University of Minnesota on 60 Minutes

I will take your word on the coverage part. I honestly don't remember Pat covering any U of M sport positively in years.

I care, but I also understand the reality of big time sports being cut throat.
You have to provide the product to be covers in a positive light. He covers SSS from the volleyball team a lot. Local kid from Hopkins who was I believe a four time all American setter.

heck this was just 2 years ago.
 

Well they have been winning since they Mike Hebert from Illinois in 1996. They don’t always win but they also play in the best conference in the country. I’m not naive, yes winning helps you to write a story.


I think the scale of "hey those guys cover that" is kinda a different context if it is "well they cover them when they win..."
 

the problem with an arms race is that it only takes a few teams to keep it going. Team A adds new facilities, so Team B follows suit. Team C gives all the assistant coaches a salary bump, so Team D follows suit. and so it goes.

The only way to bring this in check would be for the P5 football conferences to establish some kind of a salary cap, with limits on spending for facilities, coaches' salaries, perks, etc.

Without that, no individual school is going to voluntarily cut its football budget, or opt down to FCS.

but - to be sure - all of this is driven by TV money. If the TV money ever stops growing, a lot of schools will be in the same position as MN.

the best hope for Gymnastics, track, etc might be to find a Denny Sanford type who would bankroll the program, or even operate the program outside of the U of M structure. hey, if I won the powerball, I would throw Men's track some bucks. just can't seem to pick the right numbers.....
 

I think the scale of "hey those guys cover that" is kinda a different context if it is "well they cover them when they win..."
The deciding factor of whether a sport is relevant should not be based on news coverage. The deciding factor should be the positive impact a college education has on the young men and women that participate in these sports.

newspapers and tv stations are required to get clicks or views so they need to write about the big two sports and then focus on who is winning.

The university is set up to advance people’s education and make them better people when they leave. The fact that you told sports over a zoom call that they are cut is an embarrassment. Yes the scholarships will be let if they decide to stay. To me it’s seems like everything the university did goes against everything they preach to be about.
 

The deciding factor of whether a sport is relevant should not be based on news coverage. The deciding factor should be the positive impact a college education has on the young men and women that participate in these sports.

I have no idea why you're talking about that.... I sure wasn't.
 


The deciding factor of whether a sport is relevant should not be based on news coverage. The deciding factor should be the positive impact a college education has on the young men and women that participate in these sports.

newspapers and tv stations are required to get clicks or views so they need to write about the big two sports and then focus on who is winning.

The university is set up to advance people’s education and make them better people when they leave. The fact that you told sports over a zoom call that they are cut is an embarrassment. Yes the scholarships will be let if they decide to stay. To me it’s seems like everything the university did goes against everything they preach to be about.
So should the university provide the activities for every student?
Your own argument is that you should provide things that provide positive impact. There is something else that could be provided in terms of athletic or activity that could enhance education.


Obviously there is some limit. What is the limit?
Why provide gymnastics to these guys but not provide water polo for another group?
Why provide men’s track but not play men’s lacrosse?

What is the limit on how you decide? Because the deciding factor being “the positive impact” it provides means you can never say no to anything.
What is the limit? If there is no limit, how do you pay?
 

the problem with an arms race is that it only takes a few teams to keep it going. Team A adds new facilities, so Team B follows suit. Team C gives all the assistant coaches a salary bump, so Team D follows suit. and so it goes.

The only way to bring this in check would be for the P5 football conferences to establish some kind of a salary cap, with limits on spending for facilities, coaches' salaries, perks, etc.

Without that, no individual school is going to voluntarily cut its football budget, or opt down to FCS.

but - to be sure - all of this is driven by TV money. If the TV money ever stops growing, a lot of schools will be in the same position as MN.

the best hope for Gymnastics, track, etc might be to find a Denny Sanford type who would bankroll the program, or even operate the program outside of the U of M structure. hey, if I won the powerball, I would throw Men's track some bucks. just can't seem to pick the right numbers.....
If John Anderson had not raised all the money to build his new stadium there would not be baseball at the university. It would have been cut without so much of a blink. They would then have the distinction of being only the 2nd program in the big ten to not play baseball.

the programs that were cut did not even have a chance to fund raise or come up with an idea to save them. The men’s gymnastics had a plan to be self sufficient by running camps and Coyle wanted nothing todo with that. Which means the only reason for the cut was a title IX issue and nothing to do with money. He just used the money and Covid as an excuse. Maybe the football team could get by with say 10 less players each year.
 

So should the university provide the activities for every student?
Your own argument is that you should provide things that provide positive impact. There is something else that could be provided in terms of athletic or activity that could enhance education.


Obviously there is some limit. What is the limit?
Why provide gymnastics to these guys but not provide water polo for another group?
Why provide men’s track but not play men’s lacrosse?

What is the limit on how you decide? Because the deciding factor being “the positive impact” it provides means you can never say no to anything.
What is the limit? If there is no limit, how do you pay?
Yes they should have more sports. Why should football face non of the consiquences of this budget crisis. Yes I know fleck took a small pay freeze of pay cut I don’t remember which.

the university does provide club teams for a lot of things and they have inter-murals you can play. Heres a list of all the club teams.
 

Yes they should have more sports. Why should football face non of the consiquences of this budget crisis. Yes I know fleck took a small pay freeze of pay cut I don’t remember which.

the university does provide club teams for a lot of things and they have inter-murals you can play. Heres a list of all the club teams.
Good job avoiding the question
 



See this yet? Sure let's hurt football so we can have less revenue and cut more sports...

Pitting men's and women's sports against each other at the U is wrong. http://strib.mn/3gtPZIs
 

And let's be honest Coyle is not a good speaker and even looks nervous when talking about positive things. He knows it's best to stay off camera as much as possible.
Coyle is not capable of giving a clear concise (or honest in many cases) answer to any question. He would have been a disaster on 60-minutes. His bosses knew it and shot that idea down.
 

Most people don’t like Pat because they don’t want to hear what he is saying, and they know it is spot on in many cases.
 

See this yet? Sure let's hurt football so we can have less revenue and cut more sports...

Pitting men's and women's sports against each other at the U is wrong. http://strib.mn/3gtPZIs

Seems to have made-up her mind first. Then tried to justify it after.

If there's anything we've learned in 2020 is that there are a lot of people out there with one-sided opinions. Unless something actually comes of it, not gonna get worked-up about it.
 



Whether you believe what Coyle says or not, him speaking the least amount to anyone interviewing him is best.

He's doing a good job as AD. Just sucks at delivering a message publicly. (Which normally is an important part of an AD job). But if the football program ends up successful, he'll be successful.
 

See this yet? Sure let's hurt football so we can have less revenue and cut more sports...

Pitting men's and women's sports against each other at the U is wrong. http://strib.mn/3gtPZIs
I agree it’s wrong.
If the state wants both, the state should fund both.

If the state doesn’t care, the state should let the u make profit maximization decisions

(The state chose option 2)
 

Another question is why do we not have 50/50 mens/women's student enrollment. Seems like it shouldn't be difficult to get that balanced.

There are also now more female medicine and law students matriculated over last few years, nationally. The world has changed. The U at 54% female undergraduate admission (or thereabouts) is emblematic of a cultural sea change over the last 60+ years. Perhaps the title IX quotas on scholarships can be relaxed a bit more if the cuts are indeed due to title IX quota pressures. This is an example of well-intentioned rules, once necessary in another time and culture, becoming counterproductive. This is not football’s fault. Football pays most of the bills.
 



Per Minneapolis Tribune

This past Sunday, CBS’ “60 Minutes” aired a story about the impact of COVID-related financial crises on college athletics. It featured circumstances at the University of Minnesota and its decision to cut three men’s athletic programs — gymnastics, tennis and indoor track and field.

Athletic director Mark Coyle declined to sit for an interview in which he might have explained his leadership choices. Instead, he issued another written statement. As a U graduate and former athlete and coach, I view this choice as additional evidence of Coyle’s inadequate leadership.


Coyle has consistently hidden behind misleading arguments about the constraints on his options. He argues that the postponement of Big Ten Conference athletic competition due to the pandemic resulted in an anticipated multimillion-dollar budget shortfall, leaving him no choice but to cut the teams. Coyle blamed the cuts on the legal requirements stipulated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal civil rights policy that requires sex equity in American education.

My scholarly analysis of Title IX and the previous decade of equity practices at the U was recently published by the Humphrey School of Public Affairs Gender Policy Report. My findings raise serious concerns about the transparency of Coyle’s argument.

Coyle’s choice to pit men’s teams against women’s teams obscures longstanding inequities that favor men, both in athletic opportunities and financial support. It suggests a less than full commitment to comprehensive gender equity in Gopher athletics.

Although Title IX does not specifically prohibit unequal spending, leadership has allowed investment in men’s football to go unchecked over the past decade. For more than 10 years it has reported spending more money on the football team alone than all women’s sports combined.

While many critics will point to the unique position of some sports in generating revenue, Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination do not require athletes to “produce revenue” in order to be treated as full citizens. As a public institution that benefits from significant taxpayer funding, the U should be closely scrutinized whenever leaders make decisions which value or promote profit-seeking over nondiscrimination policy.

Coyle bypassed another opportunity to positively impact the long-term health and well-being of athletes’ civil rights, even in the face of financial strife. The way these decisions are publicly discussed by athletic leadership matters. My research indicates that athletes in the Big Ten are aware of and concerned about inequitable practices within their athletic departments. Statements by leadership can either bolster accurate understanding about public policy and departmental priorities or undermine it.

When Coyle refuses to engage the media, Minnesotans may believe the myth that there was no alternative solution.

However, rather than pitting men’s teams against women’s, the department could alter the roster size of its largest sport: men’s football. Although roughly 115 men comprise the roster, only a portion of them see playing time throughout the season. In the National Football League, rosters include only 53 players.

Spending-per-athlete is much higher in football than in any other men’s sport except basketball. (The long-term physical costs of the sport on player’s brains and bodies are also extraordinary.)

Cutting roster spots for football instead of entire low-cost men’s teams could allow for a less excruciating outcome. As it stands, the department seems poised to consider cutting additional teams rather than decrease football spending should the financial crisis worsen.

Minnesotans should remember that athletes who compete at the U are policy beneficiaries, protected by civil rights law against discrimination. The incomplete picture Gopher Athletics paints of its commitment to Title IX glosses over inequitable practices, ignores alternative solutions which could better address the financial strain and fundamentally undermines the pursuit of gender equity more broadly.

Coyle’s unwillingness to even provide an interview explaining his reasoning is an abdication of his responsibility as a public employee. He is not charged with running a private business. He is employed to steward the Athletic Department of a taxpayer-funded public university. He is responsible for choices that determine compliance with federal civil rights law and the economic and educational livelihoods of the nearly 700 athletes and roughly 300 staff members he oversees.

Gopher Athletics owes better to the stakeholders it serves.

Elizabeth Sharrow is associate professor of public policy and history at the

University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is a graduate of the University of

Minnesota and a former rowing team captain and coach.
 

Per Minneapolis Tribune

This past Sunday, CBS’ “60 Minutes” aired a story about the impact of COVID-related financial crises on college athletics. It featured circumstances at the University of Minnesota and its decision to cut three men’s athletic programs — gymnastics, tennis and indoor track and field.

Athletic director Mark Coyle declined to sit for an interview in which he might have explained his leadership choices. Instead, he issued another written statement. As a U graduate and former athlete and coach, I view this choice as additional evidence of Coyle’s inadequate leadership.


Coyle has consistently hidden behind misleading arguments about the constraints on his options. He argues that the postponement of Big Ten Conference athletic competition due to the pandemic resulted in an anticipated multimillion-dollar budget shortfall, leaving him no choice but to cut the teams. Coyle blamed the cuts on the legal requirements stipulated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal civil rights policy that requires sex equity in American education.

My scholarly analysis of Title IX and the previous decade of equity practices at the U was recently published by the Humphrey School of Public Affairs Gender Policy Report. My findings raise serious concerns about the transparency of Coyle’s argument.

Coyle’s choice to pit men’s teams against women’s teams obscures longstanding inequities that favor men, both in athletic opportunities and financial support. It suggests a less than full commitment to comprehensive gender equity in Gopher athletics.

Although Title IX does not specifically prohibit unequal spending, leadership has allowed investment in men’s football to go unchecked over the past decade. For more than 10 years it has reported spending more money on the football team alone than all women’s sports combined.

While many critics will point to the unique position of some sports in generating revenue, Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination do not require athletes to “produce revenue” in order to be treated as full citizens. As a public institution that benefits from significant taxpayer funding, the U should be closely scrutinized whenever leaders make decisions which value or promote profit-seeking over nondiscrimination policy.

Coyle bypassed another opportunity to positively impact the long-term health and well-being of athletes’ civil rights, even in the face of financial strife. The way these decisions are publicly discussed by athletic leadership matters. My research indicates that athletes in the Big Ten are aware of and concerned about inequitable practices within their athletic departments. Statements by leadership can either bolster accurate understanding about public policy and departmental priorities or undermine it.

When Coyle refuses to engage the media, Minnesotans may believe the myth that there was no alternative solution.

However, rather than pitting men’s teams against women’s, the department could alter the roster size of its largest sport: men’s football. Although roughly 115 men comprise the roster, only a portion of them see playing time throughout the season. In the National Football League, rosters include only 53 players.

Spending-per-athlete is much higher in football than in any other men’s sport except basketball. (The long-term physical costs of the sport on player’s brains and bodies are also extraordinary.)

Cutting roster spots for football instead of entire low-cost men’s teams could allow for a less excruciating outcome. As it stands, the department seems poised to consider cutting additional teams rather than decrease football spending should the financial crisis worsen.

Minnesotans should remember that athletes who compete at the U are policy beneficiaries, protected by civil rights law against discrimination. The incomplete picture Gopher Athletics paints of its commitment to Title IX glosses over inequitable practices, ignores alternative solutions which could better address the financial strain and fundamentally undermines the pursuit of gender equity more broadly.

Coyle’s unwillingness to even provide an interview explaining his reasoning is an abdication of his responsibility as a public employee. He is not charged with running a private business. He is employed to steward the Athletic Department of a taxpayer-funded public university. He is responsible for choices that determine compliance with federal civil rights law and the economic and educational livelihoods of the nearly 700 athletes and roughly 300 staff members he oversees.

Gopher Athletics owes better to the stakeholders it serves.

Elizabeth Sharrow is associate professor of public policy and history at the

University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is a graduate of the University of

Minnesota and a former rowing team captain and coach.
I don't want to dig too deeply into this as I've given it very little thought. I also have no bone to pick with Dr. Sharrow. I simply wanted to say that attitudes like this are EXACTLY why Minnesota football has wandered in the wasteland for most of my life. The tide finally began to turn in the past decade and bam, the program rose to national prominence last season. Now...60 minutes.
 

However, rather than pitting men’s teams against women’s, the department could alter the roster size of its largest sport: men’s football. Although roughly 115 men comprise the roster, only a portion of them see playing time throughout the season. In the National Football League, rosters include only 53 players.
This cannot be a serious suggestion.
 

Per Minneapolis Tribune

This past Sunday, CBS’ “60 Minutes” aired a story about the impact of COVID-related financial crises on college athletics. It featured circumstances at the University of Minnesota and its decision to cut three men’s athletic programs — gymnastics, tennis and indoor track and field.

Athletic director Mark Coyle declined to sit for an interview in which he might have explained his leadership choices. Instead, he issued another written statement. As a U graduate and former athlete and coach, I view this choice as additional evidence of Coyle’s inadequate leadership.


Coyle has consistently hidden behind misleading arguments about the constraints on his options. He argues that the postponement of Big Ten Conference athletic competition due to the pandemic resulted in an anticipated multimillion-dollar budget shortfall, leaving him no choice but to cut the teams. Coyle blamed the cuts on the legal requirements stipulated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal civil rights policy that requires sex equity in American education.

My scholarly analysis of Title IX and the previous decade of equity practices at the U was recently published by the Humphrey School of Public Affairs Gender Policy Report. My findings raise serious concerns about the transparency of Coyle’s argument.

Coyle’s choice to pit men’s teams against women’s teams obscures longstanding inequities that favor men, both in athletic opportunities and financial support. It suggests a less than full commitment to comprehensive gender equity in Gopher athletics.

Although Title IX does not specifically prohibit unequal spending, leadership has allowed investment in men’s football to go unchecked over the past decade. For more than 10 years it has reported spending more money on the football team alone than all women’s sports combined.

While many critics will point to the unique position of some sports in generating revenue, Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination do not require athletes to “produce revenue” in order to be treated as full citizens. As a public institution that benefits from significant taxpayer funding, the U should be closely scrutinized whenever leaders make decisions which value or promote profit-seeking over nondiscrimination policy.

Coyle bypassed another opportunity to positively impact the long-term health and well-being of athletes’ civil rights, even in the face of financial strife. The way these decisions are publicly discussed by athletic leadership matters. My research indicates that athletes in the Big Ten are aware of and concerned about inequitable practices within their athletic departments. Statements by leadership can either bolster accurate understanding about public policy and departmental priorities or undermine it.

When Coyle refuses to engage the media, Minnesotans may believe the myth that there was no alternative solution.

However, rather than pitting men’s teams against women’s, the department could alter the roster size of its largest sport: men’s football. Although roughly 115 men comprise the roster, only a portion of them see playing time throughout the season. In the National Football League, rosters include only 53 players.

Spending-per-athlete is much higher in football than in any other men’s sport except basketball. (The long-term physical costs of the sport on player’s brains and bodies are also extraordinary.)

Cutting roster spots for football instead of entire low-cost men’s teams could allow for a less excruciating outcome. As it stands, the department seems poised to consider cutting additional teams rather than decrease football spending should the financial crisis worsen.

Minnesotans should remember that athletes who compete at the U are policy beneficiaries, protected by civil rights law against discrimination. The incomplete picture Gopher Athletics paints of its commitment to Title IX glosses over inequitable practices, ignores alternative solutions which could better address the financial strain and fundamentally undermines the pursuit of gender equity more broadly.

Coyle’s unwillingness to even provide an interview explaining his reasoning is an abdication of his responsibility as a public employee. He is not charged with running a private business. He is employed to steward the Athletic Department of a taxpayer-funded public university. He is responsible for choices that determine compliance with federal civil rights law and the economic and educational livelihoods of the nearly 700 athletes and roughly 300 staff members he oversees.

Gopher Athletics owes better to the stakeholders it serves.

Elizabeth Sharrow is associate professor of public policy and history at the

University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is a graduate of the University of

Minnesota and a former rowing team captain and coach.
Awesome post from someone far more qualified than i am. What is equality anyway ? You explained under TitleIX. Can donors earmark their gift only to the sports they support ? If not,why not. I endow a scholarship at 3 universities for 3 total male student athletes.
 

Per Minneapolis Tribune

Cutting roster spots for football instead of entire low-cost men’s teams could allow for a less excruciating outcome. As it stands, the department seems poised to consider cutting additional teams rather than decrease football spending should the financial crisis worsen.

Am I missing something here?

Cut a revenue sport... impact it's ability to excel / generate revenue ... and then we've got less money and then what?


There's no magical AD fund that is always going to be a certian level, revenue sport success plays a part in that ....
 

That opinion piece is manure from start to finish. Dr. Sharrow needs to return to planet earth, or take some low level economics/business courses. Maybe chat with Coyle for a few minutes.
 

As is always the case in the absence of strong leadership, lower level leaders are forced into action which can lead to bigger problems. The NCAA could take control of the reins in college sports to control costs, promote as many sports as possible, and help ensure equity between genders. Without this leadership, individual universities make their own decisions. It's a version of federal versus states rights.

The NCAA could make things more competitive across the spectrum, but that would likely lead to the biggest schools losing donations and that is not acceptable to those in charge. I would be in favor of the NCAA setting limits on per-athlete spending that must be the same across all sports. It would curb the keeping-up-with-the-Jones approach of building luxury facilities to attract teenaged athletes. Did Minnesota need the athlete's village? No, but we needed to build it to keep attracting players that would otherwise play for schools that have similar luxury attractions. If that were kept in check nationwide, there would be more money for the non-revenue generating sports.
 

I am a U of M track and field alum. I think the thing about all of this that gets under my skin is the excess that the football team spends money vs. the non-revenue sports. When I got to the U (Fall 1997), I wasn't showered with gear. All of the non-revenue sports got the same stuff. A pair of yellow cotton shorts, a gray Russell t-shirt, a gray Russell sweatsuit, a pair of socks. For track we got some other specific things like some spandex shorts and pants and some running shoes. All of the clothes had the generic "Minnesota Athletic Department" printed on them, which had a circle in the middle for my number to be written on with a sharpie (229). We got warmups for meets that we had to return at the end of the year. We took busses everywhere in the midwest. We took yellow school busses to the airport when I was fortunate enough to earn a spot to travel to big meets. We stayed in motels. (Jack Brewer came with us to Penn State for our conference indoor meet one year and he complained constantly about how we traveled and where we stayed.) We got per-diem for our Spring break trip, which I bought lunch meat and bread with so I could make it through the entire week. I paid my own way to school for the first 3 years, before earning a partial 10% scholarship for my 4th year and a 15% scholarship for my 5th year when I was one of the team captains. To this day I still am paying off my student loans.

And you will never, EVER hear me complain about one second of it. Those were the greatest years of my life, through highs and lows, meeting people that would shape me for the rest of my life. I find myself so lucky to have gone on those trips, and competed at the highest level of collegiate track and field. I understand that the football team paid for all of it, but cutting those opportunities for so many young men to save a fraction of the deficit is unconscionable. The recruiting budget alone for football could nearly carry men's track and field's entire budget.

I love the U. I've loved the football and basketball programs. But to sacrifice sports and opportunities to try and compete in the bloated arms race of NCAA football isn't worth it in my mind.
 

I am a U of M track and field alum. I think the thing about all of this that gets under my skin is the excess that the football team spends money vs. the non-revenue sports. When I got to the U (Fall 1997), I wasn't showered with gear. All of the non-revenue sports got the same stuff. A pair of yellow cotton shorts, a gray Russell t-shirt, a gray Russell sweatsuit, a pair of socks. For track we got some other specific things like some spandex shorts and pants and some running shoes. All of the clothes had the generic "Minnesota Athletic Department" printed on them, which had a circle in the middle for my number to be written on with a sharpie (229). We got warmups for meets that we had to return at the end of the year. We took busses everywhere in the midwest. We took yellow school busses to the airport when I was fortunate enough to earn a spot to travel to big meets. We stayed in motels. (Jack Brewer came with us to Penn State for our conference indoor meet one year and he complained constantly about how we traveled and where we stayed.) We got per-diem for our Spring break trip, which I bought lunch meat and bread with so I could make it through the entire week. I paid my own way to school for the first 3 years, before earning a partial 10% scholarship for my 4th year and a 15% scholarship for my 5th year when I was one of the team captains. To this day I still am paying off my student loans.

And you will never, EVER hear me complain about one second of it. Those were the greatest years of my life, through highs and lows, meeting people that would shape me for the rest of my life. I find myself so lucky to have gone on those trips, and competed at the highest level of collegiate track and field. I understand that the football team paid for all of it, but cutting those opportunities for so many young men to save a fraction of the deficit is unconscionable. The recruiting budget alone for football could nearly carry men's track and field's entire budget.

I love the U. I've loved the football and basketball programs. But to sacrifice sports and opportunities to try and compete in the bloated arms race of NCAA football isn't worth it in my mind.
I competed in zero years of 15% scholarship track. I turned out fine.

If you want there to be track you should lobby the state legislature to fund non-revenue sports.

the current directive is to self fund the athletics department. The best way to do that is by cutting.

I wish the non revenue sports would be funded by the university and the football could operate solely on its own budget.
 

Per Minneapolis Tribune

This past Sunday, CBS’ “60 Minutes” aired a story about the impact of COVID-related financial crises on college athletics. It featured circumstances at the University of Minnesota and its decision to cut three men’s athletic programs — gymnastics, tennis and indoor track and field.

Athletic director Mark Coyle declined to sit for an interview in which he might have explained his leadership choices. Instead, he issued another written statement. As a U graduate and former athlete and coach, I view this choice as additional evidence of Coyle’s inadequate leadership.


Coyle has consistently hidden behind misleading arguments about the constraints on his options. He argues that the postponement of Big Ten Conference athletic competition due to the pandemic resulted in an anticipated multimillion-dollar budget shortfall, leaving him no choice but to cut the teams. Coyle blamed the cuts on the legal requirements stipulated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal civil rights policy that requires sex equity in American education.

My scholarly analysis of Title IX and the previous decade of equity practices at the U was recently published by the Humphrey School of Public Affairs Gender Policy Report. My findings raise serious concerns about the transparency of Coyle’s argument.

Coyle’s choice to pit men’s teams against women’s teams obscures longstanding inequities that favor men, both in athletic opportunities and financial support. It suggests a less than full commitment to comprehensive gender equity in Gopher athletics.

Although Title IX does not specifically prohibit unequal spending, leadership has allowed investment in men’s football to go unchecked over the past decade. For more than 10 years it has reported spending more money on the football team alone than all women’s sports combined.

While many critics will point to the unique position of some sports in generating revenue, Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination do not require athletes to “produce revenue” in order to be treated as full citizens. As a public institution that benefits from significant taxpayer funding, the U should be closely scrutinized whenever leaders make decisions which value or promote profit-seeking over nondiscrimination policy.

Coyle bypassed another opportunity to positively impact the long-term health and well-being of athletes’ civil rights, even in the face of financial strife. The way these decisions are publicly discussed by athletic leadership matters. My research indicates that athletes in the Big Ten are aware of and concerned about inequitable practices within their athletic departments. Statements by leadership can either bolster accurate understanding about public policy and departmental priorities or undermine it.

When Coyle refuses to engage the media, Minnesotans may believe the myth that there was no alternative solution.

However, rather than pitting men’s teams against women’s, the department could alter the roster size of its largest sport: men’s football. Although roughly 115 men comprise the roster, only a portion of them see playing time throughout the season. In the National Football League, rosters include only 53 players.

Spending-per-athlete is much higher in football than in any other men’s sport except basketball. (The long-term physical costs of the sport on player’s brains and bodies are also extraordinary.)

Cutting roster spots for football instead of entire low-cost men’s teams could allow for a less excruciating outcome. As it stands, the department seems poised to consider cutting additional teams rather than decrease football spending should the financial crisis worsen.

Minnesotans should remember that athletes who compete at the U are policy beneficiaries, protected by civil rights law against discrimination. The incomplete picture Gopher Athletics paints of its commitment to Title IX glosses over inequitable practices, ignores alternative solutions which could better address the financial strain and fundamentally undermines the pursuit of gender equity more broadly.

Coyle’s unwillingness to even provide an interview explaining his reasoning is an abdication of his responsibility as a public employee. He is not charged with running a private business. He is employed to steward the Athletic Department of a taxpayer-funded public university. He is responsible for choices that determine compliance with federal civil rights law and the economic and educational livelihoods of the nearly 700 athletes and roughly 300 staff members he oversees.

Gopher Athletics owes better to the stakeholders it serves.

Elizabeth Sharrow is associate professor of public policy and history at the

University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is a graduate of the University of

Minnesota and a former rowing team captain and coach.
I went to the U with Libby, lived in the same dorm (Middlebrook) freshman year, and even had the same major as her (poli sci). We are still "Facebook friends" to this day. This is a disappointing, but not at all surprising, letter from her. If you had told me that Libby Sharrow wrote a letter to the STrib re: men's football at the U, I could have summarized the key points without having read it. She tries to establish some level of athletic bona fides by mentioning her previous association with the rowing team (which is true), but she cares as much about football as the average poster here cares about the rowing team.
 

When did everyone forget this is college, where a young students apply and seek knowledge, meet friends and connections, in order to prepare for a future profession, that will financially offer security in this materialistic world. What is the total budget of the University of MN? All of these large schools are cutting these valuable life experiences for a few millions dollars. One should complete a study and evaluated what each graduate has accomplished over the last five to ten years from each of these sports and what their contribution to society and the work place.
 

I went to the U with Libby, lived in the same dorm (Middlebrook) freshman year, and even had the same major as her (poli sci). We are still "Facebook friends" to this day. This is a disappointing, but not at all surprising, letter from her. If you had told me that Libby Sharrow wrote a letter to the STrib re: men's football at the U, I could have summarized the key points without having read it. She tries to establish some level of athletic bona fides by mentioning her previous association with the rowing team (which is true), but she cares as much about football as the average poster here cares about the rowing team.
Wow I hadn’t read full story until you posted it.
If we did what she suggests is the solution (cut football roster spots) we get kicked out of the big ten. We likely join Missouri valley conference as nobody at FBS would take a team that doesn’t fully fund their football team with scholarships.

we cut out athletics department down to the size of one of the Dakota schools to compensate for lost revenues.

Problem solved.
We would probably only lose 10-12 programs.

When you are trying to make a possibly valid argument about media transparency at a public institution it would help her to not ruin her credibility by suggesting absolutely ridiculous solutions.

May as well suggest the university plant a money tree to afford competing in this many sports as her suggestion is equally as feasible as this.
 




Top Bottom