In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 736
Online now 564 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.
Good article by Eric Crawford. I was working on a similar piece when I ran across this. This is something that will be addressed by any potential candidate for the head coaching job. They will need some kind of a commitment to football.
A look at the financial and facility disparity the next UK coach will inherit -- and be challenged to change.
Nice work finding this article Josh Edwards!
It is very much an Arms Race in the SEC. You had better keep up or go to the cellar.
Completely embarrassing for this article to be written about an SEC program in the year 2012. People need to read this and let it all sink in. Then ask yourself how "commited" your administrations and leaders are to your beloved football program. How could you be a "UK Football Fan", read this article, and not be "sick"?
I think in addition to the $100M+ in bonding approval UK will ask for and hopefully receive from the state legislatue, I think the UK administration should earmark $3-5M per year in the budget toward discretionary capital spending. Monies that could be used to do something like build a recruiting room or do incremental and gradual training facilities. I think UK and Mitch need to re-double their efforts to mne past donation sources for football-oriented earmarked gifts.
The first step toward making such and effort successful though is to get the right man in place. In addition to seeling his vision to the players and fanbase, the next coach needs to establish a culture that makes big donors believe that UK football is a solid investment. Mitch, Capilouto and the BoT need too make some reforms also. One of the mosthelpful may be Mitch taking a more concilliatory approach to UK donors. In the past, I believe he has been more confrontational than need be with the very people who may be willing to fun U projects as some have done in basketball.
This is always a tough thing for me. You look at when Mumme was here we were exciting winning games, we started expanding the stadium. Then probabtion came our teams were awful, crowds were down, then Rich got us going again and we were exciting then the offense went away the crowds shrunk in size again.
I think back since we did the uprgade roughly 14 years ago. We have had 3 to maybe 4 good years of football at best. Tough to ask people to increase ticket prices when the product on the field is so bad. Seems like everytime we get going we plunge downhill right before we can bring in more to improve things.
Now you might say if we spent we would be better, and that might be correct, but it might not. Imagine the uproar if and how low ticket sales would be the last 2 years if the prices were say $100 more a ticket.
I agree completely that we need to spend more on football than we do, but you have to think in terms of return on investment. I am sure the admin has had plans to upgrade but when the product on the field is what it is and the ticket sales are down its gotta be tough.
All the other sports we uprgraded we in dire need of upgrades, its not like we built a new baseball stadium in 2002 and again in 2010.
Basketball pays for itself so it is a non issue.
This is one reason I have always felt that a big name coach is not what we need. We need an exciting high powered offense to watch. You have to put fans in the seats and keep them there. Its a whole lot more fun to lose 60-54 then 10-3.
I am sure i am about to get railed for this post, but its just the way I look it.
Losing is losing. This isn't the carnival and shouldn't be treated as such. The objective is not to field something amusing for fans to watch, the objective is to improve, incrementally if necessary, as a football program.
Improving the football program necessarily includes improving the worst-funded facilities in the SEC. It necessarily includes attracting the best head coach possible, which is helped by improving poor facilities and demonstrating commitment to the football program. It necessarily includes attracting the best players possible, which is helped by having a good coaching staff.
Hal Mumme had a solitary season above .500. He never finished above 4th (of 6) in the SEC East. He lost in both of the bowl games he coached. You don't get a style points for losing but scoring a bunch of points. You just get a loss.
It's only a whole lot more fun to lose 60-54 the first few times. After that, it's just another loss in a long string of losses.
I think you are completely missing my point. At no time do i expect this program to be a carnival, however un your lean years, especially at the beginning and your rebuilding years, it is something to amuse your fans.
What Brooks and Mumme both did was keep the fans coming back. Without the fans there is no funding. Both given more time and been able to have more funding given. If no one is showing up to the games we are not get funding, due to the fact of we wont be able to repay it. Especially if you are adding a coupke of million in head coach salaries.
While once again completely agree that funding is most, looking back had Mumme not cheated and been able to bounce back with some better years or brooks late in his years or the hciw fiasco had not happened unsuccesfuly we might have more funding or better facilities now.
I would imagine one of the first things a big name coach would look at would be the plans for improving the facilities and if the answer is "uh, we will talk about it", then he probably says no thank you. A good coach knows that competition both on the field and off the field in the SEC is a daunting thing and unless the university makes a strong commitment to improving the facilities and the way the players perceive the program around the country(yes the country) then getting a big name big result coach will be impossible. Josh, this was an eye opening thread great job finding it.
This post was edited by sleepydog 17 months ago
Recruiting budgets? $336,035 for football, $317,426 for basketball
Basketball uses private jets for free all the time, has far fewer players to scout and recruit, yet they have almost the same recruiting budget. AMAZING! We need to double our FB recruiting budget at a minimum.
Combo credit here. ESPN for doing all the legwork and Mr. SEC for pulling SEC data and making it easy to digest.
ESPN.com has run the numbers to find the biggest-spending FBS schools in the country when it comes to recruiting budgets. You can read their full report right
Your team. All the time.
What jump out at me is GA Fl they got all world talent in thier state and still spend 2× what we do....pitiful
And what jumps out at me its that half the recruiting budget and yet the CATS still compete with UGA year in and year out. And the CATS spend more than MSU, USC, & a&m and they beat the CATS like a drum. I think a little too much is put on the amount spent instead of how its spent. If you spend all your money recruiting lower tier talent then you obviously don't need more money you need better recruiters. I am for a much larger recruiting bonus, I just want it managed properly. For basketball to spend the $$ they do it's ridiculous to ask the football program to recruit 9x the kids for the same budget.
I think that $1,000,000 number would be a good target for the future. Honoestly, I would've thought recruiting budgets would be higher than $300,000.
It really was a good find and very informative. Thanks again Josh.
This post was edited by James Mahoney 17 months ago
How in the world can anyone say what number we should spend or what amount is not enough. Without looking at the budget, current expenditures, or areas that weve cut to save money, there is no way to make a rational opionion. Just because someone else spends more does not mean we have to. You would have to look at what there spending it on. So to come up with a number is impossible. Should we spend more on recruiting, I have no idea. That is something for the new coach to deterimine. If he can recruit successfully off that budget then fine, if he needs more he should have that option. But just because one spends more than another means nothing unless you are looking at complete financial breakdowns on each team
The issue is that Ole Miss, SC, and TAMU all have fantastic local recruiting bases to draw from. They don't HAVE to spend large numbers. We should be much higher up on the list in spending, because to compete we will need to recruit regionally, super-regionally, and even nationally. That's how Tennessee built what they did in the 90's (and retain the budget for exactly that).
Bottom Line: You have to spend more to recruit kids that are farther away. Lack of in-state talent kills us.
My number wasn't down to the penny. I know that no one can acurately project how much UK should be spending on recruiting. However, when you take into account what other schools are spending and how much farther UK has to travel to get to their main grounds, Florida and Georgia, you can tell that what UK currently spends is embarrassing.
The $330k includes official visit costs (meals, travel, hotel accommodations), travel, meal and hotel accommodations for the staff, recruiting service subscriptions, mailings, phones, etc...UK recruits probably around 300 prospects a year. $336k is such a small percentage of the budget.
The ptoblem is that you have these numbers that were spent and no info other than the totals. You can't make an accurate statement without knowing the details that go into those numbers. What if for example team "A" spends the most, but every summer the assitant coaches go to Hawaii to look at player then stay an additional 2 weeks with 30 members of their family in the Presidential Suite and charge to the recruiting budget. We don'tknow what the differance between our recruiting budget and everyone else besides the bottom line. Maybe other teams choose to fly to every recruit no matter the distance while some of our guys prefered driving because they didnt like flying.
When comes to what money we spend compared to other teams everyone wants to try to point out how Mitch is against football and how much is spent. Maybe that us accurate or maybe its not. Unless you can sit down with both teams expenditures and compare then we wont know. You cant say its embarrassing until you know all the facts. Thats why I say whatever the new coach wants to spend is fine so long as ge gets the job done.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports