I have been working on a theory related to UK football history and recruiting that seeks to explain how the program has been able to really defy logical odds and put together crazy losing streaks that almost no other program in the country (even Kansas, Iowa State, Washington State, etc.,) has. Sure there's the SEC but even Vanderbilt had the Franklin era and didn't have streaks that bad.
The theory is this: UK does deal with a stacked deck in demographics and local talent pool. They also made some very harmful tactical decisions, repeatedly, over history: Not paying coaches enough, not investing in facilities enough, not demanding enough at times, not recruiting Ohio enough, etc. But all of those things are critiques that you will hear at a number of schools across the country. Put together and rolled into one, playing in the SEC, it makes for a nightmare.
But the biggest disadvantage for Kentucky over time, since Bear Bryant (I'm assuming here, since I've only got real 'data' in more modern times), is this: The people running UK's athletics department and the football regimes they hired believed with too much faith in the worst assumptions about the program's ceiling, particularly as it relates to recruiting. Not surprising if this were to be true (no way of proving it). The most damaging things that any person hears is what he/she tells himself/herself. Outside criticism can hurt, but it's what a person believes -- the negativity or something else -- that hardens attitudes and shapes behavior.
Let me trace a couple of things briefly in history that fit in with the points I'll make.
Bear Bryant's post-war success - The golden era in Kentucky football history without question. However, when it comes to recruiting or proving/disproving arguments about UK recruiting (what's possible, what's not, the role of talent in winning, etc), this is not a relevant time period. If you look at key demographic indicators today there is a much more predictable alignment between states/regions with the most players/most interest in football/etc than there was in the post-war period. This is not scientific; there is no mass data for high school football. But there is for population (less accurate; e.g. New York has huge population, little football talent; Louisiana modest population, tons of football talent).
This era is also irrelevant to today's game because mass integration had not yet occurred. The absence of black players in this era is not what makes this comparison fail. Rather, it's the presence of black players in today's era that renders the comparison obsolete. Why? Because the whole relevant demographic map, re: which states are "talent rich football states" changed when the sport integrated. Alabama may have always been a more college football-crazed than New York, even when only whites played. integration drastically elevated Alabama's local recruiting base, and also those of the other SEC schools, which had resisted integration and to their own great(est) disadvantage. In fact, the SEC had more to gain from integration, in wins and power, than any other league.
How does this affect Kentucky? Well, the Commonwealth has never had a large black population in relative terms, compared certainly to more southern states and also to some northern neighbors (overall population & % of population can be very different). So integration had a pretty marginal impact on the amount of football talent in Kentucky, but it had (gradually) a massive impact on the amount of African American talent that was made available to the Wildcats' SEC counterparts. Now, there were surely fewer black prep and youth football players before integration everywhere for a variety of reasons (economic hurdles to youth involvement, less investment in communities/black schools for those sports, less cultural interest in many predominantly "white" sports with a less prevalent "Negro league" league that wasn't as publicized, etc). But the point remains. Over time black involvement in youth & prep football, following integration, has completely revolutionized college football. So the sport that gave Minnesota multiple national championships and was once quite powerful in the north, Midwest, upper East and elsewhere, has naturally seen a significant power shift to the states with the highest density of African Americans.
So the reality is the SEC as a whole has benefited tremendously from the demographic/talent map impact of integration, particularly in the most modern times as football's prominence in African American communities has risen, as black youth have had more access to the sport, as schools have become more diverse and blacks have more often attended schools with football programs, etc.
But at the same time the key point for our purpose is that Kentucky not only did not benefit at that level, it actually became significantly more difficult for Kentucky to recruit well and win. Today, more than ever, basketball recruiting is much more national/regional than football recruiting, which is more local/regional. And recruiting which is heavily local/regional in the post-integration era tipped the local talent base scale heavily in the favor of probably every single SEC school over Kentucky.
Ironically, given Kentucky's history in SEC integration with Nat Northington, UK had a disproportionately positive role in aiding integration, even as they have been greatly disadvantaged with the changing local talent pools. Furthermore, beyond the smaller number of black high school players available in Kentucky's local recruiting pool, one could easily surmise that the state's smaller number of African Americans has made for a more difficult task when it comes to recruiting blacks from outside the Commonwealth. Occasionally in my 15 years of recruiting work I would/will come across a player who will cite something related to race as a factor. Usually it's something positive about a place like North Carolina (insert your joke here; but beyond the AA Studies Dept, they had a very active/activist black student population since/during integration times), or occasionally something negative is hinted about a place like Texas A&M or a more rural, much more conservative campus/city life. Some of this may be driven not only by those racial factors but also by the often-related but nonidentical cultural divides from urban to rural living.
Fortunately I can say in these days, since I've been covering recruiting certainly, the scope of the impact here is limited exclusively to the lack of a larger black population in Kentucky. The program has not, to my knowledge, ever had problems recruiting out-of-state black players for the reasons that might have existed in the past. That UK is a Lexington-based school does mitigate some of the broader statistical gap, and as technology has made the world smaller and pop culture has created more overlap/accessibility between different cultures (though some disconnect surely remains in various subgroups), it's rare to see any race-based trends in recruiting. Ole Miss has had some negative stories related to race over recent years and they have not suffered; Texas A&M once had the difficult task of recruiting to a campus atmosphere that was clearly not what a lot of prep athletes were used to; etc. Today, it seems more recruits are interested in the culture within the various program, which since mass integration has often become very different than the city/campus culture at large. And even the more racially homogeneous states have become seen as friendlier/more acceptable places of residence whereas they once were not (correctly so).
Now, I will say this. I think Kentucky's long-term recruiting problems before Stoops were interrelated. Attitudes about what level of recruiting UK could achieve before Stoops had a very real role in shaping the kinds of players UK recruited and the level of investments made in the football program. Understandably so but also unfortunately in some respects, some odds seem factually-based and irrevocably plotted against Kentucky, and this contributed to the stigma that the football program would be forever fighting an uphill battle.
I would say that probably well into the 1970's and probably also through much of the 1980's the racially-transformed map of the college football recruiting world was the single-greatest factor in Kentucky plummeting from a nationally respected powerhouse to, through a slow (but inconsistent) bleed, a doormat seen as having little hope of resurrection. The perception was not explicitly linked to race in any columnists or in any of the historical records I've done in my research (and yes, I've done research; bit of a wannabe college football historian). However, the topic was also a much less socially acceptable matter of public discourse even for academics in those years of the 70's and 80's, with less overall interest in those studies and greater resistance/less openness to discussion in other quarters. Furthermore, the internet age had not yet allowed for a more heterogeneous mass culture to inculcate places all over the country. As segregated as America still seems in some respects (e.g. in churches, in urban/rural life, in attitudes), American was infinitely more segregated in other respects that people born today will never appreciate. I didn't live it and I only know it because history was one of my degrees.
The theory is this: UK does deal with a stacked deck in demographics and local talent pool. They also made some very harmful tactical decisions, repeatedly, over history: Not paying coaches enough, not investing in facilities enough, not demanding enough at times, not recruiting Ohio enough, etc. But all of those things are critiques that you will hear at a number of schools across the country. Put together and rolled into one, playing in the SEC, it makes for a nightmare.
But the biggest disadvantage for Kentucky over time, since Bear Bryant (I'm assuming here, since I've only got real 'data' in more modern times), is this: The people running UK's athletics department and the football regimes they hired believed with too much faith in the worst assumptions about the program's ceiling, particularly as it relates to recruiting. Not surprising if this were to be true (no way of proving it). The most damaging things that any person hears is what he/she tells himself/herself. Outside criticism can hurt, but it's what a person believes -- the negativity or something else -- that hardens attitudes and shapes behavior.
Let me trace a couple of things briefly in history that fit in with the points I'll make.
Bear Bryant's post-war success - The golden era in Kentucky football history without question. However, when it comes to recruiting or proving/disproving arguments about UK recruiting (what's possible, what's not, the role of talent in winning, etc), this is not a relevant time period. If you look at key demographic indicators today there is a much more predictable alignment between states/regions with the most players/most interest in football/etc than there was in the post-war period. This is not scientific; there is no mass data for high school football. But there is for population (less accurate; e.g. New York has huge population, little football talent; Louisiana modest population, tons of football talent).
This era is also irrelevant to today's game because mass integration had not yet occurred. The absence of black players in this era is not what makes this comparison fail. Rather, it's the presence of black players in today's era that renders the comparison obsolete. Why? Because the whole relevant demographic map, re: which states are "talent rich football states" changed when the sport integrated. Alabama may have always been a more college football-crazed than New York, even when only whites played. integration drastically elevated Alabama's local recruiting base, and also those of the other SEC schools, which had resisted integration and to their own great(est) disadvantage. In fact, the SEC had more to gain from integration, in wins and power, than any other league.
How does this affect Kentucky? Well, the Commonwealth has never had a large black population in relative terms, compared certainly to more southern states and also to some northern neighbors (overall population & % of population can be very different). So integration had a pretty marginal impact on the amount of football talent in Kentucky, but it had (gradually) a massive impact on the amount of African American talent that was made available to the Wildcats' SEC counterparts. Now, there were surely fewer black prep and youth football players before integration everywhere for a variety of reasons (economic hurdles to youth involvement, less investment in communities/black schools for those sports, less cultural interest in many predominantly "white" sports with a less prevalent "Negro league" league that wasn't as publicized, etc). But the point remains. Over time black involvement in youth & prep football, following integration, has completely revolutionized college football. So the sport that gave Minnesota multiple national championships and was once quite powerful in the north, Midwest, upper East and elsewhere, has naturally seen a significant power shift to the states with the highest density of African Americans.
So the reality is the SEC as a whole has benefited tremendously from the demographic/talent map impact of integration, particularly in the most modern times as football's prominence in African American communities has risen, as black youth have had more access to the sport, as schools have become more diverse and blacks have more often attended schools with football programs, etc.
But at the same time the key point for our purpose is that Kentucky not only did not benefit at that level, it actually became significantly more difficult for Kentucky to recruit well and win. Today, more than ever, basketball recruiting is much more national/regional than football recruiting, which is more local/regional. And recruiting which is heavily local/regional in the post-integration era tipped the local talent base scale heavily in the favor of probably every single SEC school over Kentucky.
Ironically, given Kentucky's history in SEC integration with Nat Northington, UK had a disproportionately positive role in aiding integration, even as they have been greatly disadvantaged with the changing local talent pools. Furthermore, beyond the smaller number of black high school players available in Kentucky's local recruiting pool, one could easily surmise that the state's smaller number of African Americans has made for a more difficult task when it comes to recruiting blacks from outside the Commonwealth. Occasionally in my 15 years of recruiting work I would/will come across a player who will cite something related to race as a factor. Usually it's something positive about a place like North Carolina (insert your joke here; but beyond the AA Studies Dept, they had a very active/activist black student population since/during integration times), or occasionally something negative is hinted about a place like Texas A&M or a more rural, much more conservative campus/city life. Some of this may be driven not only by those racial factors but also by the often-related but nonidentical cultural divides from urban to rural living.
Fortunately I can say in these days, since I've been covering recruiting certainly, the scope of the impact here is limited exclusively to the lack of a larger black population in Kentucky. The program has not, to my knowledge, ever had problems recruiting out-of-state black players for the reasons that might have existed in the past. That UK is a Lexington-based school does mitigate some of the broader statistical gap, and as technology has made the world smaller and pop culture has created more overlap/accessibility between different cultures (though some disconnect surely remains in various subgroups), it's rare to see any race-based trends in recruiting. Ole Miss has had some negative stories related to race over recent years and they have not suffered; Texas A&M once had the difficult task of recruiting to a campus atmosphere that was clearly not what a lot of prep athletes were used to; etc. Today, it seems more recruits are interested in the culture within the various program, which since mass integration has often become very different than the city/campus culture at large. And even the more racially homogeneous states have become seen as friendlier/more acceptable places of residence whereas they once were not (correctly so).
Now, I will say this. I think Kentucky's long-term recruiting problems before Stoops were interrelated. Attitudes about what level of recruiting UK could achieve before Stoops had a very real role in shaping the kinds of players UK recruited and the level of investments made in the football program. Understandably so but also unfortunately in some respects, some odds seem factually-based and irrevocably plotted against Kentucky, and this contributed to the stigma that the football program would be forever fighting an uphill battle.
I would say that probably well into the 1970's and probably also through much of the 1980's the racially-transformed map of the college football recruiting world was the single-greatest factor in Kentucky plummeting from a nationally respected powerhouse to, through a slow (but inconsistent) bleed, a doormat seen as having little hope of resurrection. The perception was not explicitly linked to race in any columnists or in any of the historical records I've done in my research (and yes, I've done research; bit of a wannabe college football historian). However, the topic was also a much less socially acceptable matter of public discourse even for academics in those years of the 70's and 80's, with less overall interest in those studies and greater resistance/less openness to discussion in other quarters. Furthermore, the internet age had not yet allowed for a more heterogeneous mass culture to inculcate places all over the country. As segregated as America still seems in some respects (e.g. in churches, in urban/rural life, in attitudes), American was infinitely more segregated in other respects that people born today will never appreciate. I didn't live it and I only know it because history was one of my degrees.
