In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1976
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.
Thanks, very good read!
For years, UKAD was able to keep this info under wraps from the fans. In today's day and age of immediate information availability, fans and media that follow UK now have the ability to completley digest UK's stance on the financial commitment to the football program.
I truly think this has played a role in some of the former long time season ticket holders deciding to bail. At the end of the day, I think this very issue and the transparency of the issue will become a MAJOR hurdle for UK's efforts to lure a highly regarded football coach.
Get what you put in. That's what we are doing. I would argue that Brooks/Joker have done a decent job given the restraints they are under. They are walking into a heavyweight fight with one hand behind their back. The job is set up for the coach to fail.
That doesn't excuse his playcalling, game mgmt etc, just saying. We getting what is put in....
"The job is set up for the coach to fail."
Unless there is an overall systemic culture change with UK's financial capability or lack thereof for football, then yes, you're opinion looks to be quite true moving forward.
Coach Cal has been given the keys. He gets what he wants. He does a great job of raising money privately for projects though.
I can't believe there is a $3.1M difference in spending between men's basketball and football. A few things to consider, football requires more equipment and has more players. Basketball has more games and thus more travel.
I'm afraid you may be right re this issue hurting UK in its quest for a new coach, assuming this season plays out as it's looking right now. Of course, if people in the right places took action, it could help spur change that could help UK attract a higher caliber coach. But I'm not holding my breath on that given how screwed up Kentucky politics are.
This may be the start of some serious media coverage on the AD budget. Which in the end, may really help football.
Our facilities are better than most outside of the SEC. I think that will probably not be as big of an issue as you would think. Honestly, we need a dynamic personality as our head coach. A guy that's going to rally the troops and the fans.
The only media members that have had the courage to write about this issue are Kyle Tucker and Eric Crawford. The others don't want to rock the boat, or are just too lazy to do the work. Have you seen the level of work that Clay and Story have put out lately? Laughable.
This is the problem Josh.
We shouldn't be competing with those "outside the SEC." Because we (despite all outwards appearances) are in the SEC.
We have circumstantial evidence from Rich Brooks (get with the 21st century) and hard evidence from a current player (Justin Taylor) that our facilities are not up to par with our conference opponents. We (and recruits and analysts and coaching candidates) can extrapolate from spending comparisons that UK is at the very bottom in administrative support/approval for future projects.
We all want a competitive SEC program. To have that, we have to have competitive SEC talent. To get commitments from (and development of) competitive SEC talent, we need a competitive SEC coach. To attract the competitive SEC coach, we need competitive SEC facilities.
It does UK absolutely no good to have better facilities than (to make up a number) 75% of all college football programs when we are currently dead last in the conference in current/future facilities spending/budgeting/planning and our facilities are already in the bottom 2-3 of the conference.
I'm not saying that we should be. I'm just saying that if you get a coach in the door, show him the facilities and get hm thinking "hmmm, this isn't as bad as what it was made out to be" then you can get yourself a good coach looking for a promotion.
We absolutely need to dive headfirst into the arms race. I just do not think it plays a huge role in the search of a new coach should that be the case.
Which good coaches are going to say "this isn't as bad as it was made out to be?"
They will be comparing UK's facilities with their former program's facilities, not with the public perception. Even worse, we will likely be competing with several teams with better facilities and/or current plans to renovate those facilities. So, on the balance scale of job consideration by those candidates, UK will be found sorely wanting.
What will ultimately kill our chances to make an impact hire is the lack of current infrastructure in comparison to our peers and lack of plan to make any headway in the considerable (and widening) rift.
Unless a drastic shift in administrative/legislative attitudes happens between now and December, the next hire will be roundly criticized as uninspired, the blame for the floundering program will be placed first at the feet of the AD, and then the coach, and ultimately the players, despite the root cause of the problem being firmly planted many, many steps up the administrative and political chain.
Law11, I agree with what you are saying now is the perfect time for Mitch and the UK president to go to the BOT, UKAA and KY gov. and say if we don't change things now as in right now we will continue to lose millions in revenue. Those millions lost will not only effect the football program but other programs as well including the Athletic department ability to give money to the university.
IMO this doesn't need to happen in a couple months but needs to happen yesterday.
Yes, but unless they are coming from an SEC school (which is possible), our facilities should be better if not comparable. If you're coming from an SEC school then you are an assistant and if it matters that much to you - stay an assistant.
I agree with Cal getting a lot of private donations. He gets out and "beats the bushes". If Joker, or , any other UK head coach had done the same, maybe the football program wouldn't be in the condition it is today.
The state of Kentucky is loaded with Div. 1 talent this year.We have one verbal. There is a reason we can"t keep our talent in state. All issues need addressed. The facilities,coaching whatever it may be. We need to see a better product on the field.
Back in the 90s when we built the Nutter complex and indoor training facility and made major upgrades to CWS our facilities were on a par with any other team in the conference. Since that time we have done very little beyond cosmetic upgrades and changes. We are now badly behind the times and recruits notice that. The non-verbal que that they take is "this place isn't really emphasizing football like the other programs".
The author of this piece is making no personal assessment of our facilities compared to others, rather it is simply being reveal how UK spends the revenue it makes from the football program. You can see that they are virtually taking all the excess profit out of the football program and spending it elsewhere instead of reinvesting it into the very thing that produces the revenue. That is a horrible business decision in and of itself, not to mention a moral betrayal to the fans that support the football program with ticket and merchandiser purchases.
Something needs to change or there is going to be more trouble ahead for the UKAA.
This post was edited by Deeeefense 19 months ago
"Ignorance is constricted awareness" - Deepak Chopra
This article just brings to light that which "most" of us already knew.
Great find, thanks for sharing.
The issue is overall revenue. We don't have the stadium to produce the insane revenue you see at bama, tennessee, uga etc. Those huge skyboxes produces MILLIONS. Unfortunately our state has held up funding on these projects for about 5 years now. Call David Williams.
Each of those football programs support the entire athletic department of their respective schools. They support basketball too.
The difference is that the proffit those schools make for football dwarfs ours because of the facilities/ie suites and club seating and donations to get seats.
100,000,000 gets us the skybox and club seating. It doesn't get us the "facelift" but the outside of our stadium is nice enough. Once we get the suites and skyboxes, we get the revenue going. Once the revenue is going we can do the "aesthetic" stuff to the stadium. IT's a "chicken or egg" situation. We can't get it started without the legislature allowing us.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by hoptownukfan 19 months ago
Indeed. Very brave of the Kernel to report some information that ought to be uncomfortable for higher ups around campus.
It's a 4 part series. Can't wait to see 2-4. Also, anyone else find it almost disgraceful that the college paper digs this stuff up, yet guys like Clay and Story write the laziest stories ever. This is exactly the type of story that the LHL and other local media need to be digging through with a fine tooth comb.
One could get a pretty good road map of how to fix things by first talking to Rich Brooks and second talking to South Carolina about what they did to get Spurrier and keep him. It is not a mystery. You upgrade men's basketball by giving up control and money. You upgrade women's basketball with money. You upgrade everything else with money taken from football. If you want a football program you give up a considerable amount of control of revenue to football and pay the coaches very well. The facilities will follow the wins.
Not to toot my own horn, toot toot but I have been saying this since Joker took over. That is why a do nothing AD like Barnhart has failed the football program and will continue to do the same unless changes are made to give the next coach a fighting chance.
The meanest dog in Taiwan.
And as you have been saying, you have absolutely 0% grasp of the facts surrounding the funding issues of football.
The issue isn't that they take from football. Every football program in the sec besides vandy funds the ENTIRE athletic department. We are fortunate that our b-ball program funds itself. Most don't. The difference is that the football programs at the various power houses in the sec have the legislature on their side and those legislatures give them ANYTHING they want, when they want it in terms of bonding capacity. That's the issue.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports