May 4, 200719 yr Sept 3, 1994 Kentucky 20, Louisville 14 Sept 2, 1995 Louisville 13, Kentucky 10 Aug 31, 1996 Louisville 38, Kentucky 14 Aug 30, 1997 Kentucky 38, Louisville 24 Sept 5, 1998 Kentucky 68, Louisville 34 Sept 4, 1999 Louisville 56, Kentucky 28 Sept 2, 2000 Louisville 40, Kentucky 34 (OT) Sept 1, 2001 Louisville 36, Kentucky 10 Sept 1, 2002 Kentucky 22, Louisville 17 Aug 31, 2003 Louisville 40, Kentucky 24 Sept 4, 2004 Louisville 28, Kentucky 0 Sept 4, 2005 Louisville 31, Kentucky 24 Sept 3, 2006 Louisville 59, Kentucky 28 There went my theory...
May 4, 200719 yr So far in this thread you have said I am biased after a post where I said UL is the better football program. You have said that an argument that UK feels it would help their chances by playing after getting a couple games under their belt and you laugh at the fact that I think the program will maintain a pretty decent status over the next few years. :lol: :lol: :lol: I guess its a boring day at the office. It's pretty simple. If you want maintained success you don't take the path UK is on with this decision. You get on national TV all you can, and you don't tuck tail and run at the first chance because you feel you'll get embarrassed. UK isn't acting like they are that interested in long term success based on this choice. This wasn't any ordinary Saturday ESPN game. It was the only game on national on the Sunday before the NFL starts. It was a HUGE stage for both programs AND the state. They backed down. They wanted nothing to do with that stage. That tells me a lot about the future of where the program is headed...
May 4, 200719 yr So far in this thread you have said I am biased after a post where I said UL is the better football program. You have said that an argument that UK feels it would help their chances by playing after getting a couple games under their belt and you laugh at the fact that I think the program will maintain a pretty decent status over the next few years. :lol: :lol: :lol: I guess its a boring day at the office. I'm not saying you are or are not biased but, bias has nothing to do with knowing which program is better.
May 4, 200719 yr There went my theory... The last two games at UK were close. Either way they will still get their tail kicked at the Pizza Box for everyone to see every other year...
May 4, 200719 yr I'm going to miss seeing the game 1st week, and on national tv. I don't like putting it a couple weeks back. Might not get to see the game if it's on tape delay, I don't get any local channels on satellite. I don't think moving the game helps UK at all really, and I'll stick by that even if they win this year.
May 4, 200719 yr Author Just look at the stats: Louisville.......................Kentucky 59..............Score..............28 363...........Rush Yd.............22 268...........Pass Yd............238 6.6.............Yard/R............1.2 63%..........Comp %...........38% 31.........1st Downs.............8 8/15......3rd Down Conv......2/12 1/1......4th Down Conv......0/1 38:36............TOP............21:24 That's domination, pure and simple. UK was down 28-0 with 10 minutes left in the 2nd quarter.
May 4, 200719 yr First of all I happen to agree that moving the game is crap. I see no sense in it at all. Of course, it will give all the U.L. fans and/or U.K. haters a thread to party on (and it has, 3pgs.,112 post). Have at it guys, you are in your element.
May 4, 200719 yr It's pretty simple. If you want maintained success you don't take the path UK is on with this decision. You get on national TV all you can I have to agree wit this GT, Brooks at his best . I can't leave Barnhart out of it either. Bad decision all the way around.
May 4, 200719 yr I hate it and I'm a UK fan, but, in reality, UK being in the SEC and UL being a Top 10 team will get them plenty of exposure throughout the year. If this game is picked up as a regional game somewhere, I wouldn't feel bad at all, but, who knows if it will or won't, at this point...Me being too far away to go to the game, for selfish reasons, I wish it would have stayed where it was...
May 4, 200719 yr I have to agree wit this GT, Brooks at his best . I can't leave Barnhart out of it either. Bad decision all the way around. :thumb: UK is resting on the SEC for football success, and that's not going to cut it IMO. Florida/UT/Bama/Georgia are going to spend plenty of time on the big networks in great time slots. UK is just hoping to be an opponent in one of those games now. At a school like UK it shouldn't be acceptable to be FIVE games behind UL on a national stage...
May 4, 200719 yr IMO, the best way to get to a level of sustained mediocrity or above is dependent on winning seasons and bowl games more so than just being on national TV for the sake of being on. I'll repeat myself, for the Cats to do that, they cannot lose multiple non-conference games. Losing the first one out of the gate doesn't help...it puts more pressure on the team to win the rest of them and that can snowball if they have a slow start in another game or someone goes down with injury. Let the new found success become something the players and the program gets used to and the national spotlight will come looking for you. Remember, UK is trying to build its program in the top football conference in the country, not Conference USA.
May 4, 200719 yr I'm not saying you are or are not biased but, bias has nothing to do with knowing which program is better. All I am simply dissagreeing with some of the people in this thread on is that this decision is not indicative of the direction our program is in. Some are saying that we will not build a good program because we don't want to play UL the first game of the season. The criticism is over the top IMO.
May 4, 200719 yr Here's the flaw in that line of thinking. How was the game last time it was at UK? Close? They don't get to move the game that's at UL, and that's when it get ugly, right? In week 1 with a ton returning and playing at home on national TV against the Cards in the first game under the new coach, UK had a very good chance of pulling the shocking upset and being huge national news. Now with little to no national attention on the game it means less to the entire state. That's not good IMO. They made a bold decision and now it looks like a very bad one. That's all I'm saying... Talk about "Classic". You can't be serious. It's gonna mean the same it always has to fans in the state. Also, how is everyone so POSITIVE that the reasoning was to not get embarrassed on TV? I find it comical that everyone is jumping to that conclusion. Is there not an argument for the side that says that UK honestly believes it will have a better shot of beating the Cards in week 3 than in the opening week? It's pretty apparent that this is a conclusion that is being jumped to (and it's quite obvious that the anti-UK fans are the ones coming to this conclusion).
May 4, 200719 yr All I am simply dissagreeing with some of the people in this thread on is that this decision is not indicative of the direction our program is in. Some are saying that we will not build a good program because we don't want to play UL the first game of the season. The criticism is over the top IMO. It's about ducking the national stage. It was a knee jerk reaction to the beat down last year. And then UK started playing better. And they can't change the game at UL when the beat downs have happened. And now the game will mean nothing in terms of national attention. And that hurts recruiting (more for UK because they only have one guaranteed national game). Like I said earlier. It would serve UK right to win and have no one pay attention. If a tree falls in the forest???
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.