LEXINGTON, Ky. — John Calipari says he has some things he wants to discuss with Mitch Barnhart. One thing in particular. The Kentucky basketball coach says he wants to talk to the UK athletics director about a facilities upgrade.
Last month, Calipari told Dan Issel and Mike Pratt on their Louisville radio show that executives from Major League Baseball’s Philadelphia Phillies had visited the UK sports complex. They were wowed by the new baseball stadium. They were impressed by the soccer and softball stadiums. They loved the new football training facility. As for basketball, well, they were expecting more.
During the SEC spring meetings last week in Destin, Fla., the UK coach repeated the same refrain on the SEC Network’s Paul Finebaum Show.
“We slipped a little bit in some of the facilities,” Calipari told Finebaum. “Now I’m not saying our facilities are bad — they’re not bad — it’s not the gold standard. Mitch and I are going to sit down and talk. OK, what’s the path? How do we get that going to where anybody that walks on our campus and sees any facilities knows, ‘Wow, look at this.’ ”
That would take money, of course. And it also raises a key question that speaks to where college athletics finds itself at this point in time: Should a school spend money on facilities? Or should a school spend money on signing and keeping players?
That’s what is happening. Through NIL (name, image and likeness) or other means, schools are giving money to players. It was the crux of Nick Saban’s recent controversial comments when the Alabama football coach said that Texas A&M had “bought” its No. 1-ranked 2022 recruiting class.
Texas A&M coach Jimbo Fisher objected, to put it mildly. And Saban later said he was wrong to single out a specific school. But Saban also contended he never said the Aggies were doing anything against the rules. That’s because there are no rules. The NCAA has tried and so far failed to get the federal government involved. The NCAA has also tried to impose some sort of retroactive guidelines. Few believe those will stick.
While Power Five college athletics programs are flush with money, there is only so much to go around. That’s true of the boosters that help fund the programs. If you’re an AD, do you ask the booster for help to build a new practice court? Or do you ask the booster to help secure a competitive NIL deal for a five-star power forward? Which is more likely to help you win a national championship?
“Gold standard” facilities are a recruiting tool, but I doubt they rank higher than NIL money on the prospect wish list. If you are a recruit, do you choose a tradition-rich program that promises to help you make big money down the road professionally, or a program that offers to help you make money up front, with a chance of earning more in the future?
Some might be amazed that many professional practice and training facilities pale in comparison to facilities enjoyed by big-time college programs. After all, pro franchises put their money into player salaries. Colleges didn’t have to pay their players, so they could spend funds on other enticements. It’s the reason the top college basketball coaches make more money than the top NBA coaches.
That was then. This is now. And with that change, the facilities dynamic could change with it. There’s been a never-ending arms race in college athletics when it comes to stadiums, weight rooms, practice fields and courts. Bigger is always better. More is never enough. There’s no such thing as a facilities spending cap. How much longer will that last?
One thing will never change: It’s all about the money. And the programs that succeed in this brave new world of college athletics will be the ones that figure out how best to use it.
Do you want a new practice court? Or do you want a top prospect? It might be that you can’t have both.
