I think many of you read the story with a rather myopic POV. You see "Kentucky" and you read "the UK administration". When he says "Kentucky" he is talking about the fans/boosters too.
"Curci called Kentucky’s affinity for basketball “ridiculous” and noted it as a hindrance to football success.
Curci named basketball’s popularity and a lack of a recruiting base as the main obstacles facing Wildcat football. "
"What is happening is great, but it’s not enough. Not yet. The upgrades to Commonwealth will be good for UK football but the truth is that Kentucky is still behind most SEC schools in terms of football facilities and funding. Talent is behind but that appears to be improving. But Kentucky hasn’t bought in as a whole yet. One needs look no further than the student section at football games. A university where football is important fills more than 60% of it’s student tickets. Fans at such schools don’t roar louder for the basketball team being introduced between quarters than for their team taking an early lead over a Top Ten opponent. The list goes on."
To be fair, student attendance is down at most places. Hell, students aren't filling out their allotment for UK basketball either. There were nearly 1000 unclaimed student tickets put on sale for tomorrow's UCLA game earlier this week.
As the old saying goes... follow the money. Before the era of big TV contracts UK as well as most places were largely dependent upon booster money to fund the athletics programs. That meant that schools almost had to cater to whims of the people with the money. That set the culture. A culture that went much deeper than just UK. The KHSAA Sweet 16 has always been a bigger draw than HS football in the state. Historically, UK, UL, WKU, Murray St were all "basketball schools". EKU was a rare exception. Cultures change slowly and the deeper the culture, the slower the change.
Winning is required to garner support, support is required to win. One is the chicken, the other the egg.
