Utah basketball coach Larry Krystkowiak promotes Tommy Connor on Utes' staff

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 9, 2014 11:48 a.m.


    And I gave you the answer to that as well but you conveniently pretended otherwise. Once again the subsidy has been in the 10 million dollar range the last several years, your numbers ther cover about 1/2 the subsidy. So in what universe is spending 10 million to make 5.5 million "worth it" economically? I'll give you a hint, such a universe doesn't exist.

    To me the benefits are different and probably not all calculable, such as community pride and spirit, exposure to national media, recreation for thousands of people, and other such benefits. But as an economic benefit....well.....there just isn't much to support that assertion, in fact there is nothing to support it as it is proven to be a net negative financially, at least directly.

    But as I said before I think it is worthwhile overall and don't have any real problem with it, but it is amusing that utah "fans" such as yourself can't figure out that I am actually in support of the university of utah's athletic program despite the fact it is a financial negative.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 7, 2014 12:50 p.m.


    Once again the real question that should be asked is whether or not it is worthwhile overall to have an athletic department at the univeristy of utah if it loses money, or is subsidized so that it doesn't lose money?


    Ducky, you were already given the answer to this question a few years ago. Why can't you move on? I'll refund you the nickle if you do.

    Utah taxpayers have a net gain for the subsidy given to Utah Athletic Department when you consider the impact of the program on the local economy.

    "The estimated total economic impacts to the state, both direct and indirect…. The impacts are measured by the number of supported jobs and associated earnings, gross state product, state economic output, and state tax revenue... The five Pac-12 games of the 2011–2012 seasons supported about 210 jobs with earnings over $5 million and over $500,000 of state tax revenue.”

    Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:55 a.m.


    It depends on whether you consider student fees to be a subsidy. Many in the media seem to take that view, but I disagree. Student fees are approved by the student's elected leaders and provide the students with free tickets to many athletic events and discounted tickets to the rest. They also provide the students with access to some of the facilities for exercise and recreation. So I don't consider student fees to be a subsidy. That being said, 2011 and 2009 are the years I was referring to.

    I have never pretended that the U's athletic department hasn't been subsidized. I have maintained the subsidy doesn't come from money allocated by the legislature and I stand by that. I agree with you that the subsidy is worth it both from an economic standpoint for the state and the local communities as well as the value to the university and it's students in providing teams to rally around. There is also the great value in providing and education for many college athletes who may not otherwise be able to afford an education.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    @Mormon Ute

    What years did they "break even"? And was that "break even" with, or without, a subsidy?

    Once again the real question that should be asked is whether or not it is worthwhile overall to have an athletic department at the univeristy of utah if it loses money, or is subsidized so that it doesn't lose money?

    I tend to think it is worthwhile even if it is an overall net loser dollar wise, there are lots of ancillary benefits from having an athletic program at the states top state owned university.

    To me this is much more about the delusion of some of the utah fans around here that ignore the reality of the situation than about whether or not the athletic department takes a subsidy or loses money. The facts are that it does both, it loses money and takes subsidies, the real issue is whether or not it is worth it. As I said I think it is but some of you guys, dutchman and yourself in particular, have sure gone to great lengths to pretend it isn't happening.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 6, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    Lifelong Ute,

    First, your analogy is an oversimplification that simply doesn't apply. As I have pointed out several times, government accounting and finance is unique and regular business practices don't apply. Second, the percentage of the U of U's overall budget as well as the percentage of undergraduate education costs covered by the legislature has been decreasing for at least two decades. The certainly would seem to indicate that the State is not being overburdened by the Athletic Department. Also, contrary to what Duckhunter wants everyone to believe, the subsidy to the Athletic Department is decreasing and there actually have been several years during the past decade when the Athletic Department has broken even.

  • Lifelong Ute Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    Mormon Ute,

    Lets us an analogy sometimes that helps.

    Lets say you have a business, and lets say you have a lemonade stand and you also have a cookie stand. If your dad gives you money because your cookie stand is losing money ever year, then your sad is subsidizing your cookie stand. If your lemonade stand also loses money and you take money from your cookie business and then give it to the lemonade business, you could argue that none of your dad's money is going to the lemonade stand, but any logical person would see right through that.

    Sure, dad's money might be "earmarked" and only used by the cookie stand. But if the lemonade stand(Utah Athletic deparment) wasn't losing money, then the cookie stand(University of Utah) wouldn't have to give some of its money to the lemonade stand(athletics) and your dad(taxpayer) wouldn't have to give as much money to the cookie stand.

    So yes, your dad is paying more(taxes) due to the fact your lemonade stand is losing money.

    That help? I can use another analogy if you want, just let me know.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    @Mormon Ute

    So in short, you don't know and no one will tell you. Sounds a bit sketchy to me but I guess that is the best we are going to get from you. Based on that I would have to say that it is time for an audit, and not one like that sham of an "investigation" they did for the swim coach situation where they brought in some alums and donors and "investigated" themselves.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 3, 2014 2:28 p.m.


    I don't know. The financial statements don't give the details on that and none of the administrators seemed to know or weren't willing to tell us. What I do know is that State law won't allow them to use the tax dollars appropriated by the legislature for undergraduate education. I also know the penalties of violating that law are pretty stiff and one of the main focuses of the annual audit is to make sure earmarked funds aren't miss spent.

    I also know from the financial statements that there are four major sources of revenue larger than the State Appropriations. I would only be guessing, if I tried to say which of those sources they take the subsidy from. It might even be a combination. There are literally billions of dollars in revenue outside the State Appropriation so a few million dollars to the Athletic Department would not make a serious dent.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    @mormon ute

    Well at least we got one of you to admit that the state actually owns the place, maybe you can fill dutchman in on that little fact. But dutchman continues to claim that the universities funds are not owned by the state but at the same time won't tell us who it is he thinks actually owns them.

    yes I understand how earmarks work but when a dempartment at the univeristy runs in the red, and yes the athletic department is a department of the university, they then have to get funds from the university itself to make up the shortfall.

    So perhaps you can tell us exactly which "earmarked" money is given to the athletic department to cover their shortfall? I'm sure they don't jsut stiff their creditors and not pay the bills so where exactly does that money come from?

    Is there some other fund that is specifically marked "not tax dollars" that they get it from? Where does it come from mormon ute?

    We are al waiting to know.

  • jazzer St. George, UT
    July 3, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    Well deserved Tommy. I have went to his basketball camps for years when I was younger and he recruited my brother when he was at Westminster. The guy knows the game and is a good coach to play for. I am happy for him and wish him the best in the new position.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:04 a.m.


    The State of Utah obviously owns the University. I have never asserted anything different. In fact in recent posts I have affirmed that in my statements about how taxpayer funds are earmarked. That is a simple question to answer. The funding of the University's various operations is another matter. Many funding sources, by their nature, place restrictions on University administrators regarding how they can be used. This is common practice in government organizations, as I have pointed out.

    You can make the claim that everything the U receives belongs to the taxpayers, but that doesn't mean the taxpayers have a say in how every dollar is spent. Sometimes donors place restrictions on their donated money. Sometimes the simple fact is that fees paid for services at the U hospital cannot be spent outside the hospital. That fact makes it hard to determine where any subsidy comes from for athletics, but one thing I can say for certain is that no money paid in taxes by any taxpayer is used to fund athletics at the U.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    I'm still waiting for dutchman or mormon ute to tell us who owns the funds of the university of utah is the owner of the university of utah doesn't own them?

    If they could answer that one question it would put an end to this entire debate. If as they claim the state of utah does not own the funds of the university it owns and someone else owns those funds then there is no debate but all we seem to be able to get out of either of them is that "the state doesn't own those funds" despite the fact the state owns the university itself.

    If they are not owned by the state then please tell us who owns them? is it dutchman or mormon ute that owns them? Is it chris hill? david pershing? kyle whittingham? larry krsytkowiak? Who is it? Who owns them?

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 3, 2014 8:48 a.m.


    You are missing the point. No tax money is spent on athletics. Yes, money the university brings in from some sources outside the athletic department is spent on athletics, but it doesn't come from the money the legislature appropriates out of the taxes collected by the State. The tax money given to the U is earmarked and kept in a separate account that cannot be used for anything outside of undergraduate education.

    My example is entirely appropriate. The money contributed for those scholarships frees up State money for other students. Take that away and the State bears a larger share of the burden.

  • Ute66 Centerville, UT
    July 3, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    I am so happy for Tommy! I was an assistant coach for him for 2 years when he first took over at Westminster and have known him for about 25 years. He is a great coach. His record at Westminster was phenomenal, especially considering that the school did not give athletic scholarships at the time, when everyone else in the Frontier Conference did. Our kids were true student-athletes, having to qualify the same as any other student. Tommy could have and would have been a Division I Head Coach long ago, but he left Utah in 1997 to spend more time with his family, as the demands of Division I coaching made it tough. Tommy is a big reason that the Utes have turned it around. He knows more about the game than anyone I have ever met, with the exception of Rick Majerus, and even that is debatable. On top of all that, he is a great person and family man. People in the basketball community, especially locally, know how good he is. He will be a Division I Head Coach. Congrats, Tommy!

  • PG #1 FAN Lindon, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    The money spent on Utah athletics is money wasted. Why do the taxpayers subsidize failure. If Utah could win a conference championship in any major sport it might be worth the cost. Right now we are flushing money down the toilet. Just win something.

  • BigCougar Bountiful, UT
    July 2, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    @Mormon Ute
    "Sorry, but there is a major flaw in your reasoning. If you get rid of athletics, most of the money spent on them would go away completely and wouldn't be available to be spent on anything else. Consider the athletic scholarships, for example. They are funded by athletic department revenues and donations from boosters. Take away athletics and those scholarships no longer exist. The money spent on them will simply dry up."


    That's a poor example and works against you. The money you referred to is brought in to spend on scholarships. The situation you described becomes a wash. If the money intended for the scholarships dries up it doesn't matter when there's no scholarships to fund. It becomes a "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound" circle discussion. Either way it doesn't improve or benefit academics or students who aren't athletes.

  • BigCougar Bountiful, UT
    July 2, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    Tax money shouldn't be spent on sports programs when there's a greater need with education, classroom expansion, deferring rising tuition costs and keeping up with basic maintenance of existing buildings. With a $400 million backlog of building maintenance costs it sounds like athletes (who aren't able to pay their own way) are taking opportunities from hard working students who are there paying their way. All this so the athlete can have cushy practice facilities, luxurious locker rooms, etc.

    Sounds like students should band together like the athletes from Northwestern did and start demanding that athletics pay their own way and stopping dipping into money needed for academics.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 2, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    Now the people of the state of Utah own all things owned by the state, we the tax payers, we own it, all of us. Just because some of those funds are earmarked for one thing or another it doesn't mean they exist in a vacuum. When one of those entities that is budgeted from a particular earmark falls short or overspends then they have to take money from the general fund of the university, or from fund put in place to cover those things, but any way you look at it taxpayer money, which is ALL of the money the university runs on not just actual tax dollars, goes to fund whatever it is the university is doing.

    Now since the athletic department does run in the red, that is indisputable, it takes money from the university to cover its shortfall and that money comes from sources other than athletic revenues.

    So please tell us how those are not state owned (tax payer owned) dollars? Then please tell us who owns them if the state does not?

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 2, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    @mormon ute and dutchman

    You are both avoiding the truth here, once again please explain to the rest of us how any and all funds owned by the university of utah, which in turn is WHOLLY owned by the State of Utah, do not belong to the State of Utah? It is a simple question one dutchman ignores every single time he makes the ridiculous claim that the actual owner of the university does not own the funds of the university. It is a ridiculous claim on his part and mormon ute actually trying to back it up is just as ridiculous.

    Now just because not all of those funds are given by the state from tax revenues it does not change the fact that the state does indeed OWN them completely. Much like the state owns any and all revenues brought in by admission to state parks. No those aren't tax dollars but once collected by a state owned entity they are state owned funds. Ditto for any revenue from any source that is paid to the state or one of its many holdings it now BELONGS to the state.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2014 3:28 p.m.


    Tell me what tax money pays their salaries?

  • stampederus Ephraim, UT
    July 2, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    Two of the top five public service salaries in the state of Utah are Kyle Whittingham and Larry Krystowiak. As a public servants, we are in fact paying their salaries.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    Lifelong Ute,

    The evidence is against you. It is a fact that over the past 2 decades as athletic funding has increased, the State has actually reduced the percentage of undergraduate education covered by taxpayers. The opposite of what you are alleging would happen. Look no further than the enormous tuition increases students have been saddled with. The taxpayers are shouldering a decreasing share of the burden rather than an increasing share. Look at the media reports on tuition increases and legislative appropriations for the evidence of this.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    Michael Romney,

    Sorry, but there is a major flaw in your reasoning. If you get rid of athletics, most of the money spent on them would go away completely and wouldn't be available to be spent on anything else. Consider the athletic scholarships, for example. They are funded by athletic department revenues and donations from boosters. Take away athletics and those scholarships no longer exist. The money spent on them will simply dry up.

  • Lifelong Ute Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Mormon Ute,

    You are throwing out a lot of statements that don't address the issue. Yes, money is earmarked for education. But if the university wasn't giving money to athletics, that saved money would be kept at the university level and LESS money would be earmarked from the taxpayers to the university. But because the university loses money and gives to the athletics, MORE money must be taken from the taxpayers to make up the money given from university to athletics. I'm embarrassed at fellow Utah fans who can't grasp such a very basic concept.

    Less money would be taken from the taxpayer pocket and put in the university pocket if money didn't need to be taken from the university pocket and put in the athletics pocket. That's as simple as it get.

    P.S. I've been doing government accounting for over 20 years here in the state. That is how things work guy.

  • Michael Romney Salt Lake, UT
    July 2, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    Dutchman - I request you stop, you're making the rest of us Utah fans look bad. Thankfully there are others on here who aren't blinded by the terminology. I'm like others who are support the use of taxpayer money at state schools including on athletics as they bring other positive things besides money to the state.

    Here is another way to think about it Dutchman, since its clear you're struggling with a very simple concept. If Utah had no athletic teams, the money that the university is currently giving to run athletics would stay in the academic area. Less money would be taken from the taxpayer. Currently, Utah taxpayers are funding the losses incurred by the University of Utah as the University of Utah funds the losses of the sports teams. Its embarrassing when people try and pretend it isn't so.

    That help?

    Cheers everyone! Go Utes!

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    As far as the economic impact goes, I don't have hard numbers for that. So let's just take a look at the convention business in Salt Lake as a comparison. The State, Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City spend millions of dollars a year on the Salt Palace Convention Center and other infrastructure to attract conventions to the State, County and City. This business helps support hotels, restaurants and rental car businesses. The sporting events at the University of Utah also attract large crowds who travel into the State, County and City for the events. Those crowds spend money on gas, rental cars, food, hotels, etc all of which are taxed by the State, County and City. If the Salt Palace Convention center along with smaller conventions hosted by individual hotels generates enough takes dollars to justify the 10's of millions of public and private dollars spent to attract and keep them, it stands to reason that the U of U athletic events generate similar tax revenues. So, if you take away those events in order to not pay the coach's salaries, you lose that revenue in order to save less in expenses. A net loss.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    I understand why most of you don't understand government finance and accounting. It doesn't work like the private sector and it isn't covered very well in most college accounting courses. I have spent my entire career working with it so I have an in depth knowledge of how it works. It is an accounting and funding system set up by politicians to serve their purposes and the accountants have had to learn how to work within it. Politicians don't like it when administrators spend earmarked money on the wrong thing. So they have written into state code a system of funds requiring earmarked money to be separated from other funds. Going back to the pocket analogy, the University of Utah probably has a dozen or more pockets to keep all the funds separated from each other. The money doesn't all go into one pocket.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:45 p.m.


    Do any of you who claim me and Dutchman are up in the night have a clue what the revenue sources are for the University of Utah? Out of a $3.2 billion budget only $253 million comes from the taxpayers. That means less than 10% of the overall organization budget comes from taxes paid to the State of Utah. If you take a look at the audited financial statements available on the University web site you will see the money from the state is earmarked for undergraduate education for in state students. It can't be spent anywhere else. For any of you who aren't familiar with government finance, earmarked money is placed in a separate account or 'pocket' as some posters have likened it to. So the money from the State goes into a pocket that the athletic department doesn't have access to. This is why out of state students are charged higher tuition and graduate students are charged higher tuition as well. They don't have access to that 'pocket' either. The legislature has mandated that.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:33 p.m.


    Not so. Monies are appropriated to unique and different "Funds" and cannot be cross appropriated. That would constitute misappropriation of budget money and would be unlawful.


    File a lawsuit against the U of U claiming that the U spends tax payer money on the athletic department and you want it stopped and we will see which side of this argument prevails in a court of law. I am very sure my side will win.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:32 p.m.


    Once again, if the state of Utah owns the university of Utah, and it does completely and trying to argue otherwise completely invalidates every single claim you make, then who is it that owns the funds the university the state owns has? Do you own those funds? Does david pershing own those funds? Does Kyle Whittingham own those funds? How is that the actual owner of the university doesn't own what the university owns? Please explain this to all of us so that we can understand because obviously there has to be some explanation?

    Now the real issue should be is atheltics at the University of Utah worth the subsidation the state supplies to it? I'm mixed on that issue but I can definitely see where there being an athletc department is a benefit to the state and subsidizing it can be justified despite my natural proclivity to say government has no business doing those things. But your assertions that it isn't occuring are simply unbeleivable because they simply are not true.

  • positivethinker Magna, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    @Dutchman & @Mormon Ute:

    What you have posted is absolutely correct....Taxpayers do not support Athletics at the University of Utah. Dutchman has posted many times concerning this debate over the years, and the facts he has presented many times, support his excellent conclusion...Utah Taxpayers do not support Athletics at the U....Everybody take a deep breath and move on.

  • Ufan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:55 a.m.


    Your argument is akin to the claim that social security funds collected by the Federal gov't are maintained in a separate account to be used only for paying social security benefits, when in fact, social security funds are deposited directly into the general fund. At that point, there is no distinction between social security funds and general funds.

    The same is true at the U. Funds collected by the U become part of the general fund from which everything from professor salaries, campus infrastructure, campus security, and yes, athletic department expenses, which the athletic department can't afford to pay, are paid.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:19 a.m.


    Again, this comes straight from the top. I don't know how it can be more clear than this:

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

    2) The Governor and the Legislature understand this

    If the U uses some of that $3.2 billion budget to fund the athletic department outside of the $253 million that the State allocates to education and that $3.2 billion budget does not belong to the State of Utah then it is not State taxpayer money that funds athletics.

  • Ted H. Midvale, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:00 a.m.


    "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.

  • Lifelong Ute Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:52 a.m.


    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.

  • Lifelong Ute Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:38 a.m.


    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.

  • UoU 1991 Park City, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    "$400 million backlog" that is

  • UoU 1991 Park City, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:17 a.m.


    "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?

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    @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!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:10 a.m.


    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.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    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.

  • agb Layton, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:39 a.m.

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

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:13 a.m.


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

    Go Utes!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 2, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    @ 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
    July 2, 2014 7:08 a.m.

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

    Go Utes!

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    July 2, 2014 4:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 1, 2014 6:29 p.m.

    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.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 1, 2014 6:09 p.m.


  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2014 5:28 p.m.


    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.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 1, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    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
    July 1, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    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

  • Tomahawk Red North Salt Lake, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    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.