[Wildcatk23]

The University of Kentucky and Western Kentucky University have agreed to a four game series from 2010 thru 2013 season. The game will played in Commonwealth Stadium in 2010 and 2012 and at LP Field in Nashville, Tennessee in 2011 and 2013. As a UK and WKU fan I am glad to see this series take place. It will help WKU promote their football program which this year has become an official member of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision,

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/16313656

[Beef]

John Clay from LHL actually makes a good argument for why this isn't such a good thing for UK Football. Maybe a 2 year agreement, but 4? Why?

http://www.kentucky.com/kentuckysports/l...81671.html

[TidesHoss32]

Im sorry Beef, but I dont agree with Clay. I think UK is still a lower tier SEC school that has to schedule fairly soft non conference teams in order to give them a fair shot at post season football. I think this is a solid move for both teams, and dont sleep on Western for long. If UK goes to playing a Michigan State or a Texas A&M, its too risky at this time, and would jeopardize a bowl season. Lets face it, UK will be LUCKY to win 2 SEC games this year. Very lucky. They already play in the toughest conference in the nation, so they can afford to pad their non-conference schedule..

[jetpilot]

John Clay from LHL actually makes a good argument for why this isn't such a good thing for UK Football. Maybe a 2 year agreement, but 4? Why?

http://www.kentucky.com/kentuckysports/l...81671.html

Saw that in the paper this morning and totally agree. I know UK does their scheduling to practically guarantee 6 wins, and that was fine for these last 3 bowl games, but it's time to crank it up a notch.

[Stardust]

Im sorry Beef, but I dont agree with Clay. I think UK is still a lower tier SEC school that has to schedule fairly soft non conference teams in order to give them a fair shot at post season football. I think this is a solid move for both teams, and dont sleep on Western for long. If UK goes to playing a Michigan State or a Texas A&M, its too risky at this time, and would jeopardize a bowl season. Lets face it, UK will be LUCKY to win 2 SEC games this year. Very lucky. They already play in the toughest conference in the nation, so they can afford to pad their non-conference schedule..

Unfortunatley, I agree with you. It's a catch 22, if they don't win football games, they don't get recruits. If they don't go to Bowl Games, they don't get recruits. The balance is scheduling enough non-conference games to give you the wins that you need in order to get a Bowl game. They then have to win those Bowl games to get better recruits. With better recruits, then then can start having a better chance to compete - may not beat - with the power-houses in the SEC.

[Beef]

Im sorry Beef, but I dont agree with Clay. I think UK is still a lower tier SEC school that has to schedule fairly soft non conference teams in order to give them a fair shot at post season football. I think this is a solid move for both teams, and dont sleep on Western for long. If UK goes to playing a Michigan State or a Texas A&M, its too risky at this time, and would jeopardize a bowl season. Lets face it, UK will be LUCKY to win 2 SEC games this year. Very lucky. They already play in the toughest conference in the nation, so they can afford to pad their non-conference schedule..

I'm not saying that you go out and schedule the Oklahomas, USCs, and Texas of the country but to schedule a university that is just finished the transition from FCS to FBS just seems a little low. Why not pick some of the bottom teams in BCS conferences just to help bolster the schedule and make it a little more interesting? I get a little tired of watching EKU, WKU, Louisiana-anything, Middle Tennessee, etc.

Here are some options that would make the games a little more interesting:
ACC: Probaby any of the bottom teams (UNC, Clemsen, Wake, Duke, NC State)
Big 10: Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Now I understand that we might not win all of these games and therefore it is a catch-2 like mentioned above, but winning these games gives a higher ranking and a better bowl bid. And I didn't say it was bad to schedule them at all, but for 4 seasons? You have to make the jump up sometime to prove that you can play with the bigger boys.

[More Cowbell]

Im sorry Beef, but I dont agree with Clay. I think UK is still a lower tier SEC school that has to schedule fairly soft non conference teams in order to give them a fair shot at post season football. I think this is a solid move for both teams, and dont sleep on Western for long. If UK goes to playing a Michigan State or a Texas A&M, its too risky at this time, and would jeopardize a bowl season. Lets face it, UK will be LUCKY to win 2 SEC games this year. Very lucky. They already play in the toughest conference in the nation, so they can afford to pad their non-conference schedule..

I agree, UK is still not to the point where they need to jeopardize a likely bowl game by scheduling a non-conference game they might lose.

Think about it: Right now most experts are predicting the cats finish 6-6 and go to a fourth straight bowl game. And that's assuming they win all 4 nonconference games. But what happens when Louisville gets the ship righted (which will eventually happen) and we no longer have those 4 probable wins? We will have to make up for it by winning another league game, which may or may not happen. It's just too risky.

UK really has some good vibes going right now, with 3 straight winning seasons all capped by bowl wins. We don't need to upset the apple cart and knock ourselves out of a bowl game.

[More Cowbell]

Why not pick some of the bottom teams in BCS conferences just to help bolster the schedule and make it a little more interesting? I get a little tired of watching EKU, WKU, Louisiana-anything, Middle Tennessee, etc.

Here are some options that would make the games a little more interesting:
ACC: Probaby any of the bottom teams (UNC, Clemsen, Wake, Duke, NC State)
Big 10: Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota

I wouldn't have a problem scheduling some of those teams, but it needs to be a game that would be a likely win. So mark off Clemson and Wisconsin right away. And UNC, Wake, NC State, Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota are all tossups at best.

If we want to schedule another school from a big-boy league, let's shoot for the bottom of the ladder: Duke, Syracuse, Indiana, Baylor, Iowa State, or Washington State.

Actually, the thought of beating the crap out of the Blue Devils in football sounds kinda fun...

[Brooks4Prez]

Saw that in the paper this morning and totally agree. I know UK does their scheduling to practically guarantee 6 wins, and that was fine for these last 3 bowl games, but it's time to crank it up a notch.

They can crank it up a notch by winning more conference games and then worry about scheduling tougher non conference opponents.

[Coach_Owens87]

They can crank it up a notch by winning more conference games and then worry about scheduling tougher non conference opponents.

I agree completely, lets start winning some games in the SEC east before we start worrying about toughing up the non conference schedule. Id like to see a win over TN, or Fl first. Those games are what has been getting us into bowl games the last few years, why risk breaking the current streak.

[jetpilot]

They can crank it up a notch by winning more conference games and then worry about scheduling tougher non conference opponents.

It is a ripoff for fans, especially season ticket holders. All the creampuffs will cost the program money. The novelty of bowl games was great, but the stadium will be far from full for the creampuff games. I can think of a million better things to do than going to Lexington to watch UK vs. one of the directional schools or Junior Varsity U.

[Wildcatk23]

It is a ripoff for fans, especially season ticket holders. All the creampuffs will cost the program money. The novelty of bowl games was great, but the stadium will be far from full for the creampuff games. I can think of a million better things to do than going to Lexington to watch UK vs. one of the directional schools or Junior Varsity U.

Idk i think a instate series with wku will be good for attendance, alot of WKU fans will be there to see commonwealth, i know if i was a student at wku and was playing UK i would go to it, (AND CHEER FOR UK) and if they manage to beat us once it will be very fun to watch the next time we play

[Panther Thunder]

I wouldn't have a problem scheduling some of those teams, but it needs to be a game that would be a likely win. So mark off Clemson and Wisconsin right away. And UNC, Wake, NC State, Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota are all tossups at best.

If we want to schedule another school from a big-boy league, let's shoot for the bottom of the ladder: Duke, Syracuse, Indiana, Baylor, Iowa State, or Washington State.

Actually, the thought of beating the crap out of the Blue Devils in football sounds kinda fun...

UNC is rising quickly with Butch Davis at the helm. Wake may see a couple of down years with the loss of Curry and Smith, Duke has been a tough game for Miami the past couple of years and Cutcliffe is doing a good job there as well. Syracuse would be a sure win almost- they are horrible lol.

UK is in a tough situation its a question of a tougher, more exciting non-conference schedule or a soft schedule to go to a lower bowl game. I think it would almost help more to play a big out of conference team in a home-and-home and have at least a chance to win than to play the likes of ECU in a lower-tier bowl. Schedule a team like Georgia Tech, Clemson, Kansas, West Virginia and draw some good crowds- get on ESPN or ESPN2 and have a chance to have a big win and go to a bigger bowl.

[jetpilot]

UNC is rising quickly with Butch Davis at the helm. Wake may see a couple of down years with the loss of Curry and Smith, Duke has been a tough game for Miami the past couple of years and Cutcliffe is doing a good job there as well. Syracuse would be a sure win almost- they are horrible lol.

UK is in a tough situation its a question of a tougher, more exciting non-conference schedule or a soft schedule to go to a lower bowl game. I think it would almost help more to play a big out of conference team in a home-and-home and have at least a chance to win than to play the likes of ECU in a lower-tier bowl. Schedule a team like Georgia Tech, Clemson, Kansas, West Virginia and draw some good crowds- get on ESPN or ESPN2 and have a chance to have a big win and go to a bigger bowl.

:Thumbs:

[More Cowbell]

UNC is rising quickly with Butch Davis at the helm. Wake may see a couple of down years with the loss of Curry and Smith, Duke has been a tough game for Miami the past couple of years and Cutcliffe is doing a good job there as well. Syracuse would be a sure win almost- they are horrible lol.

UK is in a tough situation its a question of a tougher, more exciting non-conference schedule or a soft schedule to go to a lower bowl game. I think it would almost help more to play a big out of conference team in a home-and-home and have at least a chance to win than to play the likes of ECU in a lower-tier bowl. Schedule a team like Georgia Tech, Clemson, Kansas, West Virginia and draw some good crowds- get on ESPN or ESPN2 and have a chance to have a big win and go to a bigger bowl.

If we're going to schedule an ACC team, I would want it to be Duke. Why? Because UNC or Wake would probably beat us. Cutcliffe certainly has Duke on the right track, but they're still the most likely win out of that conference. And I bet PLENTY of UK fans and students would jump at the chance to beat the crap out of Duke.

As for the idea that UK could go to a better bowl by beating a better non-conference opponent, well, it doesn't work like that. What matters most of all in the bowl pecking order is WINS. Within the SEC structure, bowls will almost always take the team with more wins over the team with less, no matter who those wins were against. It makes the game look more attractive to sponsors and casual fans to have the participating teams with more wins. The only thing that can sometimes trump wins is star power, either with a traditional powerhouse school or a superstar player. The last time UK went to a big-time bowl was after the 1998 season, when the allure of Tim Couch propelled the 7-4 cats into the Outback Bowl.

To me, the bottom line is to get to a bowl game, period. Even going to a low-level bowl playing East Carolina, is better than no bowl at all. And UK isn't to the point yet where they can count on more than 2 wins in the SEC every year. They NEED those out-of-conference wins to have the best chance at a bowl.

[jetpilot]

If we're going to schedule an ACC team, I would want it to be Duke. Why? Because UNC or Wake would probably beat us. Cutcliffe certainly has Duke on the right track, but they're still the most likely win out of that conference. And I bet PLENTY of UK fans and students would jump at the chance to beat the crap out of Duke.

As for the idea that UK could go to a better bowl by beating a better non-conference opponent, well, it doesn't work like that. What matters most of all in the bowl pecking order is WINS. Within the SEC structure, bowls will almost always take the team with more wins over the team with less, no matter who those wins were against. It makes the game look more attractive to sponsors and casual fans to have the participating teams with more wins. The only thing that can sometimes trump wins is star power, either with a traditional powerhouse school or a superstar player. The last time UK went to a big-time bowl was after the 1998 season, when the allure of Tim Couch propelled the 7-4 cats into the Outback Bowl.

To me, the bottom line is to get to a bowl game, period. Even going to a low-level bowl playing East Carolina, is better than no bowl at all. And UK isn't to the point yet where they can count on more than 2 wins in the SEC every year. They NEED those out-of-conference wins to have the best chance at a bowl.

Not me. 2-6 in the SEC and 4-0 vs. boring pansies and then a bowl vs. an ECU doesn't do a lot for me. Games not sold out in Commonwealth vs. pansies is all the evidence you need that most people agree. And not scheduling a team because they might beat you? That's not a policy any winning program has...that's why they are winners...

[More Cowbell]

Not me. 2-6 in the SEC and 4-0 vs. boring pansies and then a bowl vs. an ECU doesn't do a lot for me. Games not sold out in Commonwealth vs. pansies is all the evidence you need that most people agree. And not scheduling a team because they might beat you? That's not a policy any winning program has...that's why they are winners...

Actually, I think most UK fans agree with me, that bowl games ARE pretty important. If Rich Brooks had scheduled a couple more major-conference teams the last three years, UK likely would have finished 5-7 instead of 7-5 or 6-6. As a result, we would not have played in any bowl game at all, and Rich Brooks would be long gone from Kentucky. Instead, he's looked at as someone who has "turned around the program", enough so that the higher-ups decided to lock in his assistant as the future head coach. Plus, I went to both Music City Bowls against Clemson and FSU, and there were at least 45,000 UK fans who made the trip to Nashville both years. Sound like the fanbase is unhappy to you?

I must also correct you, UK does not have 4 "boring pansies" on the non-conference schedule. In case you forgot, UK still plays Louisville every year, a program that up until last year had been a perennial top 20 team, not to mention one that cleaned UK's clock most of the time. People tend to forget that Louisville is a fellow BCS program.

In college football, the bottom line is that in order to become a better team, you have to get better players. And with recruits, perception is everything. What do you think will catch a prospect's attention better, going to a fourth straight bowl game and getting the national exposure on ESPN that comes with it? Or going 5-7 and staying home in December because you scheduled ambitiously and lost a hard-fought game to another BCS school?

[jetpilot]

Actually, I think most UK fans agree with me, that bowl games ARE pretty important. If Rich Brooks had scheduled a couple more major-conference teams the last three years, UK likely would have finished 5-7 instead of 7-5 or 6-6. As a result, we would not have played in any bowl game at all, and Rich Brooks would be long gone from Kentucky. Instead, he's looked at as someone who has "turned around the program", enough so that the higher-ups decided to lock in his assistant as the future head coach. Plus, I went to both Music City Bowls against Clemson and FSU, and there were at least 45,000 UK fans who made the trip to Nashville both years. Sound like the fanbase is unhappy to you?

I must also correct you, UK does not have 4 "boring pansies" on the non-conference schedule. In case you forgot, UK still plays Louisville every year, a program that up until last year had been a perennial top 20 team, not to mention one that cleaned UK's clock most of the time. People tend to forget that Louisville is a fellow BCS program.

In college football, the bottom line is that in order to become a better team, you have to get better players. And with recruits, perception is everything. What do you think will catch a prospect's attention better, going to a fourth straight bowl game and getting the national exposure on ESPN that comes with it? Or going 5-7 and staying home in December because you scheduled ambitiously and lost a hard-fought game to another BCS school?

Wow, a lot wrong with your post to be so condescending. Nobody said bowl games aren't important. Their nonconference schedule is very very weak no matter how you spin it. Nobody tends to forget Louisville is a BCS program. And you missed my point that while lower tier bowl games were fantastic for the bowl starved UK program a few years back, people are no longer thrilled with 4-0 against a very weak nonconference schedule, 2-6 in the SEC, and a low-tier bowl. UK still doesn't get many players the top-tier SEC schools want. So its time to step up the schedule expect more. Also, since when does it mean you "scheduled ambitiously" just because you don't want to have one of the worst nonconference schedules in the nation??? Again, look at the empty seats in Commonwealth when a pansy comes to town to see who's right. Want to make a little wager on the number of empty seats for the La.-Monroe and EKU games in Lexington?

I don't want to take the low road, do the least possible, get the least amount of good football in Lexington and hope to sneak into a low-tier bowl. I want more. We can be more.

Other than all that, your post makes sense.

[More Cowbell]

Wow, a lot wrong with your post to be so condescending. Nobody said bowl games aren't important. Their nonconference schedule is very very weak no matter how you spin it. Nobody tends to forget Louisville is a BCS program. And you missed my point that while lower tier bowl games were fantastic for the bowl starved UK program a few years back, people are no longer thrilled with 4-0 against a very weak nonconference schedule, 2-6 in the SEC, and a low-tier bowl. UK still doesn't get many players the top-tier SEC schools want. So its time to step up the schedule expect more. Also, since when does it mean you "scheduled ambitiously" just because you don't want to have one of the worst nonconference schedules in the nation??? Again, look at the empty seats in Commonwealth when a pansy comes to town to see who's right. Want to make a little wager on the number of empty seats for the La.-Monroe and EKU games in Lexington?

I don't want to take the low road, do the least possible, get the least amount of good football in Lexington and hope to sneak into a low-tier bowl. I want more. We can be more.

Actually, I still see nothing wrong with my previous post.

While UK's nonconference schedule isn't what I would call stout, it is comparable with most of its SEC brethren. Look at the OOC slates for some other league members:

* Alabama = Va. Tech, Fla. International, North Texas, Chattanooga
* Arkansas = Texas A&M, Missouri St., Troy, Eastern Michigan
* Auburn = West Virginia, La. Tech, Ball St., Furman
* Florida = Florida St., Troy, Charleston Southern, Fla. International
* LSU = Washington, La.-Lafayette, Tulane, La. Tech
* Ole Miss = Memphis, SE Louisiana, UAB, No. Arizona
* Miss. St. = Ga. Tech, Houston, Middle Tennessee, Jackson St.
* Tennessee = UCLA, Memphis, Ohio, Western Ky.
* Vanderbilt = Ga. Tech, Rice, Army, Western Carolina

Notice a pattern? Just like UK, eight other SEC schools chose to fill their 4 OOC games with 1 BCS opponent and 3 cupcakes. One (Ole Miss) didn't even bother to schedule even one BCS team. Only two SEC schools scheduled more than one big-boy program, Georgia and South Carolina.

As for your offer of a wager, no thank you. I never said the stands would be full for the games with EKU and ULM. It's just the nature of football fans in general to be drawn to see the "name" opponent. That's why you will even see empty seats in Rupp Arena for a UK basketball game against a weak opponent. That's just the way it is. But even those fans who choose to stay home on those Saturdays still expect wins, and now that the bar has been raised, they expect a bowl game every year. For UK to miss out on a bowl game would be a huge step backward for the program, and one it cannot afford to take. The schedule MUST give the team the best chance possible to reach bowl-eligibility. Remember, the SEC is the toughest conference in the land, and there aren't many gimmes in league play. A lower-level program like UK can't overload its OOC schedule with too many potential losses.

I don't know why you think that if we strengthened our non-conference schedule, it would lead to UK getting better recruits. It doesn't work that way. When UK has landed top recruits recently, they usually say it's because they want to play in the SEC, and because UK is a program "on the rise". If UK starts missing out on bowl games, you won't hear them say UK is on the rise anymore. It won't matter that UK happened to add Maryland or Illinois on the schedule, that's not going to bring recruits in. If we want better players, UK has to keep winning, and they need to keep getting to bowl games.