Delete Me

[BlueVelvetFog]

OK, well I haven't seen anyone arguing that we have to build football first for basketball to be successful. That makes absolutely zero sense and is also idiotic.

You build football first because there is more meat on the bone to generate revenue to help prop up the overall athletics department.

And in the current era, you absolutely DO have to build football first, because there is infinitely more money to be made there than putting it into basketball, as I've repeatedly stated.

Investing in basketball first in order to win is financially irresponsible in the current era. However Kentucky basketball fortunately generates it's own revenue.

Wanting to invest in football has nothing to do with basketball, and it doesn't hinder it either. Basketball has been hindered by other things we've all gone on about ad nauseum. Namely coach and AD.

I'm actually darn proud we are one of those athletics programs where bb is profitable.

 

[CB3UK]

I'm actually darn proud we are one of those athletics programs where bb is profitable.

Me too. It's why all the years of football futility piss me off. Basketball eats out of the overall athletics budget at 99.9% of schools.

We are one of the fortunate few where not only does it not take any money away from other sports, namely football, it actually generates money.

Which in turn means football SHOULD have had more resources allocated to its overall success over the years.

Basketball and it's revenue streams are fine here. UKBB is a well fed $ machine.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

OK, well I haven't seen anyone arguing that we have to build football first for basketball to be successful. That makes absolutely zero sense and is also idiotic.

You build football first because there is more meat on the bone to generate revenue to help prop up the overall athletics department.

And in the current era, you absolutely DO have to build football first, because there is infinitely more money to be made there than putting it into basketball, as I've repeatedly stated.

Investing in basketball first in order to win is financially irresponsible in the current era. However Kentucky basketball fortunately generates it's own revenue.

Wanting to invest in football has nothing to do with basketball, and it doesn't hinder it either. Basketball has been hindered by other things we've all gone on about ad nauseum. Namely coach and AD.

I can’t keep up with you, man. I honestly think I gotta tap out. It almost looks like your first paragraph disagrees with your second paragraph.

I’m debating people who believe this:

“You have to build football-first with a modern athletic department to be competitive in basketball.”

Your first paragraph and previous posts indicate you do not agree with that statement, but your second paragraph in the post I’m replying to switches to aligning with the statement.

My belief is very simple. I hold the view that:

“You do not have to build football-first with a modern athletic department to be competitive in basketball.”

As a matter of fact, most of the premier basketball programs are not crushing it in football (let’s say top 10.)

 

[CB3UK]

I can’t keep up with you, man. I honestly think I gotta tap out. It almost looks like your first paragraph disagrees with your second paragraph.

I’m debating people who believe this:

“You have to build football-first with a modern athletic department to be competitive in basketball.”

Your first paragraph and previous posts indicate you do not agree with that statement, but your second paragraph in the post I’m replying to switches to aligning with the statement.

My belief is very simple. I hold the view that:

“You do not have to build football-first with a modern athletic department to be competitive in basketball.”

As a matter of fact, most of the premier basketball programs are not crushing it in football (let’s say top 10.)

At most every school in America, you theoretically DO have to build that way. Because football makes more money and they can then buy basketball players to win on the court. But that would be financial idiocy when football generates far more money. Just buy more football players.

Most of the premier basketball programs aren't crushing it in football because they've made their decision, and that's to be basketball first, and as I've clearly stated over and over, that is absolute financial stupidity.

On its face, you're right, you don't have to build football first to be good at basketball. Invest in basketball instead.

But again, for the third or fourth time in this thread, there is a reason why schools don't:

LOSING FOOTBALL MAKES MORE THAN WINNING BASKETBALL.

EVERYWHERE.

No one's arguing you can't do things like you say. We're arguing it would be incredibly stupid and shortsighted financially.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

LOSING FOOTBALL MAKES MORE THAN WINNING BASKETBALL.

EVERYWHERE.

Agreed. This is why we should prioritize basketball with rev share heavily — premier basketball talents need the easily distributable money and it won’t cause any stalemates when having to contract with JMI. Also, we should never have a repeat of 2022 when Calipari couldn’t get the practice facility he felt would help the program. After all, we don’t have to be Alabama or Georgia in football to generate massive amounts of revenue. We need to stop with the confusion and proudly be a basketball school and think like one going forward. It is our flagship program. With a money generator like Batt, once basketball is taken care of at the top of the sport, then you feed football and make it competitive. At least, that’s what I want.

Again, it’s ok to build with basketball first in mind. Just like Duke, Kansas and UConn.

 

[CB3UK]

Agreed. This is why we should prioritize basketball with rev share heavily — premier basketball talents need the easily distributable money and it won’t cause any stalemates when having to contract with JMI. Also, we should never have a repeat of 2022 when Calipari couldn’t get the practice facility he felt would help the program. After all, we don’t have to be Alabama or Georgia in football to generate massive amounts of revenue. We need to stop with the confusion and proudly be a basketball school and think like one going forward. It is our flagship program. With a money generator like Batt, once basketball is taken care of at the top of the sport, then you feed football and make it competitive. At least, that’s what I want.

And your last two sentences are where we disagree, and it's taken us untold number of posts to get there and finally get you to just come out and say what you really feel .

If losing UK football is already making 3.5 times the profit of basketball, and we are in an era where we are having budget shortfalls due to NIL et al, they are only going to do what makes business sense. And that is put their money in the obvious growth market. Which is CLEARLY football. That's where you put your money. Thats where you invest. Period.

What you're hoping for isn't based in any reality in the current college sports economic climate.

You can certainly want it to be that way. That's absolutely your right to have that opinion. But I'm simply telling you how it is and how the money works. No one with a lick of financial literacy is going to agree with you.

I'll leave you with that. Have a good night

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

And your last two sentences are where we disagree, and it's taken us untold number of posts to get there and finally get you to just come out and say what you really feel .

If losing UK football is already making 3.5 times the profit of basketball, and we are in an era where we are having budget shortfalls due to NIL et al, they are only going to do what makes business sense. And that is put their money in the obvious growth market. Which is CLEARLY football. That's where you put your money. Thats where you invest. Period.

What you're hoping for isn't based in any reality in the current college sports economic climate.

You can certainly want it to be that way. That's absolutely your right to have that opinion. But I'm simply telling you how it is and how the money works. No one with a lick of financial literacy is going to agree with you.

I'll leave you with that. Have a good night

You didn’t explain yourself yet again. You simply made assertions without backing them or grounding them at all.

“What you're hoping for isn't based in any reality in the current college sports economic climate.” Well, then how is St. John’s killing it in basketball? They haven’t had a football program in 22 years.

“it makes financial sense.” How? Have you ran the numbers? I have, at least regarding ticket sales.

 

[TheGreatGooglyMoogly]

I looked at the top 25 as well. I don’t think Kentucky fans want to be 16-25 in basketball right? So that is clearly not the goal.

Explain how, specifically, basketball fans should think about this. What leads you to believe we can’t be successful going all-in on basketball?

Basketball fans should look at this with the perspective of hoping the football program excels. Here is why. UKBB as said before is one of the few revenue generating programs in the country. It has what it needs for NIL to be successful as long as there is a competent staff that can bring in players. The off season has shown us that they can deal out $5mil+ for individual players. There are only 2 programs that will compete and only a handful that could compete with UK in terms of money. At that point a player is choosing the program based on the experience and staff. For overall revenue generation towards the athletic department, football generates a ton more than basketball. With enough success in football there is the potential for excess revenue to then go towards basketball. No one is asking the UKBB team to strive to be middling of the top25 every year. Honestly, that would be a step up after the last few seasons. If anything UKBB fans should at a minimum hope UKFB is doing just that in football. It will benefit not only FB but the entire AD including BB.

I hate soccer but it's the only analogy I could think of and the world cup just finished. You have the men's and women's national team. The women's national team has won the world cup multiple times and they might make a profit. The men's team is traditionally terrible but bring in more profit even with how bad they are. Both of the programs are funded under the same organization. If the men's team, with improved success could generate 3-4x more revenue than the womens. And that money could be used to not only continue to fund the mens team but also help fund the womens team which is already profitable. Why would you be hesitant on funding the men's team.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Basketball fans should look at this with the perspective of hoping the football program excels. Here is why. UKBB as said before is one of the few revenue generating programs in the country. It has what it needs for NIL to be successful as long as there is a competent staff that can bring in players. The off season has shown us that they can deal out $5mil+ for individual players. There are only 2 programs that will compete and only a handful that could compete with UK in terms of money. At that point a player is choosing the program based on the experience and staff. For overall revenue generation towards the athletic department, football generates a ton more than basketball. With enough success in football there is the potential for excess revenue to then go towards basketball. No one is asking the UKBB team to strive to be middling of the top25 every year. Honestly, that would be a step up after the last few seasons. If anything UKBB fans should at a minimum hope UKFB is doing just that in football. It will benefit not only FB but the entire AD including BB.

I hate soccer but it's the only analogy I could think of and the world cup just finished. You have the men's and women's national team. The women's national team has won the world cup multiple times and they might make a profit. The men's team is traditionally terrible but bring in more profit even with how bad they are. Both of the programs are funded under the same organization. If the men's team, with improved success could generate 3-4x more revenue than the womens. And that money could be used to not only continue to fund the mens team but also help fund the womens team which is already profitable. Why would you be hesitant on funding the men's team.

Explain how the increased football success leads to more revenue please?

Wouldn’t the expenses increase if you tried to build an even more competitive football program?

 

[M080470]

This is is a straw man argument. UK basketball failing is not due to lack of resources or because football is getting too much. It's failing because of poor management, choices of employees and players. The last two.championships have been won by schools who think of themselves as.football powers. Make it completely capitalist if you want. If you don't produce, you don't eat. Cut all non-revenue sports. Whatever basketball earns, it keeps from TV revenue, tickets, endorsements and it's own NIL pot. But let football do the same,

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

This is is a straw man argument. UK basketball failing is not due to lack of resources or because football is getting too much. It's failing because of poor management, choices of employees and players. The last two.championships have been won by schools who think of themselves as.football powers. Make it completely capitalist if you want. If you don't produce, you don't eat. Cut all non-revenue sports. Whatever basketball earns, it keeps from TV revenue, tickets, endorsements and it's own NIL pot. But let football do the same,

You talk strawman argument and then immediately create one in the first sentence.

“UK basketball failing is not due to lack of resources or because football is getting too much.”

Great. Except I didn’t say it was. I’m taking a snapshot of last season’s best basketball teams and asking if they had to build football-first. The answer is by and large obviously no.

As for Florida and Michigan, yes they are football schools. Obviously. My post doesn’t say that you can’t be a football school and win in basketball. My post points out that it is unnecessary to build football-first. Neither of the two football schools that won basketball national titles were top 15 CFB programs last year.

I want someone to actually explain why you HAVE to build football-first? Give me more than “they generate the money.” I want someone to explain it.

Also, I gave you the entire top 25 and you cherry-picked two recent champs. Why not go back further if you want to look at champs?

2024 - UConn - not a football school
2023 - UConn - not a football school
2022 - Kansas - basketball school
2021 - Baylor - football school
2019 - Virginia - not a football school
2018 - Villanova - I’m not even sure they have a football program
2017 - North Carolina-not a football school
2016 - Villanova - not a football school
2015 - Duke - not a football school
2014 - UConn - not a football school
2013 - Louisville - not a football school
2012 - Kentucky - not a football school
2011 - UConn - not a football school
2010 - Duke - not a football school

 

[M080470]

What is your point?? Traditional basketball powers typically do better.at basketball, traditional football powers typically do better at football. Water is wet, the sky is blue

 

[M080470]

What exactly is it you think football is depriving basketball of?

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

What is your point?? Traditional basketball powers typically do better.at basketball, traditional football powers typically do better at football. Water is wet, the sky is blue

Sounds like you agree with the original post. It’s ok to build basketball first.

So if we went to work on upgrading our basketball facilities to become state of the art, went all in on leading the pack in NIL to compete with Duke and moved our basketball rev share percentage up to 40%, you’d be perfectly content?

 

[M080470]

Will that lead to championships? Duke's not winning any despite out spending every program out there. UConn is probably the best run program in the.country and it's spending a lot less than Duke. The problems of UK basketball has are not the amount of money spent, it's who is doing the spending

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Will that lead to championships? Duke's not winning any despite out spending every program out there. UConn is probably the best run program in the.country and it's spending a lot less than Duke. The problems of UK basketball has are not the amount of money spent, it's who is doing the spending

Do you think you're replying to a thread about why Kentucky basketball is struggling? I've already told you that is not the topic or the point of this. The topic has more to do with the fact that we have a new AD and his philosophy will affect both major programs going forward. I've had multiple people tell me you can't build UK athletics department like CM Newton and his predecessors did. These days, you have to build with football first they say. However, I believe that is false. There's no reason you can't build an athletic department these days where:

1.) Basketball eats first and takes obvious priority.
2.) Football takes second priority and remains competitive.
3.) Less focus on other sports.

If you disagree with what I'm saying, let me know. If you agree with what I'm saying, let's just stop it here. Some of you come here to argue and it isn't clear what you're even arguing. What I'm saying is simple --- this is a basketball school and unashamedly so. It needs to be built according to that.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Exactly. Basketball already funds itself and generates a handsome profit. I don't know what this guy doesnt get about that. Not sure how we could go any more "all in" on financial basketball support as a school or fan base than we already are frankly. I mean JFC, we had the most expensive roster in CBB last season. $ kr generating revenue streams isn't the problem with basketball.

Meanwhile, as I've said ad nauseum ITT banging my head against a wall, if UK is a middling SEC football program and it makes more than 3.5 times the money the best program in basketball does, a 3rd grader can understand the logic of investing more there will bring more wins and thereby more revenue.

I truly don't understand what's hard to understand about any of that for this guy.

I agree with you on most things but investing more money isnt gonna guarantee anything. We play n the sec and our best is never gonna beat like at least half the secs best. If UK invests more you tjink Bama,Texas, ou, lsu, etc arent gonna just do the same? Id assume so.

But u have to try to invest so I agree with u there. I just dont think its gonna make us Indiana or close to it.

And on the basketball side, we are spending a ton and getting underwhelming results. That is primarily because of who the coach is IMO. Hopefully the new AD can improve that if a change is needed.

 

[CB3UK]

I agree with you on most things but investing more money isnt gonna guarantee anything. We play n the sec and our best is never gonna beat like at least half the secs best. If UK invests more you tjink Bama,Texas, ou, lsu, etc arent gonna just do the same? Id assume so.

But u have to try to invest so I agree with u there. I just dont think its gonna make us Indiana or close to it.

And on the basketball side, we are spending a ton and getting underwhelming results. That is primarily because of who the coach is IMO. Hopefully the new AD can improve that if a change is needed.

No, investing more isn't going to guarantee anything. Which we've seen play out with basketball. We spend more than pretty much anyone there. The problem with basketball isn't a lack of funding.

The problem with football IS and HAS BEEN not adequately funding it. Our football recruiting budget used to be the same as the amount of money UK spent on simply holding Big Blue Madness. That's absolute stupidity.

My point on all of this is that in today's college landscape, you can literally go out and buy your roster. Better players = more winning. Pope had the money to do that and he spent it poorly. So no, money doesn't equate to winning. How you spend it matters.

But when UK football has been middling throughout history, it stands to reason that pumping more money into it is going to deliver more consistent and better results on the field. When it is already making 3.5 times the money being piss poor than basketball, it's pretty obvious that's your growth market, and that's where you put your money, because it's going to make a crap load more money by actually being good.

As for investing in UK football and it making money helping basketball, which is the premise of this thread's argument......it doesn't. It has nothing to do with that. You invest in football for the reasons I've spelled out a thousand times in this thread. Basketball generates it's own profit. Basketball pays for itself here. Basketball has its own pool of money here that has nothing to do with football, and never the 'twain shall meet. Basketball needs to keep generating that money, and it needs to be good, because we are UK and it's what we do. But investing in football has zilch to do with basketball. Basketball takes care of itself here. And you don't invest in basketball first when the return on investment in football is multiples of what basketball brings in. It's just common sense.

 

[vhcat1970]

FB has 105 scholarships allowed, hoops 15. Apparently, even at UK, FB generates over 3X what hoops does or over 75% total for the two. Net to me, seems hoops should get at most 20/80 of what FB does.

Then there's the fact that one is a lot more entertaining & less monotonous/repetitive than the other.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

No, investing more isn't going to guarantee anything. Which we've seen play out with basketball. We spend more than pretty much anyone there. The problem with basketball isn't a lack of funding.

The problem with football IS and HAS BEEN not adequately funding it. Our football recruiting budget used to be the same as the amount of money UK spent on simply holding Big Blue Madness. That's absolute stupidity.

My point on all of this is that in today's college landscape, you can literally go out and buy your roster. Better players = more winning. Pope had the money to do that and he spent it poorly. So no, money doesn't equate to winning. How you spend it matters.

But when UK football has been middling throughout history, it stands to reason that pumping more money into it is going to deliver more consistent and better results on the field. When it is already making 3.5 times the money being piss poor than basketball, it's pretty obvious that's your growth market, and that's where you put your money, because it's going to make a crap load more money by actually being good.

As for investing in UK football and it making money helping basketball, which is the premise of this thread's argument......it doesn't. It has nothing to do with that. You invest in football for the reasons I've spelled out a thousand times in this thread. Basketball generates it's own profit. Basketball pays for itself here. Basketball has its own pool of money here that has nothing to do with football, and never the 'twain shall meet. Basketball needs to keep generating that money, and it needs to be good, because we are UK and it's what we do. But investing in football has zilch to do with basketball. Basketball takes care of itself here. And you don't invest in basketball first when the return on investment in football is multiples of what basketball brings in. It's just common sense.

You can't just keep thinking about Pope, man. This topic is much broader --- Pope may not even be the coach at Kentucky within the next two years.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

FB has 105 scholarships allowed, hoops 15. Apparently, even at UK, FB generates over 3X what hoops does or over 75% total for the two. Net to me, seems hoops should get at most 20/80 of what FB does.

Thank you for being clear. I disagree.

I think if you go with a 20/80 rev share model, you've effectively punted on Kentucky basketball. You will not be competitive --- especially since North Carolina is at 35% and Big East schools may end up going all-in on basketball.

 

[BookofMormon]

Will that lead to championships? Duke's not winning any despite out spending every program out there. UConn is probably the best run program in the.country and it's spending a lot less than Duke. The problems of UK basketball has are not the amount of money spent, it's who is doing the spending

A program isn't about spending, it's about having an identity and a plan. Having a coach who can execute that plan. Have a system, a player profile that fits that system, selling kids on what that system can do to get them to the NBA. Chucking money all over is not how you build a "program" - you build the personality of the program than fiend pieces that fit in the scheme, not just hoard talent. That is a recipe for a gluttonous locker room.

It's why this place drives me crazy when it salivates at every new piece of meat on the market, wanting to throw money at it. The boneheads of BBN.

Follow UConn, not Duke. UK will never be Duke. No one will.

 

[Phil_The_Music2]

You talk strawman argument and then immediately create one in the first sentence.

“UK basketball failing is not due to lack of resources or because football is getting too much.”

Great. Except I didn’t say it was. I’m taking a snapshot of last season’s best basketball teams and asking if they had to build football-first. The answer is by and large obviously no.

As for Florida and Michigan, yes they are football schools. Obviously. My post doesn’t say that you can’t be a football school and win in basketball. My post points out that it is unnecessary to build football-first. Neither of the two football schools that won basketball national titles were top 15 CFB programs last year.

I want someone to actually explain why you HAVE to build football-first? Give me more than “they generate the money.” I want someone to explain it.

Also, I gave you the entire top 25 and you cherry-picked two recent champs. Why not go back further if you want to look at champs?

2024 - UConn - not a football school
2023 - UConn - not a football school
2022 - Kansas - basketball school
2021 - Baylor - football school
2019 - Virginia - not a football school
2018 - Villanova - I’m not even sure they have a football program
2017 - North Carolina-not a football school
2016 - Villanova - not a football school
2015 - Duke - not a football school
2014 - UConn - not a football school
2013 - Louisville - not a football school
2012 - Kentucky - not a football school
2011 - UConn - not a football school
2010 - Duke - not a football school

I normally love your posts and generally agree with you. But I feel like you are kind of rambling on this topic. It seems like you are creating an argument that doesn't exist. I don't recall anyone ever saying, "Let's make football top notch and THEN we can focus on basketball." From what I can gather that appears to be what you are arguing against, which is fine except that I don't see anyone making that claim. My understanding is that most folks want both sports to be properly funded. Don't take from one to give to another. I'm really struggling here to see the point you are trying to make. What exactly are you proposing for the program to do differently from what it's currently doing?

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

I normally love your posts and generally agree with you. But I feel like you are kind of rambling on this topic. It seems like you are creating an argument that doesn't exist. I don't recall anyone ever saying, "Let's make football top notch and THEN we can focus on basketball." From what I can gather that appears to be what you are arguing against, which is fine except that I don't see anyone making that claim. My understanding is that most folks want both sports to be properly funded. Don't take from one to give to another. I'm really struggling here to see the point you are trying to make. What exactly are you proposing for the program to do differently from what it's currently doing?

I'd like to move to a 40% basketball, 50% football, 10% non-major sports rev share. I'd like to go all-in on upgrading all of our facilities to be state-of-the-art. I'd like to compete with Duke at the top of the mountain in basketball NIL going forward. Some of those things we are already doing -- most of them we are not.

And while I normally love your posts as well (as you know), you're making an assumption that because you haven't encountered people saying you HAVE to build football-first that it means I haven't as well. I didn't do all this work for no reason -- I was told many times the CM Newton type of ADs can no longer work in modern college athletics. You HAVE to build football first. I feel I've adequately shown there are many schools that have little to no football value and still are elite in basketball.

 

[Phil_The_Music2]

I'd like to move to a 40% basketball, 50% football, 10% non-major sports rev share. I'd like to go all-in on upgrading all of our facilities to be state-of-the-art. I'd like to compete with Duke at the top of the mountain in basketball NIL going forward. Some of those things we are already doing -- most of them we are not.

And while I normally love your posts as well (as you know), you're making an assumption that because you haven't encountered people saying you HAVE to build football-first that it means I haven't as well. I didn't do all this work for no reason -- I was told many times the CM Newton type of ADs can no longer work in modern college athletics. You HAVE to build football first. I feel I've adequately shown there are many schools that have little to no football value and still are elite in basketball.

Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. And you're right, I shouldn't make assumptions. I'm sure there are folks who make those claims. I was more so meaning that I haven't seen them in this thread.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. And you're right, I shouldn't make assumptions. I'm sure there are folks who make those claims. I was more so meaning that I haven't seen them in this thread.

You also aren't incorrect. I expected more pushback on the actual content of the original post. I think the lack of responses to the content in it means I've overestimated the popularity of the view I'm opposing or it means the original post is convincing enough that its opponents don't want to engage it.

Either way, I'm fully good with you or Paul handing me my arse on a platter time to time. Both of you are effective debaters. For this topic, I think it's time I quit beating the dead horse lol.

 

[Phil_The_Music2]

You also aren't incorrect. I expected more pushback on the actual content of the original post. I think the lack of responses to the content in it means I've overestimated the popularity of the view I'm opposing or it means the original post is convincing enough that its opponents don't want to engage it.

Either way, I'm fully good with you or Paul handing me my arse on a platter time to time. Both of you are effective debaters. For this topic, I think it's time I quit beating the dead horse lol.

Lol. I certainly didn't intend to "hand you your ***". I was just confused and honestly wanted to know what I was missing. Full disclosure, I'm slightly hung over today. Had drinks with the co workers last night and I haven't done that in awhile. So the confusion is likely my own fault. Lol. Back on topic, I actually see both sides of the football vs basketball debate. I love both sports equally and want both to be successful. However, I also understand that money is finite and decisions have to be made. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. Especially today! Lol

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Lol. I certainly didn't intend to "hand you your ***".

Haha I know. I was saying you'd be more than capable.

And yeah drinks these days are a lot harder than it used to be --- that's for sure haha.

As for the sports, I love them both. Haven't missed a FB game since 2002, but I will admit to being basketball first. BB is the one I take deathly serious and have insane expectations for. FB is my leisurely sport that I enjoy watching and if we lose, I don't lose sleep over. But I've been through a lot of bad football seasons as well though.

 

[vhcat1970]

Thank you for being clear. I disagree.

I think if you go with a 20/80 rev share model, you've effectively punted on Kentucky basketball. You will not be competitive --- especially since North Carolina is at 35% and Big East schools may end up going all-in on basketball.

NC's 35% & UK at 20% may or may not be different $ amounts given how much more UK receives from the SEC. UK's 20% may be more than any non-FB schools has to spend. So tell me the $ amounts for each first.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

NC's 35% & UK at 20% may or may not be different $ amounts given how much more UK receives from the SEC. UK's 20% may be more than any non-FB schools has to spend. So tell me the $ amounts for each first.

I don't have the specific numbers, but I ran it through ChatGPT pro based on a 20% rev share of SEC vs 35% rev share of ACC:


UNC basketball: about $7 million.
Kentucky basketball at 20%: about $4.1 million.
UNC advantage: roughly $3 million annually—even though Kentucky operates with a conference-revenue advantage of roughly $24.5 million.

 

[M080470]

You keep throwing out percentages but a lot of your numbers are wrong, left out, or completely misunderstood as to what they mean. In fairness, I wasn't sure, but a quick Google search told me this.

You brought up UNC spent 35% of it's revenue for basketball. That number is correct but it comes strictly from the school's direct athlete revenue sharing pool. Do you know what the dollar total of that is? It's $7 million. UNC also spent $14-15 million total for basketball NIL compared to our $22 million.

Do you know the percentage UK spent on basketball from it's direct athlete revenue sharing pool this past season. UK basketball got 45%. Which is more than the 40%-60% you were advocating. Fans and businesses are free to choose who they give their money to.

Sounds like to me, basketball is being allowed to eat first. We spent enough to expect an Elite Eight/Final Four team and/or a 1-2 seed. We got neither. So to say basketball is just not getting enough, throwing even more money will make it better is nonsense. The only thing that fixes this is better coaching and better NIL management

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

You keep throwing out percentages but a lot of your numbers are wrong, left out, or completely misunderstood as to what they mean. In fairness, I wasn't sure, but a quick Google search told me this.

You brought up UNC spent 35% of it's revenue for basketball. That number is correct but it comes strictly from the school's direct athlete revenue sharing pool. Do you know what the dollar total of that is? It's $7 million. UNC also spent $14-15 million total for basketball NIL compared to our $22 million.

Do you know the percentage UK spent on basketball from it's direct athlete revenue sharing pool this past season. UK basketball got 45%. Which is more than the 40%-60% you were advocating. Fans and businesses are free to choose who they give their money to.

Sounds like to me, basketball is being allowed to eat first. We spent enough to expect an Elite Eight/Final Four team and/or a 1-2 seed. We got neither. So to say basketball is just not getting enough, throwing even more money will make it better is nonsense. The only thing that fixes this is better coaching and better NIL management

The 45% for Kentucky last year is false. That was based on a rumor and was shot down. I’d have been in favor of 45% but that would be a tad too aggressive probably.

I used 20% in the hypothetical only because that was the percentage vhcat said he wanted for basketball. No one knows what our actual rev share % is right now.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

This would something of concern if UK’s basketball problems were from lack of money and football was the reason.

But it’s just not the case. UK basketball is flush with money. Pope can spend NIL money like a drunken sailor. And appears he does.

UK football is not hurting because of UK basketball. In fact, it appears to be trending up.

I don’t care enough about UK football to check into who’s writing checks. I do know some of the larger UK basketball donors also donate to football. And most likely there’s some football only donors.

The athletic dept certainly wants football to excel since it’s such a cash cow.

But really, how much more could it generate? As long as the program stays off probation they get an equal SEC share. Win or lose. Certainly a winning football program would draw more donors. But how do you measure that until it happens?

 

[TheGreatGooglyMoogly]

Explain how the increased football success leads to more revenue please?

Wouldn’t the expenses increase if you tried to build an even more competitive football program?

I'm not asking this to belittle you or your intelligence but do you understand basic economics and accounting?

To answer your first question, because football has always generated more money than all the other sports in the AD combined. Successful FB programs generate more money than unsuccessful FB programs. If UKFB improves to a middling top25 program the amount of money coming in would be way more than the past. An increase in expenses is not a problem as long as it is less than the overall revenue generation. When expenses outweigh revenue that is a deficit and you accrue debt. If you have a business, and it is growing (profits>spending), your expenses will increase along with revenue. The difference between profit and expenses is the rate at which you can grow your business. There is more opportunity for economic growth of the AD in FB than BB. I am a BB fan that wants more money to go to FB for exactly this reason. There should not be any worry.

The money will be there for both sports. More money needs to go to football because it is a bigger sport. You can give more money to football without taking away from basketball. UKBB fans are concerned because there are a lot of changes and it does not seem clear at the moment UKBB has a competent coach and staff.

 

[gobigblue812_rivals29381]

Client Challenge

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

I'm not asking this to belittle you or your intelligence but do you understand basic economics and accounting?

To answer your first question, because football has always generated more money than all the other sports in the AD combined. Successful FB programs generate more money than unsuccessful FB programs. If UKFB improves to a middling top25 program the amount of money coming in would be way more than the past. An increase in expenses is not a problem as long as it is less than the overall revenue generation. When expenses outweigh revenue that is a deficit and you accrue debt. If you have a business, and it is growing (profits>spending), your expenses will increase along with revenue. The difference between profit and expenses is the rate at which you can grow your business. There is more opportunity for economic growth of the AD in FB than BB. I am a BB fan that wants more money to go to FB for exactly this reason. There should not be any worry.

The money will be there for both sports. More money needs to go to football because it is a bigger sport. You can give more money to football without taking away from basketball. UKBB fans are concerned because there are a lot of changes and it does not seem clear at the moment UKBB has a competent coach and staff.

I think I’m just gonna tap out. I appreciate you trying but I haven’t heard a single response that goes beyond the basics of “football generates more money”, explaining what ROI is, explaining surpluses and deficits, etc etc. Not one person actually explaining how increasing football expenditures actually results in more money for the athletic department. Instead, it’s constant insults. I’m not going to learn a thing from this thread — it’s a colossal waste of time.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

@jedwar You can delete this stinker of a thread , sorry for wasting virtual space with it lol

 

[TheGreatGooglyMoogly]

I agree with you on most things but investing more money isnt gonna guarantee anything. We play n the sec and our best is never gonna beat like at least half the secs best. If UK invests more you tjink Bama,Texas, ou, lsu, etc arent gonna just do the same? Id assume so.

But u have to try to invest so I agree with u there. I just dont think its gonna make us Indiana or close to it.

And on the basketball side, we are spending a ton and getting underwhelming results. That is primarily because of who the coach is IMO. Hopefully the new AD can improve that if a change is needed.

YES. Coaching and staff are an important variable in the equation. The better the coaches/staff the more you can get with less money. The worse they are, you are paying a premium dollar amount to get the same results. Efficiency vs inefficiency. The IU situation is what UKFB fans are hoping for but is not realistic. The big10 had maybe 2-3 schools that excelled in football when IU hired a very good coach with a resume. They could shoot to the top of their conference immediately. UK has hired a very promising OC for his first gig. The SEC is another beast. If you can consistently be in the top half of the SEC and have a top quarter year every 3-4 years the benefit to the AD will be tremendous.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

YES. Coaching and staff are an important variable in the equation. The better the coaches/staff the more you can get with less money. The worse they are, you are paying a premium dollar amount to get the same results. Efficiency vs inefficiency. The IU situation is what UKFB fans are hoping for but is not realistic. The big10 had maybe 2-3 schools that excelled in football when IU hired a very good coach with a resume. They could shoot to the top of their conference immediately. UK has hired a very promising OC for his first gig. The SEC is another beast. If you can consistently be in the top half of the SEC and have a top quarter year every 3-4 years the benefit to the AD will be tremendous.

I think Stein could have UK in a 24 team college football playoff a couple times a decade at least.

A 24 team playoff is great news for UK if its approved.

Sec needs to stop being stupid about it. Everyone else supports it.

 

[TheGreatGooglyMoogly]

Thank you for being clear. I disagree.

I think if you go with a 20/80 rev share model, you've effectively punted on Kentucky basketball. You will not be competitive --- especially since North Carolina is at 35% and Big East schools may end up going all-in on basketball.

The budget is not unifrom across conferences. 35% of the budget in the ACC could be something equivalent to 20-25% in the SEC. BigEast schools could go "all-in" and it be 35% of the SEC.