Travis has become enamored of several objects, phrases or events which he frequenly references in the column. Among the most frequent:
'Bama Bangs - a term coined by Travis to refer to southern men's hairstyles that feature prominent bangs for no apparent reason. Brodie Croyle and John Parker Wilson are oft-cited violators of 'Bama Bangs rules.
Read More...
When Clay Travis, acclaimed author of Dixieland Delight, decided to spend the 2008 season up close and personal with UT football, he—and every other college football aficionado—thought he was in for a rollicking ride with one of the leading contenders for the national title. After all, when the Vols kicked off the season on September 1, the defending SEC East champions were ranked 18th in the country. As head coach Phillip Fulmer prepared for the game, he reflected upon a coaching career that included an astounding 147 victories, two SEC championships, and a national title. With 34 years at UT under his belt as both a player and coach, the Tennessee native had just signed a contract extension that projected to keep him at the university long enough to become the winningest coach in program history.
Read More...
There is no college ball more passionate and competitive than football in the Southeastern Conference, where seven of the twelve schools boast stadiums bigger than any in the NFL and 6.5 million fans hit the road every year to hoot and holler their teams to victory.
Read More...
The newly favored man is not really a man at all, but a hairless, effeminate, germ-fearing, non-meat-eating, exfoliating, wristband-wearing woman of the worst order. We as men are told that we must embrace the sacred feminine in ourselves, even if it doesn't actually exist, and become the very quintessence of woman, plus penises. This situation is untenable. This trend must stop.
Read More...
Clay Travis is the only former student manager in the history of college athletics to marry an NFL cheerleader. He managed to pull this off despite an irrational affinity for the television shows Dawson's Creek and My Super Sweet 16. While being raised in Nashville, Tenn., Travis developed a healthy obsession with college sports and Alyssa Milano. As a teenager his greatest accomplishment was taking a doo-rag wearing Luke Duke (balling as Tom Wopat) to the hole at the Nashville YMCA.
In the midst of a stellar legal career during which he specialized in rewarding the unjust and punishing the oppressed, Travis began writing for CBS Sports's SPiN section in September 2005...
Read More...
You could at least get your facts straight. UK's athletic dept. was $2MM in the black while using more than $1MM to fund scholarships for the university. http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show?school_id=2
You were doing okay until your comment about UK operating in the red. Basketball alone will fund coach Cal and his staff. Football will, and always has, funded itself and the other sports. This year, the UKAA will show an increase in fund balance of $6 million.
C'lay,
I think you're misinformed if you're expecting a frenzy over Cal's salary.
It's my understanding that while we certainly don't post the huge revenues that "football schools" like UGA, Texas, and Ohio State do, we're still profitable.
I also know the UK Athletics Association is entirely self-sufficient -- it receives no tax money, state or federal funds, or money from the university's general fund. And it donates proceeds to the university. So while the university might implement hiring freezes and furloughs, it won't have anything to do with Cal's $32 million.
The CNBC article linked below says we netted $6.3 million from basketball alone last year. I can't imagine that when you add our football revenue that we're not revenue positive.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29992697/
The CNBC article just speaks to basketball. Most SEC schools make money on football and men's basketball. That's not a surprise. But they have to use that profit to fund the rest of the athletic department. And the fact is most SEC schools make a lot more money off football than Kentucky does.
Tennessee does around $90 million in total athletics revenue. Kentucky is closer to $50 million. That's a substantial difference.
I think 14 schools were revenue positive for athletics in 2006. Five of them were SEC schools. Kentucky wasn't one of them. I don't know what year you've cited above, it doesn't say.
Maybe they've been revenue positive occasionally. My point is, they aren't an athletics juggernaut. Nowhere near one. Alabama is. Florida is.
Those schools paying that kind of money makes financial sense. Kentucky doesn't. Especially not for basketball which even at Kentucky makes less money than football does.
I don't expect Kentucky fans to be up in arms, the great fallacy of complaints regarding coaching salaries is that the fan base in the state couldn't care less no matter what the school pays. But most fans can't count to a million, so relying on them is a losing proposition.
I just think there's a big distinction in the validity of Alabama paying what they do for football, and Kentucky paying what they do for basketball. One is financially viable in the long term, the other isn't.
Contractually Kentucky could be out $10 million if you toss in the Billy G. buyout. That's for one year. You might not think that's a big deal. I do. Even if they're able to negotiate that buyout down.
Put it this way, if Kentucky wanted to pay a head football coach the average salary in the SEC, they indisputably couldn't afford to do so for the next decade. That's how hamstrung they're going to be. I think that's a pretty big deal.
Now the one wild card that does deserve to be mentioned is the new SEC TV money. That's not been factored into any released athletic budgets thus far.
And it's a windfall. Something like $11 million a year, I think.
It's a number that will make the biggest SEC athletic departments in a different atmosphere than the smaller ones.
You've got a lot of stuff in your reply there, Clay, so excuse me if I ramble a bit.
First, you've still got your facts wrong. I don't know where you're getting your data, but the Louisville Courier Journal says the UKAA's current budget is based on revenues of $67 million -- much closer to $70 million than the $50 million you reference.
Second, you're point about the fallacy of fans being upset about contracts is a red herring. In your interview you said the national media and other objective types would criticize the contract, not the fans. When I said you'll be disappointed if you're expecting a frenzy, I meant a media frenzy. And so far I'd say I'm correct since really the only article I've seen discussing the economics of the deal -- the CNBC article I linked -- said the deal makes economic sense for UK. Maybe there's stuff out there to the contrary, but I haven't seen it.
Third, you seem to have switched your argument from stating that the UKAA can't pay Cal that much without dipping into general university funding, which would cause a PR nightmare (that argument fails given the fact that the UKAA is self-sufficient) to stating that it's not a good idea to pay Cal that much because it leaves the UKAA hamstrung.
Your second argument is better, but I still don't think it's as black and white as you. You say it's indisputable that Kentucky couldn't pay market value for a football coach in the next decade. How so? According to the AJC, the median SEC salary is $2.25 million. The average is $2.41 million. Brooks makes $1.6 million. So you're saying that Cal's deal means it's indisputable that we couldn't come up with another $600,000-$800,000 to pay the median/average rate? I don't think that's indisputable at all. Not with the new Disney dollars -- which you referenced in your second reply -- coming in starting next year, not with planned renovations to Commonwealth Stadium that will add more luxury boxes,not with our lucrative IMG contract (which many other schools have, too, I admit).
Finally, regarding BCG's buyout, you're correct we could be out $10 million this year. And that's a big hit to take. But it's a one off; we obviously won't have to pay that every year and I don't see it having a major impact on whether we can afford a top flight football coach in 2016.