Cats athletics budget already at all-time high

[UKErik]

With the news today that Kentucky will receive over $30 million from the SEC, you have to wonder how big the next budget might be. UK's budget for this year was set at $117.7 million. You have to figure the budget for 2015-16 will far exceed that.

Kind of interesting (to me anyway). Over the last three years, here are UK's projections for revenue and expenditures (football and men's basketball);

Basketball Revenue: 2015 ($22.5), 2014 ($21.9), and 2013 ($18.1)....total projected revenue = $62.5 million
Basketball Exp.: 2015 ($16.5), 2014 ($12.9), and 2013 ($10.4)...total projected expenditures = $39.8 million
Difference: + $22.7 million

Football Revenue: 2015 ($31.8), 2014 ($30.6), and 2013 ($29.6)...total projected revenue = $92 million
Football Exp.: 2015 ($13), 2014 ($12.6), and 2013 ($ 9.2)...total projected expenditures = $34.8 million
Difference: + $57.2 million

I have no idea how UK comes up with those numbers, but I think a lot of people might be surprised that over the last three years, UK football's projected revenue was nearly $30 million more than men's basketball. Looking at expenditures, it becomes pretty apparent how much our "basketball school" depends on the football program.

Also, the cost of scholarships continues to climb; 2015 ($13.3), 2014 ($12.8), and 2013 ($11.0).

This years budget will be the first that includes the full cost of attendance stipend for student/athletes...will be interesting to see how much UK budgets for that.

GBB!!!

 

[UKErik]

BTW, not trying to start a football/basketball pissing contest. I just thought the numbers were interesting and might surprise a few folks.

GBB!!!

 

[UKErik]

Two other interesting facts;

*UK athletics is funding approximately 67% of the new $100+ million Academic Science building.
*UK athletics has contributed over $130 million to the university since 2002.

GBB!!!

 

[highlysuspicious]

those numbers are all you need to know about why the football program has seen the results it has.

the basketball expenditures are absolutely ridiculous and not worth it. to spend more money on a program that has 10-13 scholarship athletes which need far less in the way of facilities/equipment than a program with 85 scholarship athletes which needs a lot out of their facilities/equipment is beyond my comprehension.

before this turns into a barnhart debate, that discrepancy was even bigger before he got here.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Most every P5 school will show that football revenue eclipses all other sports. Most, as I understand, do not realize a profit from basketball. UK is special.

So, while these numbers are ripe for all sorts of discussion, they are not indicative of why UK has had any kind of result on the football field. Over the time frame described, UK has devoted a great deal of resources and expense toward football.

I suspect that if you could find a way to get 50,000 people into an arena with decent seats to watch basketball, the revenue at UK would increase dramatically. A debate between football and basketball over money is not productive.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Also, will 2015 expenses toward football include the stadium renovations and the new facilities currently being built?

 

[Houstonwildcat]

anyway to tell how much is allocated for recruiting ?

 

[teamcanada]

How does basketball spend around a million per player while football while football's cost is around $200,000.

 

[The Public Enemy]

anyway to tell how much is allocated for recruiting ?

Very valid point...for your Wildcats to compete in the SEC that budget should be on par if not above South Carolina and Tennessee...with South Carolina being the model you should try to duplicate...before Spurrier arrived it can be argued that Kentucky was the better Football Program.

 

[WildCard]

Two other interesting facts;

*UK athletics is funding approximately 67% of the new $100+ million Academic Science building.
*UK athletics has contributed over $130 million to the university since 2002.

GBB!!!

I was shocked at the revenue jump (~$10M ???) apparently due to the SEC network. I thought it would take several years to "make money", at least that much money. However, my thinking was rooted in the old school thinking that revenue was based on "viewership". The "packaging and distribution" of cable content creates a financial model that is not based on "viewership" of the content but on market penetration (i.e., number of subscribers).

By that I mean I have "had" the BIG channel ever since it started, have not watched a single program on it and I know that part of my ever escalating cable bill is going to BIG schools strictly as a result of my cable provider (TWC) carrying the Big Ten Network. Same for SEC network but at least I will watch a UK game if they are on. But almost all of the big SEC games are part of other network broadcasts so I don't have much cause to tune in there either. But I pay for it.

I guess I am just a conspiracy nut but the dissolution of the UKAA BoD and subsequent oversight by a University BoT subcommittee coincide with this windfall of athletic revenue. But, in the big picture, athletic based revenue funding a major academic project is certainly a good thing.

I am guessing you got those numbers off some kind of top level UKAA budget presentation. I have seen them in the past and they always included what we used to call a "brag sheet". Not to quibble but I feel quite certain much of the $130M "contribution" to the University was in the form of UKAA "purchased services" from the University as opposed to their long standing practice of a $1M-$2M annual "gift" to the school.

Peace

 

[Rhavicc]

Well, it's at an all-time high, but it won't stop there guys. On top of the SEC network, which will only expand, which in turn, means more money for UK, Kentucky agreed to a new multimedia marketing deal with JMI Sports. It's going to be one of the most lucrative deals in college athletics history, a $210 million, 15 year deal, with a signing bonus (that UK will receive in July of this year) of $29.4 million, which will only be used towards UK athletics, per Barnhart.
For comparison's sake, UK previous deal (With IMG, which expired last month) was worth $80.5 million over the course of 10 years. UK will make roughly 2.5x the money off of this deal).
Finally, he deal is 2nd to only one other tier 3 deal in the country, and the school that holds the #1 tier 3 deal is from the SEC (It's Alabama, making around a half a million-1 million more per year)
UK should come out clearing roughly $95 million+ per year at this pace, with potential to crack $100 million in certain years.
Basing that assumption on the math from the OP, plus the $15 million per year in UK's tier III multimedia deal.

In case some of you haven't read up on this, Some highlights of the new deal include:

■ Radio rights to UK's football, and men's and women's basketball and baseball games. Officials noted that it was not their intention to change on-air talent, such as Tom Leach (football, men's basketball) and Neil Price (women's basketball, baseball), with the new deal. Those affiliated with the broadcasts are independent contractors and not part of the deal.

■ Stadium and arena corporate signs and game programs for all home UK events, other than those at Rupp Arena.

■ Naming rights to university athletics properties and premium areas, which Barnhart said might be granted in certain circumstances.

"As much of a traditionalist as I want to be and am, I also have to be a realist, and you have to think, OK, what is in the best interest of this athletic department and this university," Barnhart said.

■ Sponsorship on UKathletics.com as well as new features, although Barnhart said: "We're not trying to reinvent. We want to make sure that we're on the cutting edge of what's going on."

■ Game sponsorships and game promotions.

■ Coaches' endorsements, which Barnhart said enables UK to make sure that all of its endorsements "and all the people that want to be a part of your program are centralized in one spot."

■ Pre-game and post-game television shows and specials, and postseason highlight DVDs.

■ Video features on video boards, other than those at Rupp Arena, perhaps even including feeds in different parts of Commonwealth Stadium that are not available now, Barnhart said.

■ Opportunities to develop the UK Athletics' Corporate Partnership Program. Many of the big-name corporate sponsors have contracts ending in 2014, but UK said it hoped that most would renew and be transferred to JMI in 2015.

■ The potential, at the university's discretion, to market multimedia rights in nonathletic campus facilities, thus creating an integrated approach to multimedia rights and marketing — something few universities are doing.

 

[UKErik]

Thanks for that breakdown Rhavicc.

GBB!!!

 

[BigBluePhantom]

Basketball spends a lot more money than just about any other BB program in the country. I see absolutely no problem with that. The results speak for themselves and they still brought in $22.7 million more than they spent. This is a huge contribution to what ever the hell the surplus is going to considering the fact that most basketball programs are a drain on the athletic budgets of their respective schools.

Football, on the other hand, spends considerably less than all but one school in the SEC. It should be no surprise that we rank ahead of only that same school in both recruiting and on field performance. This could be justified if the program didn't bring in enough money to keep up with the SEC big boys. However, the glaring statistic is the $57.2 million that football left on the table over the last 3 years.

I understand that the surpluses from both basketball and football go to fund all the sports that lose money as well as to the academic side of the university. I also understand that those are good and necessary programs. However, until the football program gets to where it needs to be, a good deal of that money should probably be spent in house.

 

[Rhavicc]

Basketball spends a lot more money than just about any other BB program in the country. I see absolutely no problem with that. The results speak for themselves and they still brought in $22.7 million more than they spent. This is a huge contribution to what ever the hell the surplus is going to considering the fact that most basketball programs are a drain on the athletic budgets of their respective schools.

Football, on the other hand, spends considerably less than all but one school in the SEC. It should be no surprise that we rank ahead of only that same school in both recruiting and on field performance. This could be justified if the program didn't bring in enough money to keep up with the SEC big boys. However, the glaring statistic is the $57.2 million that football left on the table over the last 3 years.

I understand that the surpluses from both basketball and football go to fund all the sports that lose money as well as to the academic side of the university. I also understand that those are good and necessary programs. However, until the football program gets to where it needs to be, a good deal of that money should probably be spent in house.

Consider that we spend, as you said, considerably less than all but one SEC program, but we recruit as well as some other SEC teams (most notably, Arkansas (who went on a rampage at the end of last season), and Mizzou (who has handled the east for 2 consecutive years.
UK also recruits as well as some other elite programs in the country, but the thing is, those elite programs have recruited that way for a longer period of time. We've brought in 3 classes similar to those schools, no we just have to keep it going, and we'll see more results.
As far as getting bang for your buck, I would say we're doing well for ourselves. That said, it's a possibility that UK football is stockpiling some funds for the future. It seems like Stoops & co. are beginning to spend more recruiting money going after 4-star players as of late. If we have a good season next year, show those recruits the UK football is on a serious rise and have a lot of fancy facilities and exciting things going on here, UK starts spending more of that money going after more 4-star and 5-star recruits, and all the sudden, we have a machine.
Now we have to see if it plays out that way. It's a process.

 

[CharlestownCat]

I just hope the added budget eventually equals wins on the field. I'm tired of hearing our fanbase predict 7-8-9 wins every year, and ending up disappointed. Tired of losing to the tards every year. Tired of being happy that we are no longer losing to Vandy. Just win.

 

[jauk11]

Most every P5 school will show that football revenue eclipses all other sports. Most, as I understand, do not realize a profit from basketball. UK is special.

So, while these numbers are ripe for all sorts of discussion, they are not indicative of why UK has had any kind of result on the football field. Over the time frame described, UK has devoted a great deal of resources and expense toward football.

I suspect that if you could find a way to get 50,000 people into an arena with decent seats to watch basketball, the revenue at UK would increase dramatically. A debate between football and basketball over money is not productive.

Yes, but you can't get 50,000 into a basketball game with good seats, meanwhile not only do several of our SEC competition have over twice that number they are also filling those seats----meanwhile we are spending over $100,000,000 to reduce our capacity by about 10%..

 

[fuzz77]

Basketball spends a lot more money than just about any other BB program in the country. I see absolutely no problem with that. The results speak for themselves and they still brought in $22.7 million more than they spent. This is a huge contribution to what ever the hell the surplus is going to considering the fact that most basketball programs are a drain on the athletic budgets of their respective schools.

Football, on the other hand, spends considerably less than all but one school in the SEC. It should be no surprise that we rank ahead of only that same school in both recruiting and on field performance. This could be justified if the program didn't bring in enough money to keep up with the SEC big boys. However, the glaring statistic is the $57.2 million that football left on the table over the last 3 years.

I understand that the surpluses from both basketball and football go to fund all the sports that lose money as well as to the academic side of the university. I also understand that those are good and necessary programs. However, until the football program gets to where it needs to be, a good deal of that money should probably be spent in house.

$22.7 million over 3 years. UK was actually profiting more from BB during the Tubby years when they were clearing $10-$12 million per year...and that was with revenues of $15-$18 million and they weren't raping season ticket holders with a chitty home schedule.
Add the fact that the head coach wasn't making embarrassing comments like "Our goal wasn't to win the championship but to get 8 guys into the NBA...". Word to Cal, UK isn't paying him to put players in the NBA. Putting players into the NBA is a side effect of winning. Getting to the NBA should be an individual's goal. Winning championships should be the team's goal.
Yes, I enjoy the winning but speaking for this long time season ticket holder and many other season ticket holders around me in section 15...when Cal moves on, I won't cry.

 

[BigBluePhantom]

$22.7 million over 3 years. UK was actually profiting more from BB during the Tubby years when they were clearing $10-$12 million per year...and that was with revenues of $15-$18 million and they weren't raping season ticket holders with a chitty home schedule.
Add the fact that the head coach wasn't making embarrassing comments like "Our goal wasn't to win the championship but to get 8 guys into the NBA...". Word to Cal, UK isn't paying him to put players in the NBA. Putting players into the NBA is a side effect of winning. Getting to the NBA should be an individual's goal. Winning championships should be the team's goal.
Yes, I enjoy the winning but speaking for this long time season ticket holder and many other season ticket holders around me in section 15...when Cal moves on, I won't cry.

I don't disagree with your first paragraph. I see through Cal's BS in your second paragraph and know why he said it but I too wouldn't mind if he toned it down a notch or two. It is your last paragraph, however, that got my attention. Tubby did give us lower ticket prices, a larger surplus at season's end and far fewer comments that ended up on the ESPN morning gossip shows. Did I infer incorrectly or did you really just imply that you preferred all those perks to the domination that we now enjoy with Cal? Don't be so confident that your buddy Mitch will just up and replace Cal with another homerun hire. Our track record indicates otherwise. RP and Cal = homeruns. Eddie, Billy and Tubby = 2 strikeouts and a base on balls. A two for five history does not bold well for the future when it comes time to replace Cal.

 

[Poetax]

How does basketball spend around a million per player while football while football's cost is around $200,000.

We know you don't care so stop trolling us.

 

[Poetax]

$22.7 million over 3 years. UK was actually profiting more from BB during the Tubby years when they were clearing $10-$12 million per year...and that was with revenues of $15-$18 million and they weren't raping season ticket holders with a chitty home schedule.
Add the fact that the head coach wasn't making embarrassing comments like "Our goal wasn't to win the championship but to get 8 guys into the NBA...". Word to Cal, UK isn't paying him to put players in the NBA. Putting players into the NBA is a side effect of winning. Getting to the NBA should be an individual's goal. Winning championships should be the team's goal.
Yes, I enjoy the winning but speaking for this long time season ticket holder and many other season ticket holders around me in section 15...when Cal moves on, I won't cry.

Fuzz, you are such a whiner and loser. Sell me your tickets and move on without the pain. lol

 

[fuzz77]

I don't disagree with your first paragraph. I see through Cal's BS in your second paragraph and know why he said it but I too wouldn't mind if he toned it down a notch or two. It is your last paragraph, however, that got my attention. Tubby did give us lower ticket prices, a larger surplus at season's end and far fewer comments that ended up on the ESPN morning gossip shows. Did I infer incorrectly or did you really just imply that you preferred all those perks to the domination that we now enjoy with Cal? Don't be so confident that your buddy Mitch will just up and replace Cal with another homerun hire. Our track record indicates otherwise. RP and Cal = homeruns. Eddie, Billy and Tubby = 2 strikeouts and a base on balls. A two for five history does not bold well for the future when it comes time to replace Cal.

I'm not really worried about the next guy. If they don't win they won't be around long. Tubby won 76% of his games, remove his last 2 years and it rises to 79%...Cal has won 83%. By comparison Joe B Hall won a tick below 75%, Rupp won 82%...hell, even Eddie Sutton won until the chit hit the fan which is something that may still happen with Cal. I'm not saying that Cal is cheating but when you're trying to get players in and out as fast as you can who's to say there is someone who comes along with their hand out?
There's a lot to like about Cal but his act is growing old with this old timer. I'm not pushing him out the door but I'd be willing to hold the door open when he decides to go.

 

[BigBluePhantom]

If

I'm not really worried about the next guy. If they don't win they won't be around long. Tubby won 76% of his games, remove his last 2 years and it rises to 79%...Cal has won 83%. By comparison Joe B Hall won a tick below 75%, Rupp won 82%...hell, even Eddie Sutton won until the chit hit the fan which is something that may still happen with Cal. I'm not saying that Cal is cheating but when you're trying to get players in and out as fast as you can who's to say there is someone who comes along with their hand out?
There's a lot to like about Cal but his act is growing old with this old timer. I'm not pushing him out the door but I'd be willing to hold the door open when he decides to go.

If Cal gets caught blatantly cheating to the point that he has to go or we have to vacate something then he instantly goes from Jesus to Lucifer with the millions of folks within the only group that doesn't already hate him. However, until there is at least a hint of impropriety, it is reckless and unwise for us to even discuss such a scenario.

Prior to Cal, UK was always in the conversation when it came to the greatest program of all time. What Cal has done is essentially remove every other school from the discussion. Only a UNC or Kansas homer would even try to argue that their program is superior to UK at this point in time. If Cal sticks around another 5 years and gets us to another four Final 4's along with 2 NC's, the only argument is going to revolve around Cal or Rupp. Barring a Sutton like scenario, these are the glory days of UK basketball.

So, my question to you Fuzz, if you could only choose one, would you like to see us repeat the Tubby years or the Cal years? It is a fair question based on your earlier comment.

 

[Tskware]

I am guessing you got those numbers off some kind of top level UKAA budget presentation. I have seen them in the past and they always included what we used to call a "brag sheet". Not to quibble but I feel quite certain much of the $130M "contribution" to the University was in the form of UKAA "purchased services" from the University as opposed to their long standing practice of a $1M-$2M annual "gift" to the school.

Peace

I too am a cynic, I find that number to be very hard to believe. Yes, if you call paying out of state tuition for the vast majority of scholarship athletes at UK to be a "contribution", then I guess it could get up to a big number over time. No way the UKAA is just donating $130M to UK, no way.

 

[Beavis606]

Given this news, I'd like to be Matthew Mitchell's real estate agent.

 

[hmt5000]

I too am a cynic, I find that number to be very hard to believe. Yes, if you call paying out of state tuition for the vast majority of scholarship athletes at UK to be a "contribution", then I guess it could get up to a big number over time. No way the UKAA is just donating $130M to UK, no way.

I believe a large chunk of the new building on campus was being lumped in with football renovation. I'm guessing some of that is "15 million over 5 years" on a few different projects.

 

[Stonewall12]

$22.7 million over 3 years. UK was actually profiting more from BB during the Tubby years when they were clearing $10-$12 million per year...and that was with revenues of $15-$18 million and they weren't raping season ticket holders with a chitty home schedule.
Add the fact that the head coach wasn't making embarrassing comments like "Our goal wasn't to win the championship but to get 8 guys into the NBA...". Word to Cal, UK isn't paying him to put players in the NBA. Putting players into the NBA is a side effect of winning. Getting to the NBA should be an individual's goal. Winning championships should be the team's goal.
Yes, I enjoy the winning but speaking for this long time season ticket holder and many other season ticket holders around me in section 15...when Cal moves on, I won't cry.

Tubby lover

 

[Rhavicc]

I'm not really worried about the next guy. If they don't win they won't be around long. Tubby won 76% of his games, remove his last 2 years and it rises to 79%...Cal has won 83%. By comparison Joe B Hall won a tick below 75%, Rupp won 82%...hell, even Eddie Sutton won until the chit hit the fan which is something that may still happen with Cal. I'm not saying that Cal is cheating but when you're trying to get players in and out as fast as you can who's to say there is someone who comes along with their hand out?
There's a lot to like about Cal but his act is growing old with this old timer. I'm not pushing him out the door but I'd be willing to hold the door open when he decides to go.

You should change your name from "fuzz77" to "suck77".
Do it, change your name.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

$22.7 million over 3 years. UK was actually profiting more from BB during the Tubby years when they were clearing $10-$12 million per year...and that was with revenues of $15-$18 million and they weren't raping season ticket holders with a chitty home schedule.
Add the fact that the head coach wasn't making embarrassing comments like "Our goal wasn't to win the championship but to get 8 guys into the NBA...". Word to Cal, UK isn't paying him to put players in the NBA. Putting players into the NBA is a side effect of winning. Getting to the NBA should be an individual's goal. Winning championships should be the team's goal.
Yes, I enjoy the winning but speaking for this long time season ticket holder and many other season ticket holders around me in section 15...when Cal moves on, I won't cry.

Word to Cal, keep doing what you are doing. Fuzz can go cheer for Tubby or Billy or any other coach that coach speaks a cliche.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Given this news, I'd like to be Matthew Mitchell's real estate agent.

We know UK women football is not going to become the third leg of the stool. Women's basketball has a shot at that revenue position.