It is not just the fans leatherneck the AD of the Year disagrees with it too, and he seems pretty dialed in to this whole sports thing to me.

I assume the AD of the year is Jurich. Personally I could give a rodent's rear end what he thinks about when UK should schedule the game. He should and does want to do what is best for UL and Barnhart wants to do what's best for UK. Its that simple. Sometimes it works out they'll both agree and sometimes they will not. And just so you and others know, I am not a UL hater at all. Personally as a Kentuckian, I take a lot of pride in UL's success, particularly because there are Kentucky kids on the team. Am I more of a UK fan? Sure. But I cheer for UL to win in every game except one. I just can't fault a coach or an AD for wanting to schedule a game when they think they will have the best chance of winning, be that UK, UL or any other program.

In addition, I think the game being moved back sort of demphasizes the importance of it. I think that is one reason why most rivalry games are played at the end of the year.

The losing team gets beat in opener and it makes it as though the season is lost.

UL has controlled the series over the last few years, but UL with high hopes a few years back were beaten and deflated them, in a year they hoped to have major bowl aspirations.

Mabe a demphasis of the game for the season as a whole could possibly go into the thinking here.

 

There still will be hype and so forth, but maybe the importance takes a back seat to an extent.

Sure they have the right to be upset. And UK has the right to not care at all about UL fans being upset. The only think UK should care about (and I mean the only thing) is improving their chances of winning. And if UK believes that playing the game a couple of weeks later improves those chances, so be it.

Don't tell LABS that...

In addition, I think the game being moved back sort of demphasizes the importance of it. I think that is one reason why most rivalry games are played at the end of the year.

The losing team gets beat in opener and it makes it as though the season is lost.

UL has controlled the series over the last few years, but UL with high hopes a few years back were beaten and deflated them, in a year they hoped to have major bowl aspirations.

Mabe a demphasis of the game for the season as a whole could possibly go into the thinking here.

 

There still will be hype and so forth, but maybe the importance takes a back seat to an extent.

And didn't you BLAST RowdyRedRam for the same line of thought?!

 

I don't think a UK fan wants to bring up the 01-02 Louisville football team... they look a LOT like UK this year. Great skills players, questions on the line, a few stars but weak as a unit defensively.

Does anyone else find it ironic that UK fans have been raked over the coals nationally for the past couple of months for overzealous high expectations that supposedly led to the resignation of Tubby Smith, yet when they show some restraint and support for the AD and head football coach, they are "accepting of mediocracy"?

Tubby was raked over the coals because he didn't get the job done. His recruiting faltered, the talent faltered...every major tv announcer lamented the deficiency in talent. His assistants were horrible...his recruiting slipped...the style of play eroded to gridlock and yet the man felt no change was necessary.

Those are not overzealous fans, it was even announcers lamenting issues with the program, writers writing about it....then he leaves and people like Andy Katz and Dick Vitale ridiculed the fans when fans were torn by the very things these people said in public. Statements like it would be all downhill after the press conference if Donovan took the job...Pitino saying program would be setback 10 years and so forth...c'mon...the heat in the kitchen got hot and Tubby bolted. It comes with the territory, and this comes from a Tubby supporter.

 

This whole football scheduling is being overblown.

Tubby was raked over the coals because he didn't get the job done. His recruiting faltered, the talent faltered...every major tv announcer lamented the deficiency in talent. His assistants were horrible...his recruiting slipped...the style of play eroded to gridlock and yet the man felt no change was necessary.

Those are not overzealous fans, it was even announcers lamenting issues with the program, writers writing about it....then he leaves and people like Andy Katz and Dick Vitale ridiculed the fans when fans were torn by the very things these people said in public. Statements like it would be all downhill after the press conference if Donovan took the job...Pitino saying program would be setback 10 years and so forth...c'mon...the heat in the kitchen got hot and Tubby bolted. It comes with the territory, and this comes from a Tubby supporter.

 

This whole football scheduling is being overblown.

 

That was the point I was trying to make. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

And didn't you BLAST RowdyRedRam for the same line of thought?!

 

I don't think a UK fan wants to bring up the 01-02 Louisville football team... they look a LOT like UK this year. Great skills players, questions on the line, a few stars but weak as a unit defensively.

Not in so many words....different tact.

Not the major reason...still contend flexibility with scheduling is a major part.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: Recruits watch those games, but they aren't wanting to go anywhere but UF, UT or LSU. Not UK.

The truth in that line of thinking though, is alot of kids in the Southeast (which is where most of UK's recruiting is focused) get the regional SEC broadcast. UK does not need ESPNs midweek games for exposure. UK's fan base come from a much wider area and keeping the games on saturdays allows for fans that have to travel a long way to be able to come to the games. Its not as simple as black or white. There are more factors than ESPN and UofL's wants and needs.

 

I have no problem with UK playing this game when they want it. Likewise I have no problem with UofL playing when they want when they are the home team. The only problem with any of this to me is all of the whining.

I've heard that "program on the rise" line for years. Heard it from Jerry Claiborne. Heard it from Hal Mumme. Heard it from Bill Curry. Heard it from Guy Morriss. It's almost like a kiss of death, because soon after some high-water mark that brought about that talk, something goes wrong and UK slips back to its normal, customary place at the lowest levels of D-IA football.

 

 

How many of those coaches won a bowl game?

How many of those coaches won a bowl game?

How many of them had better W-L than Brooks?

With all respect, the above post is some of the most illogical thinking I've read on here in quite some time. IF (and I put it in caps because its a pretty big if) UK beats UL, they will get all kinds of recognition. It will be discussed ad nauseum on the college football shows. High school football players nationwide will hear about it on the ESPN recaps. The UK coaches will tell recruits about it far and wide as they do their recruiting. Every high school football player in Ky will know about it through the newspapers and tv shows. The program will certainly be given much recognition if UK wins. If UK believes that moving the game back helps their chances of winning the game, they should do it. Wins over teams like UL get you recognized whether they are on tv or not. On the other hand, losses on tv do not get you recognition (well, at least not the type you want). End of the day, if UK wins getting recognition will not be an issue. And if moving the game back helps improve the chances of winning, I would be mad as hades if Barnhart had sold out just to get more exposure and money by scheduling the game for the first week just so it could be on tv. I commend Barnhart for doing what he did.

 

As for debating whether delaying the game a couple of weeks will improve UK's chances of winning, I would point out that there's a reason that the UK-UL game has been able to get a national tv slot in the past: its because very few programs like playing one of their biggest rivals, if not their biggest rival, in the first game of the year. I would submit that constitutes conventional wisdom and is all the justification that a person would need to understand why UK doesn't want to play UL in the first game of the year. But perhaps the fans upset with the change are smarter than conventional wisdom.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

Did someone really say in here that without ESPN there will be less interest in KY for this game? Yet everytime Mitch utters a word a new thread is started?

 

Did someone really say that UK fans don't care about football yet we continue to show up and follow and debate the team's status DESPITE them having a losing record for many years? How many teams with UK's record get the support that UK does? Heck, all they need to do is show that they're heading in the right direction and we go crazy. UK football fans are very loyal and supportive. You don't see UK offering $60 season football tickets , do you?

 

UK's recruiting base has been primarily KY and south. They get exposure. Kids in GA and SC know who UK is and UK is in their homes and on their cell phones and slowly but surely is under the line where they sign their LOI. So if this game is not on Labor Day weekend on ESPN, its not going to kill the program. I think many on here are overestimating how many of the kids actually watch the game itself. Its not a big deal outside of the Commonwealth.

 

It was a nice tradition. I liked it. However, moving it every other year is not a big deal. They still play. We'll still talk about it 365 days a year on here. If UL continues their run, it will be another great game on the schedule of many great games. If UL slides, it will still be a great rivalry game.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

How many of them had better W-L than Brooks?

 

How many of them inherited a more hopeless situation?

 

I get the feeling a lot on here that U of L fans don't wish the Cats success like the Cats' fans do the Cardinals. Little brother syndrome I guess. :fire:

How many of them inherited a more hopeless situation?

 

I get the feeling a lot on here that U of L fans don't wish the Cats success like the Cats' fans do the Cardinals. Little brother syndrome I guess. :fire:

I root for UK every game of the year but one. And we ALL know who little brother is in football...:flame:

How many of them had better W-L than Brooks?

 

 

Fixing a program doesn't happen over night. Brooks won a bowl game and has things looking up...

 

Wins are great, but if they don't = bowl games/wins...what does it accomplish? All those coaches did was dig the Cats in a deeper hole.