FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

5,000 to 7,000 in stadium capacity .... that's how I read that sentence. Does the video version suggest otherwise?

[wildcat11]

"We're 5,000 to 7,000," said Fritz. "In the end, it might cost us the football program [if UST were to go D-I]."

5,000 - 7,000?  Only when Johnnie Nation is in the house.

[OzJohnnie]

5,000 to 7,000 in stadium capacity .... that's how I read that sentence. Does the video version suggest otherwise?

Why does he present capacity as a range?  Doesn't he know how many seats he has?  The statement only makes sense in the context of maximum (johnnie enabled) attendance, particularly because saying average attendance is only 1500 makes a mockery of the whole pretext for the article.  I think the article gracefully conflates the two measures.

The attendance for the UST/UMN derby would easily be 60k. And they would get that home game every other year.  The fact is UST only has the funds/willpower to run a DIII program (despite the shiny new locker room tiles) and would have to sacrifice football not because of a small stadium but because with only 1500 supporters turning out they will never find the cash to stand up a DI program.

[Pat Coleman]

I figured the range was for the temporary bleachers they bring in for the Johnnie game. And I doubt that even if UST went to D-I FBS that they would have the pull to get Minnesota in their stadium (whatever that would be) every other year.

[OzJohnnie]

No, it's not enough.   I don't understand the point of trying to pretend that D1 is an amateur level like D3.  Just because you're not handed cash, doesn't mean you're not being paid.  In a free system players would earn over $500K.  How do you explain to Gary Tinsley's kids that their daddy who died was worth millions to the Gophers and was a likely future NFL player, but wasn't able to leave anything behind for them?

I've done a rarity.  I've actually researched so that I can argue from position of fact, not just passion.

This is the latest NCAA Division 1 Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report, Revenue & Expenses (2004 -2010).

Some interesting factoids:

* The average net position for FBS schools was a loss of $9.4m in 2010 (down from an average loss of $10.1m in 2009) on athletics
* 22 FBS schools reported a profit in 2010, while 98 reported a loss
* The average athletic expense per athlete was $90k/yr at FBS schools.
* FBS schools generate revenue to cover about 75% of athletic costs from athletics, the remaining costs are allocated by the institutions from other sources (such as trusts, or what not)
* Football generated revenue accounts for about 45% of total generated revenues
* Basketball generates about 13% of revenues

So, my analysis is that outside of 22 institutions (every FCS school of 288 and D1 w/o football of 176 lose money on athletics), schools could arguably be better off not having sport at all because they are a net drain on the rest of the institution - taking money away from research or other studies.  Obviously, every expense is an investment and no aspect of a university (particularly tuition) is self-funding.  But the point is there - a non-core mission of the institution is degrading the overall financial position.  Consider disposal - maybe tmert's idea of a non-school development league for major league sports.

Now the NCAA makes a bucket of cash (allegedly, I would like to see the report on that now) on football bowls and basketball tourneys, but this subsidizes all the other work they do.  I doubt they are rolling in cash, and I'm pretty certain they don't have trusts or other funding sources to draw on if tourney revenues tank.

So, seeing as these unskilled kids are getting "paid" $90k a year from a loss leading business, I reckon they are compensated more than enough.


---

And to answer your emotive question: you tell his kids the same way you tell any kids who have lost a young father.  Maybe ones like this here

[AO]

No, it's not enough.   I don't understand the point of trying to pretend that D1 is an amateur level like D3.  Just because you're not handed cash, doesn't mean you're not being paid.  In a free system players would earn over $500K.  How do you explain to Gary Tinsley's kids that their daddy who died was worth millions to the Gophers and was a likely future NFL player, but wasn't able to leave anything behind for them?

I've done a rarity.  I've actually researched so that I can argue from position of fact, not just passion.

This is the latest NCAA Division 1 Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report, Revenue & Expenses (2004 -2010).

Some interesting factoids:

* The average net position for FBS schools was a loss of $9.4m in 2010 (down from an average loss of $10.1m in 2009) on athletics
* 22 FBS schools reported a profit in 2010, while 98 reported a loss
* The average athletic expense per athlete was $90k/yr at FBS schools.
* FBS schools generate revenue to cover about 75% of athletic costs from athletics, the remaining costs are allocated by the institutions from other sources (such as trusts, or what not)
* Football generated revenue accounts for about 45% of total generated revenues
* Basketball generates about 13% of revenues

So, my analysis is that outside of 22 institutions (every FCS school of 288 and D1 w/o football of 176 lose money on athletics), schools could arguably be better off not having sport at all because they are a net drain on the rest of the institution - taking money away from research or other studies.  Obviously, every expense is an investment and no aspect of a university (particularly tuition) is self-funding.  But the point is there - a non-core mission of the institution is degrading the overall financial position.  Consider disposal - maybe tmert's idea of a non-school development league for major league sports.

Now the NCAA makes a bucket of cash (allegedly, I would like to see the report on that now) on football bowls and basketball tourneys, but this subsidizes all the other work they do.  I doubt they are rolling in cash, and I'm pretty certain they don't have trusts or other funding sources to draw on if tourney revenues tank.

So, seeing as these unskilled kids are getting "paid" $90k a year from a loss leading business, I reckon they are compensated more than enough.


---

And to answer your emotive question: you tell his kids the same way you tell any kids who have lost a young father.  Maybe ones like this here

The NCAA and it's schools don't run themselves like a business.  They don't earn profits for shareholders.  They make tens of millions in profit from football, basketball and in Minnesota's case, hockey and spend it on the other sports.  The Big Ten schools are each receiving $25 Million just from television revenue, projected to rise to $43 Million by 2017.  They then seek donations to spend even more.   The 22 schools that don't manage to spend it all and give back to the university general fund are just out of ideas of how to spend that money.

[sjusection105]

No, it's not enough.   I don't understand the point of trying to pretend that D1 is an amateur level like D3.  Just because you're not handed cash, doesn't mean you're not being paid.  In a free system players would earn over $500K.  How do you explain to Gary Tinsley's kids that their daddy who died was worth millions to the Gophers and was a likely future NFL player, but wasn't able to leave anything behind for them?

I've done a rarity.  I've actually researched so that I can argue from position of fact, not just passion.

This is the latest NCAA Division 1 Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report, Revenue & Expenses (2004 -2010).

Some interesting factoids:

* The average net position for FBS schools was a loss of $9.4m in 2010 (down from an average loss of $10.1m in 2009) on athletics
* 22 FBS schools reported a profit in 2010, while 98 reported a loss
* The average athletic expense per athlete was $90k/yr at FBS schools.
* FBS schools generate revenue to cover about 75% of athletic costs from athletics, the remaining costs are allocated by the institutions from other sources (such as trusts, or what not)
* Football generated revenue accounts for about 45% of total generated revenues
* Basketball generates about 13% of revenues

So, my analysis is that outside of 22 institutions (every FCS school of 288 and D1 w/o football of 176 lose money on athletics), schools could arguably be better off not having sport at all because they are a net drain on the rest of the institution - taking money away from research or other studies.  Obviously, every expense is an investment and no aspect of a university (particularly tuition) is self-funding.  But the point is there - a non-core mission of the institution is degrading the overall financial position.  Consider disposal - maybe tmert's idea of a non-school development league for major league sports.

Now the NCAA makes a bucket of cash (allegedly, I would like to see the report on that now) on football bowls and basketball tourneys, but this subsidizes all the other work they do.  I doubt they are rolling in cash, and I'm pretty certain they don't have trusts or other funding sources to draw on if tourney revenues tank.

So, seeing as these unskilled kids are getting "paid" $90k a year from a loss leading business, I reckon they are compensated more than enough.


---

And to answer your emotive question: you tell his kids the same way you tell any kids who have lost a young father.  Maybe ones like this here

The NCAA and it's schools don't run themselves like a business. They don't earn profits for shareholders.  They make tens of millions in profit from football, basketball and in Minnesota's case, hockey and spend it on the other sports.  The Big Ten schools are each receiving $25 Million just from television revenue, projected to rise to $43 Million by 2017.  They then seek donations to spend even more.   The 22 schools that don't manage to spend it all and give back to the university general fund are just out of ideas of how to spend that money.

Drowning in red ink as they are,it appears they run themselves more like government---if they need more revenue,they just raise tuition.....

[sfury]

With this current discussion it's worth revisiting Taylor Branch's epic piece in The Atlantic from 2011.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/?single_page=true

[ron doney]

Here is a link to save for your files.......the short answer to the question, should we go D1?

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/03/21/good-question-why-arent-more-minn-colleges-in-division-i/

Steve Fritz in the referenced article:

The NCAA requires an average football attendance of 15,000, which practically means you need a stadium that will hold about 30,000 fans.

"We're 5,000 to 7,000," said Fritz. "In the end, it might cost us the football program [if UST were to go D-I]."

5,000 - 7,000?  Only when Johnnie Nation is in the house.

Well played!!! 

There were 10,421 before they head to Tiff's in 2011.

Gotta credit the Tommie faithful for showing to see good football as well.  Like the 4,800 that made it to the Bethel game last year. And the 4,000 at the Oshkosh game. 

[ron doney]

5,000 to 7,000 in stadium capacity .... that's how I read that sentence. Does the video version suggest otherwise?

Why does he present capacity as a range?  Doesn't he know how many seats he has?  The statement only makes sense in the context of maximum (johnnie enabled) attendance, particularly because saying average attendance is only 1500 makes a mockery of the whole pretext for the article.  I think the article gracefully conflates the two measures.

The attendance for the UST/UMN derby would easily be 60k. And they would get that home game every other year.  The fact is UST only has the funds/willpower to run a DIII program (despite the shiny new locker room tiles) and would have to sacrifice football not because of a small stadium but because with only 1500 supporters turning out they will never find the cash to stand up a DI program.

O'Shaughnessy Stadium : This 5,000-seat outdoor stadium, built in 1947, is the arena for St. Thomas football and track events.

The U's stadium only holds 50,000. Easily is a stretch.

UST's attendance has been higher, probably in the 2,000s the last few years.

Whoa, is a Johnnie saying that UST doesn't have much money?  And the reasoning is because their attendance is low?  If higher attendance equates to more money.........well then how much cash is SJ1 raking in? 

[57Johnnie]

http://chippewa.com/news/local/leinie-s-goes-national-with-summer-shandy/article_3268ab1a-96e8-11e2-b463-001a4bcf887a.html

Sounds bad - need a review on the board

[DuffMan]

http://chippewa.com/news/local/leinie-s-goes-national-with-summer-shandy/article_3268ab1a-96e8-11e2-b463-001a4bcf887a.html

Sounds bad - need a review on the board

Calling it a beer is a stretch.  It's not bad, but if you're thirsting for a manly beer, Summer Shandy isn't what you're going to want.

[Jonny Utah]

http://chippewa.com/news/local/leinie-s-goes-national-with-summer-shandy/article_3268ab1a-96e8-11e2-b463-001a4bcf887a.html

Sounds bad - need a review on the board

Calling it a beer is a stretch.  It's not bad, but if you're thirsting for a manly beer, Summer Shandy isn't what you're going to want.

Chicks have been drinking this beer in Boston for a few years now.  Tastes like Fruity Pebbles. 

[ron doney]

Here is a link to save for your files.......the short answer to the question, should we go D1?

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/03/21/good-question-why-arent-more-minn-colleges-in-division-i/

I almost posted this myself.  Does Steve Fritz really believe U$T is a "pretty local school?"  I get that the basketball team has a bunch of CDH kids (guess they can't find their way out of St. Paul).  The reality is that U$T is far from the "little local" school in Mac-Groveland that it once was.  To be honest that really make my blood boil.  I get that that $ probably don't add up for U$T to go D1 but stop portraying yourself as this little neighborhood institution.  You have a campus Minneapolis and St. Paul.  You have over 6500 students and will probably grow by 2-3 thousand students in the next 5-10 years.

Probably will not grow by 2-3 thousand in the next 5-10 years.....the facts are:

1) Enrollment peaked at 11,570 in 2001. 

2) 2011 enrollment on the university's St. Paul campus was 7,348, down 338 the year prior.
3) St. Thomas is limited to 8,750 students on its main campus under a Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 2004. The highest enrollment in St. Paul was 8,712 in 1991, the year before the university opened its Minneapolis campus.

source: http://www.stthomas.edu/news/2011/10/04/enrollment-here-down-slightly-from-last-fall/

Go back and read Fritz' comments, he is saying most MN schools have never cast as wide/national of a net in enrollment as the Marquettes and NDs of the college world.  He would probably agree with you - UST is not the same small school it once was.  Yet as the numbers above show, it's leveled off its enrollment growth awhile ago.  And even after all that growth years ago, I can't blame Fritz and others for thinking they are still a small school - especially when they are down the river from the 3rd largest school in the country.  (Marketing yourself as a small school is the strategy when you are private, btw)

I think your impressions give credence to the fabulous job the University has done over the last 10+ years.  Props to the administration in the 90's for recognizing that they ought to start acting as big as their enrollment had become.  They've flattened enrollment growth, yet the school "feels" bigger today because of the efforts they've made to be more visible and have a greater impact in the community and country.  It was a bold move, especially amongst a group of complacent peers. 

[57Johnnie]

http://chippewa.com/news/local/leinie-s-goes-national-with-summer-shandy/article_3268ab1a-96e8-11e2-b463-001a4bcf887a.html

Sounds bad - need a review on the board

Calling it a beer is a stretch.  It's not bad, but if you're thirsting for a manly beer, Summer Shandy isn't what you're going to want.

Thanks - that's what I thought when I read 'brewed with a natural lemonade flavor'.