OK, just read it. This article tells us nothing we didn't already know, and certainly does little to refute the fact that A) UK fans care more about basketball and B) If UK had historically bothered to fund football, maybe the football program could fund the rest of the athletics budgets like it does at big-time schools. Unless you're ready to tell me that Ohio State and Alabama and Florida just get it done by way of smoke and mirrors.

 

What that leaves me to believe is one thing: UK's lack of interest in football, from a fan and an administration standpoint, means UK is OK with being seen as low-rent by the rest of the nation. Please don't act like "five straight bowl games" is some sort of badge of honor, because nobody cares about that in this day and age where you have to be absolutely putrid to not be invited to a bowl.

You are absolutely wrong!!! The UK football team makes over twice as much money as the basketball team and does fund every other athletic team other than mens basketball.

"...they don't agree with my bias against Kentucky and anything and everything they do."

 

We get it Jim. You're incapable of being impartial.

 

Just because something doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make it wrong. And don't accuse me of holding the bias either. I'm coming up with numbers and sources. You have personal anecdotes and documented anti-UK views.

 

If we're sticking with personal experience, I've had cable from 3 different providers in 3 different states. I received ESPNU from all 3. Therefore everyone must get ESPNU.

 

But you're the paragon of impartiality? And I have a very strong record away from here that suggests you're wrong in your assessment of me. I poke because you guys get so infuriated at it. Like shooting fish in a bucket.

 

And besides, I could write a post on here that was glowing in its assessment of UK, but you'd find something negative about it because you don't like the messenger.

 

Anyway, I just said I question the numbers, not that I'm 100 percent sure they're wrong. Just that my experience has been the opposite as far as the availability of ESPNU goes. Plus, you're not telling the whole story. Did you pay for a higher-tier package that included ESPNU? Or did that automatically come with the basic package (channels 2-75)? My parents don't get it; they've got Insight. I've had Time Warner in the past and it didn't come with ESPNU on basic cable. My brother gets it on Insight, but he pays for an extra tier to get it.

You are absolutely wrong!!! The UK football team makes over twice as much money as the basketball team and does fund every other athletic team other than mens basketball.

 

Source?

You are absolutely wrong!!! The UK football team makes over twice as much money as the basketball team and does fund every other athletic team other than mens basketball.

 

I've been at work all day so I haven't had much of a chance to dig through the most recent round of financial disclosures I started looking through this morning, but I think that's not going to be accurate. Football definitely makes more money than basketball, but I don't think it's more than $12 million, which doesn't come close to covering the athletic department's non-football-and-basketball budget.

 

In any case, it's difficult to determine because a lot of the revenue comes from donations that aren't necessarily program-specific, which makes establishing football and basketball revenues difficult to determine.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/20/which-football-and-basketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/

^ I never liked that list. I don't trust Louisville's allotment of certain things toward basketball that probably should be allocated as "non-program-specific" revenue sources, if I had to guess. The complete budgetary disclosures, if I can find them again, are a lot more comprehensive.