I'm actually the opposite. I'm a Mitch fan. He has his weaknesses, but overall, I think he's a solid AD. I've worked for a couple bad AD's over the years. Mitch definitely doesn't fit that mold. I don't think he's interfering at all. I agree that it's irrelevant if he hates it because it's happening anyways. My point is that I do think if you're the leader of an organization that has over 500 student athletes, and they have been given an unbelievable opportunity to make money that they are ecstatic about, at least be excited for them when talking about it. he might as well have been at a funeral with the way he approached that press conference. Why even have the press conference in the first place if you're not doing it to talk about the positives?
Mitch is preparing for NIL Marathon.
- Thread starter rockout1
- Start date
Yeah, maybe, but do the players even care what Mitch says or thinks, one way or the other? He's ultra conservative almost always. Leopards and spots.
They probably care more what their coaches think than what Mitch thinks. For me, it's about leadership and setting the tone. I oversee a department on a college campus that has a few hundred students involved. If they are excited about something, I make sure I am outwardly excited too. Doesn't mean I'm not thinking about the nuts and bolts and what could be the issues that arise behind the scenes, but publicly, I'm on board and excited with the students.
Compliance not exist? I don’t think you understand how a bureaucracy works. What they are going to need is an army of lawyers.
I’m neutral on Mitch.
My point is he needs to stay behind the scenes and let the coaches do their thing.
His prime directive should be making sure our coaches follow the guidelines and stay on the up and up.
Hire the right guys, give them what they need to be successful, make sure they follow the rules, and stay out of their business.
That’s how a good AD operates, IMHO.
My point is he needs to stay behind the scenes and let the coaches do their thing.
His prime directive should be making sure our coaches follow the guidelines and stay on the up and up.
Hire the right guys, give them what they need to be successful, make sure they follow the rules, and stay out of their business.
That’s how a good AD operates, IMHO.
Compliance and an army of lawyers are two totally different things. Ncaa compliance as we knew it is effectively over, except the initial qualification via clearinghouse.
I agree there will need to be an army of lawyers hired by everyone. A good portion of which is required due to the poorly devised eo but here we are.
There is not a state law yet. My point is that student athletes are going to be able to sign their own deals even if it’s not with exclusive rights companies of the university. This is what Mitch is worried about, it devalues their exclusive rights deals. Hope this helps you somewhat comprehend.
What a stupid take. The entire athletic department is in better shape today than it was when he got here. We are competitive in almost every single sport. That didn't used to be the case.
You clearly have everything figured out boss. Congrats, I’m sure you need a nap thinking so hard.
Joker one of the worst fb coaches we ever had
BCG the worst bb coach we ve had
3 ncaa tournament misses with Barney as AD
this is a basketball forum and volleyball rifle whatever doesn’t make the Atheletic department. Barney more than any other guy I’ve seen is failure and mulligan failure and mulligan. The guy is a joke I’m sorry but time to move on from this guy.
Unless the EO is struck down by a court, which is extremely unlikely, you do in fact have a state law. As it states in the EO, they cannot sign competing deals. That sentence ends with a period.
Some people kid themselves. Kentucky is an SEC flagship, which means basketball and football are the most important aspects of being UK’s athletic director. Mitch is a C- on his best day, an F on his worst. He’s nothing special, and has made a few of the worst hires in UK history. You simply cannot deny that or you’re willfully ignorant.
Joker and BCG should have been the end of Mitch at UK. He’s built for Western, not an SEC flagship.
Joker and BCG should have been the end of Mitch at UK. He’s built for Western, not an SEC flagship.
Then you apparently don't think too much of many SEC AD's. You do realize Mitch doesn't do this all on his own, right? Which renamed former poster are you so we know how to respond better?
Really? They different?
You’ll need both. I suspect compliance will grow. Cheating will now occur on an unprecedented scale.
I think Mitch is an average AD on his best day, and there’s plenty of proof for that. Mitch did hire BCG all on his own, and even recommended the search committee. He was completely against the Calipari hire, and then gave us Joker. I’m being nice calling him average on his good days.
Had a name years ago, forgot the password so started over. I remember you, hope the lawyer thing picked up.
It always cracks me up when people think that other AD’s make perfect hires. Just look around the SEC. Every AD that has been at a school for a significant period has made bad hires. Most of them on multiple occasions. Even the god of SEC AD’s, Jeremy Foley hired Ron Zook, Will Muschamp and Jim McElwain.
Mr. Alabama himself, Hal Moore, hired Dennis Francine, Mike Price and Mike Shula before landing on Nick Saban.
Every AD makes bad hires. Every one of them. The biggest question is, do they make the change quickly. Mitch followed up his 2 bad hires with Mark Stoops and Cal. I think he did alright.
Yes really.
Ncaa already implied there won't be any improper benefits enforcement. That cuts out all concerns other than initial eligibility.
So while yes cheating will occur, there won't be anyone that cares
You’re an establishment guy. You’ve always made excuses for inept leadership. No offense, you’re definitely a good man from what I can tell, but you do appear to have that boot licker thing going. I’m sure it just goes with your experiences
Pointing to other bad AD’s to account for our mediocre AD doesn’t change that Barnhart has been average on a good day at best.
By the way, if you’re going to use the Cal hire to bolster Barnhart, you’ve lost the argument without even realizing it.
Last edited:
Other bad AD’s? Jeremy Foley is considered one of the best AD’s of all time. You’ll see him on top 5 lists everywhere. He made 3 terrible hires in football before getting Urban.
Barnhart did not try and stop the Cal hire twice. Stop with that nonsense. That has been debunked so many times. Lee Todd is on record saying he wouldn’t even let Mitch consider Cal the first time and that Mitch had to convince him to meet with Cal the 2nd time around. I have no idea why people continue to say this when it’s simply not true.
Mitch definitely has weak areas…contracts, PR and fan relations being the most glaring. But overall, he’s a good AD. Great? No. Terrible? Hardly. He has our athletic department in a place most schools dream about. Self funded, not one scandal in 20 years, facility improvements all around, helps fund programs and facilities at the university (huge kudos to that), and has our football and basketball programs at a level of success together we haven’t seen since the 50’s.
There maybe a handful of AD’s that have been at schools for a long period of time that have made only good hires. They are just not out there. I’m not comparing him to bad AD’s. I’m comparing him to reality. Not some superficial world where AD’s only make good hires.
I disagree with one point you made. While he might not be perfect, he has been a great AD.
The athletics department is as strong and as clean as it has ever been, and he’s accomplished exactly what the university hired him to do. There’s a reason he keeps getting extensions and raises.
Beyond what UK’s administration thinks of him, he’s also the most influential AD within the SEC and one of the most influential and well respected ADs in the entire nation. Just as there’s a reason he gets extensions, there’s also a reason he keeps getting selected to key leadership roles within the SEC and nationally.
And other schools are constantly poaching his second in command to fill their AD vacancies. He’s known nationally as someone who develops talent when it comes to running athletics departments. Even counting any missteps, his track record stacks up favorably against pretty much any other AD in the nation.
His peers within college athletics have a tremendous amount of respect for him and it takes more than simply being a “good” AD to accomplish that. Doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything he does, but he’s done great work at UK.
I don’t think he’s great because he has a few really big weaknesses….the ones a list. But, yes, overall, a good (maybe very good) AD.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, so we may just have to agree to disagree so to speak (though our opinions aren’t really too radically different).
I’d just say that if you’re ever in a position to speak with a number of folks from other schools (e.g., ADs, Presidents, coaches) and ask them what they think of Barnhart, I think you’ll be surprised at how many might call you crazy for saying he’s merely “good.” He’s that well respected.
As I said, you’re entitled to your opinion so I’ll leave it at that and stop arguing with you.
Not sure I would consider this an argument….pretty tame discussion by Rafters standards.
That’s true, but I also try to limit the number of times I live up to Rafters standards to just a handful in any given week.
I'm not the one suggesting that the NCAA will drop improper benefits infractions or the one suggesting that the infractions committee will no long play a role. There are a myriad of academic requirements, direct interactions between the university and the player, etc, etc. Katina is just one example of those. The notion that the infractions committee will become passe is just ridiculous.
BBFGA and I would most likely shoot each other in that scenario. Only reason to bastardize college athletics into some perverse semipro league is politics. Just wait till organized crime gets their mitts in to this, and they will.
yea, I remember you love dogs more than children and chase ambulances.
Not sure if you’re old enough to be my grandad but I think so.
@BigBlueFanGA didn’t say players couldn’t have contracts “different from the schools” as you put it. He said athletes couldn’t sign contracts that conflict with a school’s existing contracts, and he is correct on that point.
The University and Barnhart are not concerned about their deals becoming less lucrative. They’re concerned about running into situations where either the student or UK is forced to breach a contract, as well as the risk of a legal confrontation associated with such a situation.
Let’s use a shoe deal as an example. Let’s say a basketball player runs off and signs a shoe deal with Adidas without paying attention to the terms of the deal. If one of the terms of that deal states that the student will wear Adidas shoes during competitions, then we’ve got a problem.
The reason for that problem is because paragraph 10(c) of Kentucky’s contract with Nike states that UK will ensure that no student athlete wears any shoe from a Nike competitor during a game unless a documented medical condition forces the student to wear a competitor’s shoe or unless Nike somehow failed to deliver product on time.
So if UK let’s the athlete wear the Adidas shoe during a game in Rupp, UK has now breached its Nike contract. If UK forces the athlete to instead wear a Nike shoe, then the athlete has now breached his Adidas contract. You ultimately have to withhold the kid from competition until you can negotiate a resolution and may also face the prospect of a legal battle with the student. That’s the type of scenario that concerns them and why they’re trying to set up processes to enable some basic coordination before deals are finalized.
Fortunately there’s a limited set of instances where this type of thing might occur. But at least right out of the gate, there will need to be a bit of coordination between the athletes and their schools before deals get signed to simply confirm the terms of new deals don’t create these kinds of conflicts.
Longer term, you may some of these types of standard terms disappear from deals that schools sign with a shoe company and the risk of conflicts is greatly diminished.
It isn't that they should. It's that they are. I'm not sure why some of this is so difficult to understand.
Their statement was essentially there will be no rules as it relates to money. The deductible is that impermissible benefits will be too difficult/impossible to investigate from here on, so they won't be doing it.
Let's go over an example.
Permissible - paying strippers to dance for players/recruits.
Impermissible - paying strippers to dance for a recruit with the expressed intent this was done to entice a player to play at a certain school.
Based on the info, it will be too hard to differentiate one from the other, so there just not be enforcement at all. They're probably right. So Katrina Powell would still be a violation just without enforcement
Come July 1 we'll know for sure.
They should be because that's a very real possibility. Depending on how the market of nil plays out, exclusivity may not be standard. If not, companies will pay less; as they should.
Unclear yet how this will all break but some high level recruits might refuse to come to a school if said school has exclusivity language; reducing their nil potential.
Plus it isn't really the shoe deal that's the major source of conflict. The other local ones will have more impact. Eg iirc they used to have a deal with critchfield meats. That means a player couldn't do an endorsement for any meat competitor. Same thing with Kroger/Meijer.
Those local/regional deals are where most players will make their money. If uk insists on maintaining exclusivity, the player has reduced earning potential.
Of course the market would've dictated the developments until the governor gave these schools massive boon via the eo
Perhaps you should actually read a few of these “exclusivity” deals before asserting an opinion. Your understanding of things is not at all accurate.
Love dogs, yep. Kids? I'm not an attorney. I'm 56 so probably not quite as old as you think.
You can’t be that naive. Let a few things like U6’s sex for boys or other form of ethically questionable practices pop up and you’ll find out what the infractions committee can do. If they don’t protect the brand, nobody gets any money.
When a company signs a deal with UK as the "official meat/car/jewelry/swimming pool/etc" that isn't a negotiated and executed deal that contains an exclusivity provision?
So UK could sign the same deal with several competitors in their field?