Why you may need to consider dropping your tickets to revenue sports

[gotomn]

This is a quote from Mark Coyle is straight out of the Joel Maturi playbook.

“We have teams winning the Big Ten Conference championships, teams going to the Final Four, and we are not talking about those things,” Coyle said.

At every other Big 10 school, they are aware that the revenue sports driver the engine. Under Maturi's reign, we worked hard to make sure we put a large amount of our extra resources toward our non revenue sports. It would appear that Coyle's focus will be on those sports again as we should be only talking about those Big 10 championships. Folks, get ready for the early 2000's again when we can celebrate those iconic Big 10 Womens Swimming and Diving crowns!

All-Time Regular Season Conference Championships: 201
Baseball (23): 1933, '35, '56, '58, '59, '60, '64, '68, '69, '70, '73, '74, '77, '82, '85, '88, '92, 2000, '02, '03, '04, '10, '16
Men's Basketball (8): 1906, '07, '11, '17, '19, '37, '72, '82
Men's Cross Country (4): 1909, '14, '64, '69
Women's Cross Country (2): 2007, '08
Football (18): 1900, '03, '04, '06, '09, '10, '11, '15, '27, '33, '34, '37, '38, '40, '41, '60, '67
Men's Golf (8): 1929, '38, '63, '72, 2002, '03, '07, '14
Women's Golf (2): 1978, '89
Men's Gymnastics (21): 1903, '07, '10, '25, '36, '38, '40, '47, '48, '49, '77, '78, '79, '80, '82, '84, '90, '91, '92, '95
Women's Gymnastics (9): 1988, '89, '91, '98, 2006, '13*, '14*, '16*
Men's Hockey (26): 1922, '23, '24, '25, '26, '28, '29, '32, '33, '53, '54, '70, '75, '81, '83, '88, '89, '92, '97, 2006, '07, '12, '13, '14, '15, '16
Women's Hockey (8): 2001, '02, '04, '05, '09, '10, '13, '14, '15
Rowing (1): 2007
Women's Soccer (4): 1995, '97, 2008, '16
Softball (3): 1986, '88, '91
Men's Swimming & Diving (9): 1922, '26, '96, '98, 2001, '02, '04, '05, '07
Women's Swimming & Diving (7): 1999, 2000, '08, '12, '13, '14, '15
Men's Tennis (15): 1910, '11, '12, '18, '32, '33, '81, '84, '86, '89, '92, '93, '94, '95, 2015
Women's Tennis (1): 2003
Men's Indoor Track & Field (4): 1998, 2009, '10, '11
Men's Outdoor Track & Field (7): 1949, '68, '98, '99, 2003, '09, '10
Women's Indoor Track & Field (3): 2007, '08, '09
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (2): 2006, '16
Volleyball (2): 2002, '15
Wrestling (14): 1910, 1912, '13, '41, '57, '59, '99, 2001, '02, '03, '06 , '07, '13*. ' 14*
* The Big Ten began recognizing regular season dual meet championships in women's gymnastics and wrestling for the 2012-13 season.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I hope that was Coyle just putting a spin on it. I get why he can't stand in front of room full of reports and say "the athletics department is a disaster".

 

[Gofer]

This is a quote from Mark Coyle is straight out of the Joel Maturi playbook.

“We have teams winning the Big Ten Conference championships, teams going to the Final Four, and we are not talking about those things,” Coyle said.

At every other Big 10 school, they are aware that the revenue sports driver the engine. Under Maturi's reign, we worked hard to make sure we put a large amount of our extra resources toward our non revenue sports. It would appear that Coyle's focus will be on those sports again as we should be only talking about those Big 10 championships. Folks, get ready for the early 2000's again when we can celebrate those iconic Big 10 Womens Swimming and Diving crowns!

Wouldn't you need to compare wrestling, volleyball, swimming budgets between Big Ten schools and compare with football and basketball budgets among Big Ten schools to come to a conclusion like that or is that too much work?

 

[RunGopherRun]

I would love to see your budgetary numbers that support your argument against non-revenue sports.

As a member of three of those non-revenue Big Ten Championship teams (Men's Track and Field 98-2002), I can tell you that we didn't win any titles due to any monetary shifts from the revenue sports. When I began, our "gear" consisted of one gray t-shirt that said "Minnesota Athletic Department" with a space for a number. We got one pair of yellow cotton shorts with a similar logo on it. We also got what the kids today would call a "groutfit". Gray sweatshirt and sweatpants that were similar to the t-shirt. Very basic. This was standard gear for the non-revenue sports. We all looked pretty much the same. (Just make sure not to ask Matty or Jack for another pair of socks!) The one thing we did get that was different from the rest was a maroon Minnesota Track Sweatshirt. If you were a non-revenue athlete at the U at this time, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

The football team and basketball team, however, were decked out in the latest gear. Jackets, backpacks, (we did get backpacks in 2001, which we had to buy ourselves) shoes, etc. We would finish lifting weights and walk back through Bierman to our locker room, passing the catered meals that the football team would have sitting out, buffet style. I would then proceed back to my overpriced apartment or house and make some spaghetti or hamburger helper. We took a yellow school bus to the airport to travel to the Big Ten Indoor Championships at PSU. We flew to Pittsburgh, and then drove 2.5 hours in 15 passenger vans to State College to save money. We stayed in a rundown motel to save money. One guy on our team also played football and he went on and on in disbelief about how we were traveling and where we were staying.

Don't confuse my honesty with complaining, either. I don't look back and think that I was screwed over. I understood how things worked, and loved every minute of it.

The point; to all those out there who claim that the non-revenue sports successes are hindering the revenue sports from achieving, you need to remove your head from your a$$. Not remotely true. Non-revenue sports are not living the high life. Stop trying to put blame for the football team's ineptitude over the past 50 years on the rest of the athletic department. Not the problem.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

This is a quote from Mark Coyle is straight out of the Joel Maturi playbook.

“We have teams winning the Big Ten Conference championships, teams going to the Final Four, and we are not talking about those things,” Coyle said.

I think Coyle knows that revenue sports are vitally important to the overall perception of the program and, ultimately, whether he is considered a success or failure. I took his statement as frustration with the distraction that the football mess caused and the attention that it focused on negative things at the expense of positive things going on in the department. (Certainly he played a part in that distraction.) For example, if I recall correctly, the boycott happened about the same time as the volleyball final four appearance.

As an AD, or a fan of the U's programs in general, it sucks when something negative takes away from something positive. It's not that non-revenue sports are more important, but all of the athletes work hard and the AD should want them to have their moment to enjoy their success. I care way more about football and men's basketball than all the other sports combined. That doesn't mean I don't still appreciate it when the softball team beats Iowa.

 

[RunGopherRun]

I think Coyle knows that revenue sports are vitally important to the overall perception of the program and, ultimately, whether he is considered a success or failure. I took his statement as frustration with the distraction that the football mess caused and the attention that it focused on negative things at the expense of positive things going on in the department. (Certainly he played a part in that distraction.) For example, if I recall correctly, the boycott happened about the same time as the volleyball final four appearance.

As an AD, or a fan of the U's programs in general, it sucks when something negative takes away from something positive. It's not that non-revenue sports are more important, but all of the athletes work hard and the AD should want them to have their moment to enjoy their success. I care way more about football and men's basketball than all the other sports combined. That doesn't mean I don't still appreciate it when the softball team beats Iowa.

+1

 

[Ignatius L Hoops]

Folks, get ready for the early 2000's again when we can celebrate those iconic Big 10 Womens Swimming and Diving crowns!

Hey, don't forget the men's hockey titles

 

[Ewert86PC]

The "Non-Revenue" Sports at the U are great. They are to be lauded and recognized. Their obscurity is part of the University's Marketing/PR incompetence.

The "elephant in the room" is donations and the amounts each brings in both from non-athletic alumni in addition to athletic alumni. The secondary importance of revenue sports is the number of 0's that get added to donations by alumni from each sport. Football, Men's Basketball and Men's Hockey all have alumni who can make donations to the athletic department with significantly larger digits than a majority of alumni from the rest of the departments at the U. Money drives things, like it or not. The Athletic Department doesn't get the Athletic Village without contributions by Revenue Sports Alumni.

Until alumni of non-revenue sports can wave donations of equal or greater size in the face of the Athletic Department, revenue sports will dominate the money game. It is a sad, sad fact of needing to pay money to run an athletic department. Fighting against this situation serves only to hobble all sports in the athletic department.

 

[RunGopherRun]

The "Non-Revenue" Sports at the U are great. They are to be lauded and recognized. Their obscurity is part of the University's Marketing/PR incompetence.

The "elephant in the room" is donations and the amounts each brings in both from non-athletic alumni in addition to athletic alumni. The secondary importance of revenue sports is the number of 0's that get added to donations by alumni from each sport. Football, Men's Basketball and Men's Hockey all have alumni who can make donations to the athletic department with significantly larger digits than a majority of alumni from the rest of the departments at the U. Money drives things, like it or not. The Athletic Department doesn't get the Athletic Village without contributions by Revenue Sports Alumni.

Until alumni of non-revenue sports can wave donations of equal or greater size in the face of the Athletic Department, revenue sports will dominate the money game. It is a sad, sad fact of needing to pay money to run an athletic department. Fighting against this situation serves only to hobble all sports in the athletic department.

I think everyone understands that the revenue sports drive all of the other sports. The collective budgets of all of the non-revenue sports combined doesn't come close to what the revenue sports' budgets are. And this isn't wrong. This is absolutely the way it should be. My complaint is when people think that it is the successful non-revenue sports that are dragging down the football program; that there is too much focus on those sports. That is asinine. Cut all of the non-revenue sports at the U and see if anything changes for the big boys. I would think not. Throwing more money at it won't automatically make it better.

 

[zman]

The point; to all those out there who claim that the non-revenue sports successes are hindering the revenue sports from achieving, you need to remove your head from your a$$. Not remotely true. Non-revenue sports are not living the high life. Stop trying to put blame for the football team's ineptitude over the past 50 years on the rest of the athletic department. Not the problem.

I think there is a lot of truth to what you said. However, you do not address the cost of your tuition. I am asking honestly - did you get free tuition or just reduced? If free, I'm guessing it is unlikely that the revenue brought in by the track team covered the cost, so the revenue sports likely covered it for you.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I've no problem with our non revenue sports.

There's no need to make play revenue vs non revenue sports against each other.

 

[Ewert86PC]

I think everyone understands that the revenue sports drive all of the other sports. The collective budgets of all of the non-revenue sports combined doesn't come close to what the revenue sports' budgets are. And this isn't wrong. This is absolutely the way it should be. My complaint is when people think that it is the successful non-revenue sports that are dragging down the football program; that there is too much focus on those sports. That is asinine. Cut all of the non-revenue sports at the U and see if anything changes for the big boys. I would think not. Throwing more money at it won't automatically make it better.

I agree whole heartedly. I just think that having successful non-revenue at the University leads some to believe that these sports can transform into revenue sports and supplant the revenue sports that they dislike. These people don't have a realistic view of the sports world outside of the University.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk