45% of revenue share going to MB

[gamalielkid]

How does everyone feel about that?

Doesn't matter. That is only the money that the school itself can give to athlete's. The Big money is still going to come from NIL from individuals, etc.. This is all just window dressing and everyone knows it. Last year the Texas schools each paid over $50 million in NIL to their athelete's. You think that they are going to only pay $20 million now - heck no - they will be paying $75 million plus. It's actually smart for UK to put most of its money in basketball. The other SEC schools will not do that - which could put UK in the "CAT" bird seat - lol!

Go Big Blue!

 

[creeksman]

How much does UK pay the football coaching staff?

 

[Henogee1975]

Uk just needs to field a team right? Gonna suck off that SEC tv money teet anyway. Finish 8th or 16th, does it really matter money wise?

 

[1KentuckyBBN]

Matt Jones just tweeted this. Seems to me the way Stoops sound and satisfy about the revenue share seems to be true. LFG

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Matt Jones just tweeted this. Seems to me the way Stoops sound and satisfy about the revenue share seems to be true. LFG

So basically the faux outrage is overstated. What a surprise.

 

[Bereacat]

If football got 80% they'd still lose. It's not complicated

Players also care about being coached

Nope read here all the time it is only money now.

 

[UKbrassowTipIn93]

Oh

 

[notFromhere]

How does everyone feel about that?

Feel like someone just tried to kick me in the nuts but missed.

This was expected, because the people running the AD and thus the entire athletic department doesn't give 2 ***** about football. So they can gft. Not giving another dime in tickets and merch. Won't watch either sport on any of my devices. Will spend my money elsewhere.

Football splitting less than 55% over 100+ players while basketball splits 45% over 15 players is a ******* joke. If this is what they're really going to do, I hope they never win another title in basketball.

 

[notFromhere]

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.

UK Women's volleyball won the first Natty of any of the original SEC schools just a few years back and is on a tear in conference titles of late. Far outpaces any other sport besides the rifle team as of now.

 

[1KentuckyBBN]

Feel like someone just tried to kick me in the nuts but missed.

This was expected, because the people running the AD and thus the entire athletic department doesn't give 2 ***** about football. So they can gft. Not giving another dime in tickets and merch. Won't watch either sport on any of my devices. Will spend my money elsewhere.

Football splitting less than 55% over 100+ players while basketball splits 45% over 15 players is a ******* joke. If this is what they're really going to do, I hope they never win another title in basketball.

The numbers that came out, wasn’t accurate. Sounds like football is getting a good amount.

 

[notFromhere]

Oh

Is Jones an idiot? Top of the tweet talks about NIL while the bottom talks about revenue. The two are not the same and no one was talking about % split of NIL....

 

[notFromhere]

The numbers that came out, wasn’t accurate. Sounds like football is getting a good amount.

Until it's clarified and the %'s appropriate, my comment stands. Tired of this **** and football getting **** on by this program and fanbase even during 10 win seasons.

 

[1KentuckyBBN]

Until it's clarified and the %'s appropriate, my comment stands. Tired of this **** and football getting **** on by this program and fanbase even during 10 win seasons.

You do realize, he isn’t the only one.

 

[bigblueinsanity (the real)]

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

Of course you aren't asking that, because that makes the answer obvious.

Its absurd to act like uk football doesn't know success. Last year was the first down year in a long time. That followed a really good run that included multiple new years day or eve bowl games. Those too were money makers and drew bigger tv audiences than uk vs unc in basketball on the same time slot.

Also, dont look now but UK basketball finished middle of the pack last year. Then if you go by historical performance, cheerleading should get the most.

I love both sports. There just isnt a logical reason uk shouldn't follow the rest of the sec and give the lions share to football. The only fair way to split the money is by allocating it based on percentage of revenue it brings in. Especially when you consider football has to spread that across 50 players (i know many more are on the roster, but i assume 35-50 get paid) vs 15.

 

[K_TIME]

Feel like someone just tried to kick me in the nuts but missed.

This was expected, because the people running the AD and thus the entire athletic department doesn't give 2 ***** about football. So they can gft. Not giving another dime in tickets and merch. Won't watch either sport on any of my devices. Will spend my money elsewhere.

Football splitting less than 55% over 100+ players while basketball splits 45% over 15 players is a ******* joke. If this is what they're really going to do, I hope they never win another title in basketball.

Well to be fair.

-Stoops at nearly 10M per and a few years ago that was top 5 SEC money
-Tons of money for Marrow, Coen, assistants the along the way
-Facilities upgraded for football thru all of Stoops tenure
- May not have been Bama, Ole Miss, etc.. levels....but we got into the portal game and bought some dang good players in the past few years

I do think we are in a football league that has some serious $$$ that UK may not eclipse (Auburn, Texas, Texas AM, Bama, Tenn, etc...)....but I do think UK competes as well financially with the USC, Mizzou, Miss St, Ole Miss, etc.. of the league).

If this is a chess move to show Stoops we aren't investing in you to get to a lower buyout as the program's energy is at a very low point and since this is Stoops 13 season...and 5th offensive coordinator, etc....) .....then that makes some sense to me and I'd assume the next coach we'd move to give him more resources to succeed.

I don't think UK has cheaped out on football.....Mitch was a snail pace to get in line with NIL....but that was for all UK sports.

 

[CB3UK]

I want Kentucky to be successful in all our sports programs, but reality is I only actively follow and attend football, basketball, and baseball games.

I get why people say just go all in on basketball, but football pays the bills. You can't just gut your athletics department, even if conventional wisdom says we'll never be Alabama in football. You just hamper you finances even further. Plus you lose fan support for football when we run a MAC team out there, compounding things even further. On top of that, what legitimate up and coming coach is going to want to come here?

Stoops has shown we can be consistently relevant and win 8-10 games. I feel like I'm realistic and that is generally good enough for me. I accept the fact that the sun will implode before Kentucky runs the table in football. But you have to make the effort and you have to try.

 

[Saguaro Cat]

Feel like someone just tried to kick me in the nuts but missed.

This was expected, because the people running the AD and thus the entire athletic department doesn't give 2 ***** about football. So they can gft. Not giving another dime in tickets and merch. Won't watch either sport on any of my devices. Will spend my money elsewhere.

If you could also stop posting about those sports, that would be great

 

[notFromhere]

If this is a chess move to show Stoops we aren't investing in you to get to a lower buyout as the program's energy is at a very low point and since this is Stoops 13 season...and 5th offensive coordinator, etc....) .....then that makes some sense to me and I'd assume the next coach we'd move to give him more resources to succeed.

I appreciate creative thinking more than most do, but I don't buy this idea at all.

1. Stoops isn't going to lower his buyout. He has no incentive to do so, investment or no investment. Bad business move if he does.
2. You don't sell the job to the next guy by not investing in the current guy. Bama and Georgia can do that, because they've won at high levels consistently.
3. Withholding money from this football program only stunts momentum and growth. (And we DO still have momentum because kids coming up into college still remember the 10 win seasons, bowl games/victories, ending streaks, and flipping the script on UF even when the gators recruiting didn't slip much.)

I don't think UK has cheaped out on football.....Mitch was a snail pace to get in line with NIL....but that was for all UK sports.

I never said they "cheaped out" on football, but let's face it, the facility upgrades were a decade late (promised to Brooks) and 30yrs behind the SEC. That was money OWED to football during that time and didn't even cover the interest on the debt.

What this program has done/does consistently is consistently underpay their primary revenue earner (football) and we saw/see the results of that over decades. It doesn't turn around overnight, and it def doesn't when you are still undercutting it in terms of revenue.

Renovating the stadium facade was nice on the surface, and the recruiting facility was an absolute necessity, but we lost seats and revenue because there weren't any expansion plans. They need to stop treating football like the stepchild that lives under the stairs and it will stop acting like it.

 

[K_TIME]

I appreciate creative thinking more than most do, but I don't buy this idea at all.

1. Stoops isn't going to lower his buyout. He has no incentive to do so, investment or no investment. Bad business move if he does.
2. You don't sell the job to the next guy by not investing in the current guy. Bama and Georgia can do that, because they've won at high levels consistently.
3. Withholding money from this football program only stunts momentum and growth. (And we DO still have momentum because kids coming up into college still remember the 10 win seasons, bowl games/victories, ending streaks, and flipping the script on UF even when the gators recruiting didn't slip much.)



I never said they "cheaped out" on football, but let's face it, the facility upgrades were a decade late (promised to Brooks) and 30yrs behind the SEC. That was money OWED to football during that time and didn't even cover the interest on the debt.

What this program has done/does consistently is consistently underpay their primary revenue earner (football) and we saw/see the results of that over decades. It doesn't turn around overnight, and it def doesn't when you are still undercutting it in terms of revenue.

Renovating the stadium facade was nice on the surface, and the recruiting facility was an absolute necessity, but we lost seats and revenue because there weren't any expansion plans. They need to stop treating football like the stepchild that lives under the stairs and it will stop acting like it.

So, give me some specifics things UK football should have invested in more $$$ and choose not to?

Was there a coach we let go that we should have countered and kept? (I think most left UK for a better job title like head coach or DCoordinator)
Is there a facility upgrade that we over looked that would have made a difference in wins/losses?
Are we talking about buying players in the Stoops era before NIL that could have made a difference (I'll agree that this is the main area were $$ can make a difference)?
Are we talking about buying more players in the post NIL era where it's now openly legal to do so?

I just here this argument constantly......but in the Stoops era...we're not spending like a top 2-3 SEC program....but I'd argue we spent on par with top 10 SEC programs in the Stoops era.

 

[notFromhere]

So, give me some specifics things UK football should have invested in more $$$ and choose not to?

The 70s, 80s, first half of the 90s, the first decade after 2000.

Was there a coach we let go that we should have countered and kept? (I think most left UK for a better job title like head coach or DCoordinator)

I don't consider coaches to be investments in the program. They're hired hands/mercs at this point that will leave at the drop of a hat. Paying top 5 SEC money for HC and Coords is a minimum requirement/commitment, which we've finally reached.

Is there a facility upgrade that we over looked that would have made a difference in wins/losses?

See first comment about the 70s, 80s, early 90s, and first decade of this century. Catching up to everyone a few years ago is not "winning," but merely being somewhat competitive.

Are we talking about buying players in the Stoops era before NIL that could have made a difference (I'll agree that this is the main area were $$ can make a difference)?

No. Obviously buying them is against the rules.

Everything about how you recruit them makes a difference, AS WELL AS what you do for them once they're here. They've made great strides in player experience on campus, but not as much in recruiting. Sending out preseason press kits for players that should be considered for AA, AllSEC, and national awards is just a start and something UK has NEVER DONE.

A friend that wrote for sports publications got a TON of stuff marketing players for such awards for decades. Never got a thing from UK, even when they had some great players on the team. Oklahoma inundated him with merch selling their best players. It made a difference because it makes writers watch games and players they might not otherwise see or pay attention to during a busy season.

Are we talking about buying more players in the post NIL era where it's now openly legal to do so?

It's not legal yet. There's been no rulings either way to know. Still not what I'm talking about though.

I just here this argument constantly......but in the Stoops era...we're not spending like a top 2-3 SEC program....but I'd argue we spent on par with top 10 SEC programs in the Stoops era.

I'm not even talking about COMPARATIVE SPENDING (to other programs) if you were actually reading what I posted. I'm JUST talking about consistent % of revenue spending, which has NEVER approached being in the black. We've underfunded (as a % of revenue) the football budget for well over 30 years (really since the stadium was built other than a handful of years) and NO ONE that is reasonable would argue otherwise.

Football has kept the entire athletic dept afloat while basketball has managed its revenue AND THEN SOME for decades. I'm not playing the semantics games that basketball people insist on playing. I'm done.

Basketball doesn't need $9M of revenue per year. $4-6M is plenty to do what they need to do with 15 players.

What the dept needs to spend money on is transportation for recruiting and game purposes as well as a new football stadium. It's about time they got back what they've given to this athletic program.

 

[TuckyFB]

So, give me some specifics things UK football should have invested in more $$$ and choose not to?

Was there a coach we let go that we should have countered and kept? (I think most left UK for a better job title like head coach or DCoordinator)
Is there a facility upgrade that we over looked that would have made a difference in wins/losses?
Are we talking about buying players in the Stoops era before NIL that could have made a difference (I'll agree that this is the main area were $$ can make a difference)?
Are we talking about buying more players in the post NIL era where it's now openly legal to do so?

I just here this argument constantly......but in the Stoops era...we're not spending like a top 2-3 SEC program....but I'd argue we spent on par with top 10 SEC programs in the Stoops era.

Are you being serious? We literally ran off Bear ******* Bryant because we wouldn't fund the ******* program.

 

[K_TIME]

Are you being serious? We literally ran off Bear ******* Bryant because we wouldn't fund the ******* program.

This was talking of during the Stoops era.......

Stoops was 3rd highest paid HC behind Saban and Kirby for a bit
We pay out top assistants to keep them (those that left were for HC gigs, or DCoordinator gigs, etc...)
We have very good by SEC standards facilities now
We have been bidding for some very good NIL kids (now this year it fell off a cliff)

What exact financial whiff have we made on football since Stoops has been here?

 

[FireWentOut]

Makes sense really. Football doesn't make money. SEC TV football contract makes the money.

This is what people need to understand to understand the decision making in the front office. They don't care about football because it makes them money win or lose. In their eyes Basketball gives them the best chance of winning at a major level. Football, not so much.

Anyone remember when we were getting drop kicked by Florida every year 72-3. The stands were full of fans then and they will be full of fans now. People have nothing better to do and no other teams to support. Open the doors, give them a pint, and they are happy. Woo ha.

Besides, we can't win until Stoops is gone anyway. It's like swimming in the deepest part of the ocean with a stone tied around your neck. You are going to sink eventually.

 

[o_satcheluk]

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

This! For all the jokers saying Mitch should give half, most, all of the money to basketball, they have no idea how this works. This is a business and one part of the business(FB) generates 50-75% more revenue than basketball, so if that dips then that will negatively affect the entire athletic department, including basketball. Football needs to be funded on par with league peers and basketball is more than capable of making up additional player funding through NIL with national and more local advertising partners.

 

[o_satcheluk]

Doesn't matter. That is only the money that the school itself can give to athlete's. The Big money is still going to come from NIL from individuals, etc.. This is all just window dressing and everyone knows it. Last year the Texas schools each paid over $50 million in NIL to their athelete's. You think that they are going to only pay $20 million now - heck no - they will be paying $75 million plus. It's actually smart for UK to put most of its money in basketball. The other SEC schools will not do that - which could put UK in the "CAT" bird seat - lol!

Go Big Blue!

Every payment from NIL over $600, has to be contractual and get approval from Deloitte, so it has to be work and it has to be market rate. No more pay for play and I suspect the bigger the city, the more advantageous for what constitutes market rate.

 

[o_satcheluk]

This was talking of during the Stoops era.......

Stoops was 3rd highest paid HC behind Saban and Kirby for a bit
We pay out top assistants to keep them (those that left were for HC gigs, or DCoordinator gigs, etc...)
We have very good by SEC standards facilities now
We have been bidding for some very good NIL kids (now this year it fell off a cliff)

What exact financial whiff have we made on football since Stoops has been here?

Since Marrie left, our asst coaches salary pool is now like 3rd from the bottom.

 

[BlueVelvetFog]

This! For all the jokers saying Mitch should give half, most, all of the money to basketball, they have no idea how this works. This is a business and one part of the business(FB) generates 50-75% more revenue than basketball, so if that dips then that will negatively affect the entire athletic department, including basketball. Football needs to be funded on par with league peers and basketball is more than capable of making up additional player funding through NIL with national and more local advertising partners.

I hate a segment of our fans

 

[ScrewDuke1]

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.

I think that dude was being sarcastic. At least I hope so because no way any UK can really believes that

 

[Ednunn]

I have my doubts.

 

[BlueVelvetFog]

Oh look its the resident dumbass who only comes onto the football forum to start ****.

Apparently some are giddy at the prospect

Kentucky is believed to be dedicating 45% - Forums

of its $20.5 million revenue-sharing budget to men's basketball for 2025-26. So, $9.225 million. Over three times what most SEC schools will do. If true, that's a bold move.

www.on3.com

 

[BlueVelvetFog]

Of course you aren't asking that, because that makes the answer obvious.

Its absurd to act like uk football doesn't know success. Last year was the first down year in a long time. That followed a really good run that included multiple new years day or eve bowl games. Those too were money makers and drew bigger tv audiences than uk vs unc in basketball on the same time slot.

Also, dont look now but UK basketball finished middle of the pack last year. Then if you go by historical performance, cheerleading should get the most.

I love both sports. There just isnt a logical reason uk shouldn't follow the rest of the sec and give the lions share to football. The only fair way to split the money is by allocating it based on percentage of revenue it brings in. Especially when you consider football has to spread that across 50 players (i know many more are on the roster, but i assume 35-50 get paid) vs 15.

This is the correct response

 

[1KentuckyBBN]

This is the correct response

People also forgetting, Champion blue is football NIL thing, Collectives and donors and Businesses. Football collective is around 13 million, But, what I can tell you, what I heard is Kentucky football is getting good amount of the revenue share. That’s why those number are off.