Voted to keep em. Wanna see the Cats beat the brakes off UofL every chance they can.
Should we keep or drop the U of L Game with the 9 Game SEC Meat-grinder?
- Thread starter The-Hack
- Start date
A). SEC still had a winning bowl season, and
B) That's a one year sampling...check out the SEC's bowl record (playoff and otherwise) for the last 5,10,15 years...
Without the top 4 teams going 5-0 no winning bowl record. What happened 5 or more years ago has nothing to to with today, do you think UK is the same program it was 10 years ago? If it were certainly schedule who you think will get you to 6 wins.
One again you are talking about the top 3-4 programs in the conference. That doesn't equal a meat grinder of a schedule
I know my team. I am not like some of these thrill seeking fans that if we win we win and if we lose we lose no big deal. Easy to sit there and brag about playing a tough OOC schedule when you consistently have a top 1-5 recruiting class every single year. We aren't built yet for that. Not at all easy for a program like us to be on top of our game for eight Saturdays, must less nine. One of the main reasons we pull a clunker a time or two a year, whether it be Vandy, SC, MS St or whoever. And adding that extra SEC game will be more difficult than a UL. But some fans don't want to stop at that. They just blow off the clunker or two we have every season like it is no big deal. We need our roster to continue to improve and focus on not slipping up on any SEC team we should beat then when our program has grown to that point then start talking about playing a more difficult OOC schedule. Every single win is big when you are still trying to get to the next level in the SEC.
Folks, it really simple. The money is going to decide what's what.
When the conferences and their TV/big sponsor partners decide there's good money to be had with another conference game...it's going to happen. Then down the road when those same folks decide that they can make even more money by replacing puff OOC games with bigger P5 games...whoa nelly...get ready for it because it's coming.
MB can resist all he wants but at the end of the day, he'll take that bag because it's good for the program.
Fans will resist, but at the end of the day they like keeping up in the never-ending arms race for facilities, recruiting budgets, top paid coaches, staffs, etc...and that was before NIL, now in addition to all that every program has to figure out a way to get 400+ student athletes some money...
When the conferences and their TV/big sponsor partners decide there's good money to be had with another conference game...it's going to happen. Then down the road when those same folks decide that they can make even more money by replacing puff OOC games with bigger P5 games...whoa nelly...get ready for it because it's coming.
MB can resist all he wants but at the end of the day, he'll take that bag because it's good for the program.
Fans will resist, but at the end of the day they like keeping up in the never-ending arms race for facilities, recruiting budgets, top paid coaches, staffs, etc...and that was before NIL, now in addition to all that every program has to figure out a way to get 400+ student athletes some money...
You picked one year where the league needed the top four teams to go 5-0 for a winning bowl record. Look at literally any other year, and this is not the case.
No, UK is not the same program that it was ten years ago. But, I don't want to confuse that fact for the idea that playing more SEC games every year is good for UK.
Not that my opinion will matter to the decision makers, but I voted that I’d like to keep them. I feel like rivalries and traditions are what makes college football what it is, and I hate to see so much of that being sacrificed to form mega conferences for more revenue.
I honestly find the arguments against playing them to be contradictory anyway. Either they’re a garbage program that we shouldn’t dignify with a game, or they’re a dangerous opponent who could semi-consistently knock us out of the playoffs. They can’t really be both.
I honestly find the arguments against playing them to be contradictory anyway. Either they’re a garbage program that we shouldn’t dignify with a game, or they’re a dangerous opponent who could semi-consistently knock us out of the playoffs. They can’t really be both.
Notre Dame no longer earns anything with that schedule. Should always be left out.
I know Saban is not at all happy with the three regulars they would have to play every year. Telling him that Auburn, TN and LSU would be his three, does he have enough clout to change the process?
Going to be quite a few SEC teams playing 2 what are now P5 teams every year starting next season. When it comes time for selection committee to select the at large teams for the playoff don't be surprised if those teams are the wildcard teams over teams who opt to play 3 directional schools as OOC.
I did see a different model of the 3 permanent opponents. UK's 3 were Carolina, Vandy and Arkansas. Arkansas was surprising. UGA's was UF, Auburn and South Carolina. The toughest draw was Bama who had AU, UT, LSU. I was surprised LSU and Bama, thought LSU would have a more western look.
I see you saw the same model and you are correct, he was whining pretty hard. He has been doing a lot of that lately. I thought they would get AU and UT, they have a long history with State, one sided rivalry, but I thought State would be their 3rd and LSU would get one of the new teams and Mississippi schools. Won't surprise me if LSU is off the Bama list when it's finalized.
Last edited:
If we go with that OOC tougher game for those reasons I am fine with it but think it needs to be someone other than UL. We don't need that extra pressure of bragging rights and a decent team at that, after 9 SEC games. Get our roster where we can go two deep quality wise at all positions then not as much of a concern.
The year UC played in the BCS their schedule wasn’t all that tuff. They almost always played average teams. I think if you win your games with an expanded amount of teams getting in you have a way better chance of getting in with wins. If you went by weighted losses most sec teams would get in over almost any other conference.
Revisiting this topic: Stoops was on KSR yesterday, 11 am hour if you want to listen to the podcast. When asked about the SEC scheduling change he said he fully expects UK to be matched with Georgia or Alabama. And said it is fine, playing both this yr.
But his tone and statements about the 9 game schedule were pretty clear - if he has his way, Louisville will be dropped. He complimented Brohm, said will do a great job, and reminded that when he first was hired at UK that UL was a top 5 ranked team.
But his tone and statements about the 9 game schedule were pretty clear - if he has his way, Louisville will be dropped. He complimented Brohm, said will do a great job, and reminded that when he first was hired at UK that UL was a top 5 ranked team.
Yes, he has his position. IMO it will be outranked by the opinion of ESPN. They won't want to lose an annual rivalry game that 80% of the time will be broadcast on SEC network or ACC network.
Sec vs Acc on the last week of the year is too lucrative to TV. ul will always be overrated because they are in the acc. We can beat a team that should be ranked in the 40's but is ranked in the 20s to 30s for the next several years and pad our w/l record and sos really easy... This isn't hard guys. Imagine beating a 8 to 10 win ul team on the last week of the season and all us knowing we were the better team.... LOL.
Ultimately I think the rival games will come down to what ESPN and the SEC/ACC networks want. The 4 interconference games to end the provides a good bit of interest from all 8 fanbases. I believe the networks with the big TV contracts will want to those conferenceto move away from playing the small schools that provide little interest to anyone outside the fanbase. Ultimately this all goes back to how much advertisers are willing to pay to put their product in front of consumers.
