Will Todd Stand in the Way?

[I. Melvin]

Is it, ultimately, his decision to approve or refuse?

[Cincy110]

Stand in the way of what?

I was told a few months ago that if the fans wanted Tubby out of here, he would be gone.

I'm still waiting for my voting card in the mail. I'll vote for him to stay.

Howare you going tovote, Melvin? Did you get your card yet?

[Craig the Blueheart]

I. Melvin wrote: Is it, ultimately, his decision to approve or refuse?


I would believe that Todd could dictate to Mitch what he feels about the situation if he so desired, and Mitch could then pull the appropriate strings.

[catmandoo25]

I for one believe the administration will make the right decision. this sport is what drives the university and is what it is known for primarily throughout the country.I trust them.

Someone who does not, please explain why.

[WahWah1]

I would vote for him to stay as well. I still think Tubby is one helluva coach and should stay at UK.

[Brian McCat]

catmandoo25 wrote: I for one believe the administration will make the right decision. this sport is what drives the university and is what it is known for primarily throughout the country.I trust them.

Although the basketball team is the most well-known ambassador for the University, the Football team drives the Athletics program financially. Between the two, it's not even close.

[Will Lavender]

I don't know whether he will or not.

But he shouldn't.

Academics are academics. ADs are ADs. Lee Todd has shown through some of his comments about Louisville that he needs to let the sports people handle sports decisions.

In a sort of inverse way, the Bobby Knight situation at IU is a perfect cautionary tale here.

[bleedbluelady]

Will Lavender wrote: I don't know whether he will or not.

But he shouldn't.

Academics are academics. ADs are ADs. Lee Todd has shown through some of his comments about Louisville that he needs to let the sports people handle sports decisions.

In a sort of inverse way, the Bobby Knight situation at IU is a perfect cautionary tale here.

Yeah, Zimpher (sp?) getting involved at UC didn't work out so well for UC either. Not that I mind. :)

[catmandoo25]

Brian McCat wrote: catmandoo25 wrote: I for one believe the administration will make the right decision. this sport is what drives the university and is what it is known for primarily throughout the country.I trust them.

Although the basketball team is the most well-known ambassador for the University, the Football team drives the Athletics program financially. Between the two, it's not even close.
Really? I know football makes a lot of money, but it seems to me that they would be fairly comparable. 12 home games times 24,000 roughly equlas 6 or 7 home games times 55,000. Also, more basketball games are on T.V> leading me to believe that appearance money or television package money would compare to football as well. I didn't do my resaerch, but that was my thinking. Thanks though, I didn't know that.

[TOPCAT]

Dr.Todd loves Tubby!The players had a combined 3.0 in the first semester!Tubby runs a clean program and does much commuity work for the university.Tubby has won at least 20 games every year he has been here!If you think that Dr. Todd will allow Tubby to be fired you are living in an alternate universe.All this talk about boosters buying out Tubby is rediculous.When Mitch took the job all booster`s privileges became null anf void!He certainly isn`t go to go back to them for buyout money!Tubby will be here for as long as he desires.Recruiting is picking up and championships will follow! Kids and adultson the internet won`t get him fired!Empty seats in Rupp plusand or qualifying for the n.c.a.a. will get it done!2011 is end of present contract!

[WAMCAT]

Accordimg to this site, Basketball nets about 5 mil and football about 10 mil...

[WAMCAT]

Actually in our case, it is just the opposite. Probably due to some large salaries.

Here is the breakdown:

Basketball: Revenue-11.8 mil Expenses-6.8 mil

Football: Revenue-19.8 mil Expenses-9.3 mil

Unless you are referring to the per player expense in which case football is nowhere near as expensive as basketball. I always knew football was more of the revenue generator, but I didn't realize by how much. Kind of interesting information.

[RCS]

UK makes more than just about any other basketball team, and still football dwarfs it in revenues. What this doesn't take into accounts is donations, which are closely tied to basketball results I imagine.

If you ever have a choice, be good at football over basketball. The money is enormous.

[LAcat]

Back on topic...I think Todd lets Barnhart make the decision. If not, why have an AD?

[catmandoo25]

LAcat wrote: Back on topic...I think Todd lets Barnhart make the decision. If not, why have an AD?
Good point.

[catmandoo25]

FCFS82 wrote: catmandoo25 wrote: Brian McCat wrote: catmandoo25 wrote: I for one believe the administration will make the right decision. this sport is what drives the university and is what it is known for primarily throughout the country.I trust them.

Although the basketball team is the most well-known ambassador for the University, the Football team drives the Athletics program financially. Between the two, it's not even close.
Really? I know football makes a lot of money, but it seems to me that they would be fairly comparable. 12 home games times 24,000 roughly equlas 6 or 7 home games times 55,000. Also, more basketball games are on T.V> leading me to believe that appearance money or television package money would compare to football as well. I didn't do my resaerch, but that was my thinking. Thanks though, I didn't know that.
The television contract that the SEC has alone in football with CBS outweighs the entire earnings that the basketball teams can put forth.

Football is king all across the board. I would dare anyone to find anything that says otherwise. About the only notable exception would be Duke. Maybe. But they benefit from a nice ABC contract with the ACC for the title game.

Good luck, happy searching.

There is a DOE website that has this information... stay tuned, I'll post when I find it.


So, the fact that UK never appears on CBS has nothing to do with revenue.It gets split evenlybetweeen all 12 teams?Were we on CBS this season?

[catmandoo25]

catmandoo25 wrote: FCFS82 wrote: catmandoo25 wrote: Brian McCat wrote: catmandoo25 wrote: I for one believe the administration will make the right decision. this sport is what drives the university and is what it is known for primarily throughout the country.I trust them.

Although the basketball team is the most well-known ambassador for the University, the Football team drives the Athletics program financially. Between the two, it's not even close.
Really? I know football makes a lot of money, but it seems to me that they would be fairly comparable. 12 home games times 24,000 roughly equlas 6 or 7 home games times 55,000. Also, more basketball games are on T.V> leading me to believe that appearance money or television package money would compare to football as well. I didn't do my resaerch, but that was my thinking. Thanks though, I didn't know that.
The television contract that the SEC has alone in football with CBS outweighs the entire earnings that the basketball teams can put forth.

Football is king all across the board. I would dare anyone to find anything that says otherwise. About the only notable exception would be Duke. Maybe. But they benefit from a nice ABC contract with the ACC for the title game.

Good luck, happy searching.

There is a DOE website that has this information... stay tuned, I'll post when I find it.


So, the fact that UK never appears on CBS has nothing to do with revenue.It gets split evenlybetweeen all 12 teams?Were we on CBS this season?
See, I always thought it was a game by game basis and you got paid when you appeared. Thanks for the site. YOu learn something every day.