You can only sell what the stadium holds. I've looked a few places for the overnight ratings, but haven't found them yet. My guess is UC/VPI was at worst within a tenth or two in the ratings if it didn't have more viewers. Reality is football dominates basketball in the ratings, and I doubt UK has the juice you think they do...

 

I completely agree on all parts. The only reason I mentioned the attendance is that if they were expected to be a big draw, they would have been in a different bowl. That said, its impressive it sold out, because it would the the only one I've seen so far that was more than 75% full.

 

I completely understand that football is the bread winner, even at uk. But ESPN hyped the basketball game all week, more than anything else being played this week. Until I flipped to ESPN, I had no idea that cinci and v.tech were playing Saturday. I also read college forums a lot, most of the big schools had threads on the basketball game, I didn't see any on the cinci/v.tech game. I could be wrong, but I believe the basketball game likely had more viewers. But again, it doesn't matter to me, im just looking at it as a marketing perspective.

^ Gambling... nuff said.

The difference is the players at Duke and UCLA remained in school for 4 years. Kentucky is a semi-pro team that one and done. It's just not college basketball when that happens.

The difference is the players at Duke and UCLA remained in school for 4 years. Kentucky is a semi-pro team that one and done. It's just not college basketball when that happens.

 

You sure about that? Duke has quite a few one and dones in their history.

The difference is the players at Duke and UCLA remained in school for 4 years. Kentucky is a semi-pro team that one and done. It's just not college basketball when that happens.

 

That's actually the new trend of college basketball. Like it or not, most successful teams are recruiting some one and dones.

 

It's a bit ironic that everyone hated the fact that Kentucky has had so many one and dones since Cals arrival. Then comes last year, where the majority of the team stayed and look at the nightmare 90% of the teams out there have to face when playing this Kentucky team. You asked for it, now you've got it.

 

So ill ask you this, in your opinion which would be worse for college basketball in the long run. Kentucky recruiting one and dones and having a down year every couple of years. Or Kentucky still recruiting the best of the best and stockpiling them for 2-3 years, which would generally produce a championship contender or favorite every single year?

Terrible bowl games get better ratings than great basketball games 99% of the time...

 

I read where the UK vs UL game was the highest rated Bball game in the history of ESPN2. Not sure if the ratings were better than the football game but I saw it so I thought I would mention it.

And for the record there are much worse bowl games out there.

 

I read where the UK vs UL game was the highest rated Bball game in the history of ESPN2. Not sure if the ratings were better than the football game but I saw it so I thought I would mention it.

 

I noticed that also.

The difference is the players at Duke and UCLA remained in school for 4 years. Kentucky is a semi-pro team that one and done. It's just not college basketball when that happens.

 

You do realize this scenario happened at Duke in 1999, long before it happened at UK?

Sandbagger.

 

If UK loses at Alabama or Tennessee, I'll eat my hat.

 

:popcorn:

Sandbagger.

 

If UK loses at Alabama or Tennessee, I'll eat my hat.

 

Do you prefer Stetsons, Mossy Oak or Hello Kitty hats?

At this point they are just another team, no way they are bad or good...just another team.

I think the waterd down NBA is what is bad for college basketball. There appear to be too many teams in the league. With so many teams you have to dip into the college and HS ranks to fill rosters with perspective players. Look at how many guys get drafted and you never here of them again. Obviously you have a few each year that are going to make a splash, but the overall performances in the league is less than appealing. I think it is wise to try and manipulate this system to your advantage as UK, Kansas, and even Duke in the last couple years are trying to do. This can only be cleaned up by the NBA.

I think the waterd down NBA is what is bad for college basketball. There appear to be too many teams in the league. With so many teams you have to dip into the college and HS ranks to fill rosters with perspective players. Look at how many guys get drafted and you never here of them again. Obviously you have a few each year that are going to make a splash, but the overall performances in the league is less than appealing. I think it is wise to try and manipulate this system to your advantage as UK, Kansas, and even Duke in the last couple years are trying to do. This can only be cleaned up by the NBA.

Couldn't agree more... The NBA is terribly watered down and full of players that are not developed enough to be there. I had that debate on another thread a few weeks ago. NBA is a shell of what it once was.