Couple of questions

[jpbky2]

1. Does anybody know what the status is for replacing the UAB game in 2016? I know that Kentucky tried to get Army for the replacement, but was outbid by Ohio State. I also know that they contacted a couple of other possible Div I schools and those schools would only do it for a home and home series. UAB really left us in a tough spot and if we have to go down a division to find an opponent, we would have to win 7 games for bowl eligibility. I have heard there was some other possibilities, but as of right now, Kentucky doesn't want to change dates on the game. I was just curious if anyone knew anything else?

2. It seems with the budget restraints that the old Division I-AA schools have, that the NCAA ought to allow Division I schools to schedule these schools for their Spring games. I heard someone call in a football talk show and suggest this and I thought it would be a great idea. Let's say Kentucky invites EKU or some school in for the Spring game. We pay them based on attendance, which I think would be decent. They make a little bit of money and the school gets some competition and doesn't have to worry about trying to come up with two teams for a team scrimmage. I know the host liked the idea, his concerns were the fear factor for the Division I team losing the game and the ramifications that would bring and also the attendance of such a game at some parts of the country. I kind of liked the idea. My buddy who is in the administration of a FCS school, said they would be all over something like that. Thoughts?

 

[Houstonwildcat]

IU
Northwestern
UVa
Md
Illinois
SMU
and the list goes on. I would try and schedule a team where we want to concentrate recruiting efforts

This post was edited on 2/13 10:11 AM by Houstonwildcat

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Be glad you didn't get Army, teams running that type offense are tough to prepare for, but the worst part is they use tons of cut blocking, really tough on the legs and knees of your DL, they hate playing against it. We always have a couple of DL with hurt ankles or knees after the Georgia Tech game. But its what they have to do to compete, usually giving up quite a bit of size, at least the military acadamies are, Tech is just a low life.

 

[usa1000]

Originally posted by Grumpyolddawg:
Be glad you didn't get Army, teams running that type offense are tough to prepare for, but the worst part is they use tons of cut blocking, really tough on the legs and knees of your DL, they hate playing against it. We always have a couple of DL with hurt ankles or knees after the Georgia Tech game. But its what they have to do to compete, usually giving up quite a bit of size, at least the military acadamies are, Tech is just a low life.

Not to mention it stinks to play a team you can't cheer against. I couldn't pull against any of the academies.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by Grumpyolddawg:
Be glad you didn't get Army, teams running that type offense are tough to prepare for, but the worst part is they use tons of cut blocking, really tough on the legs and knees of your DL, they hate playing against it. We always have a couple of DL with hurt ankles or knees after the Georgia Tech game. But its what they have to do to compete, usually giving up quite a bit of size, at least the military acadamies are, Tech is just a low life.

Grumpy please tell me why using a perfect legal tactic is low life? The cut block is perfectly legal unless the player is already engaged by another blocker or is a clip. Are you saying that Georgia's coaches do not teach and use cut blocks? The truth is if you are going to be successful running the ball you must use cut blocks.

If the teams you mentioned are using illegal tactics and injuring your players then you have a reason to complain but if those are legal blocks you have no complaint.

I get from your post that you are an old time football player. If I am right about that surely you remember back in the day there was a lot more cut blocking than present day because most teams were basically running teams. Heck I don't even remember cutting an engaged player being a foul. That was changed to prevent injuries.

 

[subsonic66]

Im with C1180, on this! A great or even good OL will have a nasty stream in them! Get the job done at any cost. ,i was an undersized OL/DL in HS at a small class a school in KY and i had to do some dirty things to get the job done! Went against several in my lifetime, Cory Zirbel, Nick Wilkerson, and Micah Jones to name a few! There were times when i wanted to intentionally hurt someone! It was the mean streak in me!

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by subsonic66:
Im with C1180, on this! A great or even good OL will have a nasty stream in them! Get the job done at any cost. ,i was an undersized OL/DL in HS at a small class a school in KY and i had to do some dirty things to get the job done! Went against several in my lifetime, Cory Zirbel, Nick Wilkerson, and Micah Jones to name a few! There were times when i wanted to intentionally hurt someone! It was the mean streak in me!

IMO to be a really good football player especially in the trenches and the LB positions you must have a mean nasty streak. Oh Heck if I was a football coach I would want all of my players to have a mean nasty streak. I would want them to play within the rules of the game but play nasty by the rules. Football is not a game for choirboys IMO the game has already gone too far toward making the game a game for sissies and eliminating cut blocks would just be another move in that direction, I understand outlawing the crack back block to protect a helpless player but eliminating cut blocking altogether would be a very bad idea. What next eliminate all blocking and tackling you do know that both are somewhat dangerous and causes injuries.

 

[RV2]

Here's the schedule as posted on ukathletics



Date Opponent / Event Location Time / Result
09/05/15 vs. Louisiana-Lafayette TV Lexington, Ky. TBA
09/12/15 at South Carolina * TV Columbia, S.C. TBA
09/19/15 vs. Florida * TV Lexington, Ky. TBA
09/26/15 vs. Missouri * TV Lexington, Ky. TBA
10/03/15 vs. Eastern Kentucky TV Lexington, Ky. TBA
10/15/15 vs. Auburn * TV Lexington, Ky. TBA
10/24/15 at Mississippi State * TV Starkville, Miss. TBA
10/31/15 vs. Tennessee * TV Lexington, Ky. TBA
11/07/15 at Georgia * TV Athens, Ga. TBA
11/14/15 at Vanderbilt * TV Nashville, Tenn. TBA
11/21/15 vs. Charlotte TV Lexington, Ky. TBA
11/28/15 vs. Louisville TV Lexington, Ky. TBA

 

[TNTUK]

2016, not 2015.

 

[vhcat70]

Originally posted by jpbky2:

2. It seems with the budget restraints that the old Division I-AA schools have, that the NCAA ought to allow Division I schools to schedule these schools for their Spring games. .... Thoughts?

Why stop there? I'm all for a 10-11 game Spring FB schedule from mid-March thru end of May with bowl games up north around 4th of July. What a holiday weekend!! Better than apple pie. The Bangor Lobster Bowl. The Lake Superior Ice Bowl. The Fairbanks Midnight Sun Bowl.

 

[ram1955]

Not only do they need 8 home games a year, but they need ooc games vs teams they can likely beat. Looks like they may have to suck it up one year in order to have a home and home agreement. As an alternative, would be nice to schedule a game with someone and play two years at a neutral site.

Does ul own papa john's? If not, wonder if we could get someone to come to louisville a couple of times for a game?

 

[jpbky2]

Originally posted by ram1955:
Not only do they need 8 home games a year, but they need ooc games vs teams they can likely beat. Looks like they may have to suck it up one year in order to have a home and home agreement. As an alternative, would be nice to schedule a game with someone and play two years at a neutral site.

Does ul own papa john's? If not, wonder if we could get someone to come to louisville a couple of times for a game?

I agree, they may have to suck it up. I think it will come down to the fact of whether or not they think they can win 7 games (only one FBS win will count) by scheduling two of those teams. I'm of the opinion of let's play somebody interesting. We aren't going to bowl games now, let's play an in season game worth watching. Let's play Notre Dame at Lucas Oil or let's play WVU at Paul Brown Stadium. If we are going to recruit in the Ohio area, let's go up that way and play.

 

[ram1955]

No problem adding one of those teams provided the rest of the schedule will nothing short of guarantee enough wins to get to a bowl. Based on strength of schedule, we really don't need to add another tough team, though I understand it gets a little boring watching the same sec teams on a regular basis. If we could go back to 6 or 7 sec games, I'd be for picking up someone like wvu, maryland, marshall, duke....will never happen.

I don't recall ever playing purdue. How about 2 neutral site games with them? Maybe a home and home with Tulane (we used to play them regularly). It would give fans a nice travel destination. Ga Tech?

 

[hoss6901]

I like the idea of playing Virginia, Maryland, Purdue, or some other teams in a major conference. It definitely would be a lot more interesting than Kent State or some team like that. It would be tougher for sure but who cares? It would be better if we won and not as embarrassing if we lost.

 

[Deeeefense]

I think the schedule should match what your expectations are, which of course is somewhat hard to do since they are set a few years in advance. Basically this year where we need to get to some sort of bowl and hopefully win 7 games, you want 3 cupcakes plus the Ville. A more mature team that is looking at 8 or 9 wins and a major bowl would probably want to drop off one cupcake and substitute a P5 team. If you have national championship aspirations then you defiantly want at least one top 20-25 type team on the schedule, and maybe even one other lower ranked P5 team. The trick is to set up a schedule that is to your advantage not your disadvantage.

 

[NavyCat88]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Grumpyolddawg:
Be glad you didn't get Army, teams running that type offense are tough to prepare for, but the worst part is they use tons of cut blocking, really tough on the legs and knees of your DL, they hate playing against it. We always have a couple of DL with hurt ankles or knees after the Georgia Tech game. But its what they have to do to compete, usually giving up quite a bit of size, at least the military acadamies are, Tech is just a low life.

Grumpy please tell me why using a perfect legal tactic is low life? The cut block is perfectly legal unless the player is already engaged by another blocker or is a clip. Are you saying that Georgia's coaches do not teach and use cut blocks? The truth is if you are going to be successful running the ball you must use cut blocks.

If the teams you mentioned are using illegal tactics and injuring your players then you have a reason to complain but if those are legal blocks you have no complaint.

I get from your post that you are an old time football player. If I am right about that surely you remember back in the day there was a lot more cut blocking than present day because most teams were basically running teams. Heck I don't even remember cutting an engaged player being a foul. That was changed to prevent injuries.

I don't think Grumpyolddawg has anything against cut-blocking, triple-option teams in general....it is just that GA tech runs the option and blood-feud-rivalry rules dictate that "Grumpy" (as a UGA fan) must hate all things "-Tech."

GBB!

 

[jauk11]

Originally posted by NavyCat88:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Grumpyolddawg:
Be glad you didn't get Army, teams running that type offense are tough to prepare for, but the worst part is they use tons of cut blocking, really tough on the legs and knees of your DL, they hate playing against it. We always have a couple of DL with hurt ankles or knees after the Georgia Tech game. But its what they have to do to compete, usually giving up quite a bit of size, at least the military acadamies are, Tech is just a low life.

Grumpy please tell me why using a perfect legal tactic is low life? The cut block is perfectly legal unless the player is already engaged by another blocker or is a clip. Are you saying that Georgia's coaches do not teach and use cut blocks? The truth is if you are going to be successful running the ball you must use cut blocks.

If the teams you mentioned are using illegal tactics and injuring your players then you have a reason to complain but if those are legal blocks you have no complaint.

I get from your post that you are an old time football player. If I am right about that surely you remember back in the day there was a lot more cut blocking than present day because most teams were basically running teams. Heck I don't even remember cutting an engaged player being a foul. That was changed to prevent injuries.

I don't think Grumpyolddawg has anything against cut-blocking, triple-option teams in general....it is just that GA tech runs the option and blood-feud-rivalry rules dictate that "Grumpy" (as a UGA fan) must hate all things "-Tech."

GBB!

I remember a lot of outrage and complaints on here when we played a smaller school from Tennessee (MTSC?) that left us with some injuries blamed on their excessive us of cut blocks.

My first year out for football there were no nose guards, a lot of bloody noses pretty often and also some broken ones. And I always felt bad about talking this one freshman into going out for football, and he had some promise, but he got hit by a legal (at the time) crackback block that broke his leg and gangrene set in and they had to amputate it. Without some of the new rules we would be losing a lot more players to concerned moms (and Dads) pushing them into soccer.

Back on subject NavyCat, couldn't you do something to help us trade our Army game for a Navy game? Assuming of course that they wouldn't flood the field and send in the subs.

 

[NavyCat88]

Although I would love to see the Mids or Cadets do a march-on-the-field before a game at Commonwealth....a paratrooper jumping in the game ball......and a big flyover, I don't recommend UK play Army or Navy. Both coaches are Paul Johnson protégés. Navy is on a hot streak....Army will get better. UK doesn't face the pure triple option/hasn't faced it in years. It is tough to defend....limits number of possessions by chewing a ton of clock.

It is a no win situation for us. If we win....service academy....no big deal. If we lose, huge hit to whatever winning reputation we will have developed by then. And make no mistake about it......we could absolutely lose to a good TO team.......UGA & Miss St got burned last year by GT.....UF was taken down in the Swamp two years ago by then-FCS Ga Southern.

Stay away from good TO teams.

 

[jauk11]

I'm not really advocating adding Navy to our schedule, I agree with your analysis, but with a "Navy" guy posting it seemed like a perfect opportunity to sneak in my pun.

 

[BengalWACO]

Bring on Washington State. Get some West Coast recruiting done..

 

[PushupMan]

Originally posted by Houstonwildcat:
IU
Northwestern
UVa
Md
Illinois
SMU
and the list goes on. I would try and schedule a team where we want to concentrate recruiting efforts

This post was edited on 2/13 10:11 AM by Houstonwildcat

The Big Ten goes to a 9 game conference schedule in 2016. All of those Big Ten teams already have 3 nonconference games on the schedule. In fact (per fbschedules.com) every B10 team has three non-conference games scheduled for 2016.

 

[NavyCat88]

Originally posted by jauk11:

I'm not really advocating adding Navy to our schedule, I agree with your analysis, but with a "Navy" guy posting it seemed like a perfect opportunity to sneak in my pun.

I'm with you--& I appreciate the sense of humor.

As someone else said earlier in the thread, UK playing Navy would be tough for me to watch. It would be a painful loss for either team.

But, I admit....I am a triple option junkie. I would love to see Navy or GT play UofL, and watch Bobby Neckbrace pull his hair out because he can't get his precious offense out on the field with the 6, 7, and 8 minute drives that the triple option offense lays on a defense.