UK Basketball & Football vs. The Other Sports

[FrogtownRoadCat]

Upon his arrival here, Mitch made it his priority to upgrade the entire UK sports program. Since then, we've witnessed improvement in "the other sports," with UK golf, tennis and baseball performing at championship levels, and a revival taking place with UK women's basketball. My question is, do you care?Does the heightened performance of these other sports compensate, in your mind,for the struggles of UK basketball and football? I guess I would rather see UK perform well in the other sports than not, but that performance really doesn't impact my feelings towards the basketball and football programs. In other words, I suppose I judge Mitch's work and the work of the athletic department in general by the performance of the basketball and football programs without regard to what golf, tennis, baseball, women's basketball or the co-ed tiddlie-winks teams do. Your thoughts?

[Will Lavender]

Since Mitch arrived, the basketball team is 109-28.

That's a winning percentage of about 80%, which is right at the mark Rick Pitino won at when he was in Lexington.

Yeah, that's "struggling."

[I. Melvin]

Gotta admire Will's resolute dedication to pointing out that the numbers might tell a different story than the currently negative zeitgeist. ;)

But coming off the years put forth by the football AND basketball teams, it's hard to be bubbly. Face it, both teams stunk on ice and it better not happen again if the respective coaches like their respective jobs.

But to answer Froggie's question: I think it's very important that the "minor" sports excel because, in doing so, a culture of excellence within the athletic department is fostered. No longer can King Basketball get away with sloth or lack of focus without looking real bad in the light of the excellence of baseball, golf, etc.

Success breeds success. The longer Mitch is here, the better I like his sound, foundational approach.

As tempting as it must have been to jettison Brooks (especially after publicly daring Mitch to fire Hudson), it appears that we're building a real football team. And a weaker AD might have found it uncomfortable to mention that part of the job of the highest-paid college basketball coach is to sell the damn program (by implication "like his predecessor").

The Greeks had a concept they called "arete" - a dedication to well-rounded excellence. It was a worthy concept then and it's a worthy concept now.

[FrogtownRoadCat]

Easy now Jones. There's nointended implication that the basketball program has struggled throughout Mitch's entire tenure (although since you brought up Coach Pitino's record here, why don't you compare Coach Pitino's record in the NCAA tournament at UK with that of Coach Smith's? Something like 1 National Championship, 1 Runner-Up, 1 otherFinal Four, 2 Elite Eights, and 1 Second Round loss compared to 1 National Championship, 3 Elite Eights, 2 Sweet Sixteens,and 3 Second Round losses, right?). The point was, when the basketball team struggles (like it did this year) and when the football team struggles (like it typically does each year), does the fact that the baseball team, golf team, tennis team, women's basketball team excel that year make much difference to you?

Some folks are so itching to find the slightest ounce of criticism of Coach Smith and to fire bullets in response. By the way, I'd trade 20+ of those 109 wins for another national championship (or at least the elusive return Final Four trip). There's such a prevailing undercurrent that the regular season records can't overcome. Coach Smith's record and Coach Pitino's record may be right at the same mark from a percentage standpoint (although Coach Pitino took over a struggling program and miraculously went 14-14 his first year compared to Coach Smith taking over a championship calibre program and going 35-4 his first year), there sure was much more excitement, enthusiasm and less bickering surrounding the program back then, on both the national and local level. I expect better, and all the tiddlie-winks wins in the world won't compensate for it in my opinion.

Great points I Mel, about the athletic department's being well-rounded and the development of an atmosphere of success.

[Will Lavender]

FrogtownRoadCat wrote: The point was, when the basketball team struggles (like it did this year) and when the football team struggles (like it typically does each year), does the fact that the baseball team, golf team, tennis team, women's basketball team excel that year make much difference to you?


Well, any time the basketball team struggles it makes some difference to me. I guarantee you that there's nobody on this board that is crushed with each loss more than I am.

But your point is flimsy. The baseball team, for example, has had a 1-year uptick. From worst to first, you know. The women's basketball team has been on a two-year swing. Not sure about golf and tennis, but I know that golf had a better year two seasons ago when JB Holmes played.

The reason I point this out is because I think you're definition of "success" and "struggle" is a little flat. Who's to say that the baseball team's great year was not a fluke, and that the basketball team's awful year was not a fluke as well? After all, we're only talking about one year. One year does not define any kind of a "trend," which seems to be me what you're doing by bringing in basketball and football during Mitch's tenure.

I certainly hope the baseball team and women's basketball team can keep up their good work. I think they can. But trying to define any sort of trend based on one year of data is fruitless, and it proves what I've been saying all along: 2005-06 was a fluke for men's basketball.

Last season certainly doesn't fit in to the pattern in terms of Ws and Ls since Mitch Barnhardt has been in Lexington.

[FrogtownRoadCat]

Will Lavender wrote: The reason I point this out is because I think you're definition of "success" and "struggle" is a little flat. Who's to say that the baseball team's great year was not a fluke, and that the basketball team's awful year was not a fluke as well? After all, we're only talking about one year. One year does not define any kind of a "trend," which seems to be me what you're doing by bringing in basketball and football during Mitch's tenure.

Non-flimsy and non-flat question: If last season's UK basketball team repeats itself over a period of years and if UK football continues over a period of years to fail to produce a winning record, wouldchampionshipcalibre performances by the baseball, tennis, golf, women's basketball, dodge ball, chess,and co-ed naked twisterteams make any difference to you? I'm just curious about the thoughts of others. My own thoughts are that I would like to see all those other teams excel, but my first priorities as a fan have always been and will always be basketball and football success.Ifthis past season of UK basketball becomes a trend, and if UKcontinues to whiff on Final Four appearances, allbaseball, tennis, golf, etc. wins in theworld won'tmake a bit of difference to me (although the success of the co-ed naked twister teamsmay still be interesting).

[I. Melvin]

Btw, I was second-team All-SEC in co-ed naked Twister my junior year ...

[poodoo]

I. Melvin wrote:

Success breeds success. The longer Mitch is here, the better I like his sound, foundational approach.

As tempting as it must have been to jettison Brooks (especially after publicly daring Mitch to fire Hudson), it appears that we're building a real football team. And a weaker AD might have found it uncomfortable to mention that part of the job of the highest-paid college basketball coach is to sell the damn program (by implication "like his predecessor").

The Greeks had a concept they called "arete" - a dedication to well-rounded excellence. It was a worthy concept then and it's a worthy concept now.




Good points, I. Melvin. I, too, like Mitch Barnhart's approach. I like his concern forbuilding solid foundations andstriving for "well-rounded excellence."

Something I will always remember is Barnhart's giving hisown nice, large office toCoach DeMoss to show thathis desire to have a winning women's basketball program was sincere.Something else that has especially impressed me is his attending so many activities in the non-revenue sports,in addition to the major sports (specifically,football and men's basketball), showing his support of ALL UK student-athletes and their sports.

As you say, success breeds success.Last season UK senior football players spoke proudly of their helping to build a solid foundation for that program, even though they did not get to participate in a bowl game while at UK. I am most hopeful thathas occurred. Too, I have certainly not given up on UK basketball because of this past disappointing season, and I, like you, approve of Barnhart's saying thatwe must do a better job of "selling" the UK basketball program, including Coach Smith's being more visible.FWIW, yes, I think UKAthletics, in the hands of Mitch Barnhart, is in good hands.

[bret1555]

Mitch gets a lot of flack from the fan base (I just loved the "Dump Mitch and Rich" T-shirts) as does President Todd, but I feel, thoughthey are both doing things that may not be popular, they are each raising the level of the organization under their respective purview.

Barnhart is the ATHLETICS Director, not the basketball & football director. While I understand that those programs are the bell-cows of any department, he must be lauded for his overall job. The golf & tennis teams are for real contenders EVERY YEAR in the SEC, now; the track team is competitive now in what is undoubtedly the toughest track conference in the land; the soccer teams have had some good years; and Micki DeMoss looks to be the best hire in the history of the women's basketball program. Granted, the football team has continued to struggle (which can be largely placed at the feet of Barnhart's predecessor, Larry Ivy, and *blasphemy* at those of the venerated C. M. Newton), but we probably have the most athleticism on a football field in Lexington than I can ever remember.

As for the basketball program, we can spin numbers and holler about a dearth of championships all we want, but there is no tailspin in evidence. Alarmists will say that we are precariously close to becoming an irrelevant program, but the numbers simply DO NOT bear this out. . . We have to remember that our current championship drought is nothing new. We waited 20 years between 4 & 5, and then another 18 between 5 & 6. We are still perenially in the top ten (excluding the debacle of last season, of course), still win more than our share of SEC crowns (Regular Season & SEC Tournament), and win our games at a 78% clip.

The point is, with the notable exception of the gridiron, EVERY program in the UK Athletics Department has enjoyed success during Barnhart's tenure. . . How can we justify saying Barnhart has not improved UK Athletics? This is easy, guys.

[poodoo]

The point is, with the notable exception of the gridiron, EVERY program in the UK Athletics Department has enjoyed success during Barnhart's tenure. . . How can we justify saying Barnhart has not improved UK Athletics? This is easy, guys.QUOTE by bret1555.

_______

AMEN, bret1555.:)

[SamKat]

Frogtown has valid points that are in the heart of so many UK basketball fans. UK need not have a slipping down basketball program and, to me, that is the bottom line.

[Caveman Catfan]

UK basketball was a final eight team and a double overtime loss away from the final four the year before last. Last year was, in deed, frustrating, but I can conceive of nothing Mitch could have done, or should do, to address the basketball program, except for what he has done, raise money for the new practice facility and get that built. He has done well.

As to football, the current woes are not Mitch's fault. I still think Brooks was a good choice and, perhaps, the best choice given the circumstances and the impossible task Mitch was faced with at the time. I think patience will prove that the program is on the right track and will be successful under Mitch's administration.

And, I am very happy to see women's basketball, baseball, golf, and other sports thriving under Mitch's watch. The guy knows how to hire good coaches. That also gives me hope if, or when, he needs to hire a new football coach. The circumstances will be much different than the last time, and I think Mitch will shine.

[Caveman Catfan]

Will Lavender wrote: but I know that golf had a better year two seasons ago when JB Holmes played.



I believe this year's NCAA finish was the best in history. If not, it was better than last year when Holmes was on the team, which was a great year.

[CATHYnKY]

FrogtownRoadCat wrote: My question is, do you care? In other words, I suppose I judge Mitch's work and the work of the athletic department in general by the performance of the basketball and football programs without regard to what golf, tennis, baseball, women's basketball or the co-ed tiddlie-winks teams do. Your thoughts?
As a long time football season ticket holder, I do get discouraged. Do I or will give up my tix? NO! Basketball has been frustrating because I, like most UK fans expect to be a top contender every year and go far in the tourney. It has been a while since going to a Final Four, but I will still be walking the floor and my stomach will be knots long before the ball gets jumped for each game. The other sports?Surprisingly, I really go "in to" the baseball season. It helps they were winning. I saw the enthusiasm of the players and the fans at the games. Hard not to get involved.Because of the info on this board, I watched the progress of the golf team. And, last but not least, I bought women's bball season tix for the first time this year. I will renew and make it a point to attend more games than I did last year. I salute Mitch's job at UK as AD. A good hire. Fball and Bball will get the top billing at UK and always will be. Before Mitch's hire, who did care about the other sports, including tiddlie-winks :cool:

[TrueblueCATfan]

ITis the AD'S job to over see ALL sports not the football and basketball becasue they are the top money makers......

Mitch has made great hires with baseball..volleyball..and women's basketball..and he extended Tubby's contract......Mitch sees something in Brook's.......give him a chance to get his own recruits in there and do something

[ukwebfan]

Hopefully for the last time, it's apples and oranges! It couldn't be any clearer unless you don't happen to follow team records or post-season accomplishments. Maybe that explains it.:rolleyes:

FrogtownRoadCat wrote: Does the heightened performance of these other sports compensate, in your mind,for the struggles of UK basketball and football?

[FatCatDaddy]

I am really excited what Barnhart has done with the "other" sports. I like UK being competitive in EVERY sport. I do think bad years in Football and Basketball can be his undoing though if he lets those sports go too long without excellence, regardless of what the other sports are doing. The whole show is about money and football and basketball are the big bread winners, no other way about it.

[ukbob]

The basketball program is struggling some right now. No big secret. And if you have paying attention, Mitch is working on improving those things. I guess because he didn't fire Smith, then perhaps that gives the impression to the miserable among us that he doesn't care or is doing nothing. I call BS on that.

He has improved the sports programs here. Golf is much better (5th int he NCAA this year), Women's bball is on the move, tennis, baseball, track, etc.....

Football was his 1st priority when he came. Basketball was coasting along with Tubby generating #1 seeds and COY awards. Barnhart made a terribly questionable hire in Brooks and stuck by it through the awful probation period. Now it is time to see if his gamble was worth it after a wonderful recruiting year from the football staff. The rubber must start meeting the road with them in 06. If we win games and go to a Bowl, then Mitch will look like a genius.

Now all of the sudden the basketball program hits a huge speed bump. Team Turmoil II crops up..the fans are revolting(some even stink on ice :)). Barnhart hears the message loud and clear. Read his quotes. He laid it out exactly what he expects from the basketball program...Final Fours and Championships. He expects Smith to be more visible and promote UK a lot more because that is a weakness. You think Tubby didn't hear that? He better.

I doubt any of us know what was said behind the office doors, but I would wager that Barnhart expects Tubby to follow through with making changes to get us back on top. And I have no doubt Smith is under even more pressure than he ever was here. He should be.

While we can all be proud of the other sports at UK and we should, it is ultimately football and basketball that will determine the success or failure of Mitch Barnhart. If Brooks fails to make it better, then Barnhart did indeed make a bad hire. If Tubby doesn't turn this around, then the heat will be off Tubby and on Barnhart to fix things himself. Let's hope neither thing happens and we can stop the speculation altogether as to whether Barnhart is the man.

Just my opinion.

[The Old School JPS]

FrogtownRoadCat wrote: My question is, do you care?
Does the heightened performance of these other sports compensate, in your mind,for the struggles of UK basketball and football? Your thoughts?

1) Not very much; it's nice to see the minor sports do well but it matters much less to me than results in football and basketball - and it should matter much less to the university as well since those two, unlike the rest, generate money and make the other sports possible. It's nice if UK wins an SEC title in women's hopscotch or whatever but not nearly as nice as, say, a single extra football win or even a slightlyimproved fan experience in Commonwealth Stadium.I mean that, too. During breaks in a football game, I'd rather see highlights, replays and statistics from the game in progress instead of those commercials for the minor sports, which I frankly think themselves detract from the football atmosphere and fan experience and shouldn't be there.

2) No way.It's arguablethat the increased focus on those minor sports by its very nature deprives the Big Two of attention and effort that they should receive, and that it is misguided since the minor sports can benefit significantly fromfootball or basketball success generating increasedrevenues whilethe reverse simply isn't true.

3) Most posts on this focused on wins and losses, and that's a huge part of measuring a program's success and how well it keeps its fans happy, but I've also been disappointed with some other things, such as the stewardship of the football gameday atmosphere andstadium. There are a lot of minor things that could be done to make both significantly better (often discussed on the forum; I won't get into it here) butlittle is actually done. Even the football uniforms are pretty lame these days - inferior to the prior version IMO.I don't mean to makea big deal out of individually small things but I think it's fair to note that football and basketballprovide the funds for everything else andkeeping those fans happyand spending money ought to be priority #1 and if you're notina position to do it by winning games you ought to be trying to do it in other ways. The fact that the minor sports' income and existence relies on the Big Two is one of several reasons to do so. TheUKAA's decision to invest time and effort into the minor sports has coincided with football and basketball results that many fans don't really like; cause and effect between the two in the big picture may be debatable but at minimum it has IMO negatively impacted the football fans' experience with Commonwealth being festooned with promos and videos about those sports instead of being focused on football and the game people paid to enjoy andat least that part of it IMO is a mistake, at least as it's currently done. The big screens at Commonwealth should be for football, not all that other muckety-muck no one paid to see. Yes, that's a pet peeve of mine that may well not irritate others as much as it does me, but that's my $0.02.

[RCS]

It does not compensate for them but I do think it is admirable to strive for success in all sports.Mitchdid not hire Tubby and untill this last year Tubby had been very good under Mitch, so I don't think Mitch gets credit nor blame for Tubby. If the time comes that Tubby has to be fired, only then will Mitch really enter into the equation with Tubby. Really out of all of Mitch's hires, Brooks is the only one that he has not come out smelling like a rose on and even there he has a chance still. If Brooks goes to a bowl this year you have to say his hiring has at amin. not been a failure. He brought us through probation and out the other end with more talent and a better roster. Even if Brooks gets fired this year I feel good about Mitch's ability to hire a good coach because of his success in hiring in the other sports. I think 10 years from now people are going to look back at the Mitch Barnhart Era as a very positive one for UK.

It is an athletics department, not a basketball department and it has to be run accordingly. I, for one, am very glad that Mitch and Pres. Todd have finally made UK Athletics act accordingly.

[bluegrassking]

Success in the non-revenue sports is nice but if Football and Basketball don't do well, then you have an overall failure.

No bucks no Buck Rogers.

The Rich Brooks deal is dangerously close to being a boneheaded failure. I might be proven wrong and I hope I am but between how his initial season was handled and the lossers atmosphere, I have no faith in the guy. We had a "nice" top 40 class this year that gives some optimisim but the fact is against the SEC it almost doesn't matter because we are still bringing a knife to a gunfight.

This class is not top 10 in the confrence and this is football were quality depth seperates the turds from champions. Recruiting must still improve dramaticly and consistently for us to be a factor in the SEC. It's harsh but it is reality, we playing the nation's toughest confrence and we have to recruit and play like it.

We are off probation now and are plausibly more attractive to coaches, especially if we up the ante on payroll and show we are determined to strive to be the best. We may be capable of finding some serious options, as opposed to the stopgap coach we have now. That's all he is a worn out retread that has never been higly succesful.

Basketball is a diffrent animal here in the Commonwealth, it is truly the cornerstone that everything at UK (not just athletics but the whole deal) is fueled from and whether anyone including Dr Todd wants to admit it or not, if the program is not handled properly then the whole plan to be a top 10 public school to the non-revenue sports dies a slow painful death.

Right now in my view the program is headed by an up and down coach with little rhyme or reason to his recruiting that has a little guy approach when he must play the role of Goliath.

At this time we must face the fact that we are no longer a consistent top competitor for the national title and do what it takes from coaches to facilities to seating arrangements at Rupp to restore the sense around the nation that UK will have something to say on who the champion will be and that this is one of, if not THE place to play to give yourself a chance to playin the NBA and win a title.

I think the thought that we have had one bad season is very short sighted. The past seven years when the current coach has gone with players he recruited and developed has been a rollercoaster of sorts (granted one that 90% of schools would love to ride) with three straight ten loss season (including Team Turmoil I) that a lot of people have seemed to have forgotten, followed by three solid years, though not one of the three would be considered in hindsight to have a real chance of winning the title, and now we have had the worst season since probation. Made even more problematic by the highly inconsistent to bad recruiting of the past 4-5 years.

The #1 class bought a lot of hope but when surrounded by basicly nothing it has so far went to waste and has lost (at least in my estimation) it's most special player.

The recruiting did overall uptick again this year but with holes left more or less uncovered at the forward spots, there is great need to repeat and improve over what we got this year for at least the next three straight seasons to replenish our cupboard and to more or less turnover a roster that from 1-13 is not of traditional UK strength. We have little quality depth and in reality cannot claim to have a SEC quality starter at every spot for the 1st time in many years.

So, football and hoops require the most attention because they are the source of the $$$. Football as of today is until proven otherwise a total mess, Brooks is behind our own lackluster win per season pace from the previous 10 years to his coming and other than the #11 class in the SEC, there is no reason to expect improvement.

Basketball by UK standards is certainly not in the best of shape either and because of the special relationship the program has with the university and state, cannot be allowed to slip. There is slippage whether anyone wants to accept it or not from what Smith took over to where it is now in a great many areas, most importantly perception. Both from potential recruits, to media, to fans, and I'd argue most importantly from the players. I do not get the sense that our teams of late expect to win, it seems more like hoping to win in these latter days.

[Littlemeyer]

bluegrassking wrote: ...followed by three solid years, though not one of the three would be considered in hindsight to have a real chance of winning the title...


You know, you put together a fairly respectable argument in that post, but this part here threatens the credibility of the rest. You seriously don't feel that the 2003 team could have won the championship that season? To me, that one is a no-brainer, and 2004 and 05 aren't far behind ('05 perhaps...but I wouldn't say "no real chance").

[Caveman Catfan]

I think success and excitement in the non-revenue sports helps with recruiting for the revenue sports. Keeping UK in the media eye is not a bad thing.

I had a blast following the baseball team this year and enjoyed the women's basketball team's success.

I want UK to excel in all aspects.

[RCS]

Littlemeyer wrote: bluegrassking wrote: ...followed by three solid years, though not one of the three would be considered in hindsight to have a real chance of winning the title...


You know, you put together a fairly respectable argument in that post, but this part here threatens the credibility of the rest. You seriously don't feel that the 2003 team could have won the championship that season? To me, that one is a no-brainer, and 2004 and 05 aren't far behind ('05 perhaps...but I wouldn't say "no real chance").

Not sure how a team that was #1 in the country could be said to have no real shot at the title. They didn't get it,but they most certainly had a shot at it. Close doesn't count, and we can't/don't hang banners for having a shot at a NC, but there is no one in the country other than a few UK fans who would say that team did not have a shot. They were the heaviest NCAA favorites I can remember in years.

[I. Melvin]

Really impressive post, bluegrassking. You make a lot of sense, imo.

I believe 2003 will be remembered as Tubby's best year.(Of course I know he won it all in 1998, but 2003 was all OTS - nobody can claim any piece.) It was the one and only year that we dominated like we did toward the end of Pitino's run.

I'm at the same place I was after Team Turmoil I - but this time my willingness to "get fooled again" is gone. Hope I'm wrong, but I bet we know by the fourth game if we're looking at more of the same ole stuff ...