Mission Impossible: Growing a football program in the SEC

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 9, 2007 11:23 AM EDT in Football Comment 92 comments

With all the pixels that have been darkened and unusual amount of deserved expectations received this year by the Kentucky Wildcat football team, there still remains one fundamental ... well, I hesitate to call it fact, so let's call it informed perception ... that is is impossible to grow a football team from the cellar to the top in the Southeastern Conference.

I use the word "impossible" advisedly. Just down Interstate 64 from Lexington lies a school who grew their program from a non-entity to a consistent contender for BCS bowls, so a reasonable question would be "why can't Kentucky?" That is a good question, and one I am prepared to attempt to answer.

Louisville grew up by taking advantage of what is universally thought of as a weak conference. Conference USA was (and to some extent, still is) little more than a loose confederation of good-sized schools who have nowhere else to affiliate. Louisville took a decision to grow their football team in that fertile soil, and they have -- spectacularly so. When the opportunity came for them to affiliate with the Big East, Louisville's football fortunes were greatly enhanced (arguably at the expense of basketball) by the additional exposure, and by clever marketing by their athletic staff (playing ESPN games at odd times, and so forth). The result is a nationally ranked team and an annual contender for the top of a middle of the road football conference.

The results of that effort are clear for everyone to see. So it would be reasonable to ask, "Why can't Kentucky duplicate that effort?" Kentucky receives more in funding from the state, has a much larger fan and alumni base, is a bigger school, and probably has more football fans. Why cannot Kentucky, with a commitment from the athletic department and determined efforts by the school, duplicate Louisville's success?

The answer, in this fan's mind, is simple. The Southeastern Conference.

Unlike conference USA, the Big East or even the Big Ten, there are not two or three dominant teams in the SEC. In a given year, there are no less than six or seven teams capable of winning the conference. The difference between the top four or five traditions in the SEC are not measured in bowl appearances, BCS or otherwise -- they are measured in the number of national and league championships in their trophy cases.

This creates a stratification in the SEC different from any other conference -- a huge, thick layer of "haves" at the top and a comparatively thin layer of "have nots" at the bottom, of which Kentucky is unfortunately one. No matter how good we are this year, even if we managed what every respectable football pundit considers impossible and win our division, it would be just as it was when we did it last time -- a flash in the pan.

For more proof, just examine this article by Stewart Mandel. He divides the BCS programs into Kings, Barons, Knights and Peasants. Notice that no less than six SEC programs are either Kings or Barons. They are not one step above Kentucky's Peasant program, but two. Heck, three more of the SEC programs are considered Knights. That leaves very few Peasants in the SEC.

Kentucky fans who know how to flip up their Big Blue shades occasionally know all this deep down. We refuse to give in to that reality because that's what fans do, and let's face it -- compared to many other teams outside the SEC, we have a very decent team, and a reasonably competitive program. If Kentucky were to join the Big East, or even the Big 10, we could instantly become at least a middle of the pack team almost every year. Obviously, in the Big 10 with it's two great powers it would be hard to win league championships, but Kentucky's odds would be infinitely greater even there than trying to fight through Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, and Florida every year, not to mention rising Arkansas and South Carolina.

The soil of the SEC is about as fertile and friendly for growing a team as the Empty Quarter of the Arabian Desert -- those who wander in, never come out. So it is with the Kentucky football program. Why would highly-touted recruits prefer Kentucky over ... well, any of the top SEC programs? They don't, which is why we only have one 5-star player out of high school on our entire roster. But wait -- those ratings don't matter, you say. Outside the Sidelines has done a statistical study on just that fact, and believe me -- they do matter.

So why am I pouring cold water all over our suddenly trendy team? Sometimes we have to face the facts, and look at reality. Rich Brooks is proving to be a fine coach, but he is no Steve Spurrier, or Nick Saban, or Mark Richt. Kentucky has a fine team, but in a conference like the SEC, we still, with all our great players, have the potential to be a conference doormat -- and the odds are way better for our season to suck than for us to win even a division title. It isn't rah-rah, and it isn't happy, but it is reality. The players at virtually every top SEC school are better, top to bottom, than ours are. And when you say "top school" in the SEC, you mean at least five programs.

Does that mean we won't someday win a division, or even a league crown? No, of course not. We have done it before. I think we will go to our second bowl in a row this year, and we may upset one or two of the Great Powers getting there. But inevitably after a hot year or two, we sink back to a lower middle team, where we wander for years in the wilderness of mediocrity. Suppose we upgrade to where South Carolina is now -- mid-mediocrity. It is still mediocrity.

Can it end? Not in the SEC. Rich Brooks can upgrade our program only so much, just as you can grow things in the desert, but only with lots of water and care. But will we ever grow from a sapling to a mighty oak in football? Not in my lifetime. Not in this conference.

0 recs | Comment 92 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Lifeteam

We might grow toan Oak in my lifetime though, and that gives me hope. Being relativley young I still cling to hope. A lot can happen in twenty years. If we can get to that mid-mediocrity level maybe some day a coach can come along who will raise us up another rung.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 9, 2007 12:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Improvement

We have been to the top before. Remember the Bear? It takes stability, continous improvement, and the willingness of the school to pay the salaries required to get the top coaches.

It will happen slowly and it will be the result of recruiting better and better players. It cannot happen if we decide to fire the staff every 3-6 years and start over. That is what got us to the bottom after the Bear left.

by Seymour on Aug 9, 2007 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

WE must have some stability at the head coaching position and cannot afford to fire the coach every four years.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 9, 2007 1:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I love SEC football

BUT look at the facts:

Since 1976, SEC champions have come from only six of the twelve schools:

Alabama nine
Florida seven
Georgia five
Auburn five
Tennessee five
LSU four

Kentucky zero
Arkansas zero
Mississippi zero
Mississippi State zero
South Carolina zero
Vanderbilt zero

ALL PAC 10 teams have won a title since 1989 :

USC seven; with five in the last five years
Washington five
UCLA three
Oregon three
Washington State two
Stanford two

Arizona one
Arizona State one
Cal one
Oregon State one

I depsise the PAC 10. The point is, the SEC is a top heavy conference with its share of cupcakes; as many cupcakes as the other major conferences.

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I see your point ...

A couple of counterpoints, though:

Arkansas didn't join the SEC until 1991. Gamecocks, same.
Arkansas has won 9 Southwest Conference championships, and 3 SEC West titles. Not bad for a

"cupcake".

3. Notice that the Pac-10's lower tier teams still occasionally vie for a championship. We haven't seen that in the SEC for years. The last time one of Mandel's "Paupers" won was back in 1977, when UK did it. But if you go back to the 1960's, Ole Miss was competitive with all of them.

Our conference is top-heavy, but even the mid-tier teams would, in my opinion, be near the top of almost every other conference in America.

For more evidence, try this on for size.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 9, 2007 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Arkansas

winning the SWC is irrelevant.. might as well been the Sun Belt. No, the SEC's bottom half is just like the other conferences lower half. UK, Vandy and USC would stink in the Big 10 and the Big 12 just like they do in the SEC. Ofcourse we are both speculating. Unless we have recent data on the bottom half conferece team records against each other.

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: USC

S. Carolina stinks?

by Ken Howlett on Aug 9, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

S. Carolina

was 1-5 against top 25 teams last year but they did top off the season by beating the mighty Memphis pussycats in the the Liberty Bowl against. At least they finally beat Clemson. The previous year they were a little better as they went 7-5 and beat Florida but lost there last two games to Clemson and Missouri (you kidding me?). The year before that they went 6-5 and again lost to Clemson. And the year before that they went a whopping 4-7 and again were destroyed by Clemson to complete their season.

Spurrier is great, but USC is USC and they are a middle to lower tier team in any major conference.

Look, I love SEC football, but I am objective about this. The data does not lie.

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That evidence

you point to:

http://bestofsec.blogspot.com/2007/08/sec-king-of-conferences.html

is interesting. The data goes back too far and most of it is irrelevant. But what that evidence shows me the SEC is not as good as the Big 10, 1-A independents and only equally as good as the Big 12. The SEC is only marginally better than the ACC according to that "evidence" and given the new ACC, probally not as good.

I believe in the "sight test." What I see is that the SEC is as good and maybe a little better than the other major conferences the past couple years. However, the records show otherwise.

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry ...

but the evidence would seem to support my argument more than yours.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 9, 2007 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

please help me

understand how it validates your argument. The data clearly shows that the SEC has a poor to fair record against out of conference BCS schools. I am a homer but I am not blind.

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll be glad to ...

You can look at the numbers any way you want, but constraining it to 5 or 6 years is not what I call reasonable.

I don't accept your 2000-2005 data below. Too narrow of a time frame.

But anyway, I'll try my own set of stats on. From 1980-2006, here are the numbers:

Conference Win% BigWest 96% SunBelt 94% MAC 86% WAC 85% CUSA 74% MWC 69% PAC-10 64% SWC 63% BigTen 62% ACC 59% BigXII 49% BigEast 43%

I frankly think 26 years is more reasonable than the last 5.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 9, 2007 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your kidding

Do you think what happened in 1980s is meaningfull now?

For future reference, it would be helpful if you actually made a reference to what data you are showing. I assume you are showing the SEC's winning % against other conferences.

If that is the case you again prove the case that the SEC is not the bst conference but by your own #s they are the 3rd best.

By the way, 2000 - 2005 is 6 years. Any way you slice it, using your #s or mine, the SEC has no logical argument that they are the premier conference; not going back to 1980 and certainly not this decade.

I do believe the SEC has hired great coaches and they have an opportunity to seperate the conference from the other majors; only time will tell.

by Catfan on Aug 10, 2007 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

The reference is made to winning % SEC vs. other conferences during the period between 1980 and 2006.
Yes, I do. If we were just looking at "now", there is no doubt at all the SEC is the strongest conference.
No, they aren't 3rd best. The fact that they have an under .500 winning % to two conferences isn't the whole story. If you look at historical data, only the Big Ten and Independents (useful only for comparison purposes) have a winning record against the SEC. In my sample, the Big 12 and Big East do. No commonality there. Also, you have to look at the BE and Big 12 conference against others. The BE, for instance, during that same time 1980-2006 time period, had loosing records against such worthies as the WAC, MWC (although just a few games there), Big 12, Big 10 and SWC. The Big 12 had loosing records against the Big Ten and the ACC.
I am not interested in talking about recent events only. If you think history is irrelevant, fine, but that doesn't mean everyone else should. I'm not trying to make history either, or a scholarly paper. My quick look convinces me, but I am an SEC homer, and I'm perfectly OK with that. If you're skeptical, I can hardly blame you, but the argument you have put forward is less convincing (to me, at least) than my own.
If you really want an exhaustive look at why the SEC is the strongest conference at the moment, you may visit Year 2's website and examine his analysis. I had no intention (and still don't) of going this far, but it deserves to be thrown into the mix if we are going to discuss this at length.

Year 2's look is at an even smaller timeslice than yours, but it takes many more factors into account, like opponent strength and performance in BCS bowls.

I prefer the historical argument, and based on history, both the SEC and Big Ten have a legitimate claim. Your mileage may vary.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 10, 2007 8:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ignore the data if you want.

The fact remains, this decade and since 1980, that the SEC is not the most dominate conference. I wish it were.

Funny thing is, the statistics you rely on prove my point even more. It isn't my job to educate you or anyone else on the #s, they stand on their own. You are not alone, most homers cloud objectivity with emotionalism and that is what being a fan is about I suppose.

by Catfan on Aug 10, 2007 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sight test

i went to big ten school, and living in chicago, i see a lot of big ten games on tv as well as go to some of the games. watching these teams, there's no way the big ten is better top-to-bottom than the SEC. i can't see that at all.

i don't know about the big 12, but what other big-time independents are there besides notre dame? i just think it's tough to compare a whole conference to one team (or even three teams, if there are some other indep.).

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 9, 2007 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The SEC's place...

Let's look at the SEC's and other BCS conferences record this decade 2000 - 2005) against BCS schools OUT OF CONFERENCE:

Conference W/L PF/Gm PA/Gm MOV
ACC 0.519 24.2 23.4 0.8
Big-12 0.515 24.8 25.8 -1
Pac-10 0.514 27 26.6 0.4
SEC 0.491 24.3 24.4 -0.1
Big-10 0.486 24.6 23.9 0.7
Big East 0.45 23.7 25.8 -2.1

The SEC has a losing record against non SEC, BCS schools. By the way.. the SEC is not even the best defensive conference. OK, last years data would have made the SEC a little better, but would not change the ranked results.

I think the SEC was by far the best conference last year, but year in and year out they are basically no better than the ACC, Big 12, PAC 10 and certainly not the ACC.

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you ...

pick any particular segment of time, you can make any case you want.

I find it amusing how many people want to pick certain time frames for statistical comparisons so that they can make their point. The justifications for using them are always fun to see.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 9, 2007 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This particular segment of time

happens to be this decade; the most relevant. Sorry you have been proven wrong; don't take it so personally. Your reaction is amusing and cute.

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it comes down to coaching.

If UK was able to hire and retain an top tier coach then over time the program could become a consistent top 20 program (similar to what Florida has accomplished in basketball).

by Catfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Even if they hired Spurrier ...

away from South Carolina, I don't think he could get us out of the middle of the pack. I don't think he'll get USC out of the middle of the pack.

You could plug in Saban there as well, or Caroll or whoever you consider to be a "top tier" coach.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 9, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only way

I think the only way to really definitivley decide would be to rank each conferences teams top to bottom match em up and watch em play.

Number arguments aside conference vs conference the SEC would come out with the better record against every conference you can stack against it.

Now not being a huge football fan Im not exactly sure when this dominance of college football began but it seems to me like the SEC has always been a top conference and until recently (as in the past 2-3) seasons the SEC would have plenty of competition for the top spot especially from the Big Ten.

Now Catfan. Its clear your an ACC homer which I dont really get at all. I know plenty of Big Ten, Pac 10, and Big 12 football fans but I cant honestly say I have ever met a fan of the ACC.
I know you are only trying to defend your argument but given the chance I'm pretty sure you would try to argue that the ACC was created by God to be the best football conference in existence. Now I dont want to pick a fight but the haughtiness and arrogance really comes across in your writing and I dont really understand where it comes from seeing as how your an ACC football fan.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 9, 2007 5:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ACC homer?

Absolutely not. I despise the ACC; in football and especially in basketball. Miami has been a thug program; FSU is far too cocky and V-Tech (ok, in respect to recent events I will refrain from demeaning them)...

However, the #s don't lie. In this decade, the #s prove out the the ACC is now a better football conference than the SEC. The ACC has a 0.519 winning % against other BCS conferences while the SEC has a 0.491 percentage. In bowl games, the ACC has a significant winning % against the SEC.

I hope the SEC kicks the crap out of th ACC this year; but I won't bury my head in the sand and make illogical, faulty and factually incorrect claims such as the SEC is the best football conferences. If you all choose to ignore the #s so be it.

by Catfan on Aug 10, 2007 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds familiar...

You could've been writing about another SEC team in a different sport. I seem to recall that Florida in the 90s, before their first Final Four run, was facing "mission impossible" as well. For Gator fans, it seemed impossible. You had Kentucky. KENTUCKY! No one beats them. You had Arkansas. You had the SEC, which yes, was still relatively tough even then, although ESPN likes to highlight past ACC greatness. And year after year, it was an effort of futility.

Then Billy Donovan came along. Three Final Fours, three title games and three championships later, the early nineties seem like an awfully long time ago.

And before you say it, yes, I agree that it's harder in football. And harder yet in the SEC. The chance for a lower tier football team to knock off a high-end team is slim. How many D-IAA (sorry, "FCS") teams knock off I-As? It's incredibly rare.

Does it seem so futile for South Carolina? They've been on an upward trend with Spurrier. Bring in a legendary coach and people take notice.

Anyway, I suppose I agree in principle but the spirit always says "Anything is possible" because amazing things do happen in college athletics.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 10, 2007 1:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I didn't realize Florida

won three basketball championships. :)

by Catfan on Aug 10, 2007 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Basketball ...

is way different that football. Way different.

Furthermore, we still don't know if Florida basketball just caught lighting in a bottle, like many others before. Time will tell that tale.

The idea that "anything is possible" isn't really assailed by my post anyway, GP. Perhaps the title threw you, but "Mission mostly impossible" or "Mission highly unlikely" just doesn't roll of the tongue, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I am talking about consistently competing with the top of the league. I acknowledged and would continue to do so that, in any given year, it is possible for us to do so. But when you talk consistent excellence in the SEC, you are only talking about five or six teams.

South Carolina's upward momentum is only relative to their abject futility BS (before Spurrier). Yes, a legendary coach can improve a program to an astonishing degree. You can probably look out of your window and see that.

But even if South Carolina rises to the top of the SEC and stays there for the rest of the OBC's tenure (an eventuality very few outside the Palmetto State think is anywhere near likely), would that put them alongside Alabama, Georgia, Florida, or Auburn on a historical basis? Not in my mind.

Just as Florida's to national championships in basketball don't place it alongside UK, UCLA, Carolina, or Duke unless you look at a very narrow time frame.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 10, 2007 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Think

I still think it would be fun to match em all up and watch go. I wish scheduling worked that way.

Sure you get the occasional conference challenge but it's never the whole league.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 10, 2007 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Mentality Needs to change

I think the mindset in Lexington and the rest of the state needs to change to make UK a perennial successful football program. I go back to the old recruiting technique that Tennessee uses, look where the UK bball players stay, and look where the football players stay. Until the fans start making more noise about the football program, then the program will continue to be mediocre at best.

The Tubby departure, and the search for a head coach reinforces this mentality. As long as the bball program is successful, fans are more accepting of a mediocre football team.

As long as Commonwealth is filled, why would the football program have an overhaul?

I hope this year isn't a step back, and I see it as a step back if they don't make a bowl. With this schedule, they will have to win some big games to make a bowl, so if they do, they've beaten some really good teams to get there. A bowl bid would be a step in the right direction, and hopefully some momemntum would be built.

by zach063 on Aug 10, 2007 11:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A bowl bid ...

with our schedule will require us to win all the games we are supposed to win, plus one big upset.

Think about that for a minute. There are only three dates we can count as "sure" victories. We get Vanderbilt, what should be another highly likely victory, in an unusual state of quality at their place.

MSU at home for us is a reasonably likely win, but not one to bet your life on.

Even if we win those two, we still must beat one of the following to be bowl eligible:

Georgia (13) away
Arkansas (20) away
South Carolina away
LSU (2) at home
Florida (3) at home
Tennessee (15) at home
Louisville (11) at home

We haven't faced such a murderer's row in my memory. Getting to a bowl, any bowl, aught to be cause to celebrate as though we won the division championship. Even South Carolina, an arguably better team than us, would be unlikely to reach a bowl with our schedule and the two dates reversed.

Who, out of that last bunch, are we likely to beat? On paper, none of them. But beat at least one we must, two if we have a letdown against either MSU or Vandy.

I still think we can surprise at least one and possibly two teams at home. But avoiding that letdown against MSU or Vandy is going to be critical. It goes without saying that if we drop one of the lesser games, getting to a bowl becomes exponentially more difficult.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 10, 2007 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Schedule

What they must avoid is the letdown game, i.e. Lou-Monroe last year, Ohio, etc. Beat the teams that they need to beat.

I would hope after Spurrier's comments, that South Carolina can be beaten. But then again, Spurrier owns the Cats!!

by zach063 on Aug 11, 2007 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think ...

we can beat South Carolina this year. I would love to see the OBC pull out some of his hair in Columbia this year when the Cats visit.

But you are right, we must avoid the letdown, and pull a couple of upsets. We have a team talented and deep enough to do it, but that doesn't make it any less daunting.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 11, 2007 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UF BB Championships?

Gatorpilot must be a new fan. He thinks UF wins it all every time they get to the FF.

If you were arrested and charged with being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

by Seymour on Aug 10, 2007 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

2, not 3...

I meant to write two championships obviously.

And yeah, when you win 100% of your Final Four games, you start to think an F4 appearance = lock for the title game. :)

But I meant not to hijack Tru's thread and topic, which I think is an interesting one. Let's leave Florida basketball for another time.

The "fertile soil" analogy is a good one although the flip side to that coin is you don't really know how good teams like Louisville really are. I had the feeling of "sham" all year long when I watched the Cards and when Rutgers beat them, magical though it was, I knew they'd wilt up and die playing an SEC schedule. I don't care how good of a coach Schiano is, Rutgers had no business beating Louisville on paper. Their players are all running in slow motion by comparison to SEC teams. In fact I can't even tell the difference in appearance from a Rutgers safety vs. a CB vs. a linebacker. They all look like the same exact guy.

Then Louisville gets Wake Forest in their BCS bowl game, a moderately good team from a really bad conference, so despite the win that wasn't much of a comparo either.

The Cards only made it to that #3 spot based on preseason rankings and an easy schedule. They'd be competitive in the SEC, but around the USCe/UK range right now in terms of winnable games.

That said, I'd love to see Kentucky give the shaft to Louisville because I hate those Big East pretenders! Go Cats.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 10, 2007 4:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Louisville

would be 2nd in the SEC this year, behind LSU (in my opinion).

Outside of LSU there is no dominate team in the SEC this year. UF lost too many players and if they go 9-3 I would say that is a great year.

You SEC homers are about as objective as Ann Coulter. Louisville was and is again a blazing fast team that could run with anyone in the SEC. I can't stand UL and Petrino is a scumbag in my opinion but they are talented and fast (but with Petrino gone, it wont last long).

Top to bottom, the SEC has no more speed than the PAC 10, Big 12, ACC or Big 10. Yeah you homers will point to one or two games, but again, it is silly fanspeak.

by Catfan on Aug 10, 2007 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Catfan, you need to stick to basketball...

... you know it inside and out. Football? Not so much.

Louisville is a reasonably quick team. They are not, nor were they, blazing fast. They had fewer 4.5 guys than Florida, USCw, and LSU last year. Far fewer. They had a great Xs and Os coach who was totally shut down by a team with talent which was so vastly inferior, in theory anyway, to the point they had almost zero second half yards. They beat a decent ACC team, Wake Forest, 24-13 in a bowl game.

In 2005, still playing that terrible Big East schedule, same coach, same QB, they lost to South Florida (45-14!), @ WVU, and to 2-loss Va Tech team after holding a lead in the 4th quarter.

In their 2006 regular season schedule, Louisville played three ranked teams! Three! Guess who won of 'em was? #17 Miami on their way to a 7-6 season. Rutgers and West Virginia were the other two, both legitimate Top 25 teams, although Rutgers really wouldn't have a prayer of beating top SEC teams. That leaves #18 Wake Forest in their BCS bowl game.

I just can't get too worked up over that one either. Wake Forest won the weakest ACC race in memory, with both FSU and Miami barely holding on to winning season, both playing in chumpish bowl games.

In my view the only legitimate powerhouse they played was West Virginia, which is also mildly debatable, but no question they're really good. And they lost that one.

Three ranked teams in their regular season, two losses!

You think Louisville would be second in the SEC this year?! Florida has destroyer status, Tennessee starts a senior QB who is a dark horse Heisman candidate, and even Georgia and USCe have QBs which have all the potential to be studs this year. You think Louisville could beat Auburn?! Alabama? (Maybe Alabama. We'll se how Mr. Saban does. But I doubt it.)

Dude, the bottom line is that your assertion on this topic is flat out insayyyyyyyyyynne, my man. Seriously. I trust you on hoops. When it comes to the gridiron, trust me. Louisville would not have a freakin' prayer against the SEC's top drawer teams. Not a freakin' prayer.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 10, 2007 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UL Football

BEFORE last year the winning percentage of the opponents that UL had beaten the previous three years was .365. Last years wins will raise that percentage a bit.

UL has beaten only 2 top tier teams in the last 10 years: WEST VIRGINIA, last year. WVU had, what, 7, 8 turnovers. Slaton had 6 fumbles, 6!(He injured his wrist/hand early in the game. Given all this UL still only won by 14, at home. FLORIDA ST. a few years ago in a monsoon. Florida St. wasn't really Florida St. Chris Rix at QB, the worst QB at FSU since the Nixon administration. No appreciable running back. That season was the beginning of the end of Seminole glory.

I will give UL credit. They have a very talented quarterback, and two NFL-type receivers in Douglas and Urrutia. Anthony Allen is a talented back who should have a productive year, but their defense isn't top tier quality, (See Notre Dame). I question, once the local talent leaves, how successful Kragthorpe will be in luring elite recruits to the 'Ville. Only time will tell.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 10, 2007 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I think Louisville program is headed down. Bobby P was able to bring in talent that belonged at Texas, USC, FSU etc... I doubt that continues.

by Catfan on Aug 10, 2007 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are a homer

incapable of being objective. Lousiville has proven their team speed as they kept up with and arguably were faster than Miami in their two recent games. Miami has more team speed then any SEC school.

Fewer 4.5 guys? Did you get out your stop watch and time them all? Speed is proven on the field and those rat bastards at Louisville have proven it. God Florida fans are the most arrogant, illogical and emotionally based football fans ever. I guess it is from years of being the little brother program in the state of Florida.

I never said Lousiville played a tough schedule. But at least they schedule Miami. The SEC is full of teams that duck tough nonconference competition. When has Georgia ever played a national power outside of the SEC? How about Tennesee; they step outside the SEC to play the VERY overrated Notre Dame but that is it, they run from tough competition. At least Florida plays FSU but they too rarely step outside the SEC. Other than FSU Florida hasn't played a decent nonconference team in five years (i think it was Miami in a home and away for two years where Florida was embarrased both games).

Florida is good program obviously but this year they are likely to lose 4 maybe 5 games. UF are paper champions incapable of going undefeated and winning a legit championship (and don't say that it is impossible for an SEC school to end the year undefeated. LSU has done it, UT has done it, Auburn has done it but Florida cannot, has not and will not). You Florida fans are laughable and need to realize you are the #3 program in Florida as Miami and FSU have legit, multiple championships.

Dude, take your commentary to a Florida blog so other blind, emotional and arrogant Florida fans can give you the ignorant affirmation you need.

by Catfan on Aug 10, 2007 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Catfan, you continue to prove my earlier point...

... about not knowing much about football.

Florida plays Miami again in 2008.

Georgia starts their regular season against a good Big 12 team, Oklahoma State.

Tennessee gets to play Cal (#12) in Berkeley, CA and played them last year in Knoxville.

SEC teams will also play 2x national champion FSU (#21) -- not just Florida, but Alabama too -- Virginia Tech (#9), Missouri, who some say will win their conference this year, West Virginia (#6), UNC (Butch Davis!), Clemson, and of course Louisville (#11).

You think that's a weak OOC schedule on top of six top 20 teams IN THE CONFERENCE? What do you want this league to do, schedule NFL teams?

Re: Louisville's speedsters. Time them? No, I read their scouting report. You can too, you know. Scout.com and Rivals.com gives you forty-yard dash times, stats, etc. Try it sometime, it's not just for basketball.

Nobody who knows anything about college football thinks Louisville is a serious contender in 2007. They were pretenders last year. The only ranked teams they beat were Miami and Wake Forest! They lost to Rutgers and WVU! Seriously, man, wake up!

If you think Florida is going to lose 4 or 5 games landscape in 2007, you're dreaming. Listen, I get paid to write about the SEC and I don't wear the Gators hat when I type those posts up. I picked LSU to win the conference, Florida to win the East and both to face off for a second in time in Atlanta. Florida will probably lose 1-3 games in '07, possibly two of them to LSU, who I think will play for a national championship.

This commentary will remain here at ASeaofBlue.com as long as Truzenzuzex and JL Blue will have me. You will have to use logic, rather than mudslinging, to defeat me. And being that you have been incapable of doing so thus far, I predict it will not happen.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 10, 2007 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Miami

Your comment about UL beating only two ranked teams last year goes a long way to proving that judging a team by how many ranked teams they beat can be very misleading. Miami may have been ranked when UL played them, but that is because it was early in the year. They received votes simply on reputation. Miami was not a Top 25 caliber team last year, as you know.

Trumpeting N. Carolina as a quality pre-conference opponent does not help your cause in this debate. UNC, with JC as head coach, and Lombardi as O-Coordinator, still would be relegated to the bottom of a weak ACC.

These comments are not intended to be apart of the Gatorpilot v. Catfan extravaganza.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 10, 2007 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why UK Will Beat Florida

Gatorpilot, check out the diary section to see why UK will beat Florida this year.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 11, 2007 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where?

Searched but can't find it, Ken. Please provide a link.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 11, 2007 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gatorpilot

It's the third "story" in the Diaries section of this blog. The Diary link is listed under the heading MENU on the top right hand corner of this page.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 11, 2007 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, that...

... yeah, I've seen that. Cute. :)

In all seriousness I am sure our Gators won't be taking UK lightly. If UK brings their A game and Florida doesn't, UF could lose.

How hard is it to get tickets for this game, do you think? I like to go to at least one, preferably two away games per year (not including UF vs. UGA in Jacksonville.) I've never seen a game in Commonwealth, which seems like a cool stadium.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 11, 2007 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tcikets

This year,I would think tickets will be hard to come by, but I have bought "scalped" tickets to several games over the years, although it has been a while since I have had to revert to that method.

They have moved the "ticket sellers" away from the stadium a couple of hundred yards, but they can be found.

IF UK hasn't lived up to expectations prior to the UF game, tickets will be relatively easy to come by.

As far as the game is concerned, I feel this is UK's best opportunity to beat Florida in several years. Finding new and unusual ways to lose games seems to be the demon that haunts UK when it comes to playing Tennessee, and Florida. This fact is a high hurdle to overcome. Believing is the hardest part. This group seems to be a confident bunch, though, so hopefully they won't wilt under pressure if the game is close in the 4th.

UK has had trouble containing QB's in the mold of Tebow, Nickson of Vandy comes to mind. With Steve Brown running the D, pursuit ,not hitting a spot, will be the impetus of the D. Whether this change in philosophy will result in positive results remains to be seen.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 11, 2007 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It depends a bit ...

on how UK is doing when Florida comes to town. The better the Cats are, the harder the tickets will be to come across.

If we have 3 wins only at that point, there should be plenty available. If we have 4, they will be available, but less so. 5, and you will probably have a tough time, but could find some with determined effort.

More than 5, forget it. We would be somewhere we haven't been in 30 years. :-)

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 11, 2007 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoever pays you to write

must be desperate. Speed is proven on the field not by a stop watch. Listen to yourself HOMER, you call CAL, Oklahoma State, Missouri, UNC and Clemson tough OOC games? You may knwo somethign about college football, but your emotional attachment to the SEC makes you incapable of rational commentary.

Son, you are going to have to come up with something better than that to keep up. The whole country knows the SEC tradtionally avoids playing OOC powerhouses (ok, UF plays their instate rivalry FSU whahoo).

You might want to read more carefully; I never said Louisville would compete for the National Championship. I know this, they have enough talent to beat any other team in the very overrated SEC.

by Catfan on Aug 11, 2007 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dad-dad-daddyo

Since you're casting what I perceive to be a paternal, caring arm over my shoulder in an attempt to make me see the errors of my ways, I will gently attempt to guide a senile old man back to the light.

Yes, I think in a conference which already features 6 Top 20 teams, bringing in the aforementioned list of teams is pretty ballsy. These are all programs which have a justifiable chance to win a lot of games. Pretty much every team in the country plays at least two cupcake games per year, some play three. A schedule including those games is nothing specific to the SEC.

In 2008 Florida will play their regular SEC murderer's row schedule plus FSU AND Miami. Another key component of the SEC's superiority is the SEC Championship game... another rung on the ladder which must be climbed to gain access to the BCS title game.

It's easy to be called a homer when you write about the nation's deepest and toughest conference. Yes, I believe that about the SEC. I would believe it even if I covered the Big 12 or the Pac-10. It is the toughest conference in the country. (Haven't you seen the front of Phil Steele's SEC rag?) And most media types actually agree with that.

I am quite capable of reading your words carefully; I have done that. But you don't seem to understand what you're saying. When you suggest that Louisville has enough talent to beat any team in the "overrated SEC" you're saying they could beat LSU, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia.

Please excuse me while I choke down a belly laugh. There is no basis whatsoever for this theory.

In 2005 and 2006, Louisville LOST to teams which would not be able to come close to competing in the ultra-competitive SEC. I've already explained that twice and you still haven't listened, so I won't repeat it.

In 2007, the genius wondercoach is in Atlanta, scratching his head and wondering how to handle Vick's dogfighting mess (and probably wishing he was back at Louisville.)

Nobody thinks Louisville will be BETTER this year. They will be lucky if they're nearly as good as they were last year, and I don't think they will be. And last year, they only logged two good wins all year, and one of them was against Miami... who sucked.

Catfan, it's well and good to have opinions. Everyone has them. I have no problem with that. It's when you try to assert an opinion which is not founded in any basis of fact that the necks of those who know better get hot.

I urge you to consider these words, really deeply and carefully read and analyze them, before you reply again. And please, limit your response to some sort of factual rebuttal, not a vapid regurgitation of that which you've said thrice already.

Good luck.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 11, 2007 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Once again you failed...

NOW READ CAREFULLY....

You are simply wrong that the SEC is the deepest toughest conference. You emotional homers say this every year but the data proves otherwise.

You stated, "you try to assert an opinion which is not founded in any basis of fact." WRONG. You are not paying attention or you choose to ignore MY STATEMENTS OF FACT. In this decade, the SEC has a losing OOC record against BCS schools. That is a fact, and it is the most telling data on the SEC football myth.

Oh and there is much more. This decade there have been 7 national champions; the SEC has 1.5 of them. Hardly impressive of the "toughest conference." Of the last 20 National Champions 4.5 of them have come from the SEC; that is not impressive of what you call the "toughest conference." Hell, the ACC has 5.5 of the last 20 and the Big 12 has 6.

Once again I have used objective data and facts to prove you and the other SEC homers wrong. You on the other hand have provided no data to support your argument.

However, I am here to help; you certainly need it. Maybe you should go the route the SEC is deeper therefore better. Although making the case that since USC and UK are better than Baylor and Texas Tech (which may not even be true) the SEC must be better is pure foolishness. Or a better idea, maybe you should argue which conference has the most current NFL players.. now that is something you can run with and will help your misguided, emotional and unsubstantiated opinion.

Thank me later for the help, if you are still unable to make a rational, educated argument supported by facts and data, I will again be willing to help you.

by Catfan on Aug 11, 2007 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With all due respect ...

This argument doesn't prove your case. You are deliberately (or maybe just accidentally) selecting a period of time that supports your argument, and ignoring the rest of history. Is this your definition of logic?

And if you confine your argument to the last 20 years, the SEC has a winning record against every other conference in the nation except the Big East, and it is .500 against them.

You see, you can pull out stats from periods in history which back up your point, but surely you can't be seriously suggesting they are dispositive.

They aren't.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 12, 2007 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lack of championships

two quick comments:

this lack of championships mentioned...couldn't that be because of the depth of the SEC. we all beat each other up during conf. play that no one can make it out without a loss or two. i would assume there is at least one team this year that plays all the of the SEC's top 20 teams. if that team is florida, or lsu, or UK, that is a killer schedule that would make it really tought to come out of undefeated.
this whole thing about being a homer. i understand that we aren't all as objective as we probably should be, but when did being a homer equate you with being wrong? i've been a UK homer my whole life...i was right in 96, 98, and will be in the near future. damn, there's that homerism rising up again. GatorPilot, while not objective here (but why would you be, right?) has been on a damn good run the last couple years in terms basketball and football. just because someone thinks their team is going to do well doesn't make them a homer necessarily.

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 12, 2007 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're still way off base.

I'm afraid, Catfan, that your anti-SEC bias is getting the better of you. Take a deep breath, because your credibility is about to take a major hit.

First of all, as Tru has already correctly noted, the SEC has a perfectly fine all-time OOC record.

In fact, it's better than fine. The SEC has one of the best OOC BCS, non-BCS Div-1A, and Div-1-AA (sorry, FCS now) records in the country.

How do I know?

Because I research facts, rather than make them up, as you've apparently done.

Here's a sample set from 1995-2005 (does not include 2006, which would actually favor the SEC further.)

This table shows wins and losses of BCS teams vs. non-conference BCS opponents.

Conference      W/L      PF/Gm      PA/Gm
Big-12     0.572     29.1     24.8
SEC     0.566     26     22
Big East     0.562     27.3     23.7
Pac-10     0.561     28.9     25.7
ACC     0.554     26.2     23.3
Big-10     0.553     27.5     24.3

What's interesting is that in fact, all of the BCS conferences are pretty close. A win average of .572 to .553 separates the best from the worst.

The SEC is not the highest scoring conference (26) but it does allow the fewest total points (22) by far. This is in direct contrast to the Pac-10 (high scoring, no defense.) Pretty much supports the stereotype.

But let's take it a step further and look at overall winning percentages. This includes ALL games -- including in-conference, bowl games, BCS bowls, etc.

From 1996-2006 (one year skewed from the prior example):

SEC:

Georgia 76.19%
Florida 74.60%
Tennessee 74.60%
LSU 69.36%
Auburn 67.74%
Arkansas 58.20%
Alabama 54.92%
Mississippi 54.62%
South Car 46.15%
Miss State 42.34%
Kentucky 39.66%
Vanderbilt 26.55%

Pac-10:

Southern Cal 72.0%
Oregon 67.21%
UCLA 61.16%
Oregon State 57.5%
Arizona State 55.37%
Washington St 55.09%
Washington 51.26%
California 49.15%
Arizona 45.3%
Stanford 40.71%

Big Ten:

Ohio State 77.60%
Michigan 77.42%
Wisconsin 70.01%
Penn State 61.16%
Purdue 60.48%
Iowa 53.72%
Minnesota 52.83%
Michigan St 51.26%
Northwestern 41.18%
Illinois 33.91%
Indiana 30.97%

Now, pay careful attention, Catfan. Do you see the massive drop-off in the Pac-10 and Big Ten from the top teams to the bottom?

If you break these down into "tiers", you'll see that the SEC's first tier, second tier, and third tier brackets all have higher winning percentages than their brethren. In other words, from the top of the cnference to the bottom, the SEC wins more games every year.

Now, back to my original point, since you unwisely attempted to shift focus away from Louisville and talk about how "overrated" the SEC is.

Louisville plays in the Big East, which is one of the two weakest conferences in the BCS right now along with the ACC.

Yes, I know the Big East won all their bowl games in the 2006 season. I don't care, it's a sham... look at the matchups they drew! Louisville got Wake Forest, Cincinnati got Western Michigan, South Florida played East Carolina, Rutgers drew Kansas State, and West Virginia got a terrible Georgia Tech team with Reggie Ball flinging more picks than completions (and still barely won, 38-35.)

You're telling me Louisville would come into the SEC (which as you have now been factually informed, is NOT overrated) and take over the #2 slot?

There is no evidence to suggest this.

None.

The Big East is weak. The bowl wins are beyond weak. (East Carolina? Western Michigan?) Louisville played four ranked teams and lost to two of them -- their best wins were over Miami and Wake Forest. Miami sucked and Wake Forest prevailed at least in part due to the overall weakness of both FSU and Miami, the traditional powers in the ACC.

Louisville does not have the speed of SEC teams, especially on defense. You honestly think that those kids wouldn't be road-graded in the SEC?

They would be.

It would not be pretty.

I'd say 'trust me,' but I don't have to. The facts speak for themselves.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 12, 2007 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your argument is laughable.

Now you contend the SEC is the toughest deepest conference because they have the second best OOC record and one which is basically the same as the other BCS conferences? You cherry picked the time period as well and you still couldn't make a credible argument.

Thank you for the data because what you have proven is the SEC is average among BCS conferences.

The facts and data don't lie, you are wrong and again. Funny thing is, you proved your own point wrong.

Please someone else chime in, I am dealing with a light weight and it is getting boring.

by Catfan on Aug 12, 2007 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is that really all you're going to say?

I wasn't expecting much, but I was expecting more than that.

Then again, you don't have the ammo. I know that, because I know the score.

What's that line from "Glengarry Glen Ross"?

"Never speak unless you know the score."

Might want to rent that movie sometime.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 12, 2007 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Glengary Glen Ross

Great movie!!

Alec Baldwin is funny as hell.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 12, 2007 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What more is there to say?

Not only did I prove you wrong using the facts and data, but you also proved yourself wrong and validated my position.

You have yet to display one shred of evidence that shows the SEC is the toughest conference. Their record of National Championships don't show it. Their OOC BCS record certainly doesn't show. Why haven't you been able to produce the data? It does not exist.

Just like a Gator homer.. they can never admit defeat. When they lose they always blame it on something else.

Son, there is nothing wrong with being wrong. learn from, grow from it and don't be so pridefull as to not accept help. I am willing to help you make a clear, rational argument to support your position (although it is so clearly faulty). All you have to do is ask.

by Catfan on Aug 13, 2007 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, considering you said nothing...

... I'd think you'd maybe give some rational argument supporting your position.

You said the SEC has the nation's worst OOC-vs-BCS record. I proved they have the second best in the nation. You could not and did not try to counter that claim, instead saying that I "disproved my own point" because the SEC wasn't the toughest conference after all. Come again?

You said Louisville would be the 2nd best team in the SEC. I provided countless factual reasons why this could not be the case. You never countered one of them.

I think at this point you are simply doing your best to be supercilious and tangential, and because your pride won't allow you to wave the white flag, you lunge hopelessly from your prone position on the ground, where you've been laid out by a far more powerful foe.

Stay down, Catfan. Stay down.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 13, 2007 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now you resort to lies.

I never said the SEC has the worst OOC-vs-BCS record. I proved, by using my data and yours, that the SEC cannot claim to be the toughest conference. How pathetic to resort to lies whan your weak, unsubstantiated claims have been proven wrong.

Why would I counter rambling about Lousiville? UL doesn't play in the SEC and you are not bright enough to realize how absurd it is to try to prove or disprove an opinion about what might happen but could never happen (now figure that out). I believe the SEC is down and UL has the speed and talent to handle all SEC teams but LSU. We will never know.

What we do know for a fact is the SEC has not been the "toughest" conference as you ignorantly claim. The data and facts I posted and even the data and facts you posted prove me correct and you wrong.

You have been embarrassed to such a degree you have resorted to lies. Pathetic.

Case closed. Get over it and move on son.

by Catfan on Aug 13, 2007 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still nothing from "catfan."

Very well, then. Thanks for stopping by.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 13, 2007 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And one more thing... 1.5?

Last I checked, there was no split over who won the BCS title game in 2003. That was LSU, and they won all 100% of that title.

If you want to start counting AP championships too, that's another conversation. But you specifically pointed to the BCS.

If you go back to 1996, the last year Florida won, an SEC team has played in the championship game 4 times in 10 years.

Florida vs. FSU (winner: Florida)
Tennessee vs. Ohio State (winner: Tennessee)
LSU vs. Oklahoma (winner: LSU)
Florida vs. Ohio State (winner: Florida)

4 appearances, 4 victories. That's 40% SEC. You think we need to do better, no doubt.

The Gators also played for a title in 1995, and lost to Nebraska. That'd be 5 SEC appearances in 12 years, 4 victories.

So again, tell me what aspect of your mind-boggling inept argument is supposed to impress me or anyone else? No offense, man, but you don't know shite about college football. Stick to hoops. Seriously.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 12, 2007 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gatorpilot is welcome here ...

as are you, and all the rest.

Great discussion in this thread. Really great. One of our best ever.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 11, 2007 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gatorpilot

Actually, someone needs to step up to the plate and hook the 'pilot up. Take him to the game, and show him a good time in Lex.. The "good time", is of course, dependent on the outcome of the game. LOL

by Ken Howlett on Aug 11, 2007 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ayuh...

... please do, somebody. Step up, that is.

Actually, I'll have fun either way, if I make it!

Good luck Cats!

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 11, 2007 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Climbing to the top of the SEC

Can UK do this? Absolutely yes. But....here's a few thoughts from 30 years of observation

Stability/head coaching.....stability and at least gradual improvement each year over a period of at least 3-4 years is absolutely necessary...particularly in recruiting...and hopefully some gradual good fortune and results in W-L.........never happens overnight.....we just can't afford to get slapped back down every 2-3 years (right Claude?)....I was never a fan of the Rich Brooks hire but I've come to conclude that he is steady professionalism and that may be enough....certainly more valuable than a flash in the pan guy who leaves for a better job
BELIEF...once a decently stocked roster is in place...the guys must believe they can be a BCS team....easier said than done...tinkering with the collective minds of a hundred college men
Good fortune at crucial moments (closely tied to number two).......surely we are due

Can UK do it? Absolutely and man, will it be fun to dance in the streets of Atlanta! But...its tough and every rung on the ladder is tougher...and every rung on this conference ladder (and every year) offers the possibility to get smacked down a rung or two or three....lets hope its not this year

We'll keep watching, attending and Believing

by run and gun on Aug 10, 2007 6:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

10% better.

You know, if the team is 10% better than we individually think, we could win 8-10 games. We could take the 6 unranked teams and put a hurt on UT, UGA, Ark, and UL. LSU and UF may both be out of the 10% range but either of those could screw up and leave us with a win as well. I can still remember a 10 win season and I am not that old.

After all, we are currently tied for first place and will remain there until at least Sept 1.

If you were arrested and charged with being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

by Seymour on Aug 10, 2007 6:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

UK as SEC Baron or King

I am getting in late on this debate, and there isn't much left to say, but Tru mentions in his peice the only thing that matters when it comes to UK climbing the ladder of SEC supremecy: Recruiting. Until UK signs the best players from Kentucky, along with 4 and 5 star players from the rest of the country, they will never fulfill the wishes of their many fans.

In a nutshell-- When UK's CB's run a 4.6 40, and Florida's WR's run a 4.4 40 there is only one possible result. When UK's D Line is outweighed by 50 pounds per man. There is only one possible result.

Football is a game of speed, and brute strength. Combining the two is what the "haves" have accomplished on a consistent basis. Regardless of how hard UK's players work in the weight room, or how good their nutrition is, they will always be starting behind the elite teams players.

UK has caught lightening in a bottle a few times over the years, but consistently fielding a top tier SEC team requires much more than the occasional stud QB or stud RB.

The recruiting problem is magnified when one considers UK is battling Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, and Georgia for players. Established, tradition rich programs all. It is indeed an uphill trek, but not Mission: Impossible. Maybe Tom Cruise would be interested in becoming recruiting coordinator.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 10, 2007 7:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think UK could become a BCS team one day........

I know I'm in a very tiny minority of people - especially among my fellow U of Kentucky fans - that actually believe it could happen, and here's why.

Take a look at my home state West Virginia. West Virginia has less than half the total population of Kentucky. WVU was actually a basketball school before Doh Nehlen came along and took over. Right now U of Kentucky is a basketball school as well, and way more basketball tradition than WVU I might add.

W. Virginia football was in the pits in the late '70s. Then Don Nehlen came around. The Mountaineers made a statement in the early 80's when they beat top 25 teams really right away. WVU shocked Florida in the Peach Bowl one year, and next year they won their biggest game I say in the history of their program, shocking Oklahoma at Oklahoma in 110-degree heat! WVU even has had two undefeated regular seasons under Coach Nehlen and could very well do so one if not the next two years if both White and Slaton return for their senior years.

Yes I know that W. Virginia is in a much weaker conference right now, but the Big East hasn't always been that way. WVU has knocked off some very big time opponents over the years: Georgia, Miami(FL), Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma, Louisville when the Cards were in the top 10, Virginia Tech, Boston College when they had Flutie, and there are probably some teams here I forgot to mention.

Really the only reason WVU didn't bolt the Big East is that for some reason the ACC didn't feel like it was a big time program. But it would have made much more sense to have them instead of Boston College in every which way: it's a Southern state, much closer for teams to travel than all way the way to Massachusetts. I think the only reason WVU wasn't asked to leave is because it's in Appalachia just like eastern Kentucky is. And Appalachia people like me have a very undeserved hillbilly reputation. Yes I know that sounds funny but it's the truth.

Actually WVU usually has twice the average attendance that Boston College does. I have no clue as to why the ACC chose BC over WVU when there was absolutely no good reason to do so.

And also WVU owns their arch rival Pitt in Football when the city Pittsburgh and its suburbs have actually more population than the whole state of West Virginia.

Another great example of a small state college team with a great reputation is Nebraska, and its population is even less than W. Virginia's.

Now for our Kentucky Wildcats....

We're not what you say a small state more like a medium-sized one. In the brutal SEC we are small in terms of population. We too are outnumbered like WVU is, the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and perhaps Louisiana and Alabama - actully KY. LA, and AL all have about the same population. So naturally those states have much more talented football players than Kentucky.

And all states are Football Schools. And U of Kentucky is a Basketball School. That's highly important in terms of recruiting as well.

One thing I wonder is why U of Kentucky doesn't use its Basketball Tradition to bring Football Recruits to us? I would like some feedback on that. We might actually do right now. I think that couldn't hurt in recruiting but I might be 100 percent wrong....

But we also have a higher population than some states too: Arkansas and Mississippi.

But the Mountain State technically has less talent than the Bluegrass State, so why are they better off right now than UK? Simple,
two reasons:

1. WVU actually finished and won many close games in Nehlen's first couple of years and have won many if not most of them every since. They were able to finish the deal and grab some huge signature wins like the ones over Oklahoma.

U of Kentucky has had a lot of close games too that could have been signature wins for us, but unlike WVU we haven't finished the deal for the most part until the Georgia game last year. And that has hurt us in every way sadly including recruiting.

WVU has finished for the most part. UK didn't until 2006. And still we didn't finish against Tennessee when we beat them in almost category but the scoreboard.

Thus WVU is a perennial top 10 team right now and we aren't at the present time.

2. Of course we're in the brutal SEC. Even when the Big East had Miami(FL), Virginia Tech, and Boston College the Big East in its best year can't compare to the SEC even in a down year.

We are considered 9th out of 12 SEC teams. And sadly that's probably 100 percent right on target. We have to fight the Florida's, LSU's, and Tennessee's of the world for Football Talent when they all have bigger Football traditions than U of Kentucky and a higher population base to boot.

I still think we could be like WVU and have 1 or 2 loss season every once in a while if we put forth the commitment to Football like we always have to basketball. We'll probably never ever have undefeated regular seasons like WVU did because we are in the SEC and recruiting is much more competitive now and then and WVU never has to compete with the Tennessee's, LSU's, and Florida's of the world like we have to do on a yearly basis.

But I can see us being BCS contenders 1 out of 5 years if we play our cards right. Really WVU was like that too for a while before they completely established their program like they have now and are now legitimate National Championship contenders now every other year. Yes I know their schedule and conference aren't as difficult as ours but for a small state like W. Virginia that is still a huge compliment.

But we need to get those signature wins first before we start this BCS talk. If we start doing that on a consistent basis like WVU was able to its early stages of establishing its football program I think we can at least go to some major bowl games just like WVU did in its early years of forming a Top 10 football progras....

And I'll be more than satisfied to see U of Kentucky do that!

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 10, 2007 7:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why not UK?

You make some excellent points, fanatic.

If WVU can do it, why can't UK?

My feeling is that being in the SEC overrides any comparisons between WVU, and UK as it pertains to success on the gridiron. One can't underestimate the stranglehold the SEC powers have in the south on the elite high school prospects. UK, at this point, simply cannot compete on a yearly basis for the 4 and 5 star players. Even in our own state UK has a tough time convincing the top notch talent to stay home. Every year high school players from Kentucky choose N. Dame, Ohio St., Tennessee, UL, etc. over UK. That must cease in order for Kentucky to achievemnet parity with the SEC elite.

I'm not sure Coach Nehlen faced the monumental challenge that looks UK squarely in the grill.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 10, 2007 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OOPS!

The first sentence, in the above post,should read; "You make some excellent points, fan191."

by Ken Howlett on Aug 10, 2007 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still think Mr. Howlett if WVU can do it we can.

too.

Actually I do consider myself a "fanatic". People here in WV joke that I am the biggest Kentucky fan on the planet. And as you might expect they said last year was a fluke for us and we'll be lucky to win 5 games this year while they will go 13-0 and win it all.

One of my W. Virginia friends said that the only reason we beat Georgia was because "Georgia was down" this year.

Actually being in the SEC should get us much better recruits than WVU in the Big East. That's my take on it, even though I agree with you Mr. Howlett that it will much tougher for us than it ever was for him.

And I can also see the disadvantage for us in this as well, that WVU will always be a top 5 team from now on and UK at best at least for now is a top half SEC team.

But WVU has won the close games for the most part and UK has not. Thus WVU gets the recruits and we don't for the most part.

I still think we can be a legitimate BCS contender every 1 to 5 years if we ever put the same commitment to football like we do every year in basketball. Now every year like WVU is currently out of reach for us simply because they are in a weaker conference than us and might always be like you said Mr. Howlett.

I greatly enjoy talking to you Mr. Howlett. I always enjoy the discussions we have agree or disagree. I learn from you and I try my darn best to do likewise to you. Thanx for talking to me. I really appareciate it.

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 11, 2007 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: fan191

Something I agree with you about is UK's inability to get the all elusive signature win. Georgia, last year, was a major step forward. (Tell your friends Ga. was 9-4, and didn't lose after the UK game) But this year UK has a couple of tremendous opportunities to lay a beat down on opponents who have been abusing the 'Cats for years. Most notably UT, UL, and Florida. All home games.

The LSU debacle a few years ago, as well as countless UT games have slipped through UK's fingers, usually in the 4th quarter. I attribute losing so many games late, to depth issues. I have seen some flukish events take place, so flukish in fact, that one wonders if some malcontented ex-player or coach has placed a hex upon the program.

As far as your contention that UK can do what WVU has done in terms of building a successful program year in, and year out: I believe UK has a much larger task at hand, but I will always believe it is possible. As I stated before, it is simply a matter of recruiting. In recruiting one must have something to sell. And to that end the University has ,in the last few years, decided to pour money into the program, hopefully these expenditures will reap rewards.

Digging out of the hole of probation is tough for an established program, much less a struggling, traditionally losing one. It takes time. But I believe the groundwork for future success is being laid as we speak. I am a big believer in Joker Phillips, and hopefully he will succeed Brooks when he decides to retire. Phillips, in my view, possesses the qualities needed to build UK into a consistent winner. He is a tremendous recruiter, with many contacts throughout the south. He is an offensive minded coach, who isn't afraid to think outside of the box. He is trusted and well liked by the high school coaching fraternity, which can only help his cause.

You might tell your WVU friends that there is no need to deride UK's program in order to make themselves feel better about their own. They have a solid coach, and a bright future, wishing the same for UK does not seem to be unreasonable. Perhaps they castigate our football team, because our basketball team beats them on a regular basis.

Our conversations have been quite enjoyable for me also. It is always fun to have a give and take with someone who holds the same allegiances. I look forward to lively converstion over the course of the upcoming seasons.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 12, 2007 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mr. Howlett I know first hand how WVU's fans are..

They are very rough on anyone and anything not WVU-related. I actually am very fortunate I'm a U of Kentucky fan and NOT a Pitt or Va. Tech fan. WVU folks take sports personally. They will hate you on game day no matter what the school.

They still trash talk Georgia and their fine fans almost two years later after beating UGA in the Sugar Bowl. UGA fans ask them constantly to let them go and these WVU fans just will not do it.

And look at our arch rival Louisville Cardinal fans. The people there have had everything but the kitchen sink literally thrown at them. Batteries are a common tool used to do this.

And sadly this is only 10 percent or fewer WVU fans - really 90 percent of them don't even live in W. Virginia to begin with - these "fans" are hurting not only WVU's image but sadly the very very fine "normal" people in W. Virginia as well.

Just like my Appalachian Eastern Kentucky coalfield friends which I think supports our beloved 'Cats more than any other part of the state southern W. Virginia coalfield fans are by far the biggest Mountaineer fans in the state as well, and most Appalachian coalfield fans both of UK and WVU are the best behaved fans at the game as well.

Another thing about WVU is that almost half of their student body is from out-of-state - mostly from Northern states Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and mid-atlantic "Southern" state Maryland - technically it's a Southern state but the culture in Maryland is more like Pennsylvania than any Southern state. And these are the troublemakers for the most part, not W. Virginians. Even with them though 80 percent of those are good people as well.

Southern W. Virginiana still support WVU 100 percent for the most part, and even they admit that WVU is a Northern School even though 90 percent of West Virginians themselves consider this a Southern state instead.

I don't understand why WVU is at the very Northern tip of the state and that was 100 percent wrong of them to locate it there instead of the central part of the state let's say Charleston. My guess is because they want the Pennsylvanians' money because PA is more financially better off than WV for the most part.

People here joke all the time that WVU is really "Pennsylvania Southern University." I'm not making this up....

On the other hand at least 80 percent of U of Kentucky student body is from Kentucky in-state.
And the campus is centrally located in KY as well.

I do however wonder why Eastern Kentucky University is located closer to Lexington than then say Prestonsburg or Pikeville. I guess the same is true for them that they can get more cash from central KY than the more economically depressed eastern part of the state.

Really there is nothing to do in both Appalachian Kentucky and West Virginia but to watch and play sports and attend college football games. The jobs here are scarce and there is not much of a "night-life" here. And there are absolutely no professional teams from either state so the Mountaineers and Wildcats are all they have to cheer for.

Actually Virginia Tech in Blacksburg VA is actually located here in Appalachia believe it or not. And just like UK and WVU most of their rabid fans come from the Appalachian western part of the state again because of the economically depressed county there.

And those fans too like WVU's are sort of mean. Not quite as bad as WVU's but bad enough to trash talk their opponents both rivals and non-rivals too. And they too live out-of-state or Northern Virginia which really is more Northern culture than than the rest of Virginia.

I'll gladly leave this topic alone for a while...

Keep on talking Mr. Howlett. And you too Tru. I enjoy both of y'alls comments even when we disagree....

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 12, 2007 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just saw your basketball comment Mr. Howlett

Actually WVU is also a basketball school now. They have gone to the elite 8 three seasons ago, the sweet 16 two seasons ago, and won the whole darn NIT championship last year as well.

We did beat them pretty soundly two years ago, mostly because we played our best basketball game of the year against them and WVU played one of their worst games of the year against us. WVU nowadays is very much capable of beating us as both they and us are very equal talent-wise.

I'm sure WVU will do it this year for one reason and one reason: Beilein is gone and Huggins is now the coach there.

WVU's athletic department made an uncharacteristicly bad move when they didn't show Coach Beilein the money and hired Bob Huggins whose personal character - he has numerous drunk driving arrests on his record - and has done a poor job wherever he's coach recruiting players of questionable personal behavior and he himself has also been accused of recruiting violations in the past. At Cincinnati he had one of the worst graduation rates of any school in the nation.

Still WVU fans both students and alumni demanded Huggins be hired or else because he is a WVU alum who often supports his alma mater in many ways.

This coach is completely different compared to the coaches WVU had in the past both in football and basketball. Gale Catlett, John Beilein, Don Nehlen, and another WVU alum Rich Rodriguez except for his greediness - I think he will leave his alma mater after this season or next unless WVU shows him the money for the 2nd consecutive year in a row - all are good people both on the field and off the field as well.

On the other hand Huggins has legal problems both on and off the field. And he treated Kansas State like trash last year after leaving them after just 1 season. WVU alumni and students still wanted him there so badly that WVU's athletic department actually caved in to them this time. And they very rarely do that.

Also, Huggins and his predecessor Beilein run two completely different styles of offense. Beilein preferred a finesse game and preferred three-point shooting and back door cuts in his offense and one defense used the 1-3-1 where they tried to keep the ball from going inside. Also Beilein stressed ball handling big time, as WVU was at or near the top of the Big East in turnover ratio.

Huggins on the other hand favors a very physical game both offensively and defensively. He stresses rebounding much more than Beilein ever did - Beilein's teams were at or not the bottom in the Big East as far as rebounding is concerned. He also tries to pound the ball inside every single possession and doesn't like the 3-point shot very much unless they are wide wide open. His defensive game is constantly man-to-man pressure on the ball while Beilein preferred the 1-3-1 zone which he tried to take away every good shot both inside and out.

And all of WVU's players returning except for very underrated Frank Young - who basically carried WVU on his back in the NIT tourney - and Rob Summers - who actually would have been a perfect fit in Huggins' defense except he graduated last year. They are all used to Beilein's finesse style and it will take at least half of the season to adjust to Huggins' physical style.

If WVU's players are able to adjust to Huggins' physical defensive man-to-man style of play and if he is able to keep himself and the program clean of any legal wrongdoing watch out. WVU is a legitimate Sweet 16 if not Elite 8 team who could even make a run at the national title if they play their cards just right.

Again we'll just have to wait and see what happens as always....

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 12, 2007 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seems

Commonwealth most gamesis about as quite as a graveyard.

Anyway,

Yes Gatorpilot is a UF homer but your comments Catfan dont scream objectivity. You just keep saying im objective, im objective, and your not. Your arguments scream anything but objectivity.
Im no Florida fan but there is no way they are losing 4-5 games this season. I see them going 9-3. Hopefully with a loss to UK but that is wishing right now.

Personally I like Gatorpilots posts a lot more than yours and while I dont speak for Tru or JL I am sure he is more than welcome to keep posting.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 11, 2007 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Last season

Last season you could run by Memorial Coliseum and pick up tickets prior to game day. I prefer doing that than buying tickets at Commonwealth.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 11, 2007 10:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Chase Dumphord

Does anyone have any insight on whether Chase Dumphord has any interest in UK, now that he has come to his senses and left Michigan St.?

He had UK, as well as gasp, UL, listed in his final 5 or 6 schools.

Other than the obvious, does anyone know why he left MSU?

by Ken Howlett on Aug 11, 2007 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Chase

I have been wondering about Chase but I have yet to see anything related other than the story that he left St.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 11, 2007 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The truth about Florida...

The Gators have to back their way into National Championships. They have been incapable of doing it legitimately. They had a shot 10 years ago against Nebraska but the Huskers humiliated what was supposed to be the best UF team ever. While other SEC team have been able to go undefeated in conference and nonconference play and win a legit championship (which it never really is), Florida never has and likely never will.

But, I am jealous as their basketball has won 2 legit championships. Althought it looks like Billy D. is taking advice from SEC football coaches in learning to play weak OOC schedules.

by Catfan on Aug 11, 2007 2:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

More about UF..

they remain the little brother of college football in the State Florida. Miami and FSu have real chamopinships and they are not afraid to play tough OOC games. Actually, in 5 years, Florida may be the 4th best team as USF is rising fast and Jum Levitt will make even further inroads into the other 3 programs recruiting base.

Florida are paper champions, they fans are arrogant and ignorant because they cannot seperate emotion from fact. They have long had an inferiority complex to Miami and FSU, but for good reason.

by Catfan on Aug 11, 2007 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

OOC

I dont but the whole whining about not playing tough OOC games. Teams like Miami have to play tough OOC games becuase their conference SUCKS. Take UK for example. If you play 5 top 25 teams in conference are you really going to load up the OCC schedule. To a degree it's the same all across the SEC whether your Ole Miss or UF.
Speed is proven with a stop watch not on a field. There is no way to tell how fast someone is going on the field and your incessessant droning is gettig really annoying. If I didnt like everyone else here so much I would probably quit posting on this thread.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 11, 2007 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sorry.

buy

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 11, 2007 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Basketball Schools

I dont buy the whole WVU is a basketball school. They dont have any history of real basketball success. I dont know the alumni, maybe they like basketball more than their football team, which is more successfull. When I think of a basketball school I think UK, Indiana, UNC, Duke, Kansas, UCLA. I dont think WVU.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 12, 2007 8:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

WVU Basketball

West Virginia has had some pretty strong teams going back 40-45 years. Jerry West attended WVU.

Gale Catlett did a tremendous job there.

They haven't historically been a Top 25 team year in and year out, but they generally field a competitive team, and they have great fan support within their state.

West Virginia also gave us Jared Prickett, Randy Moss, and Jason "White Chocolate" Williams, and the greatest West Virginian of all, PATRICK PATTERSON--Moss and Williams attended the same high school, and played football and basketball together. Can you imagine the hippie lettuce that was injested during their time together?

by Ken Howlett on Aug 12, 2007 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WVU is both a football and basketball school.....

I guess what you're saying davw83 is that WVU is primarily a football school. And yes football is the top sport there right now.

But they also have had a ton of basketball success as well. I know they don't have the national championships like U of Kentucky does, but they arguably have had more success than us since our last national championship in '98.

I wonder if you've ever watched a WVU basketball game, davw83? I would like your take on that.

I agree with Mr. Howlett. WVU has had many fine players over the years.

This year WVU's success will depend on how the current players there adjust to Huggins' physical style of play which is very very different than Beilein's finesse style.

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 13, 2007 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huggins at WVU

It's only a matter of time before Hugs gets his "type" of player on campus. His history suggests he will be very successful at West Virginia, which I am very hopeful will come to fruition. Anything to give UL more competition is okay by me.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 13, 2007 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

J-Will

J-Will makes me laugh everytime I see him on the court.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 13, 2007 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Last 3 paragraphs

I agree with you totally with one caveat, we could change that direction if Rich Brooks would with Mitch Barnhart's help go looking for a BIG TIME HEAD COACH within the next 6 month's while we have SEC Quality Talent and the opportunity to continue our winning ways. Rich could stay on as a consultant with his current contract, this would give us the opportunity to turn a perennial cellar dweller around in a conference where it is said to not be possible....GO BUY US that COACH Mitch!!!!!

by abud4me on Aug 13, 2007 9:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What "BiG Time Head Coach"?

Did you have a coach in mind? UK is a very difficult place to lure a "name" coach to. As evidenced by the previous two hires. Mumme, who was coaching at Valdosta St., and Brooks, who had been out of football for 2 years.

This man has done the work of a "big time coach". The fact that UK has a bowl victory under its belt, and the most talented roster in several years, speaks volumes of Brooks and Co.'s ability to get the job done. Especially when one considers the staff was saddled with probation, which has been known to bring even the most tradition ridden programs to their knees.

Talking about hiring, or looking for, a new coach is, in my view, premature. Besides, I feel the best candidate to succeed Brooks, when he decides to retire, is already on staff.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 13, 2007 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rich

That could probably work but what Coach isnt going to believe he isnt the dude especially if he has coached in the NFL and been to the rose bowl. Also no incoming coach is going to want Brooks to stay on as a "consultant"

I just responded to this to post the 86 comment. This is the longest discussion I have ever seen here. Keep it up.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 13, 2007 9:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ukcatfan191

Other than the game we played them I dont really watch WVU games.

I just couldnt stand watching Pitsnoggle or whatever his name was.

I think you misunderstand me. Im not trashing WVU or argueing that their success doesnt match UK's. Im just saying that they dont seem like a basketball school IMO. I guess their alumni could be more into basketball than football but when I think about a "basketball school" I dont just think about programs where basketball is more popular. Its all just what I think. I really dont know enough about the school to give a definitve statement. Its just an opinion.

Mr Howlett,
Yes thinking about a coaching change right now is extremely premature. I do not have a coach in mind. For a couple of years I have thought that Brooks is the man before the man so to speak and that without Brooks there is no next man. Joker would and could be a great coach. Im all for him succeeding Brooks. I think Brooks is exactly the kind of guy this program needs for a while as stability, continuity, and building the program the right way are what UK needs. However I dont think Brooks is the man to lead us to an SEC championship but at this juncture UK just needs to make bowls regularly and not worry about the SEC chip.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 14, 2007 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: davw

I agree 100%.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 14, 2007 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually agree with you 100 percent davw....

Actually most WVU fans did consider themselves a basketball school during the late 70s. That's because the football team was at its lowest point in history and when their basketball team was at its highest point.

I didn't like watching Pittsnogle either, but you have to admit he could shoot the treys.

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 15, 2007 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs