I don't really think the OOC schedule even matters for Kentucky. If they go undefeated, they play in the SEC title game and a major BCS bowl. If they lose 1-3, they're still in the thick of SEC title game and a major bowl. Lose 3-4 and they are going to Outback or Capital One. Lose 4-5 and they are going to Peach or Music City. Lose 4-6 and they are going to Outback or Liberty. It doesn't matter who they play in the OOC games, all that matters is how many they win/lose.

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?

 

I'm saying they're still building a foundation and attitude as a team with winning seasons. No need to schedule like a title contender. If they're good enough, going undefeated in the SEC will get them as far as they can go. They played their way into a top 10 ranking not too long ago.

I don't really think the OOC schedule even matters for Kentucky. If they go undefeated, they play in the SEC title game and a major BCS bowl. If they lose 1-3, they're still in the thick of SEC title game and a major bowl. Lose 3-4 and they are going to Outback or Capital One. Lose 4-5 and they are going to Peach or Music City. Lose 4-6 and they are going to Outback or Liberty. It doesn't matter who they play in the OOC games, all that matters is how many they win/lose.

 

Scribe's point, one with which I agree, is that UK stands no chance of losing just two or fewer because the OOC schedule does not adequately prepare them to perform to that level.

I'm saying they're still building a foundation and attitude as a team with winning seasons. No need to schedule like a title contender. If they're good enough, going undefeated in the SEC will get them as far as they can go. They played their way into a top 10 ranking not too long ago.

 

Adding an Illinois or a Missouri is in no way, shape or form assembling a "schedule like a title contender." It's just one more game against a fairly similar opponent that might challenge them, and perhaps toughen them up enough to beat a Tennessee or a South Carolina.

Scribe's point, one with which I agree, is that UK stands no chance of losing just two or fewer because the OOC schedule does not adequately prepare them to perform to that level.

 

I agree.

I don't really think the OOC schedule even matters for Kentucky. If they go undefeated, they play in the SEC title game and a major BCS bowl. If they lose 1-3, they're still in the thick of SEC title game and a major bowl. Lose 3-4 and they are going to Outback or Capital One. Lose 4-5 and they are going to Peach or Music City. Lose 4-6 and they are going to Outback or Liberty. It doesn't matter who they play in the OOC games, all that matters is how many they win/lose.

Last year, Kentucky, Auburn, and Tennessee were all 7-5. Auburn went to the Outback. Tennessee to the Chick-Fil-A (former Peach). UK back to Nashville.

I'd rather win seven games then around two games.

I'd rather win seven games then around two games.

How does replacing Charleston Southern with Illinois, Purdue, or North Carolina State on the schedule make UK go from seven wins to two? Please explain that math.

How does replacing Charleston Southern with Illinois, Purdue, or North Carolina State on the schedule make UK go from seven wins to two? Please explain that math.

 

I honestly have not read this thread at all. Just put my thoughts about the subject of the title of the thread. I know there is attention to detail when it comes to scheduling but I would rather keep a schedule similar to what they have now then to beef up all their non-conference games. They get enough competition in the SEC. Any other conference I would say go for it by scheduling tougher teams.

That's the point everyone is miunderstanding. NOWHERE have I said make all four OOC games against BCS schools. NOWHERE have I said UK needed to add Texas, Ohio State, or USC. But replacing Akron OR Charleston Southern with a decent BCS team gives them two BCS teams on theor schedule every year as long as they play Louisville. It means that two OOC games will almost certianly be shown on ESPN or family network, which isnt happening with Akron and WKU.

 

It's one flipping game on the schedule against a mid-level, regional BCS opponent. What does Kentucky have to lose?

UK has all the necessary resources to win like Oklahoma, Florida, or Texas.

There is one BIG difference between UK and the schools you just listed: in-state football talent. The state of Kentucky has very little of it. I remember back in 2005 all the talk about how great LexCath's QB Justin Burke was. I believe he finished second in the Mr. KY Football voting that year. He even led his team to a state title. It's safe to say he represented about the best the state of KY had to offer at that time. And yet, he couldn't even cut it at NC State, a team that was by no means a great team during the time he was there.

 

It also doesn't help that the one place in KY with some demographic strength behind it (Louisville) has U of L, so Louisville guys like Michael Bush and Brian Brohm, who had what it takes to be great college players, chose UL over UK. I believe a major reason why Bear Bryant left UK to go to Texas A&M was that he felt he could not even attract the very few highly-rated Kentucky high school football players to come to UK, guys like Paul Hornung.

 

If you transplanted UK to Florida or Texas, then yes, we'd have all the pieces required to build up a top-tier program.

I am o.k. with the current type of ooc schedule. I would maybe try to get one ooc game with a better opponet from a better conference than the teams we are currently playing.

U.K. is in the SEC, so by that fact alone the Cats wilkl draw attention and rankings/better bowl games by beating the UT's, UF's, Bama, UGA, LSU, Auburn, etc on a more consistent basis. Should U.K. not beat the conference big boys then they wouldn't get one of the major bowl anyway.

JMO

I am o.k. with the current type of ooc schedule. I would maybe try to get one ooc game with a better opponet from a better conference than the teams we are currently playing.

U.K. is in the SEC, so by that fact alone the Cats wilkl draw attention and rankings/better bowl games by beating the UT's, UF's, Bama, UGA, LSU, Auburn, etc on a more consistent basis. Should U.K. not beat the conference big boys then they wouldn't get one of the major bowl anyway.

JMO

 

See, therein lies the dilemma. UK will never get to the point where they can beat their conference brethren on a consistent basis with the current scheduling they do. They simply aren't challenged enough in the non-conference part of their schedule to toughen them up enough to gain that consistency against the tough competition in the SEC.

There is one BIG difference between UK and the schools you just listed: in-state football talent. The state of Kentucky has very little of it. I remember back in 2005 all the talk about how great LexCath's QB Justin Burke was. I believe he finished second in the Mr. KY Football voting that year. He even led his team to a state title. It's safe to say he represented about the best the state of KY had to offer at that time. And yet, he couldn't even cut it at NC State, a team that was by no means a great team during the time he was there.

 

It also doesn't help that the one place in KY with some demographic strength behind it (Louisville) has U of L, so Louisville guys like Michael Bush and Brian Brohm, who had what it takes to be great college players, chose UL over UK. I believe a major reason why Bear Bryant left UK to go to Texas A&M was that he felt he could not even attract the very few highly-rated Kentucky high school football players to come to UK, guys like Paul Hornung.

 

If you transplanted UK to Florida or Texas, then yes, we'd have all the pieces required to build up a top-tier program.

 

The lack of talent argument is a cop-out. It ain't like there's a wealth of D-I talent in Idaho or Utah, yet Boise St., Utah and BYU are regular top 25 teams. Same goes for West Virginia. Heck, Tennessee, Oregon, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. all have to get a lot of their talent from outside of the state, but they make it work.

 

UK is simply scared to take the chances it needs to in order to become more than just a SEC bottom-feeder. The complacency of playing in low-rent bowls and getting a few wins is apparently too much to overcome.

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...

 

:laugh: I hope the bolded was a joke.

-In state talent? Nope.

-Seemingly endless funds for the program? Nope

-Prestige? Nope.

-Willingness to hire a big time coach, and give him what he needs to be successful? Nope, ask the Bear.

-Passionate fanbase? Not even in the same league as the big dogs.

 

UK has none of the same resources as schools like Texas do for football.