Sorry, folks. As a fan, I'm embarrassed that one of my favorite schools' schedules is no better than the "rest of the SEC's." That's truly pathetic when you think about it, and it's strange how some of the same folks who blast other teams for having poor schedules are defending that as reasonable.

 

The Cats' schedule is tougher, generally speaking, because the SEC is generally one of the top football conferences. But - as much as it galls me to admit it - I admire the schools that challenge all comers. There are those out there who load up their schedules every year. Sometimes, they take their lumps, but they continue to try to prove every week that they are the best in the land.

 

Does the program have no guts? No aspirations of glory? I'll repeat: UK has all the necessary resources to win like Oklahoma, Florida, or Texas. 7-5 should not be the goal.

 

And they'll continue to keep me out of the stadium for snoozers like the game this week versus Akron...

 

That is unfortunately not true. This is a basketball State. But I agree, 7-5 is NOT a goal. Though I doubt that Joker is setting 7-5 as a goal. 9 wins is a must, soon. Then beef up the schedule.

^ And the problem is, there are UK Alumni statewide wanting more bang for their buck on season tickets and grumbling about the lack of attractive non-conference opponents.

That is unfortunately not true. This is a basketball State. But I agree, 7-5 is NOT a goal. Though I doubt that Joker is setting 7-5 as a goal. 9 wins is a must, soon. Then beef up the schedule.

That's just it. Joker isn't setting 7-5 as a goal. His goal is to challenge for the SEC title, which means 9 wins or so. However, playing Akron and WKU does not prepare them for SEC competition.

 

It's funny how high school teams, let's use Lawrence County as an example, get fat off lesser teams but get blasted when they lose in the postseason because their schedule didn't prepare them for the playoffs.

 

Highlands plays a tough schedule, which people say help them for the rigors of the playoffs.

 

Why doesn't the same hold true for college football?

^ And the problem is, there are UK Alumni statewide wanting more bang for their buck on season tickets and grumbling about the lack of attractive non-conference opponents.

 

I agree from the perspective of "I want to watch fun games." Obviously Kentucky will keep Louisville and they should. They'll likely always play a low-level school, and that school should be Western, Eastern, or Murray, just for statewide appeal. I have no problem with the third game being a MAC, Sun Belt, or C-USA opponent. But as many of you have said, make that fourth game against a similar team from a BCS conference.

I agree with the premise that the SEC schools play the toughest schedules in the country due to the fact that you will play 5 top 25 teams a season regardless if you are in the east or the west. SEC schools need to watch who they schedule non conference. However...................for teams like UK who are middle of the pack and "on the outside looking in" at the beginning of the season the schedule would look much more attactive if the played BCS schools instead of the small schools. They do not have to be good teams but playing Indiana or Purdue or Memphis makes a whole lot more sense than WKU or Akron.

Playing two mid to low levels and adding a BCS school with Louisville is not going to magically transform them from 7-5 to 3-9 as some on here have stated.

 

Beating Akron 47-10 isn't going to garner them votes in the AP poll.

 

When bowls have to choose among three teams with eight wins, they are likely to choose a team carrying a national ranking.

 

You don't get a national ranking beating Akron and WKU. And as the last two weeks have proved, you don't get on ESPN playing Akron and WKU despite ESPN having the SEC contract.

Sorry, folks. As a fan, I'm embarrassed that one of my favorite schools' schedules is no better than the "rest of the SEC's." That's truly pathetic when you think about it, and it's strange how some of the same folks who blast other teams for having poor schedules are defending that as reasonable.

 

The Cats' schedule is tougher, generally speaking, because the SEC is generally one of the top football conferences. But - as much as it galls me to admit it - I admire the schools that challenge all comers. There are those out there who load up their schedules every year. Sometimes, they take their lumps, but they continue to try to prove every week that they are the best in the land.

 

Does the program have no guts? No aspirations of glory? I'll repeat: UK has all the necessary resources to win like Oklahoma, Florida, or Texas. 7-5 should not be the goal.

 

 

And they'll continue to keep me out of the stadium for snoozers like the game this week versus Akron...

 

Agree with the entire post.

 

On the bolded, I really don't think so. The aspirations appear to be of mediocrity, not glory.

Sorry, folks. As a fan, I'm embarrassed that one of my favorite schools' schedules is no better than the "rest of the SEC's." That's truly pathetic when you think about it, and it's strange how some of the same folks who blast other teams for having poor schedules are defending that as reasonable.

 

The Cats' schedule is tougher, generally speaking, because the SEC is generally one of the top football conferences. But - as much as it galls me to admit it - I admire the schools that challenge all comers. There are those out there who load up their schedules every year. Sometimes, they take their lumps, but they continue to try to prove every week that they are the best in the land.

 

Does the program have no guts? No aspirations of glory? I'll repeat: UK has all the necessary resources to win like Oklahoma, Florida, or Texas. 7-5 should not be the goal.

 

And they'll continue to keep me out of the stadium for snoozers like the game this week versus Akron...

Florida and Texas have a HUGE resource that Kentucky does not have. They are both located in states that produce TONS of blue chip football players. Something KY doesn't even come close to doing as a state. To not address that advantage is pretty foolish.

Florida and Texas have a HUGE resource that Kentucky does not have. They are both located in states that produce TONS of blue chip football players. Something KY doesn't even come close to doing as a state. To not address that advantage is pretty foolish.

And Oklahoma has Texas as well :lol:

 

I am of the opinion you have football schools and you have basketball schools. There might be moderate success of one sport over the other in some years, but programs like Kentucky, UL, etc. are not made to be upper echelon. There are 0 schools I can think of that have coexisted for any sustained time frame. Florida is about as close as you get to it and there basketball success is all within the past 15 years.

That's just it. Joker isn't setting 7-5 as a goal. His goal is to challenge for the SEC title, which means 9 wins or so. However, playing Akron and WKU does not prepare them for SEC competition.

 

It's funny how high school teams, let's use Lawrence County as an example, get fat off lesser teams but get blasted when they lose in the postseason because their schedule didn't prepare them for the playoffs.

 

Highlands plays a tough schedule, which people say help them for the rigors of the playoffs.

 

Why doesn't the same hold true for college football?

Because college football sticks to an antiquated system a.k.a. "doesn't have a playoff". A loss in college football is worth a lot more than a loss in h.s. football.

 

But, I agree with your idea. Scheduling teams like Akron will not help a team get better. If Joker truly wants to see improvement he will replace Akron with a decent BCS school and challenge the team.

OK, some of the justifications I've seen for UK standing pat with their current scheduling practices are comical. If you want your program to advance, you can't compare UK now to what was going on 5+ years ago when scholarships were at a minimum. The program has enjoyed some recent success; for UK to be taken seriously for anything remotely marquee, bowl-wise, the program needs to build on that recent success by taking a step forward.

 

There is no reason for UK to not have a home-and-home with some of its neighbors, such as Mizzou, Illinois, WVU, UVa, VaTech, Indiana, hell, even Notre Dame. With all of these programs, success is inconsistent and while losses potentially lurk for UK, wins aren't out of the question either. It's not as though a loss to one of these schools will set the program back decades or anything, or send UK spiraling into a 1-10 debacle.

 

Plus, the exposure you could get with a good regional rivalry with a mid-level BCS school beyond what comes with a blowout over Akron could have the occasional top-notch recruit thinking, "Hey, these guys are at least trying to get better. Maybe I can help them and get some good NFL looks in the SEC!"

 

As for the other cop-out of the SEC being tough enough: Sure. We get that. Problem is, programs like Florida and LSU and Alabama can get away with it and still get to the national championship game. Even though UK plays in the same conference, they are an historic dreg in that conference and will never be respected on a national basis the way Florida, LSU and Alabama are. UK can't get away with the same weak tricks their conferencemates do because UK just isn't on that level as a program.

 

To achieve that level, bold steps must be taken. Joker says that's his goal. Whether he gets the freedom to implement that plan remains to be seen.

OK, some of the justifications I've seen for UK standing pat with their current scheduling practices are comical. If you want your program to advance, you can't compare UK now to what was going on 5+ years ago when scholarships were at a minimum. The program has enjoyed some recent success; for UK to be taken seriously for anything remotely marquee, bowl-wise, the program needs to build on that recent success by taking a step forward.

 

There is no reason for UK to not have a home-and-home with some of its neighbors, such as Mizzou, Illinois, WVU, UVa, VaTech, Indiana, hell, even Notre Dame. With all of these programs, success is inconsistent and while losses potentially lurk for UK, wins aren't out of the question either. It's not as though a loss to one of these schools will set the program back decades or anything, or send UK spiraling into a 1-10 debacle.

 

Plus, the exposure you could get with a good regional rivalry with a mid-level BCS school beyond what comes with a blowout over Akron could have the occasional top-notch recruit thinking, "Hey, these guys are at least trying to get better. Maybe I can help them and get some good NFL looks in the SEC!"

 

As for the other cop-out of the SEC being tough enough: Sure. We get that. Problem is, programs like Florida and LSU and Alabama can get away with it and still get to the national championship game. Even though UK plays in the same conference, they are an historic dreg in that conference and will never be respected on a national basis the way Florida, LSU and Alabama are. UK can't get away with the same weak tricks their conferencemates do because UK just isn't on that level as a program.

 

To achieve that level, bold steps must be taken. Joker says that's his goal. Whether he gets the freedom to implement that plan remains to be seen.

 

Kentucky will never be respected on a national basis in football. Not when they are competing against Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, etc. every year. It doesn't matter if they OOC is strong or not.

Kentucky will never be respected on a national basis in football. Not when they are competing against Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, etc. every year. It doesn't matter if they OOC is strong or not.

 

I disagree. And besides, if UK is indeed hopeless no matter what, as you say, what do they have to lose? The warm, fuzzy feelings of maybe winning a bowl game in Tennessee few people care about? The knowledge that they gained what is the equivalent of a 70 on a test?

Arkansas ... not impressive? Texas. Texas A&M and USC aren't impressive?

 

Do you honestly think Kentucky's Louisville saga matches those schedules?

 

Take off the blue-colored glasses.

 

One game isn't going to make a huge difference, certainly not the difference between 7-5 (and a minor bowl game bid) and 3-9.

 

3 games in 4 years? Not impressive. Especially since UofL was a very highly ranked football school not too long ago.

 

I'd love to see UK throw in another BCS school, but its not as horrible as people are painting it.

 

I'm not positive, but I'd bet Vandy is getting paid for their games just like the no name schools. UK isn't in that position.

 

UK also isn't in the UF/LSU/Bama position where they can pay some other conference's Vandy to come in and take a loss.

 

Most of the other schools listed are playing in state/border state rivals just like UK.

 

I would be all for adding a low level BCS team, but I think everyone forgets how recently we were enduring 2 win seasons.

 

I would be all for adding a low level BCS team, but I think everyone forgets how recently we were enduring 2 win seasons.

 

Again, UK's history is full of 2-win seasons, with a few winning seasons littered in there. What do they have to lose by trying to build on recent success? A loss to a Missouri is not going to send UK spiraling into a decade of 2-win seasons. Or are you saying that UK has not advanced as a program in recent years; that the bowl wins truly don't mean anything?