Ignis Fatuus

[blueheretic]

WORDS

[teamchemistry15]

I'm not sure there's a fan out there happy with Stoops right now. With a football program, you can't really flip the standards over night with such a short season. You have to have a natural progression, and that's what Stoops did until a few years ago. There's only about ten schools out there that the best coaches aspire to hear from when there's an opening, and UK isn't one of them. So, we have to find a young coach who can improve the program over a number of years. Showing up and supporting the bowl games and eight win seasons brings in more revenue for the program and department. That's how you get new facilities, equipment upgrades, etc which help attract better players and staff. If fans didn't support eight win seasons and bowl games, why would coaches of any quality want to come here? The standard at UK should, for now, be 7-8 wins a year and bowl victories. Do that consistently, as Stoops showed us, and you'll get better facilities and players. Do that consistently, and eight can turn into ten. He showed us that, as well. With the new playoffs, ten wins in the SEC gets you there, but it's unrealistic to have a standard as something we don't accomplish in an average year. Stoops has gone the wrong way and I'm afraid he's too stubborn and old school to turn it around. A guy like Sumrall could get us to the standard, and the hope with him is that he stays around when the bigger schools call because this has been home to him for quite some time.

[Trueblujr]

I think I eluded to it in another thread, but if things go in the toilet this year, they can’t afford NOT to pay Stoops buyout. They’ll lose that much in revenue and lack of ticket sales if he’s still here and conversely, they’ll recoup at least some of it if a change is made and there’s renewed enthusiasm. But it does go to your point about it being all about the dollars and revenue and not the wins and losses, but they also have to realize the more you win the more revenue you generate, especially with a base hungry for a winning product. We’ve shown that when we are winning, we can support and show out for the football team as well as anyone.

[blueheretic]

words

[blueheretic]

words

[teamchemistry15]

I think I eluded to it in another thread, but if things go in the toilet this year, they can’t afford NOT to pay Stoops buyout. They’ll lose that much in revenue and lack of ticket sales if he’s still here and conversely, they’ll recoup at least some of it if a change is made and there’s renewed enthusiasm. But it does go to your point about it being all about the dollars and revenue and not the wins and losses, but they also have to realize the more you win the more revenue you generate, especially with a base hungry for a winning product. We’ve shown that when we are winning, we can support and show out for the football team as well as anyone.

Correct. Look at the hype, attendance, and exposure when we had our eight and ten win seasons. The stadium was full, fans were traveling to away games, bowl games were packed. People can say it's all about revenue, but wins equal revenue, and having consistent winning seasons up until these last two years has allowed this program to develop it's facilities and resources.

[blueheretic]

words

[teamchemistry15]

Yet, we're back to skid row.

I know some people hate to hear this.

What happened to the revenue such that Kentucky regressed from 10-3 to 4-8 in three years with another 4 win season on the horizon?



Kentucky hasn't won a bowl game since that 10 win season. Kentucky is 7Ws and 18Ls in the SEC since that 10 win season.

Should not all of that revenue have elevated Kentucky or, at the very least, allowed a leveling off at 10 wins.

Instead, we find ourselves back in the bottom of the SEC pack.

Again, I realize that some people have no wish to discuss factual statistics. I, however, enjoy discussions of this nature.

Wins = revenue, revenue doesn't = wins

Stoops is no longer the best option to be the coach at UK. The game has left him behind. But, all of the revenue that was generated from the success he had here translated to facility and stadium upgrades, did it not?

[blueheretic]

words

[teamchemistry15]

If it translates not to wins, to what purpose is it?

Revenue should equal wins. That not happening tells me that UKAD has other Jerry Jones-like priorities with football.

Do you think the revenue was the same last year as years past when we had winning seasons? If it was, you might have an argument. But, it doesn't take a genius to look at ticket sales and the loss of a bowl opportunity to see that revenue is down. Less wins equals less revenue. More wins equals more revenue. It should be a pretty simple concept to understand.

People aren't happy with Stoops and this is likely his last year. Why? Because he isn't winning and it's costing the athletic department a bunch of, you guessed it, revenue. Barnhart isn't holding onto him because he's bringing in a bunch of money, because he isn't. He held onto him this year because he deserved a chance to right the ship and it isn't going to work. He'll see that, while he has to pay a buyout, he won't be able to afford to keep him because he won't have the support to bring in the, you guessed it, revenue.

[teamchemistry15]

More proof that wins, excitement, and support lead to revenue: It was announced that a new practice facility for the basketball team is coming. The football and basketball programs have very similar trajectories. Cal came in and gave the program life, we had a very successful stretch, support and excitement through the roof, revenue flowing in. Then, stubborn Cal grows, doesn't change with the game, fans grow disgruntled as the results are underwhelming, revenue slows down and boosters disappear. Cal leaves, Mitch hires Pope. Pope brings new energy, excitement, tournament wins, and an update approach. Suddenly, revenue is flowing in, the NIL fund is growing, better players are coming, new facilities are being built. Now, change "Cal" to "Stoops" in that statement and insert the next coach of our football team.

Winning brings in support and revenue, revenue leads to program development, and program development equals more opportunities to win. When the winning stops, so does everything else.

[Sjslhill]

It’s curious how often Kentucky’s football failures get laid at the feet of the fans—“didn’t cheer hard enough,” “too negative,” “not supportive.” Backwards. The one thing fans truly control isn’t decibels; it’s leverage.

For roughly seventy years, Kentucky football has been mostly anemic—sporadically decent, sometimes dreadful, with only flashes of real success. Yet the parking lots still fill, the tailgates still smoke, the tickets still scan. Unconditional loyalty erases accountability. When demand is guaranteed, supply has no reason to improve.

Remember the last Joker year. Fans stopped showing up. That single market signal forced Barnhart’s hand. If the seats had stayed full, the Joker Phillips experiment almost certainly would have dragged on. The lesson was plain: UK Athletics values the revenue football generates more than the results it produces. If the money flows regardless, why spend like a program chasing championships?

We keep proving we’ll show up for 6–8 wins, a bowl trip, and a will-o’-the-wisp SEC title dream that never quite materializes—and, too often, we even show up for 2–3 win seasons and just grumble. UKAD reads that as satisfaction and budgets for satisfaction.

This isn’t about cheering louder. It’s about standards. As long as we accept a product that tops out at “respectable,” that’s exactly what we’ll keep getting. Fans aren’t the problem because we’re negative; we’re the problem because we’ve been reliably positive—no matter the output.

If we want UK to take football seriously, the fans have to take football seriously. We do not. Instead, we act like pre-teen cheerleaders and a loud and vocal minority whines at anyone who actually wants a Championship football program.

I did my part, I no longer go. I had free tickets last Saturday, told them I was not interested until Stoops is fired.

[Sjslhill]

Do you think the revenue was the same last year as years past when we had winning seasons? If it was, you might have an argument. But, it doesn't take a genius to look at ticket sales and the loss of a bowl opportunity to see that revenue is down. Less wins equals less revenue. More wins equals more revenue. It should be a pretty simple concept to understand.

People aren't happy with Stoops and this is likely his last year. Why? Because he isn't winning and it's costing the athletic department a bunch of, you guessed it, revenue. Barnhart isn't holding onto him because he's bringing in a bunch of money, because he isn't. He held onto him this year because he deserved a chance to right the ship and it isn't going to work. He'll see that, while he has to pay a buyout, he won't be able to afford to keep him because he won't have the support to bring in the, you guessed it, revenue.

I have never liked Barnhart…….

[teamchemistry15]

I have never liked Barnhart…….

Would you care to explain what that has to do in relation to my post?

[blueheretic]

words