More like Oakland than the slapd!cks...
- Thread starter the artist FKA zipp
- Start date
Nice graph though. Half of that was on cow and his dapper dan.
Looks like the graph shows that both Louisville and Kentucky might be way over-spending... Oakland was the only one of the three to win a tournament game this year, and they made it to the round of 32 where they even made it to overtime. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Very misleading, as it was never about Oakland, as they too are gone. UK‘s “one and done“ experiment has consequences, and BBN must decide now between winning the NBA talent war, or actually competing for championships.
BBN, Cal and UK are witnessing the results when the rest of the SEC decided to hire the best basketball coaches and displace UK from its historical perch.
BBN, Cal and UK are witnessing the results when the rest of the SEC decided to hire the best basketball coaches and displace UK from its historical perch.
I think you missed the point.
U of L spent $8.6 million on MBB in 2023, and $7.8 million the year before. Therefore...
And we wonder what's happened...
Oh wow! A graph that shows U of L did something right! Instead of spending the money that UK spends only to end in failure, U of L spent closer to what Oakland does and proves you don't have to spend a lot of money to get some good results! Yea!
U of L spent $8.6 million on MBB in 2023, and $7.8 million the year before. Therefore...
And we wonder what's happened...
Because the slapd!cks don't know how to spend their money ain't the point. We all know they're supreme idiots locked into their contract with Calipari. (Though no bigger than U of L is with Payne's contract...)
The issue is they HAVE 3X MORE to spend. U of L and Oakland are eating their dust.
And why wouldn't we be way behind? We spend far less more on men's basketball than we did when Pitino was here. My guess is the slappies are way up in that same time frame.
Completely coincidental with that, what is the state of the men's basketball program vs the other programs? This cluster still hasn't convinced anyone?...
The issue is they HAVE 3X MORE to spend. U of L and Oakland are eating their dust.
And why wouldn't we be way behind? We spend far less more on men's basketball than we did when Pitino was here. My guess is the slappies are way up in that same time frame.
Completely coincidental with that, what is the state of the men's basketball program vs the other programs? This cluster still hasn't convinced anyone?...
Of course they have more money to spend you insufferable buffoon - they’re a historically bigger program with a bigger fan base / donor group and they get between 12-15M more per year from the sec, and have for several years. It also doesn’t hurt that they’ve been scandal free for quite some time while your hero was asleep at the switch while his assistants ran wild breaking laws and rules.
Sheesh…
Nice try, but again the graph just as easily shows that both Kentucky and Louisville are overspending what is needed when compared to Oakland. If thrre is a desire to logically discuss a concern about the size of the budget for the program, with the contention that the budget should be bigger, the best and most direct way to alleviate that is through a new coach who is successful on the court and personable and approachable off the court.
Hey!!!! Why don’t you go over to their board and be a pain in the *** there….give us a break for awhile!!
Then let’s cut all spending to Oakland’s since it doesn’t matter.
“There goes a brown dog. Therefore all dogs are brown…”
How clever! Let me see if I’ve got the gist.
“Tom Jurich is not part of the ‘clown show’. Therefore anyone who is not Tom Jurich must be part of the ‘clown show’.”
Now see if you can make one in haiku format!
All of that $ and they only played one more game than UofL
U of L spent $8.6 million on MBB in 2023, and $7.8 million the year before. Therefore...
And we wonder what's happened...
I didn't say the spending level didn't matter. But maybe it would be worth examining why Oakland was able to have so much success on such a small budget. Clearly there's something they are doing better despite that small budget (player acquisition? coaching?). You embarrassed yourself with your own graph, and you might be able to earn some (a little?) credibility by just admitting that the graph, especially with it including Oakland, was not the best way to score your main point about budgets.
Lol @ OldhamCard335 et al.
just put him on ignore already if you are triggered so easily.
It's easy, even I figured out how to ignore quite a few posters here.
But your reasoning is just as faulty. Where’s UK’s national title? Why didn’t Texas A&M win the national title- in everything/ since they spend more (even for ex- football coaches)?
Enjoy the echo chamber big guy!
It's hilarious. This dude is literally the ref throwing a flag on a player that retaliated.
Oakland has ONE NCAA win in their program’s history, commensurate with their spending.
The embarrassment is on people who don’t understand analysis or who believe in a free lunch…
One data point means next-to-nothing. It means all dogs are brown.
The issue is who has money, how much, and the willingness to spend it. We’re lower and/or declining…