I wrote the following post on the Kent State Report as a response to Kent State's decision to put more emphasis on basketball than football. Although I don't believe WKU has any current plans to emphasize basketball over football, I thought I would share my post here to discourage those people who might believe Division I basketball is a better revenue producer than Division I football.
This discussion usually comes up during March Madness when mid-majors get some attention in the NCAA tournament and suddenly believe they could become the next Gonzaga if only they spend more money on basketball. For example, the following quote comes from a poster on GoMiddle.com who expresses this notion.
"Let me preface my next point by stating a few things. I love football. I proudly wear my MT blue on Saturdays. I have season tickets, and I am BRAA member. I even refuse to drink orange Gatorade strictly because of that color.
However, I have been thinking since March, why not focus on becoming a basketball school? What is stopping us from being the next Wichita St or VCU? We can compete on a national stage in men's and women's basketball. While the chances are very slim, there is still a chance we could make a Final Four. Coaching issues aside, our baseball team has the facilities to host a regional. Also, consider the local talent in basketball and baseball. It is literally in our backyard."
Of course as a mid-major, such a decision like this would have to be at the expense of the football program. Although this poster is sincere and has good intentions, data I reference in my post below shows football is the revenue producer for Division I schools. There could be some exceptions, but I have to believe if football at the University of Kentucky generates over twice as much net revenue as the basketball program, then how could any Division I basketball program produce more revenue than its football program given how bad UK football is compared to UK basketball?
What's Worth More, Kent State Basketball Or Football?
In Elton Alexander's most recent article, "Kent State basketball has 'The Game Plan' but still quite a bit to do," Alexander discusses Kent State's vision to make its men's basketball program the "vehicle for revenue generation and national distinctiveness." Although I realize I'm in the minority, I disagree with KSU's decision to put more emphasis on basketball. To help make my case against prioritizing basketball at the expense of football, I would like to reference the article, "Kentucky Football: What's Worth More, UK Basketball Or Football?"
In the article the author writes, "football is the bell cow of virtually every school's athletics program -- yes, even at Kentucky, and it isn't even a close call." To validate his argument, he quotes Mark Nagel, associate professor in the sport and entertainment management department at the University of South Carolina. Nagel states, "What most people don’t understand is that every school is a football school. The amount of revenue that football can generate dwarfs even the greatest basketball programs. Certainly the fans identify with what sport wins the most, but football just has the potential to make so much more money with attendance and television contracts."
The author uses the University of Kentucky's 2012-13 athletic budget to support this argument. He writes,
"The 2012-13 athletic budget approved in the summer by the UK Board of Trustees shows that football is slated to produce $27.6 million in revenue while spending $9.5 million — for a profit of $18.1 million. By comparison, men’s basketball, even coming off a national championship, is projected to produce $20.8 million in revenue, while spending $12.6 million — for an $8.2 million profit. Those are the only two profitable programs for the university. The other 20 sports lose a combined $11.6 million, according to the 2012-13 budget.
Now, think about that for a minute. The football program, as bad as it is, generates over twice as much net revenue as the basketball program, as good as it is. That is a staggering statistic, and should leave every Kentucky fan thinking about football, and what it means to the university athletics programs.
Football is why the revenue in schools like Florida and Alabama dwarf that of Kentucky. A big football program means big, sweet dollars, and when football struggles to bring in fans, athletics department budgets get rearranged, cut, and priorities reviewed.
The reality at Kentucky is that even though the football program nets more than twice what the basketball program does, the first 'Cat at the feeding trough is always the basketball program. Many people famously blamed this reality for the fact that Paul "Bear" Bryant decided to relocate to Texas A&M rather than stay at Kentucky and compete with Adolph Rupp. A very good examination of that issue can be found at Jon Scott's site.
What this causes is a distortion in the athletics department. Because basketball is the big favorite of university boosters, they get the resources first, and football second. That goes a long way to explain why you rarely see schools succeed at both sports, because one or the other invariably gets short shrift."
So if football at Kentucky generates over twice as much net revenue as its basketball program, how could anyone actually believe that a Division I basketball program could generate more revenue than its Division I football program? For Kent State to use Butler and VCU as a model of success is simply not valid since Butler competes in the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), not the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) like KSU. Moreover, VCU doesn't even have a football team so most of its athletic funding can be allocated to its basketball program.
Another area of contention is regarding the amount of national recognition of a school during the men's NCAA basketball tournament. In Alexander's article, President Warren is quoted as saying, "We've done some analysis, and probably have garnered an estimated $30 million in free advertising,''
Certainly the success of Kent's basketball team this year brought invaluable recognition to the university, but I question the estimated $30 million in free advertising from the NCAA tournament appearance. If seeing Kent State on national television during the NCAA tournament is estimated to bring in $30 million in free advertising, then how much is the publicity of Kent State's name during the Super Bowl worth, not to mention throughout the entire NFL football season given the number of players KSU has had in the NFL. Historically, the names of Lambert, Harrison, and Edelman alone have put Kent State football on the national map. Can the basketball program say the same thing about its history of players in the NBA?
In the coming years, I would hate to see the number of Kent State ambassadors, like Julian Edelman, diminish because KSU decided to prioritize basketball at the expense of football. Hopefully, President Warren and Joel Nielsen will begin to recognize the benefits of a Division I football program and do what is necessary to make the Flashes more competitive.
Doug Kyed
@DougKyed
Julian Edelman wears the same Kent State shirt to practice everyday.
11:28 AM - 19 Jan 2017
https://middletennessee.forums.riva...e-by-conference-and-average-per-school.12182/
http://www.aseaofblue.com/2012/9/18...all-whos-worth-more-uk-basketball-or-football
http://kentstatesports.com/news/2017/2/3/football-flashes-becoming-synonymous-with-super-bowl.aspx
http://nesn.com/2017/01/julian-edel...kent-state-shirt-to-practice-for-seven-years/
This discussion usually comes up during March Madness when mid-majors get some attention in the NCAA tournament and suddenly believe they could become the next Gonzaga if only they spend more money on basketball. For example, the following quote comes from a poster on GoMiddle.com who expresses this notion.
"Let me preface my next point by stating a few things. I love football. I proudly wear my MT blue on Saturdays. I have season tickets, and I am BRAA member. I even refuse to drink orange Gatorade strictly because of that color.
However, I have been thinking since March, why not focus on becoming a basketball school? What is stopping us from being the next Wichita St or VCU? We can compete on a national stage in men's and women's basketball. While the chances are very slim, there is still a chance we could make a Final Four. Coaching issues aside, our baseball team has the facilities to host a regional. Also, consider the local talent in basketball and baseball. It is literally in our backyard."
Of course as a mid-major, such a decision like this would have to be at the expense of the football program. Although this poster is sincere and has good intentions, data I reference in my post below shows football is the revenue producer for Division I schools. There could be some exceptions, but I have to believe if football at the University of Kentucky generates over twice as much net revenue as the basketball program, then how could any Division I basketball program produce more revenue than its football program given how bad UK football is compared to UK basketball?
What's Worth More, Kent State Basketball Or Football?
In Elton Alexander's most recent article, "Kent State basketball has 'The Game Plan' but still quite a bit to do," Alexander discusses Kent State's vision to make its men's basketball program the "vehicle for revenue generation and national distinctiveness." Although I realize I'm in the minority, I disagree with KSU's decision to put more emphasis on basketball. To help make my case against prioritizing basketball at the expense of football, I would like to reference the article, "Kentucky Football: What's Worth More, UK Basketball Or Football?"
In the article the author writes, "football is the bell cow of virtually every school's athletics program -- yes, even at Kentucky, and it isn't even a close call." To validate his argument, he quotes Mark Nagel, associate professor in the sport and entertainment management department at the University of South Carolina. Nagel states, "What most people don’t understand is that every school is a football school. The amount of revenue that football can generate dwarfs even the greatest basketball programs. Certainly the fans identify with what sport wins the most, but football just has the potential to make so much more money with attendance and television contracts."
The author uses the University of Kentucky's 2012-13 athletic budget to support this argument. He writes,
"The 2012-13 athletic budget approved in the summer by the UK Board of Trustees shows that football is slated to produce $27.6 million in revenue while spending $9.5 million — for a profit of $18.1 million. By comparison, men’s basketball, even coming off a national championship, is projected to produce $20.8 million in revenue, while spending $12.6 million — for an $8.2 million profit. Those are the only two profitable programs for the university. The other 20 sports lose a combined $11.6 million, according to the 2012-13 budget.
Now, think about that for a minute. The football program, as bad as it is, generates over twice as much net revenue as the basketball program, as good as it is. That is a staggering statistic, and should leave every Kentucky fan thinking about football, and what it means to the university athletics programs.
Football is why the revenue in schools like Florida and Alabama dwarf that of Kentucky. A big football program means big, sweet dollars, and when football struggles to bring in fans, athletics department budgets get rearranged, cut, and priorities reviewed.
The reality at Kentucky is that even though the football program nets more than twice what the basketball program does, the first 'Cat at the feeding trough is always the basketball program. Many people famously blamed this reality for the fact that Paul "Bear" Bryant decided to relocate to Texas A&M rather than stay at Kentucky and compete with Adolph Rupp. A very good examination of that issue can be found at Jon Scott's site.
What this causes is a distortion in the athletics department. Because basketball is the big favorite of university boosters, they get the resources first, and football second. That goes a long way to explain why you rarely see schools succeed at both sports, because one or the other invariably gets short shrift."
So if football at Kentucky generates over twice as much net revenue as its basketball program, how could anyone actually believe that a Division I basketball program could generate more revenue than its Division I football program? For Kent State to use Butler and VCU as a model of success is simply not valid since Butler competes in the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), not the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) like KSU. Moreover, VCU doesn't even have a football team so most of its athletic funding can be allocated to its basketball program.
Another area of contention is regarding the amount of national recognition of a school during the men's NCAA basketball tournament. In Alexander's article, President Warren is quoted as saying, "We've done some analysis, and probably have garnered an estimated $30 million in free advertising,''
Certainly the success of Kent's basketball team this year brought invaluable recognition to the university, but I question the estimated $30 million in free advertising from the NCAA tournament appearance. If seeing Kent State on national television during the NCAA tournament is estimated to bring in $30 million in free advertising, then how much is the publicity of Kent State's name during the Super Bowl worth, not to mention throughout the entire NFL football season given the number of players KSU has had in the NFL. Historically, the names of Lambert, Harrison, and Edelman alone have put Kent State football on the national map. Can the basketball program say the same thing about its history of players in the NBA?
In the coming years, I would hate to see the number of Kent State ambassadors, like Julian Edelman, diminish because KSU decided to prioritize basketball at the expense of football. Hopefully, President Warren and Joel Nielsen will begin to recognize the benefits of a Division I football program and do what is necessary to make the Flashes more competitive.
Doug Kyed @DougKyed
Julian Edelman wears the same Kent State shirt to practice everyday.
11:28 AM - 19 Jan 2017
https://middletennessee.forums.riva...e-by-conference-and-average-per-school.12182/
http://www.aseaofblue.com/2012/9/18...all-whos-worth-more-uk-basketball-or-football
http://kentstatesports.com/news/2017/2/3/football-flashes-becoming-synonymous-with-super-bowl.aspx
http://nesn.com/2017/01/julian-edel...kent-state-shirt-to-practice-for-seven-years/
Last edited:
