With the release of UK’s non-conference schedule yesterday – and the constant debate surrounding the football program – there’s been a lot of talk about what a “true fan” is, and how fans are “supposed” to act.

I occasionally get to listen to shows during the morning (I normally don’t wake up until noon because I work nights and am a degenerate), but of course I work every day during Big Blue Insider. Between these shows, I’ve heard Stan Norfleet, and Matt Jones on Wednesday with Jeremy Jarmon, discuss the fan bases of both football and basketball, about how not only fans words but their actions can disrupt a program.

I’ve discussed with Stan numerous times both on air and off that fans have only one bullet at their disposal – the withholding of funds. If fans choose not to spend money, that’s their only avenue to voice their displeasure. Mitch Barnhart can ignore message boards, fan websites and radio shows, but he can’t ignore empty seats. Stan has argued that if you don’t purchase tickets, you’re not a “true fan”, whatever that means. Stan’s – and many other people – argument is that you’re a “consumer” at that point. He believes that if you choose not to purchase tickets as a means of showing your disapproval, then you’re not a true fan. I couldn’t disagree more.

Fans are consumers. Fans can either spend their money purchasing tickets, apparel, and concessions, or they could just spend their time posting on message boards, listening to the radio, calling into KSR, Leach or Big Blue insider and reading fan blogs. Of course they can do both, and in Kentucky, most do. UK isn’t just a part of the community – it is the community. You can’t set clear criteria for the purposes of labeling individuals as “fans” because it’s nearly impossible to do such. Is a guy who listens to every game on the radio more of a fan than one who only reads recaps after the event? Is a woman who watches every game at home with her family less of a fan than a man who attends every game? What about a couple that purchases apparel but doesn’t attend games, are they fans? The sports landscape has changed with the advent of not only state-of-the-art home theater equipment, but the evolution of social media. For many people, sitting at home and watching a game while on Twitter is more fun than actually attending a game in person. A fan has a chose every month: do I spend money on tickets/UK merchandise, or do I use it for something else? Sports is a business, and in business, it’s all about getting the consumer to buy your product over something else.

I’ve received a lot of flak for saying this, but college sports is becoming more and more of a business, and while that does reap some benefits – better facilities, more revenue for schools – the more it becomes a business the more it drifts away from being entertainment. Schools have been moving from conference to conference, forever chasing the dollar. As a result of that, traditional rivalries such as UK vs Indiana, St Johns vs Syracuse and Texas vs Texas A&M have not only been threatened but have ceased to be. I was shocked that a school and a community like Kentucky, so steeped in tradition, would so easily give up the Indiana series just when Indiana appeared to be righting the ship. I understand that you still have Tennessee and Louisville, but I’ve always been told that college basketball was about one thing: rivalries. Yet here we are, taking away a series that has produced not just great games but great stories which we recite to this day, and we just roll over saying “yea well, that’s the way it is now”. We’re expected to act that way, because doing otherwise is now seen as being “against the program”, or just not getting it. We’re expected to just hand over money because if you don’t, again, you’re not a fan.

This comes down to two sports, primarily college football but also basketball. UK football and Joker Phillips are expected to have a dreadful season, although every UK fan (including myself, since I actually enjoy college football) is hoping for the best. Yet I keep hearing how the fans shouldn’t vent their frustrations both with their wallets (threatening to not attend games) or online, because recruits hear/read our negativity. That’s total BS. What are fans if not passionate? Hell, the word fan is short for “fanatic”. Somehow the fans are the ones to blame for not willingly (and blindly) shelling over their hard-earned money to watch bad football? While there is some unjust criticism of Joker in both the media and on online forums, there are plenty of valid points out there too. I can’t get behind this notion that you can only call yourself a fan if you buy the tickets, continue to go to every blowout, and then smile and say “next time!” That’s not how I was raised, and that’s not what the UK or any fan base should accept either. Fans have the right to speak with their wallets, and they especially have the right to go out and complain amongst their peers.

The other is, of course, college basketball. This state is college basketball, no matter how many terrible movies and pictures of Larry Bird Indiana can ship out. Fans trek from all over the state just to sit at the top of Rupp and watch the Cats beat some scrub team by 40, sometimes driving hours each way. I’ve called in sick and driving to Nashville at the last moment to watch UK get killed by Vandy during the Lost Years, and I’m not even that big of a fan! Everyone here connects with the university…and the university knows that.

I’m not saying that UK is abuse it’s relationship with the fans. I’m also not saying that UK owes the fans better opponents at home. However the situation is a puzzle, as UK basketball connects to fans in this state in a way that few places outside of Kentucky can understand. For some, just getting to Rupp to sit all the way up top and watch ants of UK defeat ants of Scrub U by 40 points is enough of a thrill. So many fans go to games just to watch UK, regardless of the competition. Others are harder to please, as they are growing tired of paying money hand over fist for season tickets (which for lower level are $50 per seat per game, along with a $5,000 donation per seat to the K Fund) to watch, on average, mediocre basketball. UK has tough games in their schedule, but they’re neutral site. Are the people who won’t purchase neutral site tickets “bad fans”, or worse than those who will? I don’t think so. Some people just have different priorities, and I can’t fault people for either deciding to spend their money elsewhere, or deliberately using their money to send a message.

So what is a fan? Do we judge fans on their passion? If so, who decides the proper amount of “passion” to be worthy of the title of “fan”? Is being a fan collecting knowledge and dedicating time towards a team or individual, or is it spending money on material and events?

I just hate this discussion concerning “who’s the bigger fan!?!?!?!!” because it’s just a member-measuring contest that is completely pointless. Besides, everyone knows the biggest fan is John Short.