gophers/ncaa

In other words, let's have more of the same. Nebraska (and our other Big 10 rivals) can put all that money into practice facilities because they are packing over 80,000 fans into their football stadiums every Saturday during the fall. When our football and men's basketball teams only have ONE winning Big 10 season each during the last 10 years, something different must be done. How about focusing on revenue sports for a change and see how the other sports flourish when the "bell cow" starts bringing in the cash.

Having a practice facility helps the basketball program recruit and win and sell tickets. It is not a wretched excess when the basketball program pays for itself and for the non-revenue sports like cross country. It is good business sense to invest in the teams providing the income.

I am unsurprised that the concept of a basketball practice facility or further commitment to the football program is a sign of "wretched excess" to the non-revenue sports beat writer. How exactly does Ms. Blount think the non-revenue sports are funded? If the basketball team is selling out the barn at $30 a head instead of playing in half-empty gyms, will that generate more or less money for the non-revenue sports?

When people are talking revenue sports, clearly the issue is football. Is it a good idea to risk the many successful non-revenue sports at the U (prime examples - wrestling and volleyball) in the attempt to strike gold with football. Fact 1 - the last successful U football program was in the early 1960s. A big factor in the success was this was before the football arms race started and when the coach took what was then a calculated risk of recruiting black players from the South. Fact 2 - at about that time, the Minnesota Vikings came to town. Most of the Big Ten schools are college towns that don't have professional competition. Football fans in those communities have one choice - Saturday afternoon - rather being able to wait until Sunday to see a live game. Fact 3 - Unstable leadership working against unrealistic expectations. We have seen a series of coaches make promises they had little hope of keeping, because they knew that is what people wanted to hear. Fact 4 - We do not have the passionate fan base that makes college football so much fun. Whether it be Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania, they have passion for the game that we lack. To make piles of money, people need to buy tickets. Fact 5 - The new stadium is the 11th smallest of 12 Big Ten schools - Northwestern's is nearly as large. It is significantly smaller than the Metrodome, contrary to the trend of stadium expansions everywhere one looks. Years at a non-campus stadium shared with a professional team didn't help. Fact 6 - Getting players to come here is a hard sell. Even though one can be hopeful about the new coach, Minnesota is not to everyone's personal taste. We have higher than average academic standards. which makes it even more difficult for players to keep eligible. I could go on and on, but it there are good reasons who other schools consistently have more success than we have had with college football. They have situations where they are naturally generate much more profit than we do. It is an arms race in which we aren't equipped to compete. Our goal should be to have winning records most years, by competing well against the second tier of Big Ten schools, going to bowl games - and winning most of them, and hoping for the occasional exceptional year. On the other hand, we have and can continue to have success in non-revenue sports - there we are very competitive - and in sports like hockey where we can rely on local talent. And ultimately, this is part of providing a rewarding experience for the athletes and students. Fans need to keep that in mind!

Revenue sports make non-revenue sports possible. Sorry, Rachel. That's just the way it is.

I think Coach Wilson and the other "non-revenue" coaches get that the revenue sports need to be financially strong and need to be the main focus of the AD's efforts. It's just that they shouldn't be the exclusive focus.

'Nonrevenue sports shouldn't be sacrificed in Gophers' AD search'///Says the Strib writer that, FUNNY, covers non-revenue sports teams! Get a clue, we just had an A.D. that cared about all the "other" sports teams and what is the status of our money-making ones? Go get an A.D. that will put the focus back on the big teams!!

Minn. hS TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO COMPETE IIN THE BIG TEN OR RUN AN ITNRAMURAL PROGRAM. FB and BB provide the money from revenue and donations to run the athletic program. How much money can you raise to promote the cross country team. The successful teams in the Big Ten are good in FB and BB, WHy not concentrate on those two programs

Coach Wilson and Rachel Blount are spot on. The athletes in the so-called non-revenue sports work just as hard to represent the University of Minnesota in athletics as do the those in the so-called revenue sports. All are worthy of an A.D. who has their well-being in mind. The person President Kaler is hiring will bear the title "Director of Athletics," not "Diector of Football," "Director of Men's Basketball," or "Director of Men's Hockey." As with, I am sure, the other Commenters here, I am a fan of the three "revenue" Gopher teams. I am, however, a fan of other Gopher teams, too. I want to see all of these stellar athletes treated fairly.

Tickets prices continue to rise on the revenue sports to unreasonable levels, especially considering the struggles they have had on the field/court etc. Watching the loyal fans turn away from the revenue sports that they care about but no longer feel is worth the price will doom the non-revenue sports faster than anything else. Go a step further, and, watch conference realignment leave Minnesota out in the cold. The revenue sports have to be taken care of. Maturi failed miserably.