UK/UL Football TV Angst

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 23, 2007 8:33 AM EDT in Football

Ah, the Cardinals. And the Cats. Nothing makes a UK or a U of L fan's blood boil faster than a tiff over one of the big games between bitter rivals.

As most everybody probably knows by now, there has been a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, particularly but not exclusively among the Cardinal faithful, about Mitch Barnhart's decision to move the annual rivalry game from Labor Day weekend to September 15th.

Because of that move, ESPN decided to air other games rather than pick up the UK/UL game, and many in the Cardinal world are vocally and angrily blaming Barnhart. At this point, the game has no TV home, although ESPN classic has expressed interest.

Why did Mitch Barnhart want to move the game? The Cincinnati Post has the answer:

Barnhart said Kentucky coach Rich Brooks "wants to have a better opportunity to have our players ready. This year, for example, we're going to go through the process of redeveloping our offensive line. He wants them to have their feet on the ground a little bit."

But what about all the heat you're going to catch from some for doing this? Barhnhart says this in the Courier-Journal:

Barnhart is aware that if the game isn't picked up by a national cable network, he and Brooks will be criticized for moving the game off a weekend in which it had found a TV niche.

But Barnhart said UK wanted to move the game in the interest of giving its team the best chance to compete, and he doesn't regret the decision.

So if we accept Barnhart's position at face value and distill it down to it's essence, he is saying:

"I don't care who likes it or who doesn't. We are moving the game in order to give our players the best chance to win. I'm going to do all I can to get it on TV, but if our best efforts fail, so be it -- I can take the heat."

Folks, I don't know about you, but I can live with that. To be fair to Louisville fans, though, I have no doubt that if the situation were reversed, we would be griping just as they are.

Mike at the Card Chronicle, the SB Nation Louisville site, had a blog the other day critical of both Barnhart and Dr. Lee Todd (although I never really understood Mike's explanation as to how Todd got included), and I had a nice exchange with Mike and a rather pointed exchange with several of the other denizens thereof. Let's break down the arguments:

From the Kentucky standpoint, made mostly by me and Mitch Barnhart:

This was a reasoned decision, arguably in the best interests of Kentucky, that UK, particularly the O-line, needed a few games under it's belt before taking on a national powerhouse like Louisville has become.
Louisville surely had some input into the decision.
ESPN is more to blame than anyone here for TV not picking it up. They have several games of far lesser national interest on that day -- they just want to show us how important they are.
If the Cardinals are such a hot national draw, it seems ESPN would have bumped even one of the bigger games if necessary to get them on, especially playing their biggest in-state rival.
A competitive UK/UL game is in the best interest of both schools. See the Indiana/Kentucky high school basketball all-star game for what happens when one school dominates for too long.

Some additional UK points, made to me in an email by reader Bourbonseeker:

Thank you for bringing up the point that UL isn't exactly a name draw for this game either. Most notably, this is their second or third biggest game of the season (Rutgers is debatable). Yet, UL doesn't have the national pull to get it on TV.
The argument suggesting UL draws many of the largest ratings on ESPN in college football is a bit of a fallacy. Most major games are played on the weekends (and not on ESPN). On those weekends SUBSTANTIAL competition exists for eyes. A game appearing at 1:00 must compete with other national and regional coverage. Weeknight coverage of college football competes against prime time programming drawing a separate viewership.
It bears remembering that the UL-UK game was an easy pick up for ESPN as the first game of the season because it has historically been played on a Sunday (From at least 2001 onward). Even during that weekend, most games are played on Saturday.
What is it with the UL fan's irrational preoccupation with Mitch Barnhart, in addition to this game?
Both teams can ill-afford a loss. But a loss to UK in a rivalry game means UL might lose two or three games in a season. Perhaps this is the difference between a New Years Day bowl or a late December bowl for the Cards. However, UK's loss, given its schedule and lack of talent relative to the rest of the SEC, could be the difference between bowling and not. While the financial gain from national TV exposure is great, the payout and national TV exposure from a bowl game would more than make up for it.

From the Louisville standpoint, I offer a compilation of arguments made by both the U of L fans and Eric Crawford of the Courier Journal Note: Editorial comments by me are in braces, and italics:

It's Barnhart's fault because he wanted to move the game. [No, Brooks wanted to move the game. Barnhart helped him make it happen. I note for the record that Brooks has not been criticized at all.]
It's been played on the same weekend for five years. [Is this the "That's the way it's always been!" argument?]
It is ignorant to suggest that Louisville might not be as big a draw as we Louisville fans think. [Can you say "Logical fallacy?" I knew you could.]
ESPN shouldn't have to change games to pick up ours. [Poor ESPN ... How could we be so cold?]
This will cost UK more than Louisville. [Then you should be happy, not complaining]
What this game should be about is creating a "national buzz" about your program. [What can I say? I was under the apparently mistaken impression it was about winning a ball game.]
A UK victory will be "diluted" from lack of TV exposure. [Really? You don't think such an upset would be big enough news on its own?]
It's all Barnhart's fault! [You said that already.]
Did I mention this is all Barnhart's fault because he moved it? [Yes.]

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't understand...

...if UK's O line will have matured, "gotten their feet under them..."; won't UL's Defense have improved as well in the extra time?

Stinky Blue

by Stinky Blue on Jun 23, 2007 9:34 AM EDT 0 recs

Moving the game for competitiveness...

I'm with stinky blue... if anything, I think moving it a couple weeks in hurts us more than anything. UofL just lost a ton of talent from a great team to the NFL/graduation and they're playing under a new coach. To my uneducated eyes... that screams "JUMP AT ME EARLY BEFORE I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!!!"

All of this talk of moving it to the third week for the offensive line to develop is revisionist history and a bunch of bologna. When Brooks/Barnhart first started talking about moving the game, it was before UK hit their late season surge. The prevailing thought at the time it first came up (as far as I recall) was that we wanted it off TV so we didn't get embarassed with the whole country watching.

I'm a Kentucky fanboy through and through, but I won't blindly follow through with the pack when I see an obvious mistake. On the "Joe B and Denny Show" yesterday they were talking about what a mistake it was and hoping the UK athletics department would recognize it for that and move it back for the future.

I see it as being short-sighted. If you want the game to be competitive, keep building a better team. These things go in cycles. It wasn't that long ago that UK was on top and UofL winning was an upset.

by chirop1 on Jun 23, 2007 9:51 AM EDT 0 recs

Well ...

in answer to you both, younger players tend to improve more quickly than older, more experienced players, who have most of their rapid improvement behind them.

As far as short-sightedness goes, I listened to Brooks' interview with KSR, and he basically said that he would prefer the game nearer the end of the season than the beginning, because he thinks that's where rivalry games like this aught to be played.

Brooks made no bones about the fact that he intends to continue to move the game away from the first one of the year whenever it is played at UK.

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 23, 2007 9:58 AM EDT 0 recs

Reality

Drop the game period.Let The great Tards get a game with a more viable opponent like Florida,Ohio State,or someone else that is in the top ten.They (UL) don't need to beat up on lower tier SEC teams like UK anymore.

by kyjohn on Jun 23, 2007 11:44 AM EDT 0 recs

It may happen ...

but not quite yet. Too many people in the state want to see the game played.

Personally, I like the game. I would like it better if we had more success.

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 23, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

It's Not Kentucky's Fault

With all the noise out of rivertown, I thought the reputation of the Birds was High enough to garner a TV gig anytime. No matter who they play or when. I guess not (t.i.c.). In the mean time, the Sports Admin at KY is responsible to enhance the Kentucky programs ability to compete and win----- NOT LUVILLE'S!

If I wasn't goint to be at the game, I'd likely be upset with no TV. But, again, it's not like it is the only interesting Kentucky game that won't be on TV this year!

by MacKYcat on Jun 23, 2007 12:09 PM EDT 0 recs

That's exactly what I think.

Looks to me like Barnhart is looking out for Kentucky's best interest.

It's a sure bet the Cardinal fans aren't.

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 23, 2007 12:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

Kill The Series Completely

Ok....gonna get critized here, but hear me out. In this era, we have proven NOT to be as good as U of L and we need to look at other options. One of those options is to just stop playing altogether. We play a ton of SEC games each year and we replaced an "easy" game with a very good U of L team...so, it seems that we are behind the 8 ball every year to begin with. Yes, folks will complain....but UK MUST DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE FOOTBALL TEAM....not necessarily what is best for ESPN, the fans, the local media, or the bloggers. All of the big boys play "the weak sisters" every year.......remember UK football history....it is flat our bad. We need to have at least 3 gauranteed victories a year....at least! So, if moving the game to the 3rd game is what they need to do then we do it. I think that if we are going to play this game at all, we should play it AFTER the SEC is over....possibly on Thanksgiving weekend like many other rivalries....UK/UT is no longer a rivalry in football. I would not mind us isolating ourselves again and just stop playing UL. Winning football games will help just as much or more than playing this one game each year.....UK needs to look at itself and do what is best for the program. Finally, didn't UL squeeze in a game just before playing UK 2 or so years ago? Let's swallow our pride, focus on us and force the issue....play it at the end of the year every year or not at all. Go ahead and criticize....I can take it, but I won't change my mind. Go Cats!!!

by Chuck Alexinis on Jun 23, 2007 2:57 PM EDT 0 recs

Far be it from me ...

to criticize you. There are actually more people who think that way than you might believe. Understandably, more of them are on the UK side than on the U of L side.

This blog post illustrates the strength of your argument, and this editorial demonstrates that you are not alone in your thinking.

Personally, I am all for the series. But your argument is not without foundation, and certainly doesn't deserve derision.

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 23, 2007 3:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

Again everybody else is right and UK is wrong....

Again more proof of the media's anti-U of Kentucky bias.

This has the potential of being the best UL-UK game ever and no TV? You've got to be kidding me!

It's ESPN and CBS who really are to blame, not U of Kentucky and U of Louisville.

Yes I know that many liked the Labor Day Sunday date to play the game, but I feel that UK felt it was acting in the best interest of the football program at the time.

As for U of Louisville fans, I have no problem with 90 percent of them and I actually root for them big time except when they play my 'Cats. This rivaly is not an Auburn-Alabama, WVU-Pitt, UNC-Duke, Ohio St.-Michigan type of rivalry where all there is is hatred. Most UK and UL fans cheer big time for their rival except when they play the other school.

I actually think the best time of the year for U of Kentucky and U of Louisville to play is the very last game of the season, when most of the biggest rivalry games are played. A lot would be on the line for both teams and there would be absolutely no secrets hidden for either teams.

The only drawback maybe I can see to that maybe what ESPN and CBS are saying now, that Florida-Florida St., Georgia-Georgia Tech, USC-UCLA, those games would take priority over ours and use that excuse to knock us out just like they are doing now.

I just want what's best for U of Kentucky program: whether we play Louisville 1st, 3rd, or 12th. That's all. I'm sure every UK fan would agree with me on that.

by ukcatfan191 on Jun 23, 2007 4:04 PM EDT 0 recs