ADVERTISEMENT

Why Can't UK Football Become a Successful Program?

I think part of the reason has been lack of facilities. That's only recently been changed. Money is finally starting to be invested in football, and I think you're starting to see it pay dividends.

I also think you gotta have 2 or 3 of those breakout seasons where you nab 9 or 10 wins and get placed in a big time bowl. Recruiting in football is seemingly all about momentum. It's like a domino effect. We've gotten very close to it. Last year we should have had 9 wins in the regular season. The Woodson years left a few wins on the table where we could have had special seasons. We just can't seem to get over that 7 win plateau, and I think it holds us back.

These are only takes on the last 15-20 years or so. I'm simply not old enough to have a theory on why the program didn't take off before then.
 
There are exactly ZERO schools elite in both basketball and football. For myriad reasons, it just doesn't happen. Not even at Texas or Ohio State. Pick your sport I guess. I'd be ecstatic if we could just field a football team that was in the top half of the SEC every year but even then, this is the SEC and we're competing against football schools. Consider yourself Moses. You may see the promised land, but you'll never get there.

The problem with picking your sport, the SEC picked football. UK picked basketball. Yeah, Florida had a good run with Donovan but most fans of the SEC, couldnt name 5 basketball coaches in the conference.
 
This is the predominant reason. Kentucky has by far the lowest per capita African-American population of any state in the SEC. We were pretty good at football before integration (well, until the shenanigans of the Charlie Bradshaw era) ... and pretty bad at it afterwards.

Everything else is window dressing.
There's a lot of truth in that, but part of my point earlier in this thread by including Iowa, Nebraska, etc is they have a bunch of big cornfed white country guys making up their lines year in and year out. No reason we cant produce several Landon's and Drake's year in and year out.
 
Again, the bottom line is there are a myriad of gaffes/reasons that could have been fixed by the UK administration. West Virginia doesnt have a lot of blacks. Mississippi is less populated than Kentucky. South Carolina is historically worse than Kentucky. 3/4 of D1 school stadiums seat less than us. 5/6 bring in less athletics money.


We dont have any legitimate excuses.
 
Last edited:
You’re wrong. Michigan is a perfect example.
Lol, Michigan isn't even in the conversation as an elite basketball program. They have 1 title and aren't in the top 50 in wins, they aren't within a hundred of being in the top 50 in wins. As for football, I'll give you elite status, barely. They are really on the second tier but close enough. They only have 1 championship since 2 years after WWII. They are more like Texas, very very good at football, decent at basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blubo
I am a 67 year old man who has been going to Commonwealth Stadium since 1974 and I have seen and lived the good, the bad, and the ugly ever since and I will be there with my wife again this season in section 226. I love UK football. It has taken up a great deal of my time and passion over the course of my lifetime. I will never be content with 6 and 7 win seasons. I want to win every game and compete for the national championship but obviously that has not happened and is not likely to happen. And so my fellow UK football fans, I pose the following question to you in the hope that you can help me sort out the reasons for our lack of success and maybe give me some hope for the future.
Which of the following is the main reason UK football has not been successful since Bear Bryant?
  1. The State of Kentucky produces very few quality football recruits. No recruiting base.
  2. Inability to attract and unwillingness to pay a great coach to lead the program.
  3. Lack of support from the University Administration to fund facilities and promote the program.
  4. Lack of fan support both in numbers and passion.
  5. A now 65 year old and growing tradition of losing and being one of the worst teams in college football is almost impossible to overcome.
  6. The SEC is too good of a football conference for a team like Kentucky to compete in year in and year out.
  7. All of the above.
  8. Something else…
I have my own opinion about this but I want to hear what you think.
A coach that can recruit lots of 4 star and a few 5 star players consistently that can also hire an offensive and defensive coach that can usually out coach others.

The bigs and speedsters that are the best are gobbled up by the bigger programs.
 
A coach that can recruit lots of 4 star and a few 5 star players consistently that can also hire an offensive and defensive coach that can usually out coach others.

The bigs and speedsters that are the best are gobbled up by the bigger programs.
No need to continue the debate, folks. Lol
 
DEPTH, DEPTH DEPTH!!! Unless UK can build the depth teams need to compete in the SEC every weekend it will always be an uphill climb. Losing Ware, Brown and Pascal on the defense just stings!! It seems like this stuff happens every yaer
 
None of the above, because the basis of your assumption is not correct. The Wildcat program is successful. If it does not meet your personal expectations, that’s a different issue.
Your opinion
ku-xlarge.gif
 
There's a lot of truth in that, but part of my point earlier in this thread by including Iowa, Nebraska, etc is they have a bunch of big cornfed white country guys making up their lines year in and year out. No reason we cant produce several Landon's and Drake's year in and year out.
Notte Dame is trying to climb back on top, but their program has declined, much like Nebraska. I would like Kentucky to become a place that celebrates line play, making it a desired location for the best guys in the trenches.
 
There are exactly ZERO schools elite in both basketball and football. For myriad reasons, it just doesn't happen. Not even at Texas or Ohio State. Pick your sport I guess. I'd be ecstatic if we could just field a football team that was in the top half of the SEC every year but even then, this is the SEC and we're competing against football schools. Consider yourself Moses. You may see the promised land, but you'll never get there.
This is popular mythology, cited as an excuse to reinforce the mistaken belief that UK cannot excel in football. It isn’t the truth. We can waste time debating about what “elite” means. But Florida and Ohio State have actually won NCs in both sports in my lifetime. Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Miami are usually nationally ranked on both sports. Texas was until recently.
 
This is popular mythology, cited as an excuse to reinforce the mistaken belief that UK cannot excel in football. It isn’t the truth. We can waste time debating about what “elite” means. But Florida and Ohio State have actually won NCs in both sports in my lifetime. Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Miami are usually nationally ranked on both sports. Texas was until recently.

Florida won titles in football and basketball in the same academic year. 2006-2007
 
I am a 67 year old man who has been going to Commonwealth Stadium since 1974 and I have seen and lived the good, the bad, and the ugly ever since and I will be there with my wife again this season in section 226. I love UK football. It has taken up a great deal of my time and passion over the course of my lifetime. I will never be content with 6 and 7 win seasons. I want to win every game and compete for the national championship but obviously that has not happened and is not likely to happen. And so my fellow UK football fans, I pose the following question to you in the hope that you can help me sort out the reasons for our lack of success and maybe give me some hope for the future.
Which of the following is the main reason UK football has not been successful since Bear Bryant?
  1. The State of Kentucky produces very few quality football recruits. No recruiting base.
  2. Inability to attract and unwillingness to pay a great coach to lead the program.
  3. Lack of support from the University Administration to fund facilities and promote the program.
  4. Lack of fan support both in numbers and passion.
  5. A now 65 year old and growing tradition of losing and being one of the worst teams in college football is almost impossible to overcome.
  6. The SEC is too good of a football conference for a team like Kentucky to compete in year in and year out.
  7. All of the above.
  8. Something else…
I have my own opinion about this but I want to hear what you think.


One last point. I hope we made the right decision on the stadium size when it was upgraded - from a competitive standpoint. Commonwealth was originally designed so it could be increased to 110,000! It was going to be easy to increase the size to seat 80,000 and keep it in a bowl shape and was expected to be done before the Joker era fiasco. Now we have reduced it to 60,000 or so. Why is/was that important? Well, here is a list of the College football programs with football stadiums that hold 80,000+. Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas A & M, Texas, Tennessee, LSU, Alabama (all of these are over 100,000 as well), Southern Cal, UCLA, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Clemson, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Arkansas and Florida State. Michigan State is 75,000.

Notice how many of these teams have won or played in the Football Playoffs in the last 26 years? Every champion is on this list! No teams from smaller stadiums have won a National Title in the modern era (beginning in 1992). People will argue its a new time and era in college football - but is it really? You can say what you want- but these numbers speak for themselves! By the way UK's Kroger field is the 72nd largest stadium by capacity in college football stadiums as of now - notice how this also compares to the consistent power rating of our football program from outsiders? Wonder how many people knew how the size of our stadium compared to others in college football?

Is this a psychological barrier for recruiting top players today? Our administration is saying it isn't - they may be right - but history, even recent history - is not on their side here. When we are losing the top players who are 4 and 5 stars from our states and not holding onto long time commits, they seem to be going to schools with a larger commitment to bigger football stadiums - which usually translates into bigger name coaches and conference championships. I actually believe this can be over come- but the difference is it will take years of moderate success to grow into a top 25 program. The likelihood of winning a National Championship in football is not impossible, but it has to be a magical year were we get the good bounces, we avoid injuries and our coaches create and the players execute perfect game plans!

Go Big Blue!
 
I am about the same age as you are and I believe all of the points you have made WERE relevant and causal to the situation. However, I believe UK is getting very close to changing the image. Don't get me wrong- UK in football is like Alabama in basketball. Long standing tradition and pride in the basketball program HAS created a perception problem in the past, but again, I say that WAS the case more than it is now!

Fan support was and has been good considering the way they have been treated by UK. The smaller core base has stood by UK thru thick and then, but the administration - including Barnhart didn't get behind the program until recently. UK could and should be playing in a 80,000 plus state of the art Stadium, it would have been filled in my opinion, but now we are in a very nice 60,000 seat stadium - and I do think it was the right thing to do now - but it was because we didn't take advantage of what we had going - The Joker experiment was not a mistake in my opinion, the mistake was failing to acknowledge it was a mistake TWO years earlier. It was obvious to anyone, who watched football, that after the end of the first year you could see it was doomed. But most fans would understand year 2 - but absolutely no reason for year 3 - and that is the reason why we have a 60,000 seat stadium and still can't fill it every game - but alas that is the past - and now we have facilities that are comparable with the top 20 programs. You can say that some University's with smaller stadiums have had good programs- but then think about it this way- How many National Championship teams and or playoff contenders play in Stadiums under 80,000 or for that matter under 90,000? No matter what everyone says - size of stadium does say something psychologically about your football program! For this reason alone - I think UK will be pressed to EVER have a National Championship caliber team- but I hope I am wrong!

The SEC is both bad and good for UK in football. It has provided a good recruiting platform - when the coaches have used it correctly - Coach Stoops has done that very well in my opinion. The model for successful recruiting of both baseball and football was to market the SEC and UK being the northern most school, it gave the opportunity to athletes north of us to compete in the best football and baseball conference in America. The SEC has also provided fuel and much needed TV exposure to UK. Fortunately, UK has been respectable, at least over the last 4 years and should continue that way.

As to quality of coaching - well that is debatable, but I believe the current staff is as strong a staff as we have had in the modern era. These coaches are/have grown into their positions. Stoops and staff have made many, many in game coaching errors over the years - but people need to understand one other thing about this - he hasn't had the talent luxury to overcome those mistakes - which shine even more when you have to be perfect to win. I think this staff is probably as about as high as we can get under current circumstances. But heads should roll if another debacle like Florida happens again this year! I think the pressure to win and get over the 30 plus years of losing to Florida was too much - which was too bad. I do believe we can and will beat Florida this year - I believe it because the pressure to win is less at Florida than it is in Lexington at the moment. The Florida fans don't take us seriously and it actually makes it easier from the players stand point being on the sidelines, Mullen has worked his magic on UK many, many times!

We definitely made mistakes on Schnellenberger and Leach in my opinion. When Schnelly was ready to come here - the AD feared him and could see football hurting basketball- most people believed this to be the case - and it sure looks like it was the case. It's a shame, because I think UK could/would have been playing for SEC and National Championships at least once in the last 30 years if he had become our coach. I believe we would also be playing in a 90,000 plus stadium as well. He would have had a huge hand in coaching at UK from that point on - which probably would have made a significant difference.

I believe UK is on the cusp of becoming a top 25 school in football. This year and next year are the two years where we will see if we have found the coach to lead us to that goal. I think Coach Stoops will retire here if he can get the results needed - he will become a sought after Coach if he does what I expect to happen here - but I think he will stay- the Stoops family has proven they have a loyal code of honor and I don't think UK will let him get away from here either. On a positive note, If he does leave, I think we would have much better potential candidates than in the past because the way Stoops has set things up over the past 5 years for the future of the program.

I also believe Louisville passing UK in football, sorry to say, has made UK more determined to get the upper hand again. I think UL's success over the last decade plus has hurt UK a lot in recruiting the state. Kentucky's lack of high school talent for years hurt as well - as we watched most of the 4 and 5 star and high 3 star players leave the state. It will always be a problem, because other schools do to us what we do to then in basketball with their home grown talent. Just look at our basketball roster - less than 10% of the roster are Kentucky kids since Cal has been here. But when you look at Alabama in football, 75% of their roster is out of state players. So, UL has taken a lot of players that once wouldn't consider them and would go to UK.

Bottomline, we are going to be relevant in football and a top 25 program and it will happen in the next two years.

Go Big Blue!
Lot of good stuff and some I don't so I don't agree with.
 
One last point. I hope we made the right decision on the stadium size when it was upgraded - from a competitive standpoint. Commonwealth was originally designed so it could be increased to 110,000! It was going to be easy to increase the size to seat 80,000 and keep it in a bowl shape and was expected to be done before the Joker era fiasco. Now we have reduced it to 60,000 or so. Why is/was that important? Well, here is a list of the College football programs with football stadiums that hold 80,000+. Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas A & M, Texas, Tennessee, LSU, Alabama (all of these are over 100,000 as well), Southern Cal, UCLA, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Clemson, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Arkansas and Florida State. Michigan State is 75,000.

Notice how many of these teams have won or played in the Football Playoffs in the last 26 years? Every champion is on this list! No teams from smaller stadiums have won a National Title in the modern era (beginning in 1992). People will argue its a new time and era in college football - but is it really? You can say what you want- but these numbers speak for themselves! By the way UK's Kroger field is the 72nd largest stadium by capacity in college football stadiums as of now - notice how this also compares to the consistent power rating of our football program from outsiders? Wonder how many people knew how the size of our stadium compared to others in college football?

Is this a psychological barrier for recruiting top players today? Our administration is saying it isn't - they may be right - but history, even recent history - is not on their side here. When we are losing the top players who are 4 and 5 stars from our states and not holding onto long time commits, they seem to be going to schools with a larger commitment to bigger football stadiums - which usually translates into bigger name coaches and conference championships. I actually believe this can be over come- but the difference is it will take years of moderate success to grow into a top 25 program. The likelihood of winning a National Championship in football is not impossible, but it has to be a magical year were we get the good bounces, we avoid injuries and our coaches create and the players execute perfect game plans!

Go Big Blue!
I don't think the stadium capacity is a barrier at all ...if the team plays well and is winning it will be full and loud.
There has to be an expectation of the administration and fans that when we play on Sat that we can be in/win every game...we are in year six of MS and there are still games where we are getting our heads kicked in and some by teams that have NO BUSINESS in doing so. Last year's game against Fla and .Miss should have been two TD victories...and let's not talk about u6, MST, Ga. When we reach a ticket demand the stadium seating will be enlarged. We now are comparable with every team in the conference facilities wise. You don't need the biggest house on the block, you just needed to live on it. We now do!
 
Last edited:
This is popular mythology, cited as an excuse to reinforce the mistaken belief that UK cannot excel in football. It isn’t the truth. We can waste time debating about what “elite” means. But Florida and Ohio State have actually won NCs in both sports in my lifetime. Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Miami are usually nationally ranked on both sports. Texas was until recently.
And? I'm pretty sure I said we can aspire to be in the upper half of the SEC. That would mean ranked. As for Ohio State, they won 1 basketball title 58 years ago. You have a very strange definition of elite. There are only a few in basketball, UK, UNCheat, UCLA (barely), KU and Duke. Being elite means you win, win titles and do it over a long period. Not a single school you listed qualifies. The same definition applies to football.

It isn't mythology, it is fact.
 
I don't think the stadium capacity is a barrier at all ...if the team plays well and is winning it will be full and loud.
There has to be an expectation of the administration and fans that when we play on Sat that we can be in/win every game...we are in year six of MS and there is still games where we are getting our heads kicked in and some by teams that have NO BUSINESS in doing so. Last year's game against Fla and .Miss should have been two TD victories...and let's not talk about u6, MST, Ga. When we reach a ticket demand the stadium seating will be enlarged. We now are comparable with every team in the conference facilities wise. You don't need the biggest house on the block, you just needed to live on it. We now do!

Slugger I don't disagree with what you are saying. And we did what we did - and it may have been the right decision - on stadium remodeling. I was just posting the facts on stadium size. Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the future. But the past championship teams have ALL played in a larger football stadiums. TV today may change that picture - I understand that. Times have changed and I agree is more important to have great housing, training and practice facilities that are located so that the players can easily access all while being students. Big Screen HD TV's, weather, cost and time constraints have/are changing the way people watch/participate in college athletics. Game times, because of TV's needs create travel time restrictions for teams with their fan bases spread out like Kentucky's fans are as well. But the TV money is also what is funding the new facilities! The real amount from all ticket sales and other stadium incomes for Kentucky is probably only half of what the TV revenue pays the University now.

I believe we are on a way to becoming a top 25 team year in and year out. I'm not so sure about more than that. It hasn't happened for the programs who have had some great teams over the past two decades - it has been more of the same old same old as to who plays for the National Championship.

Go Big Blue!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sluggercatfan
So does this mean basketball has to tank in order for us to be elite in football?

Billy Clyde Gillispe basketball coach at UK 2007-2009

UK Football 2007 8-5 beat Florida St in Music City bowl.
UK Football 2008 7-6 beat East Carolina in Liberty bowl.
UK Football 2009 7-6 barely lost to Clemson in Music City bowl.

You may just be on to someting.
 
Slugger I don't disagree with what you are saying. And we did what we did - and it may have been the right decision - on stadium remodeling. I was just posting the facts on stadium size. Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the future. But the past championship teams have ALL played in a larger football stadiums. TV today may change that picture - I understand that. Times have changed and I agree is more important to have great housing, training and practice facilities that are located so that the players can easily access all while being students. Big Screen HD TV's, weather, cost and time constraints have/are changing the way people watch/participate in college athletics. Game times, because of TV's needs create travel time restrictions for teams with their fan bases spread out like Kentucky's fans are as well. But the TV money is also what is funding the new facilities! The real amount from all ticket sales and other stadium incomes for Kentucky is probably only half of what the TV revenue pays the University now.

I believe we are on a way to becoming a top 25 team year in and year out. I'm not so sure about more than that. It hasn't happened for the programs who have had some great teams over the past two decades - it has been more of the same old same old as to who plays for the National Championship.

Go Big Blue!
Let's say UK could get to a point of playing in SEC championship game once every five years or so and win 9+ games every season , I don't believe they would need for KCWS to seat over 80k.
 
Last edited:
``
And? I'm pretty sure I said we can aspire to be in the upper half of the SEC. That would mean ranked. As for Ohio State, they won 1 basketball title 58 years ago. You have a very strange definition of elite. There are only a few in basketball, UK, UNCheat, UCLA (barely), KU and Duke. Being elite means you win, win titles and do it over a long period. Not a single school you listed qualifies.
Nice diversion. But I didn’t even define “elite”. On the contrary, I indicated that I don’t care to waste my time debating about what “elite” means. So I won’t.

So, back to the subject at hand. You said there “are exactly zero elite schools” in both sports. As I indicated before, that is mythology.
 
``
Nice diversion. But I didn’t even define “elite”. On the contrary, I indicated that I don’t care to waste my time debating about what “elite” means. So I won’t.

So, back to the subject at hand. You said there “are exactly zero elite schools” in both sports. As I indicated before, that is mythology.
No, it most certainly is not. Quite interesting you don't want to define "elite" but you keep using your own definition as support. If not, you wouldn't have listed the schools you listed. Let me put it to you this way. You won't find 5 people on this board who agree with you that any of the schools you listed are elite in both basketball and football. If that is so, and I'm sure it is, whatever personal definition you use is radically different than that of most people. It also renders your reiterated stance that my position is mythology, dead wrong.
 
Let's say UK could get to a point of playing in SEC championship game once every five years or so and win 9+ games every season , I don't believe they would need for KCWS to seat over 80k.

I think you're right, and I wouldda' laughed at that statement 10 years ago, when we sold out pretty regularly for a .500+ season.

Things have changed, and the older folks are not being replaced by the younger crowd, in the same numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RV2
I am a 67 year old man who has been going to Commonwealth Stadium since 1974 and I have seen and lived the good, the bad, and the ugly ever since and I will be there with my wife again this season in section 226. I love UK football. It has taken up a great deal of my time and passion over the course of my lifetime. I will never be content with 6 and 7 win seasons. I want to win every game and compete for the national championship but obviously that has not happened and is not likely to happen. And so my fellow UK football fans, I pose the following question to you in the hope that you can help me sort out the reasons for our lack of success and maybe give me some hope for the future.
Which of the following is the main reason UK football has not been successful since Bear Bryant?
  1. The State of Kentucky produces very few quality football recruits. No recruiting base.
  2. Inability to attract and unwillingness to pay a great coach to lead the program.
  3. Lack of support from the University Administration to fund facilities and promote the program.
  4. Lack of fan support both in numbers and passion.
  5. A now 65 year old and growing tradition of losing and being one of the worst teams in college football is almost impossible to overcome.
  6. The SEC is too good of a football conference for a team like Kentucky to compete in year in and year out.
  7. All of the above.
  8. Something else…
I have my own opinion about this but I want to hear what you think.
Geography...
 
You said there “are exactly zero elite schools” in both sports. As I indicated before, that is mythology.

“BigBlueFanGA” said:
Let me put it to you this way. You won’t find 5 people on this board who agree with you that any of the schools you listed are elite in both football and basketball. If that is so, and I’m sure it is, whatever personal definition you use is radically different from that of most people. It also rendered your reiterated stance that my position is mythology, dead wrong.

“uksam21” said:
Florida won titles in football and basketball in the same academic year. 2006-2007

Saw your conversation and it gave me some thoughts. Rembrant, the other guy is saying nobody but you believes Kentucky can be elite in football and basketball. He is saying no other schools have done it, so nobody believes Kentucky can. He is calling your views radical, so he says nobody will agree with you.

BigBlueFanGA, the other guy is saying other schools have done it, so the idea that it cannot be done is false. You are challenging his definition of elite as being radical.

Uksam21 gave an example to show it has been done.

This conversation is a common type here. BigBlueFanGA claims to speak for the whole board against a radical opinion. I can’t see where Rembrant tried to give a definition for elite, but he is getting hammered about it anyway. That is called a straw man argument. But I can’t see where Rembrant gave an example of a college that was ranked in football and basketball in 2017. So that part of his case was light.

But I can. Michigan State, Ohio State, Clemson, and Auburn were nationally ranked in both sports last year. If those colleges can do it, we can. So uksam21 and I agree with Rembrant. There is no reason Kentucky should shy away from excellence in every sport. It has been done at other colleges, so it can be done at Kentucky. Argue about the definition of elite, but don’t shy away from trying to get there.
 
Last edited:
It takes a special coach that players respect enough to work hard and be afraid to screw up. Stoops ain't it......he may be someday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sluggercatfan
One last point. I hope we made the right decision on the stadium size when it was upgraded - from a competitive standpoint. Commonwealth was originally designed so it could be increased to 110,000! It was going to be easy to increase the size to seat 80,000 and keep it in a bowl shape and was expected to be done before the Joker era fiasco. Now we have reduced it to 60,000 or so. Why is/was that important? Well, here is a list of the College football programs with football stadiums that hold 80,000+. Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas A & M, Texas, Tennessee, LSU, Alabama (all of these are over 100,000 as well), Southern Cal, UCLA, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Clemson, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Arkansas and Florida State. Michigan State is 75,000.

Notice how many of these teams have won or played in the Football Playoffs in the last 26 years? Every champion is on this list! No teams from smaller stadiums have won a National Title in the modern era (beginning in 1992). People will argue its a new time and era in college football - but is it really? You can say what you want- but these numbers speak for themselves! By the way UK's Kroger field is the 72nd largest stadium by capacity in college football stadiums as of now - notice how this also compares to the consistent power rating of our football program from outsiders? Wonder how many people knew how the size of our stadium compared to others in college football?

Is this a psychological barrier for recruiting top players today? Our administration is saying it isn't - they may be right - but history, even recent history - is not on their side here. When we are losing the top players who are 4 and 5 stars from our states and not holding onto long time commits, they seem to be going to schools with a larger commitment to bigger football stadiums - which usually translates into bigger name coaches and conference championships. I actually believe this can be over come- but the difference is it will take years of moderate success to grow into a top 25 program. The likelihood of winning a National Championship in football is not impossible, but it has to be a magical year were we get the good bounces, we avoid injuries and our coaches create and the players execute perfect game plans!

Go Big Blue!
I think these stats are interesting, but I don't think they mean what you are suggesting. I don't think stadium size has a causal relationship to winning championships. In other words, I don't think the size of the stadium is what caused those programs to field good teams. It's the other way around. Fielding good teams, going bowls consistently, and competing for nation championships is what created the large stadiums.
 
I am a 67 year old man who has been going to Commonwealth Stadium since 1974 and I have seen and lived the good, the bad, and the ugly ever since and I will be there with my wife again this season in section 226. I love UK football. It has taken up a great deal of my time and passion over the course of my lifetime. I will never be content with 6 and 7 win seasons. I want to win every game and compete for the national championship but obviously that has not happened and is not likely to happen. And so my fellow UK football fans, I pose the following question to you in the hope that you can help me sort out the reasons for our lack of success and maybe give me some hope for the future.
Which of the following is the main reason UK football has not been successful since Bear Bryant?
  1. The State of Kentucky produces very few quality football recruits. No recruiting base.
  2. Inability to attract and unwillingness to pay a great coach to lead the program.
  3. Lack of support from the University Administration to fund facilities and promote the program.
  4. Lack of fan support both in numbers and passion.
  5. A now 65 year old and growing tradition of losing and being one of the worst teams in college football is almost impossible to overcome.
  6. The SEC is too good of a football conference for a team like Kentucky to compete in year in and year out.
  7. All of the above.
  8. Something else…
I have my own opinion about this but I want to hear what you think.
we should be if we had some success, attendance was pretty good during the last several years of brooks and 50,000 for the spring game of stoops first season. So we do care care, it is maddening when people say uk doesn' care about football.
 
Lots of obstacles make it hard on Kentucky becoming a consistent winner, but the reason it never has got over the hump "even for a few years" is that they have NEVER made a great coaching hire since the 1970s. How many coaches have they hired that has went on to do good things after they left since Bear?.

Only school in the SEC that has not won 10+ games in the last decade or so and we have not done it in the last three decades. Might lose the coach when he does it a couple of times, but would be nice to have a few seasons like that.
 
Never supported football anywhere close to basketball,since Bryant left,and solely emphasized basketball! Most of the reason UK football has sucked !
 
Coaches make a program. Sorry, but it is the truth. Look what happened with KY Football once Bryant left. Looks at HS programs who have risen and fallen once they lost their coach, college programs, the list goes on and on. Programs like Bama have had some dud hires, but always follow up with great hires and have the infrastructure in place (boosters, bagmen, winning culture, etc) to get back to winning big. Programs like KY simply do not have those deep entrenchments of folks who will do what it takes to win at all costs like these others programs do. Like it or not, that is the simple truth.

Then you have programs like VA Tech who took over a decade to develop that winning culture (again, great coach) and have that one program changing player (usually a QB; example Vick) who took the program to levels not seen and elevates recruiting to sustain a winning level. Without Bridgewater and Jackson UofL would have been very average this decade.

Stoops desperately needs a real difference maker at QB and better Dlineman. Get those two things with the roster his staff has built and he has a real shot to make some real noise at KY.
 
... but most fans of the SEC, couldnt name 5 basketball coaches in the conference...

... and I'm one of them. Basketball is nice, football is GREAT!

Let's face it, most fans have a tendency to be front runners. I guess it has to to with self-esteem or some such psychological nonsense.

What's amazing to me is here's a thread of some interest evidently, about how Kentucky can't be a successful program, all while Kentucky is currently becoming a successful program.

Go figure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rembrandt90
we should be if we had some success, attendance was pretty good during the last several years of brooks and 50,000 for the spring game of stoops first season. So we do care care, it is maddening when people say uk doesn' care about football.
I agree, and it’s a great point. But caring about football and understanding intricacies of developing a roster and a coaching staff are two different things.
 
Obsession with the weak sister "air raid" crutch. Lack of recruitment success with reasonable quality offensive and defensive linemen. Well might as well include elimination of sideline goof ups.

The only hard one there is recruitment of linemen. They grease the wheels of all the other positions.
 
I think your thread title and your post ask two different questions.

Why can’t UK become a successful program? I don’t see any reason why they cannot, but it’s a big challenge. Not many teams have built their way out of a spot like UK football has been in.

Why haven’t they been successful since the Bear? I think your OP offers a lot of good points about real challenges facing the program. Historically, Kentucky has produced a low number of quality players and that’s even more complicated by the few we do have going now to national camps and getting on the radars of other, more prominent programs. It’s something that probably is helped by winning. In fact, many of your OP points are. So there’s the conundrum...how do you make a winner without having the winning pedigree to recruit players that can win? An amazing coach is how you overcome the lack of Jimmy’s and Joe’s...they have to both sell a couple of kids on the idea of making a difference, and getting playing time while coaching up other kids to play better than anyone thought they could.

I think Jimmy’s and Joe’s is always my first thought (above), and that leads to a bunch of other one-off answers. Yeah, CM Newton probably set UK football back decades while he was in the top spot. Diverting funds from the program to other programs is a necessary evil, but UKAA seemed all to happy to just ride the football program into the ground. For what it’s worth, I think that’s changed, but it doesn’t materialize overnight. I think we could have a coach that could do it, but he’s got a big challenge and you have to give that some time. I don’t think we’re lacking in passion or supportive fans. Sadly, some of the biggest and most die-hard of football fans were pushed away by increasing costs, shuffling of seating, and allowing Joker to overstay his time. But I think there are new ones being made and winning does cure that too. Let’s look around at other places working to crawl from the depths...an easy one that comes to mind is Cucliff at Duke. His rebuilding seems reasonably similar to UK’s. Not fast, but steady improvement without cheating.

I think the future is bright for UK football and I think we can win. I think we have a legitimate shot at the SEC title game this year, but we’ll find that out when we get a couple of questions answered on the field.
 
ADVERTISEMENT