Honest question. There may be a few more season tickets purchased by fans but in the grand scheme of things, that is chump change compared to the SEC money UK receives. I don't know how SEC profit sharing works; does the university receive the same amount of money if the teams goes 0-12 or if they go 7-5? If so, Stoops will be there 2 more years regardless of record. Beyond that, why should the University care, they will always have basketball?
Does a good football team financially benefit UK?
- Thread starter gomminit33
- Start date
A couple of million $$ isn't chump change regardless of how much SEC money is received.
Each school gets an equal share of SEC money but teams in bowl games get to keep most of the bowl game revenue.
Alabama receives $13.8 million from basketball, $97 million from football.
UK receives $25.2 million from basketball, $35.5 million from football...
Think it makes a difference?
Each school gets an equal share of SEC money but teams in bowl games get to keep most of the bowl game revenue.
Alabama receives $13.8 million from basketball, $97 million from football.
UK receives $25.2 million from basketball, $35.5 million from football...
Think it makes a difference?
Football is your piggy bank that you want as full as you can get it
Kentucky has lost a lot of Football fans over the years mismanaging the program. Many apologists will be quick to run on here, and tell you, Kentucky downsized their stadium by 10k because of HDTV, etc. Kentucky plays in the SEC, yes, but still couldn't field a competitive team with the exception of a few Brooks years, even in other teams down years.
Louisville up the road keeps expanding their stadium, and appear to make the right investments. Putting money back in their program year after year.
All we get are excuse after excuse coaches don't want to come here, you can't recruit at Kentucky, etc. The powers that be at Kentucky when it comes to Football has always looked for excuses, and the cheapest way out.
Kentucky could've actually made money on ticket sales, etc. I believe they would be totally content to go 6-6, and Bowling every year, but those who would have enjoy those seasons are long gone. They may find themselves short of fans on game days, but as long as that check comes in, and they win 6 all is good.
Louisville up the road keeps expanding their stadium, and appear to make the right investments. Putting money back in their program year after year.
All we get are excuse after excuse coaches don't want to come here, you can't recruit at Kentucky, etc. The powers that be at Kentucky when it comes to Football has always looked for excuses, and the cheapest way out.
Kentucky could've actually made money on ticket sales, etc. I believe they would be totally content to go 6-6, and Bowling every year, but those who would have enjoy those seasons are long gone. They may find themselves short of fans on game days, but as long as that check comes in, and they win 6 all is good.
Basically all media, NCAA and bowl money goes to the conference. In the case of football the conference, in turn, grants an expense payout to the participating member. I'm not sure how basketball expense are covered but I would think in a similar manner. I am pretty sure Tier 3 TV rights were given to the SECN. So basically all revenue other than ticket sales, marketing based income, local media (i.e., radio) or other "locally generated" income is shared equally among the members. For the 2014-2015 financial year that amount was $32.7M per school, up from about $21M the previous reporting year. The difference is mainly attributed to the SECN.
FWIW, the USA Today athletic income database showed UK at #14 overall with athletic revenue of $116.5M. So about 25% of UK's athletic income comes from SEC revenue sharing.
Peace
FWIW, the USA Today athletic income database showed UK at #14 overall with athletic revenue of $116.5M. So about 25% of UK's athletic income comes from SEC revenue sharing.
Peace
The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes. Basketball makes nothing. When the SEC and ESPN formed the SEC Network the landscape of college football changed in the South. If you are a bottom feeder, your revenue really struggles. You can make a ton of more money just being a middle of the pack team.
Now pre SEC Network, you didn't have the difference in being a middle of the pack or a bottom feeder. You had to be a top dog to make a difference. It isn't like Mitch just woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's try to make football good here at UK." The SEC Network changed Mitch's attitude.
Now pre SEC Network, you didn't have the difference in being a middle of the pack or a bottom feeder. You had to be a top dog to make a difference. It isn't like Mitch just woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's try to make football good here at UK." The SEC Network changed Mitch's attitude.
If the money was in basketball instead of football, all the other sec schools would quit investing so much in football and would be building basketball programs. We should be doing both.
Of course. Think about merchandise sales that do not happen because UK stinks in football. There are a number of ways a winning team benefits UK. But also think about what it would do for the local economy in Central Kentucky. More people in the stadium means more hotel rooms, more restaurant money and more gasoline for vehicles coming to games from around the state and even out of state. The economy takes a huge hit when UK stinks.
If UK was as good as Alabama, then UK would have a football stadium that seats 100K people and it would be filled each week. That would generate more merchandise sales along with a lot of other things. Then there would be the commercial TV revenue that would be tied to a successful program like Alabama. So yes, UK would GREATLY benefit from a successful football program.
The fact our fans still don't understand this simple concept shows how far we have to go. We could double or triple our revenue stream with a succesful team. We've squeezed about every dollar possible out of basketball that can be had...and we're still $10 million shy of the revenue generated by a half full stadium for a team that hasn't gone bowling in 5 years. Truly astonishing how so many casual UK fans are oblivious or point to the SEC contracts as adequate substitute.
Football revenue remains the top athletic revenue producer. Basketball is profitable, but not like football. The SEC network is a strong revenue source for all schools. At the end of the day football is the athletic department's top revenue producer. A winning football program would blow you away with the revenue it produces plus the benefit to fans, facilities and stadium (and in UK's case academic endeavors).
Another factor I don't think has been mentioned above is happy alums who feel part of a successful University sports program tend to give more to academics as well. Hard to measure but rest assured many fans who get out of the habit of coming to UK for football aren't as likely to get it the check book to give to the college that educated them .
In other words sports helps them stay connected and feel part of the university . Note Mark Emmerts often quoted comment about the importance of football to LSU and Walter Gees similar comment about Ohio State. I can't stand either one of them but they do make my point here . Same thing with Notre Dame . A way to strengthen academics by including people who would otherwise not make the university a spending priority .
In other words sports helps them stay connected and feel part of the university . Note Mark Emmerts often quoted comment about the importance of football to LSU and Walter Gees similar comment about Ohio State. I can't stand either one of them but they do make my point here . Same thing with Notre Dame . A way to strengthen academics by including people who would otherwise not make the university a spending priority .
UK's Admin and athletic department's approach to FB is analogous to saying we're a 1980's Detroit car company that is good at everything except building and selling quality cars (e.g. great HR, company climate, retirement, perks, advertising, facilities, etc). The big 3 ignored quality and the competition to their demise.
For UK.....the fact of the matter is FB is central the most lucrative athletic business line in college sports, and we've been indifferent about it for years. We've let a lot of opportunity pass (HC hires, low performance periods by others in the SECE, programmed continuous facilities investments.....), and now we have a long, long way to go. The road to recovery starts with the AD and a savvy HC. When the next coaching hire comes, I hope we're ready to give it the attention it demands.
For UK.....the fact of the matter is FB is central the most lucrative athletic business line in college sports, and we've been indifferent about it for years. We've let a lot of opportunity pass (HC hires, low performance periods by others in the SECE, programmed continuous facilities investments.....), and now we have a long, long way to go. The road to recovery starts with the AD and a savvy HC. When the next coaching hire comes, I hope we're ready to give it the attention it demands.
Truth. People also underestimate the overall impact to the entire university. I read somewhere that during the Saban tenure at Alabama, they have seen applications from out of state increase by a third. Think about that. People see Bama winning on national TV and they want to go to school there. I guarantee you that our "friends" (not really) up I-64 will see a jump of their own with all of the exposure they and their QB are now getting.
These things are true.
George Mason (about 5 miles from my home) made a goal to make the Final Four as a way to increase enrollment. Somehow, they achieved this in 2006, and the school is massive (students complain about not having anywhere to park. Wait, UK students do that too).
UK gets a lot of attention because of basketball, but will get that much more with a powerful football team.
Even at UK, football games are the most exciting athletic events you can attend. (Some disagree, but who cares?) Imagine what it would be like if we were consistently good?
At $50 a ticket and 7 home games, ticket sales along if you sell out every game come to $23.7 Million. That's not counting K fund donations with season tickets, parking, concessions, merchandise. Yeah, having a good football team matters. It matters in the ten+ million dollars a year range.
I agree, we have one winning year and we sell out season tickets. We have 2 or 3 in a row and we start raising prices. We could easily double our football revenue with a team that wins 7-8 games a year and goes bowling. We need to find a coach who puts us in a better spot than Missouri, Vandy, and USCjr, and Mississippi State. If we can reliably go 3-1 against those teams we can reliably go bowling.
Yeah! no way the 20 plus million from football benefits UK. What planet r u on???/
Each school does donations different, at one time UK lumped all donations into one pot while like at UofL and other schools they separate donations by sport. However I could be wrong but I think the $35 million listed above is just money UK gets from the SEC.