In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 641
Online now 202 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Rumor has it... starting in 2014, we will have to win 7 games to make a bowl. According to some talking heads, UK will drop the annual rivalry game against Louisville... if indeed, this new NCAA rule is ever enforced. I don't like it... even if 7 wins is required to make a bowl, I still wanna see Louisville on our schedule (every year). To drop them, will make us look weak... and show a lack of confidence, in our ability to win only a few games in the SEC. I would use the new rule as motivation to step our game up... NOT to look like scared pansies, by weakening our schedule.
Flat out...if we cannot beat Louisville we do not deserve to be in a bowl game
That's exactly the way I feel about it. I'll be disgusted with (the powers that be) at UK, if they opt out of our annual game against Louisville... not to mention, embarrassed as hell. If it takes 7 wins, SO BE IT... we just have to beat the Cards. We MUST, also, raise the bar for our program... and find a way to compete in the SEC.
I'm not afraid of the new rule... I have faith in our team. The problem is... there will be many fans who put the importance of making a bowl game, over the importance of an annual game against Louisville... and will want to drop them from our schedule.
I would completely understand if they did drop Louisville, BUT I hope we keep the game and kick their freakin ass every year.
Here's some detailed info:
With mediocre teams drawing anemic crowds to 35 bowl games last season, Brett McMurphy says there's growing sentiment teams should be better -- at least seven wins -- to play in one. The result might be fewer bowls, but better ones.
I don't agree. Louisville has a respectably competitive program right now, and playing them when you have to have 7 to get eligible would be beyond foolish.
UK hasn't broken .500 in the SEC in 34+ years, so you can pretty much count on needing to win 3 or 4 non-conference games to get in.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK
I prefer we keep the UL series but I wouldn't be upset in the least little bit if we dropped them either.
1. As Jeff stated we haven't brok .500 in the SEC in 34+ years.
2. The SEC could force a 9 game league schedule with the addition of TAMU & Mizz
3. The game is a no win situation for UK. Win and you are expected too, lose and it's fodder for UL. Besides, it's the only actual sellout for UL besides the Trinity vs St. X game.
4. Do you think the SEC is actually going to go with this? They could potentially lose millions of dollars in revenue by having 2-4 teams go 6-6 every year and not go bowling. SEC won't go for that, imo.
5. I like the idea of allowing all teams to participate in the same number of December practices regardless of making a bowl game or not though.
Getting into a bowl is way too easy. You can be under 500 and make a bowl. Softening the schedule just to get in a bowl seems cowardly to me. They should just axe at least half the bowls. Or all of them.
JD, I respectfully disagree... that's a "Loser" or "No Confidence" kind of mentality. You are, obviously, one who considers the POSSIBILITY of "just making" a Bowl... more important than, the POSSIBILITY of "losing" to Louisville. In other words, that mentality displays a fear of... losing to the Cards, would keep us from making a bowl.
I think it would make that game more exciting... not to mention, the level of intensity our players should bring to the game. Knowing it's a MUST WIN to make a bowl... should motivate the hell out of our guys. On the flip side... a loss should give our team the motivation to play at a higher level of intensity in conference play... and pull off some upsets.
Either way... I think it is better for our program to keep the Cards on the schedule. It will be a BOLD move... creating a higher level of confidence. It will show UK's new and improved commitment to football... as well as, a "new attitude" that shows UK is serious about being a contender. However, giving up on the Card game, would show the complete opposite... fear of losing, a lack of confidence and a lack of commitment.
+1 ... it IS way too easy right now (except for us apparently). SMDH
This should inspire ALL teams to do better...and make for much more exciting college football.
Foolish pride is more effective on the schoolyard playground that real-life (big money) situations that require a more rational approach.
Doing things because someone might call you "chicken" is not how to run a program. Plus, it's not like you're saying UK CAN'T beat UofL. Of course they can. But it's a game where there's a chance you may not win, and if you don't under these new rules, you could be screwed.
I'd hate to see the series end, but I would understand why.
I disagree with the notion that dropping UL means your cowardly or fear losing to UL.
It is simply smart $ to drop them and have a home game every year instead of one every two years. It also allows more freedom in scheduling sure fire winnable OOC games that are vital to go bowling.
And yes, a bowl game is far more important than playing UL every year. The UL game is good for nothing more than bragging rights and a feel good victory.
I realize that, but it's exactly what MOST people will think... especially, Card fans.
I know it's only a game for bragging rights at the moment... but the new rule would change it completely. The team, as well as, the fans will look at that game with a whole new perspective... and will approach it differently. Right now, we are playing for bragging rights... but with the new rule, a "WIN" is much more important and meaningful to "US". We will be putting more on the line and have much more to lose, than the Cards would.... so I see it as motivation to make us better.
I think keeping Louisville on our schedule is MUCH more important, than just making a bowl. As a matter of fact, it makes our appearance in a bowl look much more deserving. There's no pride in making a bowl... if our only reason for playing in it, came by defeating the "powder puffs" on our schedule.
This post was edited by JawJacker 2 years ago
IF the SEC goes to a 9 game schedule it would be possible for us to face 8 top 25 teams inside our own conference. Adding another team who potentially could be top 25 thanks to them playing a powder puff schedule wouldn't be wise. It would be down right foolish! Don't go bowling for 2-3 years and see what uproar the fans get in and how much they want to keep the series.
IF going to a bowl game is as easy as everyone makes it out to be then why don't more teams have a bowl streak of over 5 years, how about 3 years? FACT is that the majority of teams don't have a consecutive bowl streak of over 3 years now!
I'd be more inclined to have a bowl coalition determine the bowl game matchups than allowing individual bowls to determine their games than to raise the standards to 7 wins. Many times bowls make horrid decisions on who they match up when better options are available.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that if this (7 wins mandatory) comes to fruition, UaVel would likely welcome an end to the series as well. Not only that,but there will be several series around the country that would likely be in the same boat.
Simple solution - Don't watch them. That way, the people who want to watch or attend, can.....and the people who don't want to watch, don't have to...
A lot of the OOC rivalry games would cease to exist. Especially if the SEC goes to 9 games.
I am honestly just bored to tears with the Louisville game. I would much prefer seeing us play somebody interesting from OOC every year, kind of like the Oregon/LSU game. That would do a LOT to further our name brand recognition in the rest of the country.
I hate Louisville and worse hate losing to them, but if you don't think playing them is good for football in this state then you have your head in the sand.
I doubt you see Florida drop Florida St or Georgia drop Tech.
Man up, keep your instate (non-conf) rival and get better.
If we drop UofL..it will make us look weak..scared...if we cant beat the Cards...we will lose out on the Louisville area recruits..the only hotbed in the state...and Charlie Strong is already killing us!!! Off topic....WE need to start hiring elite recruiters and assistants. WHy did we not offer Dermonti Dawson a O-line or at least centers coaching job...we could have racked up on 4 and perhaps 5 star O-line kids...with DD and his rings..the best Center to ever snap a ball..in yuour house..your a 5 star O-line..DD says..i can get you there..as in the NFL...that would be a huge draw!!!
I agree with Jeff. No one outside of Kentucky cares about the UL-UK game. UL has put the equivalent of low to mid-level SEC teams on the field for most of the last decade . With expansion of the SEC UK should not schedule any difficult teams out of conference. Just because a national power like LSU plays another national power for a national TV date doesn't mean that a struggling program like UK should play a tougher schedule than necessary. Look at the out of conference schedules of the traditional football powers and please don't compare us to UGA-GT and UF-FSU, all previous national champions. We all know that the UK game is one of the most if not the most important on the UL schedule and has helped them build their program. The game means more to them and they get much more out of playing it. From a UK program standpoint there is no question that a bowl game is much more important than the UL game. I would drop it in a heartbeat especially if the 7 game bowl minimum passes.
Oh no way, no way in hell, Jurich would sign a 100 year home & home contract with UK in 2 seconds flat.
They are losing West Virginia as an every-other-year sellout of their newly expanded stadium. Who the heck else can UL get on their schedule that would fill all those seats? Sure ain't gonna be the "new" Big East members except Boise State....Houston? SMU? Central Florida? San Diego State? And the big time/big name programs sure have not and will not go out of their way to sign a home & home with UL.
I understand what you guys are saying (Cobby, JD, etc)... our annual game with UofL has always been more beneficial to them, than us. I realize the 7 win minimum would raise the stakes to a point where "common sense" says, drop the Cards from our schedule. However, if we (our football program) are truly serious about competing in the SEC, then we should not feel the need to drop a team from the Big Least. That rule would simply mean it's time to step our game up and prove we are a program on the rise... not run away from an instate challenge. If we are serious about turning things around, keeping Louisville on our schedule will show some GUTS. It would go against what "common sense" and all naysayers would expect from UK football... and raise some eye-brows. Friends and foes alike, would be like... "Damn, UK must be confident as hell about winning." That show of confidence and "attitude" will spark an uproar of excitement in BBN and the players will feed off that energy ... and play with greater intensity.
I just see it as reason to get more excited about football... and more motivation for our team to step their game up and come ready to play "inspired" football. We should, at least, keep the game on our schedule for a few years.... before throwing in the towel and ending, what is an exciting game for our fans and recruits.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports