Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know ridiculous. What big time program has a budget equal to basketball?unbelievable.....No, I take that back. Just what you'd expect.
Is there a more recent version of this type of comparison out there? This is from 2012The FB/BB operating costs as equal excludes scholarship costs - a separate segment of that budget - & hoops' teams do make way more trips.
Wow from 2015--even Dukes football expenses were greater than basketball
Duke's total expenses for men's basketball was $19,860,851, for women's basketball $5,511,458 and for football $22,915,934.
Duke's total revenue for men's basketball was $33,772,145, for women's basketball $3,194,313 and for football $32,407,399.
Your first paragraph supports the notion that football budget should far exceed basketballSome of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.
Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.
And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.
Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of construction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.
The FB/BB operating costs as equal excludes scholarship costs - a separate segment of that budget - & hoops' teams do make way more trips.
Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.
Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.
And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.
Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of cons
ruction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.
As another poster alluded to, separating out total scholarships as a separate category leads to misleading numbers. Football (with now 60 (plus) out-of-state schollies) would tip the balance clearly to football.
It is as though this breakdown were made in this particular fashion to tamp down criticism that football was costing millions more than basketball . . . . and it is, given the scholly numbers involved.
No one's hysterical, but common business sense looking at the above link from the 2010-11 school year shows that football should CLEARLY dwarf the basketball budget if you're trying to run things intelligently.Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.
Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.
And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.
Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of construction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.
No one's hysterical, but common business sense looking at the above link from the 2010-11 school year shows that football should CLEARLY dwarf the basketball budget if you're trying to run things intelligently.
The 2010-11 UK football team was Joker's 6-7 (2-6) squad that embarassed itself against a coachless Pitt squad. They brought in $20 million in profit. Not bad for a team the university had been hardly supporting when compared to the rest of the SEC. Meanwhile the Brandon Knight led basketball team, which made it to the Final 4 and lost to UConn, only made $6 million. Alabama brought in $23 million solely from its BCS game v Notre Dame, and thst number is obviously gone higher with the new playoff.
If we were making $20 million not even trying, and only $6 million in a sport we pour everything behind the scenes into.....it doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see how much more we could make if we legitimately tried like the SEC
All that being said, obviously, we finally are putting our financial priorities in order.
is split equally among all the SEC teams-----
The pie chart shown in first post is new - this year.Is there a more recent version of this type of comparison out there? This is from 2012
The pie chart shown in first post is new - this year.
Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.
Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.
And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.
Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of construction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.
When saying they are equal, you're ignoring a) the scholarship slice which has to be largely football & b) the science building transfer slice which, while it's existence galls me to no end, allowed the football facilities improvements (along with new baseball facilities.). Net, all in all, the FB slice is noticeably larger than men's hoops - if you bother to study the chart. You can't have all the sports we have & at the same time have football "dwarf" everything else. If you think FB should be the only sport UK has, then OK with your position.It's absolutely ludicrous to see basketball funding at or even near the level of Football funding. Football funding should dwarf funding of all other sports put together, for without it, it's likely there would be few of those other sports.
I can all but guarantee you that these expenses include scholarships, which the UK numbers do not. No way Duke spends more money in football than half the SEC.Wow from 2015--even Dukes football expenses were greater than basketball
Duke's total expenses for men's basketball was $19,860,851, for women's basketball $5,511,458 and for football $22,915,934.
Duke's total revenue for men's basketball was $33,772,145, for women's basketball $3,194,313 and for football $32,407,399.
7 years ago Jauk. Why keep rehashing this? We are in a spot right now to compete in all aspects.Someone tell me this, how do you justify a recruiting budget around 2010 just over $300k for football for say 27 or 28 football commits when the basketball recruiting budget was over $500k at the time for 5 or 6 commits? When UK's basketball facilities etc were so good that Cal was turning down FIVE STARS while football finally got its first one this century, a home grown loyal one, and UK hadn't been averaging one FOUR star a year this century before Stoops. And when they did get a prospect on campus they had to take him to the "recruiting room" to make liars of the coaches that were telling them UK was serious about football-------except for our best recruiter of course, Tee admitted he just lied to them about our facilities.
Show me a similar breakdown at other SEC schools? All this shows is scholarships as a whole. How many total schollies are there total? Are some of higher dollar value?When saying they are equal, you're ignoring a) the scholarship slice which has to be largely football & b) the science building transfer slice which, while it's existence galls me to no end, allowed the football facilities improvements (along with new baseball facilities.). Net, all in all, the FB slice is noticeably larger than men's hoops - if you bother to study the chart. You can't have all the sports we have & at the same time have football "dwarf" everything else. If you think FB should be the only sport UK has, then OK with your position.
If you think FB should be the only sport UK has, then OK with your position.
No thanks.Show me a similar breakdown at other SEC schools? All this shows is scholarships as a whole. How many total schollies are there total? Are some of higher dollar value?
I have no numbers for other schools and if I had them, I wouldn't know how to a assure an apples-to-apples comparison when monies at varies schools are counted in different ways & go to different things such as funding a science building. I'm not a CPA.2. To simplify the whole Football funding issue....How does the total expenditure number (whatever it may be) for Football at UK compare with the total expenditure number for Football at a school like Alabama? For me that's the issue. We have good facilities, etc...but are we on the same level funding wise as a real Football school? IMO, that should be the goal. After that, as far as I'm concerned, they can spend the rest of the money any way they see fit.
All u need is an income statement w a breakdown by sport for each schoolI have no numbers for other schools and if I had them, I wouldn't know how to a assure an apples-to-apples comparison when monies at varies schools are counted in different ways & go to different things such as funding a science building. I'm not a CPA.
Not sure entirely what you're asking, but will try to answer the question.Show me a similar breakdown at other SEC schools? All this shows is scholarships as a whole. How many total schollies are there total? Are some of higher dollar value?
Just so we are all clear here and not using random links, here is a comparison of budgets from the UK annual report during Stoops tenure (FY17 numbers have not been released yet). Again, these do not include any scholarships, facility operations or debt payments on facilities:
2013 - 2014 Operating Expenses
Football - $13 million
Basketball - $16.5 million
2014 - 2015 Operating Expenses
Football - $15.2 million
Basketball - $17.2 million
2015 - 2016 Operating Expenses
Football - $17.8 million
Basketball - $17.8 million
It will be interesting to see what the numbers from this past year will be. The increase in football money was obviously much needed. Almost a $5 million increase since Stoops arrived. A move in the right direction and a direction that needs to continue.
Your wish is my command.Good post. I would be interested in seeing the revenue numbers alongside expenses. My gut feeling is the ROI on football is trending higher. IOW spending money on football is turning out to be a wise use of resources.
7 years ago Jauk. Why keep rehashing this? We are in a spot right now to compete in all aspects.
Your wish is my command.
2013 - 2014 Revenue
Football - $31.8 million
Basketball - $22.5 million
2014 - 2015 Revenue
Football - $35.2 million
Basketball - $25.1 million
2015 - 2016 Revenue
Football - $36.1 million
Basketball - $26.1 million
Football revenue has increased by $4.3 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $4.8 million over the last 3 years.
Basketball revenue has increased by $3.6 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $1.3 million over the last 3 years.
Another move in the right direction.
Your wish is my command.
2013 - 2014 Revenue
Football - $31.8 million
Basketball - $22.5 million
2014 - 2015 Revenue
Football - $35.2 million
Basketball - $25.1 million
2015 - 2016 Revenue
Football - $36.1 million
Basketball - $26.1 million
Football revenue has increased by $4.3 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $4.8 million over the last 3 years.
Basketball revenue has increased by $3.6 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $1.3 million over the last 3 years.
Another move in the right direction.