Online Now 940

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

On this Board 249
Record: 3046 (4/11/2012)

Online now 474
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

The Paddock

The place to discuss general topics outside of Kentucky

UK Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

UK Athletics Debt Service Capacity

  • Kooky Kats 247 said...

    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.

    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.

    This post was edited by rompcat on 8/11/2012 at 1:38 AM

    signature image

    rompcat

  • Matt May said...

    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.

    Your argument would hold "a little" more water, if we had a top notch defense last year. Instead, we had an inept offense, and a mediocre defense at best. For longer than I care to remember, even in our best years, we either have a good offense, or good defense, and we never have depth for either. I actually think that may be starting to slowly change, but people like you who act like 2011 was the only unacceptable year we have are part of the problem. If you care about UK football, stop defending mediocrity! The fact of the matter is Matt, that other than the 2006-2007 seasons, we have never been truly competive with the other SEC teams on our schedule, save a random game here or there. You can pick and choose "facts" to confirm anything you want to tell yourself, but UK is not, and has not been a top 25 team the majority of my lifetime, IE, we are not relevant! We already have enough obstacles to overcome. Please stop defending mediocrity!

    Catmando

  • We had a bad offense for one freaking year. By all means farrr Jokers ass, choke Mitch, and throw your season tickets off the golden gate bridge.

    "New coach equals renewed optimism and ticket sales." How bout a coach thats one of our own equals renewed optimism and ticket sales. Shouldn't we be supporting our own. Shouldn't we give that guy a chance to get things going. By all means we've been a top SEC program for a long time. We shouldn't accept one year without a bowl game. Hell we're a dominant program.

    This post was edited by tWhit on 8/11/2012 at 2:16 AM

    tWhit

  • Catmando said...

    Your argument would hold "a little" more water, if we had a top notch defense last year. Instead, we had an inept offense, and a mediocre defense at best. For longer than I care to remember, even in our best years, we either have a good offense, or good defense, and we never have depth for either. I actually think that may be starting to slowly change, but people like you who act like 2011 was the only unacceptable year we have are part of the problem. If you care about UK football, stop defending mediocrity! The fact of the matter is Matt, that other than the 2006-2007 seasons, we have never been truly competive with the other SEC teams on our schedule, save a random game here or there. You can pick and choose "facts" to confirm anything you want to tell yourself, but UK is not, and has not been a top 25 team the majority of my lifetime, IE, we are not relevant! We already have enough obstacles to overcome. Please stop defending mediocrity!

    I just don't get it. You took what Matt posted and turned it into him "defending mediocrity" and said "if you care about UK football, stop defending mediocrity!" You read Kooky's post and Matt's response to it and came up with that?

    Catmando, that's absurd...or you've been nipping off the 'ole jug a little much.

    Matt's post merely brought some "facts" in re to 2010 as a direct response to Kooky to show how unfounded Kooky's comment was in re to his assertion of (lack of) ticket sales being tied to our offense being unwatchable for the past two years (that being 2011 and 2010).

    Man, sometimes.....one guy mis- characterizes facts to support what he's saying, another guy comes along to point out that his facts are incorrect, and then a 3rd guy comes along blasting the 2nd guy about something he didn't even say (the guy merely brought forth the fact that our 2010 offense couldn't be characterized as "unwatchable").

    My God....we either need to improve our reading comprehension or cut back on our liquor consumption.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by ShockeyFork on 8/11/2012 at 4:43 AM

    ShockeyFork

  • Personally, I don't think CWS needs expanded. Its in need of a major face lift. Some paint and work done to the exterior. Think of it this way....when you get in tired of your living room you rip up the carpet and put down hard wood floors. You paint the walls, buy some pictures and get new furniture. You don't go out and buy a new house.

    I honestly could care less about the press box(sorry TCP staff) and things of that nature. I wonder if UK has done a study to know if they move the presss box to the top and put suites in that section if they will actually sell? Ultimately that's where all this is going is to increase revenue.

    I doubt players come because of a new press box or suites. I've known a few kids the past few seasons who have really talked up recruiting rooms and things of that nature when they've made their visits. One told me the Schnellenberger Complex was, "something to see" IMO, that is where UK is missing the boat.

    From a fan experience, I think the game day atmosphere was better last year and I liked the ribbon boards, but some of the quacky songs and band stuff makes me want to start drinking again. Whatever happened to the surveys that were filled out before last season? Never heard a plan of action from those. That is frustrating with the UKAA.

    UK football needs something to, "hang their hat on." Raise your hand if you were there for the, "We Believe" chant before OT verse LSU in 2007. Some pretty hair raising stuff wasn't it? In 2008 I called and asked if maybe this could be done at the start of the 4th quarter of each game. My answer was, "No, the administration thinks that should only belong to the 2007 team." Really? That would be one helluva tradition. Hell, do it before the game as well.

    As much shame as Mumme brought UK the Air Raid sirens were pretty damn neat.

    This post was edited by bigbluemist on 8/11/2012 at 6:58 AM

    bigbluemist

  • So why hasn't UK used this in the past, or should it be what have they used it on?

    JohnBlue_

  • JohnBlue_ said...

    So why hasn't UK used this in the past, or should it be what have they used it on?

    This is nothing but capacity to pay for a loan. There's been no loan approval (bonding requests) because it has been blocked by the legislature.

    I'm with the poster on the last page, maybe this is an attempt at bringing additional ammunition to the battle to get funding approved by the state, or be allowed to find another funding source.

    This has somehow been twisted into an attendance thread. The point is not exclusively about attendance, or what drives it, or what improves it. There's no real argument about any of that. Of course winning improves attendance. Of course exciting offenses improve attendance. Those aren't counter-arguments to the initial point.

    The initial point remains that those fans who didn't renew represent dollars counted in the study that shows how much debt can be serviced. If those dollars have gone away for any reason other than "teaching the administration a lesson" then hey, no problem. Folks can do with their money what they like.

    It's the people who didn't renew and believe that their non-renewal will help bring positive change that need to be aware of this. Let's pretend for a moment that the decrease makes decision makers start pushing improvements for football. Up to this point, football facilities have taken a backseat, despite being a huge contributor to a large revenue stream. By decreasing the viability of the stream, you decrease the ability to service debt. Decreasing the ability to service debt gives strength to those who want to prevent UK Athletics from taking on its own debt.

    JDHLaw11

  • I will admit that I didn't study the document but I read most of it. It was primarily focused on the financial status of the University as a whole with a less detailed analysis of debt carrying capacity of two important University endeavors, the medical center and athletics. They made a passing reference to athletics and indicated that a separate detailed analysis would be prepared. They did the same with the medical center. I think this particular document is not the one to hang your hat on in terms of the borrowing capacity of UK athletics which has complex, fluid, and substantial revenue streams. The overall financial health of the University is good and they can carry a lot more debt if they choose but despite that the overall instability of the economy and in particular, uncertainty about health care reform, increase the potential risks of borrowing at this point. It is important to understand just how much the University relies on the medical center to provide cash.

    If you had access to a detailed financial analysis of the athletic enterprise you would have a much better idea of the ability of athletics to shoulder debt. I believe the document circulated with this email did not adequately explain med center and athletic finances. Also, when a consulting group looks at these issues they look at more than two years revenue and consider how the overall football market is doing in the region. A temporary drop in ticket sales, especially when it is likely to be rapidly addressed with improved performance or a coaching change, does not dilute the value of the athletic business significantly in my opinion.

    zcats

  • Catmando said...

    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.

    The AD cannot earmark anything nada. Only the board can do that. He gives his wish list to the board and they say yes or no. People get really confused over this about the AD. He has no power to spend crap unless it is approved.

    dvillepro1

  • Also of note how much money is UK loosing with tickets sales down say 15,000 ?
    Say its 15,000 times what 30.00 per ticket thats 450,000 doll. A drip in the bucket to the 18 to 20 mill for the tv and bowl money. Lower ticket sales looks bad but the money is in the bowl money etc.

    Ticket sales will not effect the spending to much degree.

    dvillepro1

  • Dville that's 450k per game. Over an 7-8 game season that's 3.15 to 3.6 million. Not including the concessions and souvenirs. That's a lot of money regardless of who u are.

    jeffries123

Kentucky
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports