The only way UL wants out of the game is if Kragthorpe was to come back to be the head coach.

 

Other than that it is a great game for both fan base and in state recruiting.

 

I got a good laugh from that. Of course, you have to understand our predicament at Kentucky. We're trying to figure out if Joker is Brooks Jr. or our version of Kragthorpe. We may need to discontinue the series until we find out.

Looks like this has been an academic discussion.

 

SEC says they will stay with an 8-game SEC schedule.

 

That thought also crossed my mind. All they'd have to do is drop one opponent from the opposite division. Instead of 5 and 3, its 6 and 2. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

The SEC will likely get another bowl tie in or two and having to play 9 league games does not ensure enough bowl eligible teams.

In a sense, UK's schedule is easier because they will only now play 8 games and two of those will be from the West.

 

In regards to money and caring about football, I think the whole bonding issue is a big problem. The thing this trustee did was to shed light on the issue. UK is one of the last self sufficient athletic departments in the country and they actually give the university money.

Until that changes then it will be tough to get money to pay for many things particularly football. It isn't like they got money to burn that is simply given to them by the state or the school.

If anything, this piece may put pressure on the BOT to loosen some purse strings.

The only way UL wants out of the game is if Kragthorpe was to come back to be the head coach.

 

Other than that it is a great game for both fan base and in state recruiting.

 

I agree.

UK has a major dilemma on their hands. They will obviously want to drop U of L, as it will hinder their bowl eligibility status. the pressure from the Comonwealth will be very interesting. I can't wait to see this unfold.

Its pathetic from anyone's standpoint. It is pathetic when teams dodge a rival because the schedule is too hard in college football. If I can't beat my rival, who in U of L's case is not that good, then maybe I don't deserve 3 free wins. Whatever happened to having some pride?

We all know U of L is currently on the rise. We can't say the same about UK. Logistically, it's smart for UK to not play this game. On the flip side, U of L really needs UK on their schedule. This will be very interesting.

This will be a trend spanning across college athletics. WVU/Pitt, UF/FSU, etc. Sucks, but it is the nature of the beast and I get it.

The SEC will likely get another bowl tie in or two and having to play 9 league games does not ensure enough bowl eligible teams.

In a sense, UK's schedule is easier because they will only now play 8 games and two of those will be from the West.

 

In regards to money and caring about football, I think the whole bonding issue is a big problem. The thing this trustee did was to shed light on the issue. UK is one of the last self sufficient athletic departments in the country and they actually give the university money.

Until that changes then it will be tough to get money to pay for many things particularly football. It isn't like they got money to burn that is simply given to them by the state or the school.

If anything, this piece may put pressure on the BOT to loosen some purse strings.

 

I was surprised to see that UK athletics gives the university about $20M per year.

^ That makes me very jealous. UofL's athletic department still manages to extract a fee from every enrolled student. Horrible.

We all know U of L is currently on the rise. We can't say the same about UK. Logistically, it's smart for UK to not play this game. On the flip side, U of L really needs UK on their schedule. This will be very interesting.

 

I think the Big 12 will hurt UL in football if that is where the end up.

 

Take away Pitt, South Florida, UCONN, Cuse, Rutgers and Cincy

 

Add Oklahoma, Texas, Ok St, kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St. Tech TCU

^ I disagree, within 1-2 years Louisville will be strong enough to compete with anyone. Regardless of which conference they are in.

^ I disagree, within 1-2 years Louisville will be strong enough to compete with anyone. Regardless of which conference they are in.

Becoming a mainstay in college athletics is rare. The same thing was conveyed a few years back when Louisville was "on the rise." Though I guess a lot depends on what you ultimately envision UL becoming.

 

This is not an anti-UL thing. UK is the same. It is the same for all traditionally poor programs. It is just difficult to consistently bring in the kids to compete at the top level or keep high caliber coaches. Too many variables.

But see, you have the Kragthorpe era that brought everything back down. As it stands, Louisville has a very up coming coach. One who is recruiting kids to the school better than anyone ever has. Can't read the future, but, if he stays awhile....I see Louisville being in the Top 25 more than out of it.

But see, you have the Kragthorpe era that brought everything back down. As it stands, Louisville has a very up coming coach. One who is recruiting kids to the school better than anyone ever has. Can't read the future, but, if he stays awhile....I see Louisville being in the Top 25 more than out of it.

And if Strong is the real deal, he is not hanging around at UL. Just a lot of variables have to go right, that is all I am saying.

^ I disagree, within 1-2 years Louisville will be strong enough to compete with anyone. Regardless of which conference they are in.

 

Hard time believing this, coming from someone who used to refer to UofL as an "elite" program.