September 21, 201015 yr And if the next rung isn't competing for the SEC east title, then what is it? Since 2002, UK has delivered these conference records: 09 – 3-5 08 – 2-6 07 – 3-5 06 – 4-4 05 – 2-6 04 – 1-7 03 – 1-7 02 – 3-5 I think the next rung of the ladder would be a winning record in conference play for a few seasons. A couple of seasons as an SEC "program on the rise" would probably lead to a greater recruiting profile nationally, and help shore up that longstanding depth problem. If they're winning 5-6 games in conference a few years in a row, that means they're likely going into bowl season with 8 and possibly 9 wins, and perhaps even getting some top 10 votes. After you climb that rung, then you start talking about competing regularly for the division and, by extension, the conference title.
September 21, 201015 yr Who's asking them for a long series? What's wrong with a home-and-home with Illinois alternated with a home-and-home with Virginia over a four-year span? Most of these things are set up that way anyway -- a two-game home-and-home spread out over a four- or six-year span. Brother, I took what he was saying as setting up a rivalry with one of those teams. That's why I said that. They certainly won't if their fans don't believe in them. Frankly, the fact that you're willing to make that many excuses says a lot. Nobody said it would be easy to climb the next rung of the ladder. But you have to start somewhere. All those other programs did. It takes some time to build tradition, especially in a conference as deep as the SEC and in a state that's not exactly fertile in producing high level division 1 players. UK isn't at a spot where they would want to challenge some of the best teams in the country, so I agree with their strategy they've went with through the years. Continue going to bowls, continue becoming more and more competitive in the SEC. The record may not show that the program has improved, but I think going bowling the last two years with basically nothing at QB says alot for how much UK has improved. I also think it's ridiculous to say that a team like Illinois would prepare UK for the SEC teams they're going to play. UK is competitve in the SEC, they should be able to beat most of the teams mentioned IMO. Beating a crappy team from a crappy conference or beating a crappy team from BCS conference what's the difference other than perception? Would it really help UK that much to beat up on Kansas or Syracuse?
September 21, 201015 yr I also admit that I don't see UK going much higher in the near future. I think they need to be consistent with what they are doing and try to build towards making a great run when they have experienced teams. I just don't see UK being able to get into the upper part of the conference where Bama, UF, LSU, Auburn, etc. are in most years.
September 21, 201015 yr Author :lol::lol: [ATTACH]32486[/ATTACH] I said to only take pics from the side.
September 21, 201015 yr Author They're going to choose the team that puts butts in their seats, and UK does that.Then why did the Outback choose Auburn last year and Chick FilA choose Tennessee ahead of Kentucky if Kentucky puts butts in the seats?
September 21, 201015 yr Brother, I took what he was saying as setting up a rivalry with one of those teams. That's why I said that. It takes some time to build tradition, especially in a conference as deep as the SEC and in a state that's not exactly fertile in producing high level division 1 players. Nobody said it'd be easy. UK isn't at a spot where they would want to challenge some of the best teams in the country, so I agree with their strategy they've went with through the years. Continue going to bowls, continue becoming more and more competitive in the SEC. The record may not show that the program has improved, but I think going bowling the last two years with basically nothing at QB says alot for how much UK has improved. My point is that they're not going to "continue to be more and more competitive in the SEC" doing it the way they do. They will have the occasional decent year where they go .500, and that's about the best UK can hope for if it continues scheduling the way it does. It's time to cut the Music City cord and strive for something bigger. I also think it's ridiculous to say that a team like Illinois would prepare UK for the SEC teams they're going to play. UK is competitve in the SEC, they should be able to beat most of the teams mentioned IMO. Beating a crappy team from a crappy conference or beating a crappy team from BCS conference what's the difference other than perception? Would it really help UK that much to beat up on Kansas or Syracuse? How can you honestly say a 27-24 game with an Illinois or a Virginia wouldn't be more beneficial to UK than a waxing of an Akron? UK gets lulled into a false sense of security with its softie scheduling, and it's even more compounded now that UofL stinks. They look great when Derrick Locke makes that sprint to the edge for a TD, and everybody pats themselves on the back, failing to realize that against Florida and South Carolina that easy stuff won't be there. An exciting game on ESPN against a comparable opponent from another BCS conference will get seen by recruits. A blowout of Akron won't.
September 21, 201015 yr Illinois and some of the teams mentioned wouldn't be much of a game either IMO, and would be even worse for putting UK in a false sense of secruity.
September 21, 201015 yr Author Illinois and some of the teams mentioned wouldn't be much of a game either IMO, and would be even worse for putting UK in a false sense of secruity. Except when six weeks later Illinois surprises a Wisconsin, Iowa or Michigan. That boosts Kentucky's bowl possibilities when they are one of four SEC teams at 7-5 like last year. Who is Akron or Charleston Southern going to surprise later this year? I think after three pages, the bulk of the UK fans should just admit that they are scared to schedule two BCS OOC teams. Just go ahead and admit it. That's what it boils down to. One BCS team (a natural in-state rival) in five seasons is a joke.
September 21, 201015 yr Illinois and some of the teams mentioned wouldn't be much of a game either IMO, and would be even worse for putting UK in a false sense of secruity. I disagree wholeheartedly, unless you're trying to tell me a perennial MAC dreg would be better than a Big Ten or ACC team in terms of the level and depth of talent you'd be facing, which is nonsense.
September 21, 201015 yr My point is that they're not going to "continue to be more and more competitive in the SEC" doing it the way they do. They will have the occasional decent year where they go .500, and that's about the best UK can hope for if it continues scheduling the way it does. It's time to cut the Music City cord and strive for something bigger. How can you honestly say a 27-24 game with an Illinois or a Virginia wouldn't be more beneficial to UK than a waxing of an Akron? UK gets lulled into a false sense of security with its softie scheduling, and it's even more compounded now that UofL stinks. They look great when Derrick Locke makes that sprint to the edge for a TD, and everybody pats themselves on the back, failing to realize that against Florida and South Carolina that easy stuff won't be there. An exciting game on ESPN against a comparable opponent from another BCS conference will get seen by recruits. A blowout of Akron won't. Have to disagree with you here. They already have become more and more competitive. Over the last 4 years they have averaged 3 SEC wins a season, which is much better than in the past. They were a field goal, a touchdown and a fieldgoal away from being 10-2 last year. In a season when they had a bunch of injuries. They are definitely more competitive and the formula seems to be working. During the 4 year span they have beaten: Vandy(3x), LSU, Miss ST(2x), Georgia(2x), Auburn, Mississippi, Arkansas(2x). They are already past the occasional .500 season. In case you didn't notice they won 7 three of the last four years. There was a time when we would have loved a .500 season, now it is concidered to be a let down. And no, people are not satisfied with 6-7 wins, they want more. They do however see a success path. No matter what, this is the SEC. 5-6 top 25 teams every year. 8-10 bowl teams every year. We've gone from the bottom to the middle, and IMO we are on a path for the upper half. That said, I think for the 2012 or 2013 season, they should pick up a game with another BCS team. And I think they will if things keep moving in the direction they are going they will.
September 21, 201015 yr Since 2002, UK has delivered these conference records: 09 – 3-5 08 – 2-6 07 – 3-5 06 – 4-4 05 – 2-6 04 – 1-7 03 – 1-7 02 – 3-5 I think the next rung of the ladder would be a winning record in conference play for a few seasons. A couple of seasons as an SEC "program on the rise" would probably lead to a greater recruiting profile nationally, and help shore up that longstanding depth problem. If they're winning 5-6 games in conference a few years in a row, that means they're likely going into bowl season with 8 and possibly 9 wins, and perhaps even getting some top 10 votes. After you climb that rung, then you start talking about competing regularly for the division and, by extension, the conference title. If you look at the last 30 SEC games played, UK ranks 6th best. I dare say the 30 games before that were not 6th best. In that regard, they are climbing with the "watered down" ooc schedule. I agree with alot of what you are saying, but there are two trains of thought. It doesn't matter what any of us think, only what Joker and Barnhardt think.
September 21, 201015 yr Except when six weeks later Illinois surprises a Wisconsin, Iowa or Michigan. That boosts Kentucky's bowl possibilities when they are one of four SEC teams at 7-5 like last year. Who is Akron or Charleston Southern going to surprise later this year? I think after three pages, the bulk of the UK fans should just admit that they are scared to schedule two BCS OOC teams. Just go ahead and admit it. That's what it boils down to. One BCS team (a natural in-state rival) in five seasons is a joke. My position has been consistent in that I do not blame any team that passes over the chance to play a formidable OOC foe. The potential negatives far outweigh the potential positives. Now the fan in me would love to see tough OOC games for every team.
September 21, 201015 yr Have to disagree with you here. They already have become more and more competitive. Over the last 4 years they have averaged 3 SEC wins a season, which is much better than in the past. They were a field goal, a touchdown and a fieldgoal away from being 10-2 last year. In a season when they had a bunch of injuries. They are definitely more competitive and the formula seems to be working. During the 4 year span they have beaten: Vandy(3x), LSU, Miss ST(2x), Georgia(2x), Auburn, Mississippi, Arkansas(2x). They are already past the occasional .500 season. In case you didn't notice they won 7 three of the last four years. There was a time when we would have loved a .500 season, now it is concidered to be a let down. And no, people are not satisfied with 6-7 wins, they want more. They do however see a success path. No matter what, this is the SEC. 5-6 top 25 teams every year. 8-10 bowl teams every year. We've gone from the bottom to the middle, and IMO we are on a path for the upper half. That said, I think for the 2012 or 2013 season, they should pick up a game with another BCS team. And I think they will if things keep moving in the direction they are going they will. I'm talking about doing better than .500 in conference play. Again, UK going 7-5 with the schedule they have is not all that impressive. With the current way UK does things, .500 in conference play and about 7 wins overall is the best they can hope for.
September 21, 201015 yr Except when six weeks later Illinois surprises a Wisconsin, Iowa or Michigan. That boosts Kentucky's bowl possibilities when they are one of four SEC teams at 7-5 like last year. Who is Akron or Charleston Southern going to surprise later this year? I think after three pages, the bulk of the UK fans should just admit that they are scared to schedule two BCS OOC teams. Just go ahead and admit it. That's what it boils down to. One BCS team (a natural in-state rival) in five seasons is a joke. Or, since you are in the minority on this issue, you could admit that just because it's your opinion, doesn't mean it's correct. Just sayin.
September 21, 201015 yr If you look at the last 30 SEC games played, UK ranks 6th best. I dare say the 30 games before that were not 6th best. In that regard, they are climbing with the "watered down" ooc schedule. I agree with alot of what you are saying, but there are two trains of thought. It doesn't matter what any of us think, only what Joker and Barnhardt think. Well, we know what Joker thinks: That UK needs to climb the next rung on the ladder as a program. What Mitch thinks is perhaps contrary to that. It will be interesting to see what level of freedom Joker will be afforded as far as making changes to grow the program.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.