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

Donate To GopherHole
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...

Friend of a friend has talked with one of the regents about this.

The long-term goal is for the Athletics department to function independently. Right now like 7 or 8% of the budget comes from the "general fund" hence everyone's undies in a bunch. Some of that "general fund money" has historically been set aside for Title IX stuff.

Combine that with the fact that 1) the debt payments for the Athletics complex will start to kick in and 2) the Athletic department has historically not budgeted for coaching "transitions", and the bean counters at the U are looking at Athletics like WTF?

The biggest thing I have heard is that the Regents just want to see a financial plan for how all of this will work.
 

BarnBoy said:
Friend of a friend has talked with one of the regents about this.

The long-term goal is for the Athletics department to function independently. Right now like 7 or 8% of the budget comes from the "general fund" hence everyone's undies in a bunch. Some of that "general fund money" has historically been set aside for Title IX stuff.

Combine that with the fact that 1) the debt payments for the Athletics complex will start to kick in and 2) the Athletic department has historically not budgeted for coaching "transitions", and the bean counters at the U are looking at Athletics like WTF?

The biggest thing I have heard is that the Regents just want to see a financial plan for how all of this will work.
Click to expand...

The money coming out of the general fund is the only thing anyone has any right to complain about in terms of the money spent on athletics because that is money that could potentially be used somewhere else. Would be interesting to know what percentage other power 5 schools spend from their general funds to help support athletics.
 

The U using general fund money for athletics goes back to the days of separate athletic departments.
 

As long as the athletic department can balance the budget, what's the problem? Big time sports add prestige to the institution and shine a spotlight on its academic excellence. You can have both, and you should have both.

To me, the bigger concern is what's been expressed in another thread - the segregation of athletes from non athletes and all the special spaces and privileges they're given. It mirrors what's gone on in pro sports, where the pro athletes live in gated communities and insulate themselves from the fans and general public. Now that's corrosive.
 

Bad Gopher said:
As long as the athletic department can balance the budget, what's the problem? Big time sports add prestige to the institution and shine a spotlight on its academic excellence. You can have both, and you should have both.

To me, the bigger concern is what's been expressed in another thread - the segregation of athletes from non athletes and all the special spaces and privileges they're given. It mirrors what's gone on in pro sports, where the pro athletes live in gated communities and insulate themselves from the fans and general public. Now that's corrosive.
Click to expand...

They are not there yet, hence the grumpiness of the BOR.
 


We also have to remember that parking revenue from sporting events goes to the U general fund. When you think about how many lots are filled for every football, basketball, hockey, volleyball game on campus at $10-20 a space, that adds up to a LOT of revenue.
 

You could get the White-out or Liquid Paper out of the drawer, change the name of the university and probably publish this article in the paper of almost every college town in the country. There's always been tension between the athletic and academic sides of the equation.
 

Seriously, is there evidence football is draining funding (or attention) from the nursing program? There’s more evidence the State is draining funding from the University. We live in an era where our major land grant institutions increasingly and necessarily operate as private institutions in much of their activities.

It’s not as if the University isn’t making academic investments. There’s the $95 million remodel of Tate Hall for instance-a building whose halls I’ve never darkened.

And I’d like to know the writers opinion on the Northrop Hall remodel ($85 million plus). It presumably has both an academic and public mission. Is one mission noble and the other misguided? I think not.
 

30K students ~25K tuition generates 750 million in revenue (without state funding) to run the university. AND they turn away a large number of applicants to attend the U. That's the basis of running a successful university. Things that contribute to keeping kids wanting to come here include but not limited to having successful revenue ( and non revenue ) sports. IMO, Even if it wasn't mandated by Title IX the U couldn't survive without women's athletics, ask yourself how many young girls would aspire to go to a university that didn't at least give lip service to valuing women's athletics when all others did?

If you want to write an article and nit pick individual expenditures that didn't help nursing students, how did adding a 14 million dollar expansion to an already horrific, IMO, Weisman Art building help nursing students? It's not my cup of tea, but as long as the net result of all expenditures at the U keep the student body healthy and the incoming students still incoming then I would say it's not fair to pick and choose those you agree with when those you don't may not be aimed at you. Writing an article saying how this expenditure or that isn't in line with the schools goals would imply the person writing the article understands the schools goals. Every goal of becoming a great university, more prestigious, higher ACT's incoming, etc is predicated on the only real goal the university has. That goal is to increase the number of students that want to attend. If your not going to lay out how paying for a better football program is going to drive kids away from applying to the U of M then your not being honest with yourself.
 



50PoundHead said:
You could get the White-out or Liquid Paper out of the drawer, change the name of the university and probably publish this article in the paper of almost every college town in the country. There's always been tension between the athletic and academic sides of the equation.
Click to expand...

You are correct in this, as there are many that view any funds of any kind being spent on athletics as a waste of money. There is the running joke on KFAN that if you were for the Vikings stadium you were against Kids.
 

This pin head doesn't understand it takes money to make money. To compete in the Big 10, it is expensive, to win National Championships it takes a total commitment. The commitment is payed back in selling out the bank, concession revenue, parking et al. It further derives television revenue. And for 6 or 7 Saturdays the University receives free advertising. Football is the front porch of the University of Minnesota. The games now are either on one of the ESPN networks or the Big 10 Network. Its a chance to reach hundreds of thousands of Alumni, and Millions of Minnesotans every Saturday. A Football team that sells out the stadium, covers the initial investment as well as many non revenue sports. Minnesota is developing other revenue sports. It is done by winning competing for National Championships. Women's Volleyball.
 

DLguy said:
We also have to remember that parking revenue from sporting events goes to the U general fund. When you think about how many lots are filled for every football, basketball, hockey, volleyball game on campus at $10-20 a space, that adds up to a LOT of revenue.
Click to expand...

I thought it went to the Transportation Fund, which is a restricted fund for paying off parking infrastructure and intercampus transit.
 




Usually the comments on the Strib site are idiotic. But I have to give the readers credit on this one. 80% of them mention the BTN $$$$ and how the department os not a drain on 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...

Not the schools highest paid they are the whole state governments highest paid.

I actually agree it's ridiculous but oh well.

I just wish we could revert the federal income taxes to the good old days of the 1950's then huge salaries would be less objectionable to me. Hint: In the 1950s PJ Fleck would be paying about 90% in taxes and most of us would be paying less than we do today, well unless you make over $1 million a year.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
I thought it went to the Transportation Fund, which is a restricted fund for paying off parking infrastructure and intercampus transit.
Click to expand...

And at most big time schools, those parking places for football and basketball (and hockey in our case) bring in big donations to the athletic department. The U athletic department probably loses out on a few million each year in parking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Wally said:
Not the schools highest paid they are the whole state governments highest paid.

I actually agree it's ridiculous but oh well.

I just wish we could revert the federal income taxes to the good old days of the 1950's then huge salaries would be less objectionable to me. Hint: In the 1950s PJ Fleck would be paying about 90% in taxes and most of us would be paying less than we do today, well unless you make over $1 million a year.
Click to expand...

You need to get your facts straight. This is an old article, but numbers still hold. Top 1% pay 45-50% of all Federal taxes. Story I think they pay plenty.
 

Wally said:
Not the schools highest paid they are the whole state governments highest paid.

I actually agree it's ridiculous but oh well.

I just wish we could revert the federal income taxes to the good old days of the 1950's then huge salaries would be less objectionable to me. Hint: In the 1950s PJ Fleck would be paying about 90% in taxes and most of us would be paying less than we do today, well unless you make over $1 million a year.
Click to expand...

how magnanimous of you to not object to million dollar salaries if 90% was taken away.
 


This is such a stupid debate. Paying coaches doesn't mean you can't have a good nursing program FFS. In fact, as others have said, having a strong athletics program enhances opportunities for the entire university community.
 

Anything that can turn a significant profit is worth having and investing in. If the U found a way to have a good ROI from setting up a department that sat in a room watching paint dry, I'd be fine with them investing millions in that.

I think there is an issue with the athletic department as a whole running a deficit, but the football team isn't the issue. Coyle should make sure athletics at least breaks even but football isn't the problem. It we cut football the athletic department would lose more money.
 


Torres9 said:
This is such a stupid debate. Paying coaches doesn't mean you can't have a good nursing program FFS. In fact, as others have said, having a strong athletics program enhances opportunities for the entire university community.
Click to expand...
Truth. It means you have more money available all programs. This is called Economies of Scale or more simply put "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
 

BleedGopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

He gives himself waaaaaay too much credit with this dismissive.
It's not simply comparing apples to oranges. It's taking an apple and an orange and cutting them to little pieces, using a paint brush, and serving it all up to people as spaghetti.
 


More interesting numbers.

Median football revenues
2004 8,829,000
2014 21,7171,000

Median football expenses:
2004 7,493,000
2014 16,062,000

Largest football program revenues
2004 46,242,000
2014 151,044,000 (likely Alabama)

Largest football program expenses:
2004 16,402,000
2014 49,639,000 (if this is the same program with the highest revenue their net is a whopping 101,405,000)

All kinds of interesting medians on coaches salaries, revenue sources, expense sources can be found at the link. Sadly, no individual program-specific numbers so no real context or variance information but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 Division I RE report.pdf
 

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...

Link to the US department of education web site (you just have to search for the "University of Minnesota - Twin Cities"): https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search

*The data provided is for the fiscal year running from July 2014 through June 2015.

Basically, most sports do bleed money. But football and men's basketball make money. There is a $9M+ football profit and almost $4M profit on basketball. I'm guessing most of the $46M in the "Not Allocated by Sport" line is from the Big Ten Network and donations, but there is no further detail on that so I can't be certain. One thing I would point out is that the athletic department gives out about $8M a year in student aid. Some of this is payments to student-athletes for living expenses, but one would think that a majority of it is tuition paid directly to the university.

I would say three things to anyone who thinks it is a bad thing for the U of M to participate in D1 college athletics:
1. The marketing/PR aspect of college sports is HUGE (https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...3fdd70acad2_story.html?utm_term=.1952b5ff8f9c)
2. Athletics brings in many students who would not otherwise be attending the U
3. The athletic department pays a lot of tuition directly to the university. Based on the data, I'm guessing at least $5M a year.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom