what are referred to as "buyout clauses" are liquidated damages for breach of contract.  That is almost certainly the case here.

And even if it weren't, UK made an agreement.  It should keep it barring extenuating circumstances.  Wanting another home game doesn't qualify, in my book.

You all do realize Andy Katz wrote this article?

I understand your position Tru but I just disagree with it. I dont think there is really anything in your arguement that isnt valid I just dont think it's as big of a deal as you think it is. Contracts are made to be broken. It happens all the time. That's why a buyout clause is included. I dont see many programs as big as ours doing home and homes with A-10 teams anyway. You can highlight some part of my commentary if you would like. Im not trying to refute your argument I simply just disagree with you.

On Holsopple. THAT REALLY SUCKS. I thought he did an excellent job last year and it really sucks that we let him get away. Florida football makes sense for him though. I know we are Kentucky basketball but football is more of a sport for great s&c trainers. I dont think we will miss him as much as we would have if Billy G. wasnt our coach though. From what I hear he really puts his players through the wringer as far as conditioning goes and I fully expect to have a strong team that can run others into the ground.

I don't necessarily like the idea of breaking contracts, but I also think that assuming the worst based on scant evidence is a little much.

Not to mention, Tubby Smith's decision to run his teams through the ringer regardless of his returning squad doomed him to potential double-digit defeats and, at some point, seemed to stop having the effect of toughening the team up for conference season.

I am NOT in favor of the Syracuse/Pitt brand of scheduling so that you're 14-0 without a road game. Syracuse last season is a great example of how this doens't work.

However, I also think that when changes are made, there are naturally changed to be expected elsewhere. Gillispie is already saddled with his predecessor's players, good or bad. He's saddled with 99% of the schedule his predecessor put together. One change -- a change that UK apparently paid cash to make, no? -- isn't a sign of impending doom.

At least not to me.

Contracts ARE made to be broken. If there wasnt fear that they would be broken they wouldnt be made or signed really. They would probably be made just so both parites understood the terms of the agreement but signing would be irrelevant.

I havent quite thought out the following idea so consider free flowing. You (Tru) seem to be really hung up on UK and ethical behavior in general, not that that's a bad thing just an observation. Dont you think that your passion towards UK might be coloring your thought process, especially when UK does something you dont agree with? It seems to me that this kind of thing happens all the time in real world. Just because it happens doesnt make it ethcical, I get it, but yours is the only voice in fandom that I have encountered today that is so hung up on this. So I ask, are you the only ethical fan around or perhaps are you blowing this out of porportion? Our schedule is so tough next year I would appreciate another home date but then again I dont think it was really necessarry to cancel with UMASS and I dont like Bill G avoiding the question. Its a tough call and could go both ways.

So far it has been established that 1)UK did nothing illegal by cancelling the return game; 2)UMASS didn't get a big enough buyout clause on the contract.   What this smacks to me is the typical corporate mentality of bottom line profit margins. People don't matter, neither do agreements. Who cares that most of our industrial jobs are going overseas and that the US doesn't produce anything except pollution and entertainment. Who cares that we are quickly becoming a service industry nation? How does this relate to the UK/UMASS situation? Well, first off, I don't believe that UMASS was worried that UK would try to get out of the return game, hence the low buyout clause. Travis Ford (former UK idol)being head coach probably being a big reason for that. UK fans like nothing better than a game that has UK involvement in the whole aspect of the game..."Hey, did you hear that the mascot of the Beevers was boning Barnhart's ol lady?", so a return game seemed inevitable.
Now that Tubby left our money minder AD saw that we could benefit by paying the paltry sum of 50 gees to tell UMASS to piss off and turn around and schedule ANYONE U to play us at home and make five times the amount. To heck with the fact that we said we would play the game. To heck with the fact that UMASS already lived up to their part of the bargain. We have a bs way of getting out of the return date so why not use it? It's not illegal, just the typical corporate mentality that says as long as the shareholders consistently get their money who cares if the little shmoes have money in their pocket?
I say eff the whole process. Schedule cupcakes at home for EVERY non-conference game and let the conference schedule toughen us up for the NCAA tourney. That will do it for us. That will get UK the most money and the fans get to see their boys more because they're at home every game. Don't go to other arenas cause we could lose out. And if for some god-awful reason we should have to play an away game, definitly don't go someplace where it wouldn't benefit us recruiting-wise. There are only UK fans in every corner of this tiny little sphere called earth, but they don't quite count unless they live near lexington since that is the only place you would watch them play prior to conference.

In a nutshell, I agree with TRU, this may not be illegal but it looks like the beginning of a trend. First we cancel with UMASS, what's next? Maybe we can join the ACC? The SEC has been a sucky conference, I'm sure as a charter member we could find some way to get out of it on the cheap. One frigging game would ruin our whole season next year? PLEEEEEAASSEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!
Barnhart should be a MAN and stick to the word of the University. I'm sure UMASS would have asked for a bigger buyout clause if they though UK would actually use that option. Well folks, now other teams will and when there is a legitimate reason to get out of a game UK will have to pay dearly and scritch barnhart and co will probably cry foul.  I for one will be happy when people do what they say. GO BIG BLUE!!! (GO AWAY MONEY-MINDERS!)

well, there isn't much, for sure, except for Holsopple.

It may have been a bad PR move but it's hardly uncommon when major program changes are made.

See... I find this interesting. Over to the side bar on ESPN is a story on Kentucky paying to get out of a game with UMass. It has drawn 181 comments as of my last check. Many of those comments consist of claims of Kentucky fading into obscurity... then we have the lead story on the Mens BBall section being about UConn, Duke, and Arizona and their plans for coach succession... and it draws one comment consisting of "Fiiiiiiiirst." This makes me question which school is truly in danger of fading into obscurity if UK can draw that much attention for a non-story (from fans and haters alike).

Honestly, I'd rather lose the game than cancel it.  Wanting more home and fewer away games isn't a good enough reason, IMHO to cancel that contract.  Travis is doing a bang-up job up there, but it's still only UMass.

Ethically, it's perfectly sound if it's a buyout clause because the agreement is being honored. Honoring the buyout clause portion is no less honorable than honoring the play-the-game portion.  (EKO has discussed at length so I won't repeate it)

But it's weak, so I don't like it for that reason.  What we love about UK is how aggressive we are with our schedule.  We'll play anybody.  We don't take the December Cake Walk like Duke, Syracuse, or Florida.

Then again, it may be a successful strategy for rebuilding.  So I'll give Gillispie the benefit of the doubt.  But I'm still not happy about it.

those do cost $!! The chopper my company leases has practically wiped out the support staff and promotional dollars just to have it. I can see how a private plane would require a goodly sum of dough to have around much less to acquire. Even a previously owned one with a logo retrofit would make the average joe squirt blood. Blueblood may have hit the nail on the head for the UMASS decision. Which brings up the following? Do we say that as fans we should support the cancellation due to obvious recruiting advantages by having a lovely airplane like the other big boys or do we say wait till next year after we've spanked Coach Ford at home? I say spank Travis as promised and let those fans who have the ability to support the university financially do so in order to maintain the performance expected. Believe me, I don't dislike Ford or wish him anything but success, but as long as he is UK's opponent he should expect nothing but a whooping. ha ha Also, why not have an AD that knows how to effectively merchandise a product that should reap revenue like a B-2 Bomber sucks gas on takeoff. I consider myself an avid UK collectibles collector. My collection pales in comparison to many others. A responsible AD would capitalize on that by offering the most rabid fans of all teams the opportunity for unique items that no other teams offer, etc yada yada marketing marketing, blah blah....See my point. There is really no good excuse not to go to UMASS and kick their ass.
Tip your waitresses they deserve it.