FB Recruiting Why and how has Louisville done what Kentucky hasn't (yet)?
- Thread starter JRowland
- Start date
UK football history: program beginning to end of Bryant era(1953) 68% winning percentage, 1954-present 42% winning percentage! Whether there was a conscious effort to deemphazize football when Bryant left,the results certainly the same as if the powers that be did! Also Kentucky's rivalrys with Tennessee ,Florida, and any other school but Alabama ,were actually very competitive and reasonably close won- lost wise. One can only conclude,something drastically happened to the management .support of the football program at Bryant's departure, that changed the success rate so dramatically! I think I know, but surely Rupp, the point shaving scandal and internal decisions led some power brokers to determine that resources should be concentrated Away from football! Otherwise there should not have been such a profound drop off in the historical success of the football program at Bryant's departure. Either deemphasis or a total collapse of consistently competent management over a 60 year period of time,would be the logical conclusions. You decide what makes sense to you!
They've taken chances on players/coaches that no other school in America would dare take on. UL has no shame. Do you think Barnhart would ever allow Stoops to add Devonte Fields as a transfer? Michael Dyer? Bobby Petrino? Hell Rick Pitino has been involved in two sex scandals but they know they will never find another coach as good as him so they keep him on staff. Every other school in America would've cut ties. Not UL. Just win baby. They knew they would take heat over Petrino but that didn't last long especially once he started winning big again. The reward outweighs the risk. It's how they've built their program.
Our administration, not just the AD office, is not committed to excellence in sports or even academics. A middle of the road and don't ruffle any feathers existence. It shows in both arenas.
The only deviation is bb which is too big for them to screw up because of, at this time, Calipari and insane fans. Let them stick their noses into basketball and we'd be NIT bound every season.
So the football team has given kids a second chance. Of all the second chance kids I can only think of two that didn't work out. Willie Williams and Dyer.
Forgot about him so now we are up to 3 out of how many transfers ? Hell I think Louisville has 23 transfers on the team this year alone
A good read that brings up very valid points.I think the bottom line is if the two schools switched schedules the winning percentages would look very different. UK has made coaching hire mistakes since Blanton Collier left. Probably the best hires we have made in that time were 1.Rich Brooks,2.Jerry Claiborne(20 years too late) and 3. Fran Curci(except for the cheating) When your 3rd best hire over a 55 year span is a cheater you have a problem.Mark Stoops maybe should be 3rd on the list.
Back to the central thought of the article,UL vs UK comparison,sure wins and losses matter as does overall national perception by the football media. Taking both of those into account you are still comparing apples to oranges.
Back to the central thought of the article,UL vs UK comparison,sure wins and losses matter as does overall national perception by the football media. Taking both of those into account you are still comparing apples to oranges.
Of the reasons mentioned by Rowland, the #1 by far is conference affiliation. UL's vagabond meandering thru lesser conferences allowed them to slowly lay their foundation and build up their stock. No such luck for UK. But it is what it is. Areas where UK lagged have improved, now the task is to keep moving forward.
I think the difference is the relative schedules. If you play in a poor conference and are willing to commit resources, you can build a winning program. Once you create a winning tradition, it's easier to recruit players. By contrast, look at schools like UK who play in tough conferences. How many have turned their programs into consistent winners? Not many. It's an extremely difficult task that Stoops and UK are facing. Fans hate to believe that, but it is true. Now why did it deteriorate after Bryant left. I have no idea. I think the state limiting recruiting probably had a lot to do with it, but who really knows.
The opposite view is just as valid though: that lack of major conference affiliation (and the money that comes with it) for all those years hurt UL far more than it helped. There was just a strong commitment to football in the face of those obstacles that UK has been unwilling to make.
If it was so easy to use "lesser conferences" as a springboard, why haven't more schools done it?
Better coaching hires. Better Quarterbacks.
The rest is noise.
The rest is noise.
UK isn't going to leave the SEC,UL couldn't have gotten in the SEC over the past 40 years and if they were in the SEC they would have been a football doormat for much of that time,in a yearly dogfight with UK and Vandy for last place.
Your last two sentences tell the tale... It's all about the winning and in all honesty, it's working and paying off quite well for them.
What time frame are you talking about? I'm talking about years and years. There is no way U of L has played tougher schedules year in and year out over the last 20 years. It wouldn't even be close.
It's the two "good old boys bb ONLY ads" that passed on Claiborne, but mostly HOWARD SCHNELLENBERGER that kept this program from becoming competitive on a regular basis! CM NEWTONS name should come down off the fb stadium wall!!!
Last edited:
Please don't let facts get in the way of the Otis agenda here historically!
1. Hired Schnellenberger who not only pulled the program from extinction but gave it some clout by going to some good bowl games.
2. That helped to keep some good local talent home AND open pipeline to Florida that kept the wins coming in bad conferences but still got them to bowl games that continued to build more attention.
3. Took advantage of weekday games etc. to get more exposure and build more clout for the program. Still in weak conference but still going to good bowl games and winning.
4. Hired Petrino who along with big local talent like Brohm and Bush continued to build attention for the program
5. "Expanded" their recruiting by taking chances/transfers keep extra talent coming they could not with standard recruiting which also kept momentum going. Especially in the FLorida market.
6. Parlayed all of that into a chance to finally join a real conference.
All part of the master plan!
2. That helped to keep some good local talent home AND open pipeline to Florida that kept the wins coming in bad conferences but still got them to bowl games that continued to build more attention.
3. Took advantage of weekday games etc. to get more exposure and build more clout for the program. Still in weak conference but still going to good bowl games and winning.
4. Hired Petrino who along with big local talent like Brohm and Bush continued to build attention for the program
5. "Expanded" their recruiting by taking chances/transfers keep extra talent coming they could not with standard recruiting which also kept momentum going. Especially in the FLorida market.
6. Parlayed all of that into a chance to finally join a real conference.
All part of the master plan!
The hiring of Schnellenburger by Bill Olsen was the deal that saved Otis football...had our idiot ads done the same it may be a different story today... Settle for more!!!
I didn't read the article but I view it this way...UL is willing to take chances that UK will not take in order to have a winning football program. However, conference schedules must be considered regarding wins/losses. So for any bird fans looking in, you would have a few more L's IF you played in the SEC...that's reality.
Plenty of schools in other bad conferences have had comparable if not better runs than Louisville is currently on.
Cincinnati. Utah. Central Florida. Hawaii. Goes on and on.
Its a lot easier to become competitive starting from nothing within your conference when you're not in the SEC.
Agreed. This is an outrageous sacrilege!!
Mitch is belatedly making the appropriate commitments to the FB program with infrastructure investments, etc., but to me the #1 reason for UK's persistent mediocrity in FB has been the (lack of) support from the top - and this goes back waaaaaaaay before MB. I believe it was President Donovan back towards the end of the Bear's tenure who implemented the restrictions on out-of-state restriction that marked the beginning of the where we ended up. As JR pointed out in his excellent article, shabby facilities, tolerance of a losing culture, etc. only re-enforced this trend.
As for Louisville's undeniable success compared to UK, they have cut some ethical corners but it's gotten where they are now. Twenty years ago, I pretty much laughed at them, but not now.
It was the spark that started it all. And I left out in the middle that the increased attention allowed them to build a new stadium that really was big piece to getting in a better conference as well.
To me, the answer is kinda simple. The administration at UofL chose and made the commitment to be good. We took our lumps. We were stuck in mediocre to bad conferences. We played Thursday night games when most considered them to be jokes. UK fans used to laugh at us playing Thursday night games. Not good enough to play on Saturday like the big boys, etc. That was a risk that paid off because now Thursday night games are considered an honor. We played in Tuesday night games. That one didn't work out. It got us exposure. People watched because it was literally the only game on. We were ESPNs b*tches for several years just to get the exposure.
Yes, we took some questionable players. Vast majority worked out. When trying to claw your way up, you have to take some chances. We also got lucky in that Brohm and Bush came along in Jefferson County at the same time. Nothing questionable with either of those two, and they elevated the program.
UofL spent the money and made the resources and facilities. Something that UK is just now starting to do. UK's facilities were a laughing stock. They were Brooks' biggest complaint about UK.
The UofL fans demanded better. That is way too over looked. The author of the article even missed that one. We want 10 wins per year. At UK, 6-6 with a win over UofL has been considered a successful season. We're pissed that we missed the playoffs. If we win Saturday we'll finish 10-2, going to a big 6 bowl and we're disappointed.
Why don't you demand the same excellence from your football program that you do your basketball program? We fired Kragthorpe after 3 bad seasons. You wouldn't have, but Gillispie was fired after 3 seasons no problem. Lowered expectations equals lower results. Expectations begin with the fan base.
So to go along with the answers that have been repeated in this thread: Better coaches, better players, better AD. You really need to add this one: Higher expectations.
Yes, we took some questionable players. Vast majority worked out. When trying to claw your way up, you have to take some chances. We also got lucky in that Brohm and Bush came along in Jefferson County at the same time. Nothing questionable with either of those two, and they elevated the program.
UofL spent the money and made the resources and facilities. Something that UK is just now starting to do. UK's facilities were a laughing stock. They were Brooks' biggest complaint about UK.
The UofL fans demanded better. That is way too over looked. The author of the article even missed that one. We want 10 wins per year. At UK, 6-6 with a win over UofL has been considered a successful season. We're pissed that we missed the playoffs. If we win Saturday we'll finish 10-2, going to a big 6 bowl and we're disappointed.
Why don't you demand the same excellence from your football program that you do your basketball program? We fired Kragthorpe after 3 bad seasons. You wouldn't have, but Gillispie was fired after 3 seasons no problem. Lowered expectations equals lower results. Expectations begin with the fan base.
So to go along with the answers that have been repeated in this thread: Better coaches, better players, better AD. You really need to add this one: Higher expectations.
Then that's my fault for misunderstanding. I thought you meant this season. (Cue the Louisville fans can't read comments )
A
anon_q409idbs5m40a
Guest
I believe there's a lot of truth to this. I recall when John Ray was fired he warned Curci about the Administration being against him.
there was also another linebacker from florida. cant remember his name but he gets arrested about once per month here.
It's coaching, and it has always been coaching. There is no mysterious secret or formula. Louisville knows it and thats why they flipped the bird to naysayers and rehired Petrino anyway. There are a finite amount of coaches who can get you where we want to be. You're either willing to gamble or you aren't. Our administration isn't.
Thought it was the state legislature that passed the out of state restrictions?
Then how come those schools except Utah have not been heard from in recent years ?
How come Louisville is the only school from the original C-USA that has worked its way into a P5 conference ?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Is it time to stop disliking Calipari and wish him well- Latest: ArtLaibsGhost
-
-
