In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 216
Online now 196 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Please take a look at the following link:
Check out pages 30-34. Apparently, a study has been conducted and UK Athletics, without any support from the state or University, has the ability to service $50-$75MM in debt. This number is conservative, and could increase should support levels stay the same as 2009-2011.
Of course, we all know that support levels have not remained the same for football. Meaning the ability to service debt is decreasing with every season ticket non-renewal.
This further demonstrates that those fans attempting to "send a message" are actively harming the ability to look for flexible financing to build athletics facilities (including football facilities) by relying on UK Athletics' ability to service its own debt.
So congratulations to those who did not renew (for that specific reason, no offense to those who had economic or family situations change) because you are certainly driving change. It's unfortunate that the change is for the worse, instead of the better.
Man, I hope the University let's the AD use that bonding capacity. $75 million won't cover everything, but sure is a nice start.
I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what to do with their money. I think Best Buy sucks, so I never darken their doors anymore. If someone thinks UK football is not worth the price of admission, then so be it. Its up to UK to show them something different.
I still to this day find it amazing people blame the fans for the ills of UK football. How many years have 68000 shown up to see a not so good team? Since 2006 UK is 16-32 in SEC play. Explain to me how that is the fault of the fans?
Maybe those of us who are over 40 are getting tired of,
"This is the year."
"Be patient with us"
"We need to recruit better"
"Sure look better in fall camp"
"Man, they look good getting off the bus"
How many years have the lost to UF? A 26 year streak to UT FINALLY ended. How is that the fault of the fans?
I think our fans are too easy to let UK football off the hook due to the fact they have been bad for so long. Maybe instead of kissing their ass fans should hold them accountable?!?!?!
AND YES, I did keep my tickets and even upgraded which cost more $$$.
To be clear, it's not bonding capacity.
What that article cites is debt service capacity. Meaning UK Athletics could service $50-$75MM in debt with no support from the state or University. Basically, that's the size of the loan UK Athletics could pay for, using conservative estimates.
This dovetails with what Barnhart said about the revenue stream for service being there. The problem is (and will continue to be) where the money comes from.
Obviously the state legislature won't approve it. Hopefully someone smarter than I is out there working on a solution to figure a source of capital so that UK can take advantage of the debt service capacity available.
The point is, if you're not renewing because you don't like or believe in UK football any more, that's one thing. That seems to be the example you've given, so it doesn't really apply to what I said at all.
However, my post addresses other people:
If you (obviously not you, so in the rhetorical sense) aren't renewing until, for example, the administration puts more money into football, you are mistaken as to the effect your actions are having.
UK Athletics has demonstrated the capability to service its own debt. It does so with funds that include season ticket revenues. Even with the high revenue of the last few years, UK Athletics, and football in particular, has been denied the ability to use its revenue stream to service new debt. As revenue decreases due to season ticket holders who want something more done, it becomes even less likely that UK Athletics will be able to take advantage of its debt service capacity.
This post was edited by JDHLaw11 20 months ago
I understand that they said debt service capacity. However, I would be surprised if the legislature would approve the AD securing debt with private lendors. debt. Maybe they would, but I doubt it.
This is why MARKETING is so important. In toughest times you market hard, but you should market hardest in best of times. Uk should've been selling PSLs and future (to be built) lux boxes in 2007.
No vision was shared or implemented. We hitched our football wagon to the IMG basketball fiasco...
We need a wartime consigliere to make dreams happen
UK can't got in debt without the state's permission. chicken or egg?
Not that Neuhisel(sp?) carries alot of weight but I heard him on XM the otehr day and he used Oregon as the poster child of this.
He said once they build the facilities then players came. "Build it and they will come."
well then maybe Barnhart should have done something before ticket sales started dropping off to demonstrate a greater comnmitment to football. Yeah, ribbon boards, blah blah blah. You can't stagnate in a position of non-action, and then, point fingers and say that people's pro-active response is hurting your ability to act. If they can service this much debt, then they should have known it before the study. Yeah, maybe not down to the penny, but enough that Mitch could have "earmarked" some of it for football a couple of years ago.
I'm speaking of the ability to act going forward.
Saying things should have been done in the past, until a time machine is invented, is completely irrelevant. That doesn't mean I don't believe more should have been done, reserved, or earmarked. It should have. But it wasn't. And absolutely no-one can change that now.
My post is about how what is happening right now will effect things going forward.
Saying "yeah, well, they should have thought of that" may be true, but doesn't make the deleterious effect of "sending a message" any less significant.
As far as i understand, UK athletics is seperate from the state budget, so they wouldn't need to get approval though the state. IDK for a fact, but i thought he upgrades would have went beyond what athletics could handle and needed bonding.
This post was edited by rompcat 20 months ago
JDHLaw11 is speaking to the people who came up with the bright idea to not buy tickets to support the team as an act to force change within the football program. If don't want to buy tickets or you can't buy tickets that's a different story, but he's talking about the people that is boycotting the football games in hopes to force change. To that group of people JDHLaw11 is pointing out that you won't be forcing change for the good, you'll be forcing change for the bad.
The capacity of debt that the football program can take on without the state legislation being involved pertains to anything that doesn't involve building a structure on the land. Anything that requires building a structure requires bonding.... There are tones of things that can be done to build a program that doesn't include building a structure....
I don't think it's the economy.
I don't think it's a statement to Mitch.
I don't think it's fan agenda.
I don't think it's a political move against the UKAA.
People generally like Joker and staff.
I do think that the drop off of ticket sales is all due to the fact that our offense has been unwatchable the last 2 years and the overall bad football.
The fans' all-day committment of driving/setting up/tailgating/watching rootcanal football/traffic/2 hour car ride is only appealing when you win or play inspired ball.
Why should you buy season tix at face value when you can find set of free tix on windshield in the parking lot.
Winning fixes everything.
However, I'd be pretty surprised if we didn't have a losing season, but if I would be shocked if Mitch will be.
Maybe MB is saving it up for a rainy day.
I hear ya, but I'm just saying, most of those who have given up their season tickets are long time supporters that FINALLY got fed up. While it may not be the correct way to implement change going forward, I can't blame them for doing so. Also, is it a possibility that this study was done because Mitch and the university finally realize, due to the dip in ticket sales, that they have to figure out a way to devote money to football? If that's the case, then one could argue that the people not renewing tickets could be a catalyst to positive change. I' just theorizing here, but I'd be curious to know what brought this study about in the first place?
Capiluto put out an email to all alumni, asking for feedback on the budgeting process.
If there are non-alumni here, I'd be glad to post the text of the email, along with the feedback addresses, if people wanted to make their thoughts known.
I potentially will give feedback, but after months of emailing the BOT, President, and AD, I'm not sure how effective it will be.
It all boils down to spending money on a guaranteed revenue stream that will pay benefits, not just in the form of an increased revenue stream, but in the form of increased exposure to the University as a whole.
If I had it handy, I would post the study that demonstrates enrollment spikes after successful sports seasons. Although I'm sure UK is currently experiencing that from the other championship, I don't see any reason why the university shouldn't capitalize on success in two sports rather than one.
UK is currently in the spotlight for March and April. Perennial football powers and exciting programs remain in the spotlight from September to January.
The offense was bad one year - 2011. The 2010 offense was one of the better ones in the country. It produced nearly 430 yards per game. It was the 27th ranked offense in the country, 23rd in passing offense and 34th in scoring offense. I don't know what else you're looking for or if you'll ever be happy if that's 'unwatchable' or not good enough.
2011 was bad. There is no way around that. But saying 2010 was 'bad football' is some revisionist history. Yes, the loss to Pittsburgh was a terrible way for the season to end. And they probably should have beaten Tennessee and maybe would have had they not fumbled a handoff on the 1-yard line. But that team also beat a South Carolina team that played in the SEC Championship Game and forced the eventual national champion to kick a field goal as the clock expired to beat it.
The above attributes all the drop due to how "bad" the offense has been the past two seasons and COMPLETELY discounts the economy.
It is unsupported opinion. Opinion that not only has no support in reality but a mountain of evidence otherwise.
Point being that although it is not uncommon for sales to drop during or post down years, there is nothing to attribute that as the only factor or even the greatest factor.
Don't bring those pesky facts to this board. They get on the way of their agendas.
A lot of interesting data in the linked report. As JDH mentions, the study analyzed debt service capabilities. With the marketplace basing ratings (and therefore interest rates) on the ability to service the debt, it also provides a rough estimate of debt capacity (the consultant estimates that UK athletics, on a stand-alone basis, would currently have the capacity to service $50-75 million in debt). UK athletics cannot issue bonds on a "stand-alone" basis at this time.
Looking at the information presented in the report and the manner in which it is presented, it appears that with the consultant undertaking the analyses contained in the report, UK may be, among other things, getting their ducks in a row to go to Frankfort to press them to allow the University and UK athletics each issue bonds on a stand-alone basis without all of the legislative red tape.
Facts are these. Beat Louisville and people will fill the stands. Lose and they won't.
Play a style of football fun to watch and the fans will come. Play a style that is dull and they will stay away.
Fact is the UK football program is way underfunded.
Fact is nothing is being done at this time to remedy the situation.
Talking and finger pointing by a bunch of politicians will not get it done.
The meanest dog in Taiwan.
And economy be damned, I bet USCe have no problem filling stands. It's about winning..
With all due respect, the Mike Hartline era polarized the fanbase.
Those 2010 stats that were awesome for sure but are skewed by scoring 63, 47 & 49 against OOC turds. In 2010 we should have been better. We had weapons, yet still got destroyed by Florida, lost to a horrible UT, Ol Miss & Miss St team again and didn't show up against Pitt. So it was discouraging. Bad football can also mean defensive woes. I wasn't just reflecting on the offense.
2009, The UK / Arkansas game at home was the ugliest win of all time. Of which, I stayed till the end with my agenda and all.
New coach equals renewed optimism and ticket sales. Same goes for winning.
Skewed by OoC turds?
The problem is that ignores 35 against in conference turd Ole Miss and 38 against in conference turd Vanderbilt not to mention that it ignores 31 against in conference "turd" Georgia and 28 against in conference "turd" SEC East champion South Carolina and 34 against in conference "turd" undefeated SEC champion and National champion Auburn.
I'm sorry, but using the same criteria for judging other schools' offensive statistics (dropping their scores against three weakest out of conference opponents and two highest scores against weak in conference opponents and the team's remaining top three scores against the strongest opponents to judge a team on its four worst games) will leave most top rated offenses looking terrible.
Blaming the offense on being skewed by OoC foes and then dismissing the scores against more than half the in conference foes... That is pretty funny right there.
The assertion the offense was bad in 2010 is absurd.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports