Delete Me

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 12:46 PM

Keep hearing people say the path forward to college basketball success is with football success. I've heard many dogmatically say you HAVE to build with football first to remain competitive in basketball. I set out to look at the final AP poll from the last college football season and basketball season and compared. Here are a few interesting notes:

- There were ZERO teams that finished in the AP top 10 of both football and basketball.

- There were only nine teams that were ranked in the top 25 in both sports. Three of those were Texas schools.

- ZERO of the teams that were ranked in both polls were ranked in the top 15 of both, meaning no one was dominant in both sports.

#1 ranked Michigan went 0-3 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 0-1 versus top ten teams.

#2 ranked UConn played ZERO ranked teams in CFB last year.

#3 ranked Arizona went 1-2 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#4 ranked Duke went 1-3 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#5 ranked Illinois went 1-2 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 0-1 versus top ten teams.

#6 ranked Purdue went 0-5 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 0-2 versus top ten teams.

#7 ranked Houston went 1-1 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#8 ranked Iowa St. went 1-1 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#9 ranked Florida went 1-6 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 1-5 versus top ten teams.

#10 ranked St. John's last had a football team in 2004 lol.

For AP top 10 college basketball teams last year, the combined record vs the top 10 in CFB was 1-9.

For AP top 10 college basketball teams last year, the combined record vs the top 25 in CFB was 6-23.

IS HAVING A PREMIER FOOTBALL PROGRAM A REQUIREMENT FOR GREATNESS IN BASKETBALL? Maybe but I don't see anything tangible that demonstrates it.

ORCAT102521 · Saturday at 1:35 PM

Interesting data.
Appreciate the time and research.

KyKevin · Saturday at 1:53 PM

I don't think many of these players are looking at what the football team is ranked, or how much money it brings in.
Can you put me in the NBA? That's why Cal, Sheyer, and Self are cleaning up on recruits.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 2:04 PM

KyKevin said:
I don't think many of these players are looking at what the football team is ranked.
Can you put me in the NBA? That's why Cal, Sheyer, and Self are cleaning up on recruits.

That isn’t the point. The point is it’s clear you don’t have to be good at football to be a basketball school these days. It’s a myth that gets perpetuated.

Do I want to be good at football? Yes
Do I want to build with football first? No, and I don’t think it makes sense to do it either for a basketball school.

kenjiwing · Saturday at 2:09 PM

Your not understanding the point. The point of needing to be a good football program is because $. Football brings in much bigger cash flow to use for the athletics program and drives donors to spend more.

You can have a subpar football program as long as you make it into a top tier conference. Were lucky to be in the SEC because our football share is huge in relation to our spending and actual talent level.

FLBBNFAN · Saturday at 2:18 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
That isn’t the point. The point is it’s clear you don’t have to be good at football to be a basketball school these days. It’s a myth that gets perpetuated.

Do I want to be good at football? Yes
Do I want to build with football first? No, and I don’t think it makes sense to do it either for a basketball school.

Wasn't the general suggestion to put football first because the revenue potential is so great and with revenue sharing basketball would benefit greatly in regards to NIL funding?

Not saying I agree with that philosophy but trying to remember how that whole convo started originally. Thanks for all the info that you shared.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 2:21 PM

FLBBNFAN said:
Wasn't the general suggestion to put football first because the revenue potential is so great and with revenue sharing basketball would benefit greatly in regards to NIL funding?

Not saying I agree with that philosophy but trying to remember how that whole convo started originally. Thanks for all the info that you shared.

I actually push back on that philosophy also. UK stands to generate about 0.9-1.2 million additional dollars in revenue for football compared to last season, even if we packed out every single seat at Kroger field next year. How do you keep those seats occupied? You have to increase NIL spending. What will eventually happen is they will raise football ticket prices to astronomical levels to generate that additional revenue. Until someone shows me how building football first is a requirement in 2026, I'm not buying it.

UKBB4Ever · Saturday at 2:26 PM

It’s the only way.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 2:48 PM

kenjiwing said:
Your not understanding the point. The point of needing to be a good football program is because $. Football brings in much bigger cash flow to use for the athletics program and drives donors to spend more.

You can have a subpar football program as long as you make it into a top tier conference. Were lucky to be in the SEC because our football share is huge in relation to our spending and actual talent level.

You’re assuming I don’t understand the point. And you’re wrong. I understand the point you’re making, but I’d like you to elaborate on:

1.) How building football-first generates that money. Be specific.

2.) Explain why none of the top ten basketball teams from last season needed to put out a top tier football product to get there.

BlueSince92 · Saturday at 3:43 PM

God love ‘em but Kentucky football fans are not rational. It comes from having been beaten about the head and shoulders since 1954.

CB3UK · Saturday at 4:25 PM

You clearly don't understand how athletics departments are funded or work.

UK football generates OVER THREE TIMES the revenue that basketball does.

Its truly not anymore difficult to understand than that very basic fact. The answer going forward in an environment driven by money and paying players is not to ignore highest profit margin generating sport we have for the saje of basketball. That's incredibly foolish, and frankly, nonsense.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 4:33 PM

CB3UK said:
You clearly don't understand how athletics departments are funded or work.

UK football generates OVER THREE TIMES the revenue that basketball does.

Its truly not anymore difficult to understand than that very basic fact. The answer going forward in an environment driven by money and paying players is not to ignore highest profit margin generating sport we have for the saje of basketball. That's incredibly foolish, and frankly, nonsense.

Explain it. Go ahead.
How much money is UK going to generate by building by football first and how will that work in practice? Go ahead…since I clearly “don’t understand how athletics departments are funded or work”, I’ve come to the right person. I’m sure you can help the bumbling fools like me. Explain it like I’m 5 years old without bringing up anything that wouldn’t also apply to a middling football program in the SEC.

BookofMormon · Saturday at 4:45 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
Keep hearing people say the path forward to college basketball success is with football success. I've heard many dogmatically say you HAVE to build with football first to remain competitive in basketball. I set out to look at the final AP poll from the last college football season and basketball season and compared. Here are a few interesting notes:

- There were ZERO teams that finished in the AP top 10 of both football and basketball.

- There were only nine teams that were ranked in the top 25 in both sports. Three of those were Texas schools.

- ZERO of the teams that were ranked in both polls were ranked in the top 15 of both, meaning no one was dominant in both sports.

#1 ranked Michigan went 0-3 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 0-1 versus top ten teams.

#2 ranked UConn played ZERO ranked teams in CFB last year.

#3 ranked Arizona went 1-2 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#4 ranked Duke went 1-3 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#5 ranked Illinois went 1-2 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 0-1 versus top ten teams.

#6 ranked Purdue went 0-5 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 0-2 versus top ten teams.

#7 ranked Houston went 1-1 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#8 ranked Iowa St. went 1-1 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, played ZERO top ten teams.

#9 ranked Florida went 1-6 versus ranked teams in CFB last year, went 1-5 versus top ten teams.

#10 ranked St. John's last had a football team in 2004 lol.

For AP top 10 college basketball teams last year, the combined record vs the top 10 in CFB was 1-9.

For AP top 10 college basketball teams last year, the combined record vs the top 25 in CFB was 6-23.

IS HAVING A PREMIER FOOTBALL PROGRAM A REQUIREMENT FOR GREATNESS IN BASKETBALL? Maybe but I don't see anything tangible that demonstrates it.

If anything, seems to be an inverse relationship.

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:04 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
Explain it. Go ahead.
How much money is UK going to generate by building by football first and how will that work in practice? Go ahead…since I clearly “don’t understand how athletics departments are funded or work”, I’ve come to the right person. I’m sure you can help the bumbling fools like me. Explain it like I’m 5 years old without bringing up anything that wouldn’t also apply to a middling football program in the SEC.

I don't understand what you dont get about this man. I literally just told you football generates 3.5 times the money, as a middling football program, as compared to one of the biggest brands in college basketball

Do I need to draw you a diagram about which of those is the smarter investment? This isnt remotely complicated. You just seem to want to willfully ignore these basic facts for some reason. What exactly is it you're afraid of here?

Johnnie Africa · Saturday at 5:09 PM

CB3UK said:
I don't understand what you dont get about this man. I literally just told you football generates 3.5 times the money, as a middling football program, as compared to one of the biggest brands in college basketball

Do I need to draw you a diagram about which of those is the smarter investment? This isnt remotely complicated. You just seem to want to willfully ignore these basic facts for some reason. What exactly is it you're afraid of here?

Feel free to call me an idiot here but what exactly are you arguing for/against? I’m totally lost with what anyone is even trying to say

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:09 PM

CB3UK said:
I don't understand what you dont get about this man. I literally just told you football generates 3.5 times the money, as a middling football program, as compared to one of the biggest brands in college basketball

Do I need to draw you a diagram about which of those is the smarter investment? This isnt remotely complicated. You just seem to want to willfully ignore these basic facts for some reason. What exactly is it you're afraid of here?

Does football generate 3.5x the revenue even when you’re a middling SEC program? If yes, you’re debating a topic that isn’t even on the agenda. You’re talking “duh” language and insulting me as though everyone doesn’t already know the basics.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:12 PM

Johnnie Africa said:
Feel free to call me an idiot here but what exactly are you arguing for/against? I’m totally lost with what anyone is even trying to say

I’m trying to say you can build basketball-first. There’s nothing wrong with it. Saying “basketball school” shouldn’t be a dirty word. I feel that what I’m saying should be obvious, and the facts back it up also.

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:22 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
Does football generate 3.5x the revenue even when you’re a middling SEC program? If yes, you’re debating a topic that isn’t even on the agenda. You’re talking “duh” language and insulting me as though everyone doesn’t already know the basics.

Well, you're the one posting a "duh" thread saying people are saying that the path forward with basketball success is with football success.

No one is saying that.

They are saying the path forward is to invest in football, because that is where the money is, not basketball.

So until you actually understand what people are talking about, you're going to get posts that are insulting.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:27 PM

CB3UK said:
Well, you're the one posting a "duh" thread saying people are saying that the path forward with basketball success is with football success.

No one is saying that.

They are saying the path forward is to invest in football, because that is where the money is, not basketball.

So until you actually understand what people are talking about, you're going to get posts that are insulting.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Clears up nothing. If you don’t disagree with the OP, why even engage? You’re getting on to me for misunderstanding something I do not misunderstand. There have been many people who have said you have to start building football-first and that’s how you improve basketball. I’m showing that is clearly nonsense. We are a basketball school and there’s not a good reason we should avoid proudly wearing that on our chest.

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:28 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
I’m trying to say you can build basketball-first. There’s nothing wrong with it. Saying “basketball school” shouldn’t be a dirty word. I feel that what I’m saying should be obvious, and the facts back it up also.

Again...if football makes 3.5 times the revenue being middling as you put it, it stands to reason there is more money to be made by trying to actually win like Alabama and Texas.

Whereas UK basketball is what it is. We've seen how much money it can generate being the best, and it doesn't compare to what trying to win at football will generate.

If it made financial sense to do things like you say, schools wouldve been doing it that way already. They don't for a reason.

It's because football makes the money.

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:29 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
Clears up nothing. If you don’t disagree with the OP, why even engage? You’re getting on to me for misunderstanding something I do not misunderstand. There have been many people who have said you have to start building football-first and that’s how you improve basketball. I’m showing that is clearly nonsense. We are a basketball school and there’s not a good reason we should avoid proudly wearing that on our chest.

You havent shown anything man. People say the way forward is to invest in football. I've explained why.

You seem to just want to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore basic economic facts.

Please explain to us all how basketball is going to magically generate equal or greater revenue than football.

TheGreatGooglyMoogly · Saturday at 5:32 PM

I mean you dont HAVE to build football in order to build basketball. If you dont youre setting the athletic department at a disadvantage compared to others in terms of revenue. Other programs prioritize one over the other but football across the college landscape brings in the revenue outside of boosters. Basketball cannot support the other sports by itself so you have to take that into account. You looked at just last year and focused on the top 10. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt attempting to support your opinion. A better perspective would be the top25. Michigan has recently won a national championship in both since the fruition of NIL. Alabama and UT obviously prioritize CFB over BB and their basketball programs have been comparable or many times better than UK since NIL. My personal opinion is that if UK football is doing well you wont have to worry about basketball other than the staff. Since 2022 here are a list of programs I could find that were ranked top25 in both by the end of the year (probably missed a few):

'22
UT
Kansas State
UCLA
Texas
Alabama

'23
Clemson
Arizona
NCST
UT
Alabama

'24
Memphis
Clemson
Ole Miss
Iowa State
Alabama
UT

'25
Miami
Texas
Texas Tech
Vanderbilt
UVA
Alabama
Iowa
Houston

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:33 PM

CB3UK said:
You havent shown anything man. People say the way forward is to invest in football. I've explained why.

You seem to just want to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore basic economic facts.

Please explain to us all how basketball is going to magically generate equal or greater revenue than football.

I don’t feel that you’ve explained why, personally. We’ve been a proud basketball school for decades and football still generated the most money, even when the product was abysmal. I’m not in support of bad football — I’m simply in support of building around your flagship program (basketball) and doing so unashamedly.

That said, if you want to explain how spending more on football will win us more basketball games, I’m all ears. You’re going to have to be more specific than simply saying “football generates more money” since that is uncontested.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:35 PM

TheGreatGooglyMoogly said:
I mean you dont HAVE to build football in order to build basketball. If you dont youre setting the athletic department at a disadvantage compared to others in terms of revenue. Other programs prioritize one over the other but football across the college landscape brings in the revenue outside of boosters. Basketball cannot support the other sports by itself so you have to take that into account. You looked at just last year and focused on the top 10. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt attempting to support your opinion. A better perspective would be the top25. Michigan has recently won a national championship in both since the fruition of NIL. Alabama and UT obviously prioritize CFB over BB and their basketball programs have been comparable or many times better than UK since NIL. My personal opinion is that if UK football is doing well you wont have to worry about basketball other than the staff. Since 2022 here are a list of programs I could find that were ranked top25 in both by the end of the year (probably missed a few):

'22
UT
Kansas State
UCLA
Texas
Alabama

'23
Clemson
Arizona
NCST
UT
Alabama

'24
Memphis
Clemson
Ole Miss
Iowa State
Alabama
UT

'25
Miami
Texas
Texas Tech
Vanderbilt
UVA
Alabama
Iowa
Houston

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?

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:37 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
I don’t feel that you’ve explained why, personally. We’ve been a proud basketball school for decades and football still generated the most money, even when the product was abysmal. I’m not in support of bad football — I’m simply in support of building around your flagship program (basketball) and doing so unashamedly.

That said, if you want to explain how spending more on football will win us more basketball games, I’m all ears. You’re going to have to be more specific than simply saying “football generates more money” since that is uncontested.

Of course you don't feel I have. You're just waffling and being willfully obtuse. Investing in football has nothing to do with basketball. Quit trying to make a point that, I mean...what the hell....it isn't even a point

What the hell are you even talking about?

I've established why people are talking about investing in football. It has nothing to do with basketball and I don't know why you're hellbent on trying to conflate things.

BlueVelvetFog · Saturday at 5:40 PM

CB3UK said:
Well, you're the one posting a "duh" thread saying people are saying that the path forward with basketball success is with football success.

No one is saying that.

They are saying the path forward is to invest in football, because that is where the money is, not basketball.

So until you actually understand what people are talking about, you're going to get posts that are insulting.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Because basketball is a profit center and like many basketball programs, it does not need to rely on football for assistance. Likewise football should not take anything away from basketball. Both can operate in their space and support other programs i.e. the minor sports. I happen to be one of those fans that invest more emotion in time in the football. I would like that to be priority

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:42 PM

CB3UK said:
Of course you don't feel I have. You're just waffling and being willfully obtuse. Investing in football has nothing to do with basketball. Quit trying to make a point that, I mean...what the hell....it isn't even a point What the hell are you even talking about?

I've established why people are talking about investing in football. It has nothing to do with basketball and I don't know why you're hellbent on trying to conflate things.

Look man. You’re not being forced to reply. If you want to give what I’m asking some serious thought, you’re welcome to. If you’re just going to reply with “football generates more money” there really isn’t a discussion to have — that’s already uncontested, brother. It also doesn’t necessarily follow that we need to invest more in football…why? That is the question I’m asking you. Explain specifically how investing more in football helps basketball. Why are Gonzaga, Duke, UConn, Kansas etc able to be successful in basketball this decade without being elite in football? How is St. John’s doing it? They haven’t even had a football program in 22 years.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:43 PM

BlueVelvetFog said:
Because basketball is a profit center and like many basketball programs, it does not need to rely on football for assistance. Likewise football should not take anything away from basketball. Both can operate in their space and support other programs i.e. the minor sports. I happen to be one of those fans that invest more motion in time in the football. I would like that to be priority

I respect that. You and I have different perspectives and I appreciate yours.

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:44 PM

BlueVelvetFog said:
Because basketball is a profit center and like many basketball programs, it does not need to rely on football for assistance. Likewise football should not take anything away from basketball. Both can operate in their space and support other programs i.e. the minor sports. I happen to be one of those fans that invest more motion in time in the football. I would like that to be priority

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.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:46 PM

CB3UK said:
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.

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:47 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
Explain specifically how investing more in football helps basketball. Why are Gonzaga, Duke, UConn, Kansas etc able to be successful in basketball this decade without being elite in football? How is St. John’s doing it? They haven’t even had a football program in 22 years.

And here is the fundamental issue we have. Your premise isnt remotely based on logic or reason.

Investing in football has nothing to do with basketball. Until you acknowledge and accept that, this conversation can't progress. Basketball funds itself.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:52 PM

CB3UK said:
And here is the fundamental issue we have. Your premise isnt remotely based on logic or reason.

Investing in football has nothing to do with basketball. Until you acknowledge and accept that, this conversation can't progress. Basketball funds itself.

Both “fund” themselves. That’s a separate discussion. Both programs rely on the university to contribute to them. For football you have to pay for more staff members, more players, more facilities, etc and the price is higher to be competitive because CFB is more demanding than CBB. You also have to consider how NIL and rev share should be dispersed. The way an AD elects to partition will have an effect on the health of the respective programs. Philosophy matters on this. I can’t tell if you’re being willfully obtuse or if I may just need to disengage here.

I’m looking for a football person to show me specifically why you can’t build basketball first and be top-tier in basketball these days.

CB3UK · Saturday at 5:55 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
Both “fund” themselves. That’s a separate discussion. Both programs rely on the university to contribute to them. For football you have to pay for more staff members, more players, more facilities, etc and the price is higher to be competitive because CFB is more demanding than CBB. You also have to consider how NIL and rev share should be dispersed. The way an AD elects to partition will have an effect on the health of the respective programs. Philosophy matters on this. I can’t tell if you’re being willfully obtuse or if I may just need to disengage here.

I’m looking for a football person to show me specifically why you can’t build basketball first and be top-tier in basketball these days.

You don't build basketball first because football makes significantly more money. How many damn times must it be said before it gets through to you man? Who operates a business ignoring their biggest money maker? Dear Lord you're dense.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 5:59 PM

CB3UK said:
You don't build basketball first because football makes significantly more money. How many damn times must it be said before it gets through to you man? Who operates a business ignoring their biggest money maker? Dear Lord you're dense.

My goodness man. You’re calling me dense? You aren’t even making a point. No one is talking about ignoring anything. I’m talking about a matter of priority. We prioritized basketball for decades and seemed to do pretty good in basketball. I ask you why we have to prioritize football to achieve those results now and rather than explaining you just insult me. I’ll just move to anyone else who wants to have a real discussion — I don’t think we are going to get anywhere on this one. Maybe we will find agreement on other topics.

CB3UK · Saturday at 6:05 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
My goodness man. You’re calling me dense? You aren’t even making a point. No one is talking about ignoring anything. I’m talking about a matter of priority. We prioritized basketball for decades and seemed to do pretty good in basketball. I ask you why we have to prioritize football to achieve those results now and rather than explaining you just insult me. I’ll just move to anyone else who wants to have a real discussion — I don’t think we are going to get anywhere on this one. Maybe we will find agreement on other topics.

Because you're trying to make a point that no one is making or arguing.

No one is arguing that investing in football is going to help basketball win. We're not getting anywhere because you doggedly refuse to use common sense or reason.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 6:07 PM

CB3UK said:
Because you're trying to make a point that no one is making or arguing.

No one is arguing that investing in football is going to help basketball win. We're not getting anywhere because you doggedly refuse to use common sense or reason.

Ok buddy. Again, if you agree with my original post, you don’t need to respond. My post is for those who DO believe you need to build a football-first athletic department. Clearly, you don’t. So we don’t need to force a debate, man.

CB3UK · Saturday at 6:09 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
Ok buddy. Again, if you agree with my original post, you don’t need to respond. My post is for those who DO believe you need to build a football-first athletic department. Clearly, you don’t. So we don’t need to force a debate, man.

And I'm trying to explain to you why they don't things that way, and you just don't like the obvious answers.

If it made more financial sense for basketball to be the priority, that is the way things would be done.

They aren't.

Anywhere that has both.

For a reason.

Why you refuse to acknowledge and accept that, we'd all love to know.

Im The Village Idiot · Saturday at 6:14 PM

CB3UK said:
And I'm trying to explain to you why they don't things that way, and you just don't like the obvious answers.

If it made more financial sense for basketball to be the priority, that is the way things would be done.

They aren't.

Anywhere that has both.

For a reason.

Why you refuse to acknowledge and accept that, we'd all love to know.

I don’t think we are speaking the same language. You keep thinking I’m an imbecile who doesn’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not too shy to tell you if I’m struggling to understand.

What you don’t get is that, yes, there are people who have argued that we HAVE to build football-first in this current era to remain successful in basketball. You clearly don’t hold that view. That means there is no debate to be had with you.

Someone like @BlueVelvetFog is a loyal football-first fan and he simply wants football to eat first. I have no problem with fans like that.

I’m simply in disagreement with those who hold the view that you HAVE to build a football-first athletic department in the current era. These people believe this generates more money for basketball. My retorts are for those people — not for those who largely agree that you do not HAVE to.

BlueVelvetFog · Saturday at 6:18 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
I don’t think we are speaking the same language. You keep thinking I’m an imbecile who doesn’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not too shy to tell you if I’m struggling to understand.

What you don’t get is that, yes, there are people who have argued that we HAVE to build football-first in this current era to remain successful in basketball. You clearly don’t hold that view. That means there is no debate to be had with you.

Someone like @BlueVelvetFog is a loyal football-first fan and he simply wants football to eat first. I have no problem with fans like that.

I’m simply in disagreement with those who hold the view that you HAVE to build a football-first athletic department in the current era. These people believe this generates more money for basketball. My retorts are for those people — not for those who largely agree that you do not HAVE to.

Look to the cookie, my friend.

10 minutes later: "I've got David Duke and Farrakhan going at it down there"

CB3UK · Saturday at 6:21 PM

Im The Village Idiot said:
I don’t think we are speaking the same language. You keep thinking I’m an imbecile who doesn’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not too shy to tell you if I’m struggling to understand.

What you don’t get is that, yes, there are people who have argued that we HAVE to build football-first in this current era to remain successful in basketball. You clearly don’t hold that view. That means there is no debate to be had with you.

Someone like @BlueVelvetFog is a loyal football-first fan and he simply wants football to eat first. I have no problem with fans like that.

I’m simply in disagreement with those who hold the view that you HAVE to build a football-first athletic department in the current era. These people believe this generates more money for basketball. My retorts are for those people — not for those who largely agree that you do not HAVE to.

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.

Delete Me

All-American

Freshman

All-Conference

All-American

Sophomore

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

Hall of Famer

All-American

Senior

Hall of Famer

All-Conference

All-American

All-American

Hall of Famer

All-American

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Redshirt

All-American

All-American

Hall of Famer

Heisman

All-American

All-American

Hall of Famer

All-American

Hall of Famer

All-American

Hall of Famer

All-American

Hall of Famer

All-American

Hall of Famer

All-American

Heisman

Hall of Famer