ADVERTISEMENT

More like Oakland than the slapd!cks...

May 29, 2022
4,718
1,821
26
Screenshot-2024-03-24-at-1-00-55-AM.jpg



U of L spent $8.6 million on MBB in 2023, and $7.8 million the year before. Therefore...

Bball-expenses-national.jpg

And we wonder what's happened...
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKCoachesGraveyard
It's all about the money long term. We'd better have a good product to sell AND the BEST people to do it. Right now we absolutely do not have either.
 
Very misleading, as it was never about Oakland, as they too are gone. UK‘s “one and done“ experiment has consequences, and BBN must decide now between winning the NBA talent war, or actually competing for championships.

BBN, Cal and UK are witnessing the results when the rest of the SEC decided to hire the best basketball coaches and displace UK from its historical perch.
 
Screenshot-2024-03-24-at-1-00-55-AM.jpg



U of L spent $8.6 million on MBB in 2023, and $7.8 million the year before. Therefore...

Bball-expenses-national.jpg

And we wonder what's happened...
Oh wow! A graph that shows U of L did something right! Instead of spending the money that UK spends only to end in failure, U of L spent closer to what Oakland does and proves you don't have to spend a lot of money to get some good results! Yea!
 
Because the slapd!cks don't know how to spend their money ain't the point. We all know they're supreme idiots locked into their contract with Calipari. (Though no bigger than U of L is with Payne's contract...)

The issue is they HAVE 3X MORE to spend. U of L and Oakland are eating their dust.

And why wouldn't we be way behind? We spend far less more on men's basketball than we did when Pitino was here. My guess is the slappies are way up in that same time frame.

Completely coincidental with that, what is the state of the men's basketball program vs the other programs? This cluster still hasn't convinced anyone?...
 
Because the slapd!cks don't know how to spend their money ain't the point. We all know they're supreme idiots locked into their contract with Calipari. (Though no bigger than U of L is with Payne's contract...)

The issue is they HAVE 3X MORE to spend. U of L and Oakland are eating their dust.

And why wouldn't we be way behind? We spend far less more on men's basketball than we did when Pitino was here. My guess is the slappies are way up in that same time frame.

Completely coincidental with that, what is the state of the men's basketball program vs the other programs? This cluster still hasn't convinced anyone?...
Of course they have more money to spend you insufferable buffoon - they’re a historically bigger program with a bigger fan base / donor group and they get between 12-15M more per year from the sec, and have for several years. It also doesn’t hurt that they’ve been scandal free for quite some time while your hero was asleep at the switch while his assistants ran wild breaking laws and rules.

Sheesh…
 
Nice try, but again the graph just as easily shows that both Kentucky and Louisville are overspending what is needed when compared to Oakland. If thrre is a desire to logically discuss a concern about the size of the budget for the program, with the contention that the budget should be bigger, the best and most direct way to alleviate that is through a new coach who is successful on the court and personable and approachable off the court.
 
Because the slapd!cks don't know how to spend their money ain't the point. We all know they're supreme idiots locked into their contract with Calipari. (Though no bigger than U of L is with Payne's contract...)

The issue is they HAVE 3X MORE to spend. U of L and Oakland are eating their dust.

And why wouldn't we be way behind? We spend far less more on men's basketball than we did when Pitino was here. My guess is the slappies are way up in that same time frame.

Completely coincidental with that, what is the state of the men's basketball program vs the other programs? This cluster still hasn't convinced anyone?...
Hey!!!! Why don’t you go over to their board and be a pain in the ass there….give us a break for awhile!!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: BPGhost and Art79
Nice try, but again the graph just as easily shows that both Kentucky and Louisville are overspending what is needed when compared to Oakland. If thrre is a desire to logically discuss a concern about the size of the budget for the program, with the contention that the budget should be bigger, the best and most direct way to alleviate that is through a new coach who is successful on the court and personable and approachable off the court.
Then let’s cut all spending to Oakland’s since it doesn’t matter.

“There goes a brown dog. Therefore all dogs are brown…”
 
Then let’s cut all spending to Oakland’s since it doesn’t matter.

“There goes a brown dog. Therefore all dogs are brown…”
How clever! Let me see if I’ve got the gist.

“Tom Jurich is not part of the ‘clown show’. Therefore anyone who is not Tom Jurich must be part of the ‘clown show’.”

Now see if you can make one in haiku format!
 
How clever! Let me see if I’ve got the gist.

“Tom Jurich is not part of the ‘clown show’. Therefore anyone who is not Tom Jurich must be part of the ‘clown show’.”

Now see if you can make one in haiku format!
“Tom is all ADs
Louisville forever lost.
All ADs not Tom.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPGhost
Then let’s cut all spending to Oakland’s since it doesn’t matter.

“There goes a brown dog. Therefore all dogs are brown…”
I didn't say the spending level didn't matter. But maybe it would be worth examining why Oakland was able to have so much success on such a small budget. Clearly there's something they are doing better despite that small budget (player acquisition? coaching?). You embarrassed yourself with your own graph, and you might be able to earn some (a little?) credibility by just admitting that the graph, especially with it including Oakland, was not the best way to score your main point about budgets.
 
Hey!!!! Why don’t you go over to their board and be a pain in the ass there….give us a break for awhile!!
Lol @ OldhamCard335 et al.
just put him on ignore already if you are triggered so easily.

It's easy, even I figured out how to ignore quite a few posters here.
 
Then let’s cut all spending to Oakland’s since it doesn’t matter.

“There goes a brown dog. Therefore all dogs are brown…”
But your reasoning is just as faulty. Where’s UK’s national title? Why didn’t Texas A&M win the national title- in everything/ since they spend more (even for ex- football coaches)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Art79 and BPGhost
I didn't say the spending level didn't matter. But maybe it would be worth examining why Oakland was able to have so much success on such a small budget. Clearly there's something they are doing better despite that small budget (player acquisition? coaching?). You embarrassed yourself with your own graph, and you might be able to earn some (a little?) credibility by just admitting that the graph, especially with it including Oakland, was not the best way to score your main point about budgets.
Oakland has ONE NCAA win in their program’s history, commensurate with their spending.

The embarrassment is on people who don’t understand analysis or who believe in a free lunch…
 
But your reasoning is just as faulty. Where’s UK’s national title? Why didn’t Texas A&M win the national title- in everything/ since they spend more (even for ex- football coaches)?
One data point means next-to-nothing. It means all dogs are brown.

The issue is who has money, how much, and the willingness to spend it. We’re lower and/or declining…
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT