June 20, 200719 yr 1) In basketball it will have a POSITIVE impact on TV coverage. 2) In basketball it's been done before. 3) Are you really going to compare the rivalry in football to the rivalry in basketball? Nothing about it is the same. The prestige difference, and the national recognition makes everything about it different. Including a decision to change the date, which was done for scheduling reasons in basketball- not because, like Barnhart admits, UK wouldn't have been ready in week 1.[/QUOTE] Thats the point of this whole thing. What is wrong with Kentucky doing something that they feel like is better for their football team. As for the basketball game I believe it would be better for Kentucky to play in December rather than later on, right before conference play begins.
June 20, 200719 yr Thats the point of this whole thing. What is wrong with Kentucky doing something that they feel like is better for their football team. As for the basketball game I believe it would be better for Kentucky to play in December rather than later on, right before conference play begins. It would be better for UofL by the same logic. With the BEast conference schedule expanding, you could argue that Louisville would benefit more than UK if the game were played in December. But it wouldn't have worked with the schedule. You have to admit that it's so different as to not be realistic to compare the two.
June 20, 200719 yr UK fans are upset about the basketball change because Louisville gets stronger as the season wears on....UK has started well in the pre-season the last couple of years, but then sort of stalled mid-season. UL has a great chance to beat them in January...Pitino teams play better from Jan-Mar than they do from Nov-Dec.
June 20, 200719 yr They can play it first game or last game this upcoming season and it probably won't matter. It will likely be a beatdown ... I don't think so. Imo the Cards might be able to keep this one close up into the 2nd half before losing to the Big Blue Nation!!.
June 20, 200719 yr 1) In basketball it will have a POSITIVE impact on TV coverage. 2) In basketball it's been done before. 3) Are you really going to compare the rivalry in football to the rivalry in basketball? Nothing about it is the same. The prestige difference, and the national recognition makes everything about it different. Including a decision to change the date, which was done for scheduling reasons in basketball- not because, like Barnhart admits, UK wouldn't have been ready in week 1. How can the impact of the tv coverage be positive. It has always been nationally televised on network tv. To me there doesn't seem to be any affect one way or the other.
June 20, 200719 yr UK fans are upset about the basketball change because Louisville gets stronger as the season wears on....UK has started well in the pre-season the last couple of years, but then sort of stalled mid-season. UL has a great chance to beat them in January...Pitino teams play better from Jan-Mar than they do from Nov-Dec. Or you could look at it that it will give Padgett and Palacios time to injure themselves and Caracter time to find himself suspended. It could be either an advantage or disadvantage.
June 20, 200719 yr How can the impact of the tv coverage be positive. It has always been nationally televised on network tv. To me there doesn't seem to be any affect one way or the other.CBS seems to think it would be a positive change. They wanted it moved.
June 20, 200719 yr Or you could look at it that it will give Padgett and Palacios time to injure themselves and Caracter time to find himself suspended. It could be either an advantage or disadvantage. :laugh: :laugh: Honestly , imo maybe U.L. wanted to even the score bc Mitch Brainfart requested the change in football so U.L. wanted the same in basketball. (LOL).
June 20, 200719 yr UK fans are upset about the basketball change because ... Actually, I don't think there are any UK fans that are upset. They're just whining to rile up the UofL fans who were (and still are) OUTRAGED that UK would request the football game be moved.
June 20, 200719 yr There is no reason for Kentucky basketball fans to be upset about the change ... the game will still be played and it will still be nationally televised. Louisville football fans can't say the same thing ...
June 20, 200719 yr Its sounds as difficult to defend as the Louisville asking to move the date of the game. Both sides made the switch in other sports, but for some reason it seems like its so much worse for UK to do it.It's worse because Kentucky's move cost the game a date on national television. Louisville fans across the state and country have every right to be upset that the game won't be on TV, and Louisville fans have every right to be upset that would could be a pretty good win won't get much national coverage because of it. None of that applies to basketball ... the game will still be nationally televised, just like it always has.
June 20, 200719 yr It's worse because Kentucky's move cost the game a date on national television. Louisville fans across the state and country have every right to be upset that the game won't be on TV, and Louisville fans have every right to be upset that would could be a pretty good win won't get much national coverage because of it. None of that applies to basketball ... the game will still be nationally televised, just like it always has. Since when have "elite" football programs, as UofL fans seem to think their team is, considered a victory over UK a good win?
June 20, 200719 yr Since when have "elite" football programs, as UofL fans seem to think their team is, considered a victory over UK a good win?Now you're taking potshots and deflecting the issue ... Any win over an SEC team that had a winning record and won a bowl game is a good win ... regardless of whether it's Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Georgia or Florida.
June 20, 200719 yr Now you're taking potshots and deflecting the issue ... Any win over an SEC team that had a winning record and won a bowl game is a good win ... regardless of whether it's Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Georgia or Florida. It's a shot at UK, not UofL. If it were a big game, I'd say it's a big deal, but it's not a "big game" anywhere outside of the state. That doesn't equate to a big game to me.
June 20, 200719 yr It's a shot at UK, not UofL. If it were a big game, I'd say it's a big deal, but it's not a "big game" anywhere outside of the state. That doesn't equate to a big game to me.To college football fans across the country, who care about teams all over the country, it's still a game they would likely want to see.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.