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.

 

What else are we supposed to think when the most common response to suggestions of toughening up the schedule is "Those 2-win seasons weren't that long ago," as though adding one more tough game is going to cause a five-game swing in UK's record?

Just because I'm in the minority doesn't make me wrong either

What else are we supposed to think when the most common response to suggestions of toughening up the schedule is "Those 2-win seasons weren't that long ago," as though adding one more tough game is going to cause a five-game swing in UK's record?

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the schedule is not that different from the rest of the SEC, and UK is moving up the ladder with the schedule the way it is. When they get to 9 wins per season, then beef it up.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the schedule is not that different from the rest of the SEC, and UK is moving up the ladder with the schedule the way it is. When they get to 9 wins per season, then beef it up.

 

And as I've said, Kentucky is not going to "continue to move up the ladder" unless they change the way they do things and add a tougher team to the schedule. Nine wins overall is impossible when you're only winning 3-4 in conference. Despite playing in the same conference, UK is not on the same level as Florida, Alabama, etc., and has to do things differently to close the gap between them. UK can't get away with scheduling like Florida, Alabama, etc., does, because UK will never be respected the way those schools are. UK must choose a difficult path or remain mired in the middle.

And as I've said, Kentucky is not going to "continue to move up the ladder" unless they change the way they do things and add a tougher team to the schedule. Nine wins overall is impossible when you're only winning 3-4 in conference. Despite playing in the same conference, UK is not on the same level as Florida, Alabama, etc., and has to do things differently to close the gap between them. UK can't get away with scheduling like Florida, Alabama, etc., does, because UK will never be respected the way those schools are. UK must choose a difficult path or remain mired in the middle.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree. :thumb:

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.

 

Yup, I'm afraid. My main team plays the toughest OOC schedule in the country, and I love it. Heck I wish UF was added in there as well. But I'm afraid for UK. I just don't really see the benefits for the Cats if they're only going to play someone like Iowa State or Illinois.

 

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.

 

What I'm saying is that a scrub is a scrub is a scrub.

If all Scribe is wanting is one more mediocre BCS opponent, then this thread is much ado about nothing. Certainly, in theory, tougher competition helps, but I think the benefit heading into the SEC schedule is being vastly overstated. UK knows what is required to win in the SEC. Playing Missouri or Illinois isn't going change anything.

 

I don't have a problem with the schedule, and I wouldn't have a problem if they dropped Akron and added Missouri. But, I don't think it would affect their performance in the conference at all. UK has gradually improved it's talent and depth in the Brooks era and hopefully Joker can keep that going.

 

Perhaps some of us think UK is still in the process of building, instead of being ready to crash the SEC's party. I think getting to bowl games is an important part of that, and those easy OOC games are a big key to that.

If all Scribe is wanting is one more mediocre BCS opponent, then this thread is much ado about nothing. Certainly, in theory, tougher competition helps, but I think the benefit heading into the SEC schedule is being vastly overstated. UK knows what is required to win in the SEC. Playing Missouri or Illinois isn't going change anything.

 

I don't have a problem with the schedule, and I wouldn't have a problem if they dropped Akron and added Missouri. But, I don't think it would affect their performance in the conference at all. UK has gradually improved it's talent and depth in the Brooks era and hopefully Joker can keep that going.

 

Perhaps some of us think UK is still in the process of building, instead of being ready to crash the SEC's party. I think getting to bowl games is an important part of that, and those easy OOC games are a big key to that.

 

Well said :thumb:.

If all Scribe is wanting is one more mediocre BCS opponent, then this thread is much ado about nothing. Certainly, in theory, tougher competition helps, but I think the benefit heading into the SEC schedule is being vastly overstated. UK knows what is required to win in the SEC. Playing Missouri or Illinois isn't going change anything.

 

I don't have a problem with the schedule, and I wouldn't have a problem if they dropped Akron and added Missouri. But, I don't think it would affect their performance in the conference at all. UK has gradually improved it's talent and depth in the Brooks era and hopefully Joker can keep that going.

 

Perhaps some of us think UK is still in the process of building, instead of being ready to crash the SEC's party. I think getting to bowl games is an important part of that, and those easy OOC games are a big key to that.

 

I agree 5wide.

If all Scribe is wanting is one more mediocre BCS opponent, then this thread is much ado about nothing. Certainly, in theory, tougher competition helps, but I think the benefit heading into the SEC schedule is being vastly overstated. UK knows what is required to win in the SEC. Playing Missouri or Illinois isn't going change anything.

 

I don't have a problem with the schedule, and I wouldn't have a problem if they dropped Akron and added Missouri. But, I don't think it would affect their performance in the conference at all. UK has gradually improved it's talent and depth in the Brooks era and hopefully Joker can keep that going.

 

Perhaps some of us think UK is still in the process of building, instead of being ready to crash the SEC's party. I think getting to bowl games is an important part of that, and those easy OOC games are a big key to that.

I have no problem with that and in fact, said so in the first post. It also reinforces what I said...fans are afraid to schedule up because it will impede the chance to get to 6-7 wins and "just make a bowl" instead of playing in a good bowl. I understand why fans think that.

 

However, after reaching mid-to-low tier bowls in the past four years, I'm thinking Kentucky is ready to make the move upward. Joker obviously feels that way. If you listen to the players, they think so. I am thinking Kentucky is ready to make that jump.

 

 

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.

 

 

That tells me one of two things. Kentucky IS ready to turn the corner in the SEC or playing EKU, Miami Ohio and LA-Monroe didn't help prepare them for the close games. Which one?

Of course, there is another alternate reality too. As long as Kentucky wins 6-7 games a year and makes annual trips to Nashville and Memphis with a once a decade trip to Florida, there is no real push for other schools to pursue Joker for their head coaching job. Let's face it. Everyone knew UK was Rich Brooks' last stop. But Joker is still young with a nice list of references. I guess knowing 6-7 wins a year is enough to please the fanbase, why make a national splash and run the risk of losing a solid young coach? Everyone seems pleased with the job Joker is doing and losing him early would be a blow to the program.

Yup, I'm afraid. My main team plays the toughest OOC schedule in the country, and I love it. Heck I wish UF was added in there as well. But I'm afraid for UK. I just don't really see the benefits for the Cats if they're only going to play someone like Iowa State or Illinois.

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that a scrub is a scrub is a scrub.

 

I see what you're saying, but all scrubs are not created equal, and the bottom line is a mid- to low-level BCS team is going to have far more depth of talent than a mid- to low-level MAC team. That means that even though Illinois, to use them as an example, might be terrible one year, they're still going to provide a better challenge than an Akron in a terrible year. Plus, you might catch Illinois in that occasional uptick year like they were a couple years ago, and then the benefits will definitely be obvious.

I see what you're saying, but all scrubs are not created equal, and the bottom line is a mid- to low-level BCS team is going to have far more depth of talent than a mid- to low-level MAC team. That means that even though Illinois, to use them as an example, might be terrible one year, they're still going to provide a better challenge than an Akron in a terrible year. Plus, you might catch Illinois in that occasional uptick year like they were a couple years ago, and then the benefits will definitely be obvious.

 

If they beat you in the up year what is the obvious benefit?

I see what you're saying, but all scrubs are not created equal, and the bottom line is a mid- to low-level BCS team is going to have far more depth of talent than a mid- to low-level MAC team. That means that even though Illinois, to use them as an example, might be terrible one year, they're still going to provide a better challenge than an Akron in a terrible year. Plus, you might catch Illinois in that occasional uptick year like they were a couple years ago, and then the benefits will definitely be obvious.

 

To me though, a bad team is a bad team. If UK's going to play a sub par team they might as well play them at home and make some money IMO. I don't think playing some of the teams mentioned would do much for UK. I don't even think playing some of the better teams like UC would help them that much.

 

If they're going to play someone OOC, go and play Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State, or someone like that. Now beating OSU at the 'Shoe and then winning 5 games in the SEC would help UK, along with 3 other non-conference wins obviously. But playing Iowa State...not so much IMO.

If they beat you in the up year what is the obvious benefit?

 

Toughens UK up for the conference season, and will give bowl committees a chance to give UK the benefit of the doubt, for a change. Especially if its non-conference opponent goes on to a great year.