victory” thing, but to stir up a conversation about something that actually matters:

How should the President, AD, and GM distribute revenue sharing?

I haven’t seen Minnesota’s exact plan, but most Big Ten / SEC programs are reportedly allocating roughly 75% of revenue share to football. NIL is on top of revenue sharing, not included.

So the practical reality is: Gopher basketball is probably headed toward $4–5M out of roughly $20.5M.

Here’s my argument:

Invert the ratio.
Basketball should get 75%.

Do the math:

• 75% of $20.5M = $15.375M to basketball before NIL
• Add NIL on top and call it ~$17M

In basketball, you don’t need a 100-man operation and five layers of “culture.” You need a few high-end players and a coach who can actually use them.

Could you imagine the Barn with a $15.375M roster?
You could sign a rental star if you wanted and still have absurd money left to build a team. The Barn would be rocking again, you’d have real relevance, and the U would actually see a meaningful ROI in energy, ticket demand, and visibility.

Yes, football would get hit. No question.

But let’s stop acting like the current “football-first” approach is taking us anywhere special:

• We go from 4–6 Big Ten wins to 2–4
• We still land in some mid-tier bowl nobody watches
• Attendance probably stays annoyingly steady because football here is habit, not performance-based

And here’s the blunt truth: unless Minnesota is willing to spend $30M+ annually on football, we’re not winning the Big Ten and we’re not making the CFP. So why keep feeding a furnace that doesn’t heat the house?

Basketball is the sport where money can flip outcomes fast.
Now we have a coach who looks like he can actually leverage it.

If you’re going to invest, invest where you can actually win.

Let’s hear it.

 

[Gophers1992]

If the logic is we need to put $ where we will compete nationally why not invest everything into hockey?

 

[Angry]

If the logic is we need to put $ where we will compete nationally why not invest everything into hockey?

We’d actually get some return from basketball. Hockey not so much.

 

[PMWinSTP]

The largest ROI is football, so I would think the athletic department would fairly quickly be unprofitable.

 

[Beerculees]

From a purely fan standpoint I don't disagree about spending more on basketball. I think the ROI quality is much better and we could instantly compete and make sweet 16+.

From a numbers perspective, if you make the football team feel slighted, you could lose a big amount of revenue since they are the main generator.

 

[Wet_Blanket_Guy]

The largest ROI is football, so I would think the athletic department would fairly quickly be unprofitable.

I get the theoretical ROI argument for football — but at Minnesota, football ROI is capped. There’s no meaningful upside.

We’re averaging 46,519 in football attendance and it’s fallen two straight years. That’s not a blip, that’s a trend. There’s an entire thread on here documenting it.

Even if we shove more of the $20.5M into football:

• Best case, we go from 4–6 Big Ten wins to 5–6
• Still not competing for the CFP
• Still not winning the conference
• Still stuck in the same bowl ecosystem

Let’s be generous and assume more spending bumps attendance.

If football somehow sells 5,000 more tickets per game (optimistic), over 7 home games, that’s:

• 35,000 incremental football tickets

Now look at basketball.

Men’s basketball averaged 8,923 last season.
If real investment + relevance gets that to 13,000, that’s:

• +4,077 per game
• Over 19 home games
• 77,463 incremental basketball tickets

So now the question gets even simpler:

Is a football ticket worth more than 2× a basketball ticket?

Because it would need to be for football to produce better ROI under these assumptions — and that’s before we even talk about:

• Weeknight vs. weekend density
• Number of events
• Barn atmosphere driving repeat attendance
• Basketball games people actually choose to attend

Football ROI at Minnesota isn’t zero — but it’s bounded. Unless we’re willing to spend $30M+ annually, the upside just isn’t there.

Basketball ROI is elastic. Spend it well, outcomes flip quickly, and attendance responds immediately.

So this isn’t anti-football — it’s just being honest about where the upside lives.

If ROI is the goal, basketball is the better investment.

 

[Gophers1992]

We’d actually get some return from basketball. Hockey not so much.

I agree, but that just circles back to why you invest in football in the first place.

 

[bga1]

Alright, dusting off the old Wet_Blanket_Guy account. Yes, that one. No, I’m not here to apologize. I’ve always been a Gopher fan — I just refuse to pretend every decision out of that building is automatically brilliant.

I watched my first Gopher game of the year when they played at Illinois. And a few things were immediately obvious:

• This roster is severely undermanned… and yet they can compete for long stretches with real Big Ten teams.
• They can even pop a big one occasionally (Iowa, Indiana), and they’ve had tight losses (USC, Wisconsin) that weren’t “embarrassing” so much as “we don’t have enough bodies.”

And most importantly:

Niko Medved can coach.
Like, actually coach. The team looks organized. They play connected. They don’t look like five guys freelancing and hoping the other team misses.

Which is why I’m posting today — not to do the usual “rah rah moral victory” thing, but to stir up a conversation about something that actually matters:

How should the President, AD, and GM distribute revenue sharing?

I haven’t seen Minnesota’s exact plan, but most Big Ten / SEC programs are reportedly allocating roughly 75% of revenue share to football. NIL is on top of revenue sharing, not included.

So the practical reality is: Gopher basketball is probably headed toward $4–5M out of roughly $20.5M.

Here’s my argument:

Invert the ratio.
Basketball should get 75%.

Do the math:

• 75% of $20.5M = $15.375M to basketball before NIL
• Add NIL on top and call it ~$17M

In basketball, you don’t need a 100-man operation and five layers of “culture.” You need a few high-end players and a coach who can actually use them.

Could you imagine the Barn with a $15.375M roster?
You could sign a rental star if you wanted and still have absurd money left to build a team. The Barn would be rocking again, you’d have real relevance, and the U would actually see a meaningful ROI in energy, ticket demand, and visibility.

Yes, football would get hit. No question.

But let’s stop acting like the current “football-first” approach is taking us anywhere special:

• We go from 4–6 Big Ten wins to 2–4
• We still land in some mid-tier bowl nobody watches
• Attendance probably stays annoyingly steady because football here is habit, not performance-based

And here’s the blunt truth: unless Minnesota is willing to spend $30M+ annually on football, we’re not winning the Big Ten and we’re not making the CFP. So why keep feeding a furnace that doesn’t heat the house?

Basketball is the sport where money can flip outcomes fast.
Now we have a coach who looks like he can actually leverage it.

If you’re going to invest, invest where you can actually win.

Let’s hear it.

I love it. But I would not go this big with the idea. I would love to see the Basketball program get another 2 million. I think that would be enough. Niko doesn't need one and done guys, he just needs a bunch of really solid players with skills and length.

 

[Slim Tubby]

Fascinating topic considering the fan crossover from Gopher Football to Men's Basketball is probably an extremely high %. I also buy into the concept that funding a potential National Title contender is easier for a hoops program for obvious reasons.

I won't pretend to know how all of this actually works but imagine having a football program properly funded solely by NIL and private donors leaving the entire $20M to fund our hoops, hockey, volleyball, softball, etc.

 

[howeda7]

If the logic is we need to put $ where we will compete nationally why not invest everything into hockey?

Because 95% of Minnesotans don't care about college hockey?

 

[howeda7]

You can't go 70% to basketball. You can take SOME from football and pump basketball up.

 

[Gophers1992]

Because 95% of Minnesotans don't care about college hockey?

Correct but again if the determining factor is “what people care about” that brings us back to football.

Just looking for some consistent reasoning here. Obviously I don’t actually think significant $ is going to hockey.

 

[MonikerSchmoniker45]

I would agree if PJ wasn't still progressing, imo.

 

[SplitDecision]

My view from 10,000 feet would be to ask what the ultimate big picture goal is. Does the UofM want to win a national title in basketball, and do what it takes to give them a decent shot? OR, Does the UofM want to fairly distribute the revenue across the board to evenly represent the student athletes in their athletics programs, provide equally competitive conference teams across the board in men's and women's sports (ie. win the Capital One Challenge)? With Title 9, the teams have to be distributed equally, but how would the distribution compensate for the non-income generating sports in both men's and women's programs? I have to believe that MN just wants to "compete" on a fairly level playing field instead across the board. There are schools otherwise, but I just don't see MN throwing a bunch of money at one sport.

That said, I would love if they did, or somehow had a major donor--Tyson, FedEx, Nike-type of big business, since the Twin Cities just doesn't have any major Fortune 500 companies... Even getting the money doesn't assure anything. Ex: UCLA/ Memphis spent a ton in bb and hasn't done great.