In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 736
Online now 816 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.
Most of the SEC coaches don't like this idea, but Phillips was asked about it today and here was his answer:
"A ninth game, me being at Kentucky, would be opposed to a ninth game," Phillips said. "I would be against having a ninth game. That's me taking care of my program. I think I really like the format that we have right now, the 6‑1‑1. Gives us an opportunity. We still play the University of Louisville. Gives us a chance to schedule three other out‑of‑conference games."
I have to agree with Joker on this and his answer was perfect. i would like to see a 6-2 split so you can see the other side more often.
I predicted this a while back. A 9 game schedule would screw up a lot of things. Guys like Spurrier and Saban have a ton of clout in the SEC. We'll see what happens but I think a 9 game schedule is bad for the league.
A 9 game schedule would end the Louisville series for sure. As a UK fan I agree with JP 110% on this matter. We could possibly be trading Louisville with an LSU or Alabama. I like our schedule the way it is.
It would end other rivalry games in the SEC as well.
Eventually , the Bama Tennessee game is going to get passed on. Auburn -Georgia is going to get off schedule. Some old tough but fun rivalries will come to a partial end and that sucks.Thats what happens with expansion . I wish they would all go back to the Big 8, SWC, etc days and do the playoff with all the old conference champions so the old rivalries can continue.
Coaches were against going to a 7 game league schedule. Then they were against going to 8 games. They were against the SEC Championship game. All other BCS conferences are going to 9 games (I think by 2017). With a commission deciding the top four teams in the playoff, the SEC, no matter how tough it is, will be looked at unfavorably in regards to its 8 game schedule. I completely understand why the coaches are against 9 games. The SEC's tough, no doubt about it. If you don't want to go to a 9 game schedule then don't go to 14 teams.
Well stated. Don't know that 8 vs. 9 impacts outside views & the SEC shouldn't care/base their decision on that. But the rest is dead on IMO, particularly the 14 team point. You add teams to your conference & then not play them???? Stupid & silly.
I can certainly understand why Joker (or any SEC coach) feels that way. But I, as a fan, feel a bit cheated when we play WKU, Kent State and Samford as 3 of our 4 OOC games. I have no interest at all in watching us play Samford or any of these other schmoes. I would much rather see us pick up another SEC game against the west.
I think guys like Saban, Miles, and even Spurrier understand that a 9 game SEC schedule would make getting to the MNC game more difficult for everyone in the SEC. I just don't see it happening, at least not anytime soon.
"Kentucky Football needs to be and will be a championship contender in the SEC."~Mitch Barnhart 11/4/12
I understand that thinking but the trade-off is less wins most years and a much more difficult path to a bowl. Is that a trade you're willing to make?
Once the TV networks demand a 9th game in exchange for tens of millions in more conference money, it will happen no matter if all 14 coaches are against it. And the UL series ought to continue, so should Georgia-G Tech, Fl-Fl State, SCar-Clemson.
In fact, to protect those rivalries if & when the 9 game schedule happens every conference member ought to be REQUIRED to have on their schedule at least 1 out of conference opponent from one of the 6 major conferences. It certainly would be completely unfair for UK to have UL plus 2 "gimmie" OOC games when the likes of Ole Miss or Arkansas would play 3 rumdums.
Nope, not I.
The 4 OOC games are a must and Louisville is not a guarantee...
Gotta get back to the Bowls... MCB or whatever....
Huh? It improves your strength of schedule. Wouldn't the all-knowing selectors see that? Or are you saying they'd be biased against tough schedules? That's not to mention all the other conferences going to 9 games.
Saban wants/is willing to go to 9 games.
Joker pretty clearly put it out there that if we go 9 games we will drop Lville. Whether on purpose or not, it was a good move to go ahead and lay the ground work for that.
I read that, gotta say I'm pretty surprised by it but maybe he sees the writing on the wall. I do believe the tv dollars will force the issue eventually.
I look to our schedule this year, and we play Mizzou. And since they are East, we'll play them every year. We'll also eventually play Texas A&M. So I don't get your last few statements about expansion.
I think the 6-2 is a good way of doing it as mentioned by another poster above. No team has a "permanent" opposite division rival, and you rotate through every team in the West (for UK) every 3-5 years or so.
If we go to 9 game SEC schedule, I'm pretty sure the UL series will be gone. No way we play them, with a 9-game SEC schedule. The only other way I see this happening, without dropping UL, is if the college football regular season increasing to 13 games - and I doubt that's on the table.
Bingo. The idea of having some Ws built-in to the schedule to make the path to a bowl game easier is THE master plan behind our scheduling. If we go bowling every year or compete for a 6th win (or more) every year, we are in the headlines through the end of Dec/beg of January every year. That does have a positive effect on the overall perception of the program. AND the team gets an extra month of practice which has proven to be huge for the redshirt players.
If you take those built in Ws and swap them out for possible Ls, I'm pretty sure, based on history, UK will rarely have a winning season. If fans are unhappy now......
I read it to mean, 1 more hard SEC battle/game to play and possibly lose.....and therefore lose your chance at playing for the NC.
I feel the same way as you do Chiuk.
I'd rather see us develop a rivalry with another conference, similar to the Big10/Pac-12 agreement now. I hate them, but the committee will look very favorable when Southern Cal plays 9 conference games, Notre Dame, AND a Big 10 opponent.
I think either incorporating a lot of current rivalries and go to a SEC/ACC matchup for each team, OR tip the hat to the new kids and play a SEC/Big XII series. The numbers aren't as clean there though like with the now 14 team ACC.
^BBN: We could do that, but it'd involve dropping UL. We need at least 3 cake walks on our schedule, no matter how you slice it. Luckily, it was 4 cake walks when Kragethorpe donned the UL sidelines.....
A 6-2 format with no permanent opponent is not good, IMO. Doing away with Tennessee-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn is a shame and not good for the conference. These games and rivalries, among others, are part of what makes the SEC so unique. It'd be like doing away with Duke/UNC or OSU/Michigan. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and completely changing the landscape of college football and the SEC despite its current popularity is very unwise, IMO. But as we all know, money drives everything.
Well, we're not particularly very good, so probably. Yeah. Also, with the upcoming playoff system I think that the bowls are eventually going to be much less emphasized.
Oh absolutely. I'm in favor of that regardless. The UL game does NOTHING for us. Its not even a respected out of conference game (for good reason) when they're decent because they play in a high school football conference!!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports