STrib Op-Ed: Has sports spending grown incompatible with the U's mission?

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,857
Reaction score
16,387
Points
113
per Kuhne:

My concern, however, is with the exorbitant costs. Chip Scoggins’ Jan. 10 column notes that Fleck’s five-year contract calls for $18 million. Add the university’s bill of $600,000 to buy out Fleck’s contract from Western Michigan University. Then add the costs of buying out former coach Tracy Claeys’ contract, as well as the costs of his staff, reported by Scoggins at $5 million. That’s $23.6 million for one sport that, in any given year, involves slightly more than 100 students (this year’s roster listed 108 students). That’s not the entire budget for football, mind you; that’s the money set aside for just the coaching salaries.

Contrast that with the university’s nursing program. According to the university’s fiscal year 2016 operating budget, the total budget for nursing was $18,871,860. The School of Nursing notes that 951 undergraduate and graduate students are currently enrolled. Do the math and ask yourself: Are we a better society if our universities prepare more nurses or more football players? And, yes, it’s possible that one could be both a football player and a nurse (but no 2016 football player listed nursing as his major).

I recognize that’s reductive, that I am comparing the proverbial apple to the orange. I get it. This is just a snapshot comparison. Still, it suggests an imbalance worthy of the public’s consideration.

I am not blaming university President Eric Kaler or athletic director Mark Coyle for this situation. One can applaud or condemn them, but ultimately, they are simply doing what we have hired them to do.

I also recognize that sports is a multimillion-dollar business with powerful tentacles: Think not only of the money generated by ticket sales but also by advertising at events, media (spend an hour listening to sports talk radio, and you can easily be persuaded that sports are the most important activities in our lives), marketing, and so on. It is downright mind-boggling.

The larger question is directed at us, the state’s citizens. What do we want and expect from our flagship public research university? Is it, as the joke goes, a university that the football team can be proud of? Or, is it an educational institution that prepares tomorrow’s nurses, business leaders, teachers and informed citizens? I used to think we could have both.

Now I am not so sure.

http://www.startribune.com/has-sports-spending-grown-incompatible-with-the-u-s-mission/410323485/

Go Gophers!!
 

How much does BTN pay the U for their nursing program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Unless BTN is willing to start a show called "B10 Nursing Students (after dark)" any paying each school $32MM+ I'll ignore these articles.
 

Welcome to the opinion section of every newspaper in every city that has a major university. Everyone complains that the university spends too much on athletics, that a football coach shouldn't be a school's highest-paid employee, blah blah blah.....
 

Pretty narrow and uninformed opinion.
 


I knew an article or op/ed was coming on this. It is the nature of this region and for as much as I love Minnesota this more than anything else is why Gopher sports have collectively been second level B1G. People that complain about this stuff almost always fail to notice two things: first the money brought in by athletics and second, any acknowledgement of all the institutions in our own conference that invest far more in athletics while maintaining more prestigious academics.
 

If football revenue growth > football expenses it's a win. It's a bit of a calculated risk but if Fleck is able to increase season ticket sales, increase donations, overall attendance, other revenuee to cover the increase in salary costs the U comes out ahead and potentially way ahead. I'd take the over on his ability to generate excitement but ultimately all the bells and whistles have to translate into wins for this thing to work out. I'd guess on the donation front alone the U will come out ahead on this deal.

It takes money to make money and that's what the U is doing. It's arguable whether Fleck will be able to succeed here but all signs say yes to this point.

Do athletics or football have anything to do with the mission of the U or any school? I'd argue yes for various reasons that most people already understand. There will always be a subset of people against football as it is seen as a paleolithic holdover of violence and mayhem (as opposed to the simple competition of track and field).
 

If Kuhne is suggesting that the University of Minnesota be the only large state university to eliminate it's sports programs to focus resources on academic programs, then he's a moron. Taking such an action would have a devastating impact on the academic programs of the U.
 




I looked at the top nursing schools from 2014. Top 3 were Missouri, Utah, and Iowa. So pretty sure you can have both.
 

KillerGopherFan said:
If Kuhne is suggesting that the University of Minnesota be the only large state university to eliminate it's sports programs to focus resources on academic programs, then he's a moron. Taking such an action would have a devastating impact on the academic programs of the U.
Click to expand...

I will preface this by saying I love Gopher athletics, and do NOT want them eliminated. However, one of the original Big 10 members was the U of Chicago. They left the Big 10 in 1939 and abolished varsity football to focus on academics. Looks like they have done more than OK academically since then.
 

Short answer: Yes, we are spending way too much money on sports and our priorities are a mess.
 




Maybe someone here knows this information or knows how I could find it. I've always been under the impression that the Athletic Dept. was a profitable entity. Since the coaching move, I've heard a couple of people claim that sports bleed money and and the Athletic Dept. had to take money from the general fund to pay the buyouts. Now granted, this comes from someone who hates sports and wants them done away with. I would love to find some data to refute this.
 

Most journalists are very obtuse about economics, business and marketing. The revenue generated by our B10 football team far exceeds expenses and the free marketing it generates nationally is massive. The exposure could be much higher with a great team. The UofM is just a fancy Metro State (a no-name college) if not for sports. Dave Revsine at BTN wrote an excellent book illustrating this called The Opening Kickoff.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Schnauzer said:
I knew an article or op/ed was coming on this. It is the nature of this region and for as much as I love Minnesota this more than anything else is why Gopher sports have collectively been second level B1G. People that complain about this stuff almost always fail to notice two things: first the money brought in by athletics and second, any acknowledgement of all the institutions in our own conference that invest far more in athletics while maintaining more prestigious academics.
Click to expand...

Bingo. In fact, I believe that a great sports programs also attract better students because these high achieving students want to go to a school that has great athletics so it gives them something to do for fun in the fall and winter. This in turn raises the profile of the University by attracting high achieving students.
 

Block M said:
Short answer: Yes, we are spending way too much money on sports and our priorities are a mess.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but the sports are self-funded. If they were siphoning money away from the chemistry department I might have a problem with it.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
Maybe someone here knows this information or knows how I could find it. I've always been under the impression that the Athletic Dept. was a profitable entity. Since the coaching move, I've heard a couple of people claim that sports bleed money and and the Athletic Dept. had to take money from the general fund to pay the buyouts. Now granted, this comes from someone who hates sports and wants them done away with. I would love to find some data to refute this.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a lazy, silly article. The Star Tribune building is full of people that could give this guy the answers, yet this guy still wrote this silly article. Football and Basketball make boatloads of money and always have. Hockey makes money, and more money when they win a lot. All Women's sports lose money.

I guess there needs to be an media campaign to let people know that absent title 9 (F that IX crap), there would be no women's sports. (at least used airline travel and stayed in 4 star hotels). Gopher Football and Basketball pay almost all the bills and the BTN has a lot to do with that. Anyone that does not understand this very simple fact has no business commenting on any U of M coaching salary or much else regarding athletics, short of UNC type fraud.
 

Gopher_Vet said:
I will preface this by saying I love Gopher athletics, and do NOT want them eliminated. However, one of the original Big 10 members was the U of Chicago. They left the Big 10 in 1939 and abolished varsity football to focus on academics. Looks like they have done more than OK academically since then.
Click to expand...
Comparing the U of Chicago, a much smaller private school, to Minnesota is probably an apples to oranges comparison. Funny though, UofC used football as their main marketing tool in the early 1900s to build enrollment. As for Minnesota, I can't think of any other highly ranked large state university without D1 athletics (correct me if I'm wrong). D1 athletics are an extremely effective marketing tool.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
Maybe someone here knows this information or knows how I could find it. I've always been under the impression that the Athletic Dept. was a profitable entity. Since the coaching move, I've heard a couple of people claim that sports bleed money and and the Athletic Dept. had to take money from the general fund to pay the buyouts. Now granted, this comes from someone who hates sports and wants them done away with. I would love to find some data to refute this.
Click to expand...

Not an accountant and it always depends how the beans are accounted for. I believe the dept has run slightly in the red most years but has yielded a modest profit in several recent years. I'm sure someone has the numbers handy. Here is some data from USA Today for 2015. The football department more than pays for itself. The 20+ sports that don't run profits suck up millions of dollars. The precise cost of the non-revenue sports isn't commonly known but has to be in the tens of millions when all present and future obligations are factored in.

Expenses and subsidy for 2015

18 Minnesota Big Ten $111,162,265 $6,919,096 6.22

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances



*Beginning with 2015 data, the NCAA revised the definitions of several revenue and expense categories, including where certain revenues and expenses are recorded.

On the revenue side, a category was added to allow an athletics department to deduct from its operating revenues certain amounts that it transfers back to the school. This amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school.

On the expense side, a new category was created to clarify that an athletics department should report debt service payments on facilities as part of its operating expenses. Another category was revised so that it now groups facilities maintenance with overhead and other administrative expenses. That means an assessment of annual spending on facilities spending no longer can be made from these reports, which allowed such assessments for 2005 through 2014.

Schools’ conference membership, typically the affiliation for basketball, are based on alignments for the 2014-15 school year.

Note: Dollar amounts have not been adjusted for inflation.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Most journalists are very obtuse about economics, business and marketing. The revenue generated by our B10 football team far exceeds expenses and the free marketing it generates nationally is massive. The exposure could be much higher with a great team. The UofM is just a fancy Metro State (a no-name college) if not for sports. Dave Revsine at BTN wrote an excellent book illustrating this called The Opening Kickoff.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Don't think he is a journalist. Think he might teach at Minneapolis Community and Technical College.
 

Gopher_Vet said:
I will preface this by saying I love Gopher athletics, and do NOT want them eliminated. However, one of the original Big 10 members was the U of Chicago. They left the Big 10 in 1939 and abolished varsity football to focus on academics. Looks like they have done more than OK academically since then.
Click to expand...
There are significant differences in the University of Chicago and state universities, like the breadth and variety of academic programs, tuition, enrollment, etc. It's not to say that a school like Northwestern couldn't have made the same decision that the University of Chicago did, but the mission of state universities is different in that they provide more educational opportunities for HS graduates of the state. Quality over quantity in most cases for Uof C. Even so, Northwestern and other private universities obviously see value in continuing to participate at a high level in intercollegiate sports, most likely for marketing and branding purposes, to provide an entertainment experience for students, and enhancing alumni loyalty.
It would've have been unusual for a state university to withdraw from intercollegiate sports in 1939, but it would be shocking for it to do so today.
I didn't say a college couldn't be a successful academic institution without athletics. But, the University of Minnesota would be a dramatically different college if it had eliminated athletics in 1939, and enrollment and academic offerings would likely be much different.
And, if it withdrew from intercollegiate sports now, it would be devastating for some academic programs at the U.
 

joshvanklomp said:
Welcome to the opinion section of every newspaper in every city that has a major university. Everyone complains that the university spends too much on athletics, that a football coach shouldn't be a school's highest-paid employee, blah blah blah.....
Click to expand...

Schools highest paid employee...try the states highest paid employee usually by millions of dollars.

But in the end it isn't how much it costs it is how much it costs the University. Top programs are profit centers and well run programs are break even...the U's program even with low coaches salaries has been a money pit for a while.
 


I am curious to know how much revenue, donations and endowments tOSU and Michigan receive annually on average compared to the U as a function of a winning football program.

The Fleck hire will be either a home run that we've been waiting for, or it might be a colossal mess.

It is worth a try. We've gone through so many heartaches the last five decades. Dare to be elite.

Is this arms race in football and the pressures to win sustainable long term for programs like the U?

If endowments increase as a result of a good football program, maybe the U can attract more talented researchers and professors to come and stay at the U instead greener pastures elsewhere.

If the football program is elite, the rest of the U can become truly elite.
 

hungan1 said:
I am curious to know how much revenue, donations and endowments tOSU and Michigan receive annually on average compared to the U as a function of a winning football program.

The Fleck hire will be either a home run that we've been waiting for, or it might be a colossal mess.

It is worth a try. We've gone through so many heartaches the last five decades. Dare to be elite.

Is this arms race in football and the pressures to win sustainable long term for programs like the U?

If endowments increase as a result of a good football program, maybe the U can attract more talented researchers and professors to come and stay at the U instead greener pastures elsewhere.

If the football program is elite, the rest of the U can become truly elite.
Click to expand...

Quick check before my morning coffee but Michigan has about 3 times the endowment fund, and we are on the same level as Ohio State. However, figured on a per student basis we fall out of the 100 and the other two maintain their standing.

Nothing wrong with having a debate over how much money is spent on college sports. However, we're a public land grant university and a member of perhaps the most respected conference in the country. We're not cutting back so it would be nice not to see the typical knee-jerk reactions of the usual "deep thinkers."
The commitment has been made by the GH villains, Kaler and Coyle, and as long as they're here we're not going back. It's going to be attacked by both ends: the conservatives who basically despise public education and the liberal who thinks the expenses of football are way out of whack but would be up in arms if women's sports were down-graded or even eliminated. Speaking of "deep thinkers," I hope they realize Title IX is also one of the main forces driving the arms race in football and basketball. A rational you might not want to lose is that because of those revenue sports, we're able to pay the bucks to have a world class volleyball coach.

What is humorous is that people are going to be up in arms over these costs and not realize or acknowledge it simply puts us in the middle of the pack. I do have a problem with special digs for the football and basketball teams simply because those clubhouses can isolate those athletes from the rest of the student body and lead to the culture where they feel entitled. But that's part of the arms race and if it helps beat Wisconsin, I'm all for it.
 

Mulligan said:
Quick check before my morning coffee but Michigan has about 3 times the endowment fund, and we are on the same level as Ohio State. However, figured on a per student basis we fall out of the 100 and the other two maintain their standing.

Nothing wrong with having a debate over how much money is spent on college sports. However, we're a public land grant university and a member of perhaps the most respected conference in the country. We're not cutting back so it would be nice not to see the typical knee-jerk reactions of the usual "deep thinkers."
The commitment has been made by the GH villains, Kaler and Coyle, and as long as they're here we're not going back. It's going to be attacked by both ends: the conservatives who basically despise public education and the liberal who thinks the expenses of football are way out of whack but would be up in arms if women's sports were down-graded or even eliminated. Speaking of "deep thinkers," I hope they realize Title IX is also one of the main forces driving the arms race in football and basketball. A rational you might not want to lose is that because of those revenue sports, we're able to pay the bucks to have a world class volleyball coach.

What is humorous is that people are going to be up in arms over these costs and not realize or acknowledge it simply puts us in the middle of the pack. I do have a problem with special digs for the football and basketball teams simply because those clubhouses can isolate those athletes from the rest of the student body and lead to the culture where they feel entitled. But that's part of the arms race and if it helps beat Wisconsin, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

THIS.
 

fan of Ray Williams said:
Don't think he is a journalist. Think he might teach at Minneapolis Community and Technical College.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. That's what I get for firing off a late night crabby post before bed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

BleedGopher said:
per Kuhne:

My concern, however, is with the exorbitant costs. Chip Scoggins’ Jan. 10 column notes that Fleck’s five-year contract calls for $18 million. Add the university’s bill of $600,000 to buy out Fleck’s contract from Western Michigan University. Then add the costs of buying out former coach Tracy Claeys’ contract, as well as the costs of his staff, reported by Scoggins at $5 million. That’s $23.6 million for one sport that, in any given year, involves slightly more than 100 students (this year’s roster listed 108 students). That’s not the entire budget for football, mind you; that’s the money set aside for just the coaching salaries.

Contrast that with the university’s nursing program. According to the university’s fiscal year 2016 operating budget, the total budget for nursing was $18,871,860. The School of Nursing notes that 951 undergraduate and graduate students are currently enrolled. Do the math and ask yourself: Are we a better society if our universities prepare more nurses or more football players? And, yes, it’s possible that one could be both a football player and a nurse (but no 2016 football player listed nursing as his major).

I recognize that’s reductive, that I am comparing the proverbial apple to the orange. I get it. This is just a snapshot comparison. Still, it suggests an imbalance worthy of the public’s consideration.

I am not blaming university President Eric Kaler or athletic director Mark Coyle for this situation. One can applaud or condemn them, but ultimately, they are simply doing what we have hired them to do.

I also recognize that sports is a multimillion-dollar business with powerful tentacles: Think not only of the money generated by ticket sales but also by advertising at events, media (spend an hour listening to sports talk radio, and you can easily be persuaded that sports are the most important activities in our lives), marketing, and so on. It is downright mind-boggling.

The larger question is directed at us, the state’s citizens. What do we want and expect from our flagship public research university? Is it, as the joke goes, a university that the football team can be proud of? Or, is it an educational institution that prepares tomorrow’s nurses, business leaders, teachers and informed citizens? I used to think we could have both.

Now I am not so sure.

http://www.startribune.com/has-sports-spending-grown-incompatible-with-the-u-s-mission/410323485/

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Nothing like taking a 5 year contract and comparing it to 1 year of other things.... stupid
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom