How does everyone feel about that?
45% of revenue share going to MB
- Thread starter RedLotCat
- Start date
^^^ not so good from a FB perspective. Link to story from J Rowland:
www.on3.com
Report: 45% of UK's revenue sharing going to men's basketball
According to a new report Kentucky is going far beyond other SEC teams with revenue sharing for college basketball.
Need to be realistic about the athletic/financial situation at Kentucky. As a football first fan I would give anything to compete for a national championship in football, but realistically that will never happen under the current circumstances. UK stands about 14 or 15th out of 16 in terms of financial/NIL support from boosters in the SEC, and that is unlikely to improve unless we get outside investment.
I've always said we need to leverage our horse racing industry to entice some rich dude from Saudi Arabia to invest in UK lol, we have to get creative in order to compete with the likes of Texas, aTm, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Bama, etc...
That being said, if we can't financially compete with the big dogs in football, I would rather UK put more money where we can actually compete for championships (basketball) than suck at both sports. Imagine being a Mississippi State fan. Gross.
I've always said we need to leverage our horse racing industry to entice some rich dude from Saudi Arabia to invest in UK lol, we have to get creative in order to compete with the likes of Texas, aTm, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Bama, etc...
That being said, if we can't financially compete with the big dogs in football, I would rather UK put more money where we can actually compete for championships (basketball) than suck at both sports. Imagine being a Mississippi State fan. Gross.
Same as it ever has been. They whined their way there and are still whining for more
Yeah, I'm sure giving the football program less revenue share is going to make a coach who could help us compete want to come here. Man, some of you are geniuses.
It’s not going to be sustainable. The revenue share pot will drop every year. The athletic department will not be secure in near future if we don’t have a good football program. At least Kansas and Duke, UNC are investing in football more. At least they’re smart. Why need 9 million for basketball? When it can hold it own.
Kentucky basketball has probably had 35%-40% for the last 2 decades. Whined 5% more percent out of the AD and has 1 championship to show for it. I hope we can actually get past the Elite 8 for the first time in *checks notes* 10 years.
Imagine if UK football had 45% of the ******* revenue share.
Imagine if UK football had 45% of the ******* revenue share.
Well, I think the business district and the fan zone and stuff around Kroger field is going to help bring in the revenue. Plus the $110 million investment into the stadium with more seatings and more premium seats To attract more money.
Call me cynical, but who is Matt Norlander and how reliable is he? I cannot believe any SEC team would devote less than 50% of its shared revenue to football, that would be suicide.
Since we are just going off unconfirmed speculation, how much is going to womens basketball and baseball?
Since we are just going off unconfirmed speculation, how much is going to womens basketball and baseball?
I was wondering the same thing about that. Because this is not gonna be sustainable. I don’t think Mitch is that stupid.
UK has invested heavily in football over the past several years, we have a coach that is being paid on par with some of the best coaches in the country. Yet we’re expected to be near the bottom of the conference again. I would love for football to be consistently competitive but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
We play in the top college football league in the country. If the school is not going to make a good faith effort at doing everything they can to compete in football, then fans will just quit supporting the program. If those that makes these decisions think they can short change football and still enjoy the revenue it bring in, they are in store for a rude awakening.
If Kentucky isn't going to do what they can to compete in football then they should just drop football and replace matchups with Tennessee, Florida and South Carolina with big BB games against Davidson, Gonzaga, Villanova, and Furman
If Kentucky isn't going to do what they can to compete in football then they should just drop football and replace matchups with Tennessee, Florida and South Carolina with big BB games against Davidson, Gonzaga, Villanova, and Furman
It's pathetic and of course dumbass fans on Twitter cheering it on.
Makes sense really. Football doesn't make money. SEC TV football contract makes the money. Winning isn't going to do much more. And you can talk about tickets, but that's not any good. We were winning a few years ago and fans were still complaining about tailgating and not showing up for a lot of games. We were begging people to come see Eastern or Akron. Just need to keep it above 3-9.
Plus, maybe this is more encouragement for Stoops to take a buyout. You're not pulling out of this tailspin. Why would we give him 5 million dollars to raise recruiting class from 49th to 41st.
We can revisit the split when the next guy gets here.
Plus, maybe this is more encouragement for Stoops to take a buyout. You're not pulling out of this tailspin. Why would we give him 5 million dollars to raise recruiting class from 49th to 41st.
We can revisit the split when the next guy gets here.
4-5 million isn't gonna help UK football.. Could give them 18-19 million of it and might get to middle of the pack in the conference..
Oh look its the resident dumbass who only comes onto the football forum to start ****.
Well, if we drop football, we would have to leave the SEC, because that’s the only reason why we have the money. Then once we move to another conference will lose that money.
If football got 80% they'd still lose. It's not complicated
Players also care about being coached
Players also care about being coached
I think Missouri and Ole Miss has few words on that. They’re being creative.
If that article is serious, I hope we do drop football. Let's see how all the other sports do, then.
Although i initially didn't think the number was quite this high, because its absurd, i am now starting to wonder.
Mitch should've immediately tweeted something about it being inaccurate but has not. Even knowing the players could just immediately sit out with plans to enter the portal.
So jmo it probably isnt 45% but it must not be far off. Even if it is far off Mitch is committing malpractice by not correcting it.
Mitch should've immediately tweeted something about it being inaccurate but has not. Even knowing the players could just immediately sit out with plans to enter the portal.
So jmo it probably isnt 45% but it must not be far off. Even if it is far off Mitch is committing malpractice by not correcting it.
The whole athletic department will collapse
Well, one guy did say that he doesn’t find it to be true for some odd reason. Stoop seems satisfied about something when they ask him about Revenue sharing. So maybe I’m thinking that the sharing numbers may be off.
I agree with you. In this era we need to put as much as we can in football every year to keep the revenue coming in. We need to try to win in football. Put lot into it or it’s going to collapse. It’s not sustainable doing this way. It makes me wonder the business district around Kroger field going to make up a lot of the revenue is what Mitch is hoping. But he’s never confirmed the numbers either so.
8 straight bowl seasons, 2 10 win seasons (2 of the 4 in our entire history) and one bad season largely due to injuries (a lot hinged on Trayanum being very good for example) is a tail spin we can't pull out of?
Norlander is very solid.
Also to all the people claiming more should go to basketball because they win more, using that logic cheerleading should get the lion's share.
The reason deserves the most is because it makes the most, by far.
In all honesty, Baseball deserved it more, they had the most recent success. They went to college World Series and won SEC regular season couple of years ago.
If this is official, then I'm done. Imagine what message this sends to other fanbases in the conference.
Reds and Bengals for now on, I guess.
For those claiming this would be a year to year varying scale, forget it. UK is only interested in catching UCLA in titles. I don't see this changing to benefit football anytime in my lifetime.
Reds and Bengals for now on, I guess.
For those claiming this would be a year to year varying scale, forget it. UK is only interested in catching UCLA in titles. I don't see this changing to benefit football anytime in my lifetime.
If they put all 20 mil into football would they finish above mid pack? It's a serious question.
Im not asking for an answer of who brings in more revenue, im asking point black if the team would be competitive
They could get 90% and they'd still have enough fans in the stands to carry on because there's nothing to do in Lexington, especially in the wintertime.
I dont agree with the percentage and you have to try to compete financially. That said, we know the big boys will always outbid UK anyways though.
I wonder if this could be a get Stoops to leave type deal. I also am not sure I believe the allocation until I see it from more sources.
I wonder if this could be a get Stoops to leave type deal. I also am not sure I believe the allocation until I see it from more sources.
