Comments about ‘Utah basketball coach Larry Krystkowiak promotes Tommy Connor on Utes' staff’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 1 2014 6:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tomahawk Red
North Salt Lake, UT

So basically a move that means absolutely nothing except more money for Connor. At the expense of taxpayers, of course.

Forgive me if I'm not doing cartwheels over this news.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm happy to be paying more money to our coaches if it leads to more W's for the Pac 12 runnin Utes. Connor could be head coach at a number of division I schools - he's a diamond in the rough and we're lucky to have him.

Spend whatever - just win baby!

Goooo Utes

Murray, UT

Tomahawk Red,

No tax payer money is involved in this. Utah tax payers do not contribute one red cent to Utah athletics. The State of Utah wouldn't even put any money into the on campus student rec center even though it is entirely for the students. All the money from the State to the U goes for undergraduate education programs and even then that money only covers 40% of the cost of an undergraduate education. No wonder the tuition at the U is many times higher than the tuition at some private universities.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT


Not correct. Taxpayer money does go to support Utah athletics. Athletics spends more money than we bring in through tickets, conference revenue share, apparel sales. Part of the taxpayer money given to the university is then given by the university to the AD for the operations of the athletic teams. Most athletic departments operate in the red, ours included.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT


Highland, UT

Tell me this dutchman, since utah's athletic department runs in the red, and you cannot refute that since it is reported fact admitted by everyone in the athletic department and all state and university reports, where is it that you think that money to make up the shortfall comes from? Does the athletic department give itself the shortfall? If so how can it do that since it is the one running short? Does it come from university funds at large? Of course it does and guess who owns the university and guess who subsidizes the university? That's right the state. And guess where the state gets its money? That's right the taxpayers. It's elementary stuff.

Santa Monica, CA

I remember him playing on some really bad Ute teams and sometimes he seemed like the only one on the court who knew what he was doing. Tommy Connor is a flat out winner.

Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT

This should help us win north dakota and south dakota real good.

Go Utes!

salt lake city, UT

@ Cletus
Any school from the Dakotas will be a stiffer challenge than the Utes got from the Southern schools last year.

Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT


We should get a real good challenge from carol college also but we should win them anyway now with this coaching promo.

Go Utes!

Murray, UT

The U of U has a $3.2 billion budget. $253 million of that comes from the State of Utah which is all allocated to education programs by law. The money can not be used for anything else but education which funds about 40% of the cost of any ungraduate education. None of the State allocation funds athletics. None. I have reached out to the top ranks of the U administration about budget matters. Here is what I have been told:

1) The $3.2 billion U budget definitely does not belong to the State of Utah

2) The Governor and the Legislature understand this

3) A small amount of money is paid to the Athletic Dept. outside of the $253 million state appropriation

4) It is the goal of the administration to reduce allocations to the athletic dept to zero.

Layton, UT

Sounds like Krysco may have one foot out the door and Dr. H needs a back up plan.

Mormon Ute
Kaysville, UT

Too bad one comment can take attention away from what should be a time to celebrate the Utes making a smart move to keep one of the top head coaching candidates in the west and a great home grown talent. I am certain Connor is getting attention from a number of universities who are looking for head coaches.

As far as the money goes. Both the Men's Basketball team and the Football team at the U support themselves and actually contribute money to support other sports. So whether you believe Dutchman or not, the money for Connor's salary doesn't come out of any taxpayer's pocket. I for one support Dutchman's position. I have taken the time personally to review the University's financial records and can validate the information Dutchman has gotten from University Administrators. Besides, University of Utah athletics events generate far more in tax revenue than the coaches are paid. So, if you take away the sports programs you end up with a net negative effect on tax revenues.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT


If the athletic department receives any money from the university(as opposed to covering all expenses through its own revenue) then its being subsidized by the taxpayer. You can argue semantics that the $253 million is used for education, but if the University relies on taxpayer money to operate(and it does) and if the athletic department relies on receiving money from the university(and it does) to operate, then taxpayers absolutely are footing part of the bill.

There would be no allocations at all to the athletic department if they weren't subsidized by taxpayers. Its a play of words to claim the athletic department isn't subsidized if the university is subsidized by taxpayers(as it is) and when the university give allocations to the athletic department.

Sandy, UT

@Dutch, You don't appear to understand how this works very well. If I gave you $100 and you put it all in your right pocket(along with money you already earned in your right pocket) and then moved $40 from your right pocket into your left pockets, what you are saying is that I didn't give you any money for your left pocket. Its a silly technicality that people use to justify how things are done. Now note I've never said I'm not ok with taxes going to the University or the Utah sports programs, I'm a proud Ute supporter. But I don't get fooled by what's going on. If my taxes go to the university(right pocket) and then the university taxes some of the money in their right pocket(part what they earned, part what I gave them in taxes) and puts some in their left pocket(Utah athletics) it cannot truthfully be said that no taxpayer money is given to the athletic departments. We're only fooling ourselves if we believe that.

On that note, Go Utes!

UoU 1991
Park City, UT


"4) It is the goal of the administration to reduce allocations to the athletic dept to zero."

With a $400 backlog of deferred maintenance and Utah's athletic dept building even more buildings for the U to maintain, the likelihood of athletic dept allocations - either directly or indirectly - being reduced to zero is zero.

Do you really think that the athletic dept pays to maintain their training and practice facilities?

UoU 1991
Park City, UT

"$400 million backlog" that is

Lifelong Ute
Salt Lake City, UT


I too have studied how it works and spoken with those at the top and I can validate what Duckhunter, ChrisB, Ken, and UoU 1991 have said. Anyone who thinks taxpayers don't help sustain the athletics is ignorant of reality.

You can claim that the coaches money isn't paid by taxpayers, but that's being disingenuous. His salary is paid by the athletics department. The athletics department receives money from the university to fund operations because we run in the red(that means we lose money). If we ran in the black the athletics department would always have enough cash to fund their own operations - thus would not need money from the university. If the university needs taxpayer money and the athletics department needs university money, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the athletics department is being supported by the taxpayers.

Lets just call it like it is. And that's just yearly operations - like UoU1991 says, do you really believe that all of the sports infrastructure was built using solely revenue generated by sports? No. It was not. It came from the university, which relies on taxes to run. That's reality pal.

Lifelong Ute
Salt Lake City, UT


One more thing.
"So, if you take away the sports programs you end up with a net negative effect on tax revenues"

Also not true. Again, the Utah athletics department runs in the red(loses money). If we didn't have an athletics department we would lose less money, which means we'd have more money for the university. That would be less taxes required. Again, not rocket science.

Ted H.
Midvale, UT


"Besides, University of Utah athletics events generate far more in tax revenue than the coaches are paid. So, if you take away the sports programs you end up with a net negative effect on tax revenues."

Your comment makes no sense unless you're suggesting the only expenses the sports programs have are the coaches salaries. Please tell me you don't think this. But if you were aware of this fact, your comment wouldn't make sense, as there would be no reason to compare sports revenues to coaches salaries. So apparently you don't realize this. Consider yourself informed.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments