[Aslan]

If UK keeps doing what they've been doing then things will stay the same. Kentucky don't produce many SEC athletes so UK has to recruit out of state. IMO UK needs national recognition to do that, and that's not going to happen by beating up on Akron and WKU every year.

[Shady Grady]

You still have not said better players. Better players would beat Ole Miss, Mss. St and UT. I've already outlined how to get those better players, because the players we have is NOT good enough to beat those three teams.

So you honestly think beefing up the schedule and going 4-8 with no bowl would get better players? I did say the shortfall is the coaching and recruting budget. UK does not have a big time coach and they give the recruiting budget chump change. Investing money brings better players.

[Shady Grady]

If UK keeps doing what they've been doing then things will stay the same. Kentucky don't produce many SEC athletes so UK has to recruit out of state. IMO UK needs national recognition to do that, and that's not going to happen by beating up on Akron and WKU every year.

Like I said earlier, almost every team in the SEC had THREE cupcakes. They had a better record and went to better bowls. So the strength of schedule theory is shot full of holes. The bottom line is, who would you rather play for, Joker or Urban Meyer, or Steve Spurrier, or Nick Saban, or Bobby Petrino?

[Stardust]

So you honestly think beefing up the schedule and going 4-8 with no bowl would get better players? I did say the shortfall is the coaching and recruting budget. UK does not have a big time coach and they give the recruiting budget chump change. Investing money brings better players.

SG, I don't think you have read my past posts. I absolutely mean beef up the schedule, but what you have not taken from my posts, is that I am not suggesting to beef up the competition.

Do you honestly think that putting BCS conference schools Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Rutgers, Indiana, Northwestern is beefing up the schedule. My argument is these teams are probably as bad as Akron, WKU or any of the other non-conference teams that UK plays. My argument is about building the Strength of Schedule points. If UK played any of those teams that I mentioned, they would have beaten them just as bad as they did Akron or WKU. Those points on the schedule is what gets you better bowls. Just look at the bowl list and see that teams playing in those better non-BCS bowls had records similar to UK.

Not only do wins against BCS conference schools increase your points tremendously, it gives your kids real confidence. Maybe enough confidence to beat an SEC team like UT. But you and I both know that playing an Akron does nothing for your program. Beating Indiana is not making first five minutes of ESPN highlights, but at least it makes highlights somewhere in the broadcast. Not Akron.

Bottom-line, something has to change, because this program has topped out. If you repeat what you always do, you will always get the same results.

[Stardust]

Like I said earlier, almost every team in the SEC had THREE cupcakes. They had a better record and went to better bowls. So the strength of schedule theory is shot full of holes. The bottom line is, who would you rather play for, Joker or Urban Meyer, or Steve Spurrier, or Nick Saban, or Bobby Petrino?

Yeah, and those teams no longer need to prove anything. UK does.

[TidesHoss32]

Are you calling me stupid?

No not at all. Im just saying that you dont know crap about college football.

[TidesHoss32]

05 no top 15 team
06 no top 15 team
07 no top 15 team

2005-Southern Miss won 7 games. Thats never a cakewalk.
2006- Hawaii won 11 games. They had a Heisman candidate for a quarterback.
2007- Florida State was picked to win the ACC Atlantic. Houston won 8 games (after winning 10 in '06).
2008- Clemson was pre-season #9.
2009- Va Tech was pre-season #6.
2010 & 2011- Penn State..

Anything else, Mr Wizard?

[Stardust]

Let's all play nice boys. Shady Gray has not even broke down to calling ME names yet!

[TidesHoss32]

I would like to know why they need an upgrade? They beat or compete with Florida, yearly. And they can win against any other team in the sec. They are expected too. If uk happens to win against one of the tougher teams then it helps then considering they played wku or someone like that. My point being Alabama schedules cupcakes for a breather. Ky relies on the cupcakes for wins. And that's what needs to change

Best post on the thread. Thank you. :Thumbs:

[TidesHoss32]

Let's all play nice boys. Shady Gray has not even broke down to calling ME names yet!

Nah we're cool. I like Benchwarmer. Im not calling him names to be mean. Just some good natured jabbing, thats all
Im sure he'd agree with me on that, at least, lol..

[Stardust]

Best post on the thread. Thank you. :Thumbs:

I diasgree. No one said remove cupcakes, but improve the "Name" of the cupcake. Like I have said many times, you get players because they want to play in the SEC and play in "Bigger" than the Toilet Bowl! You get that by strength of schedule points. Akron and Duke are no better than each other, and UK dominates them both. But, a win over Duke is remendously more impressive when Bowl invitations go out. A recruit would much rather tell his family he has a chance to play in the, who knows, Cotton Bowl than telling them my team annually has a lock on the Holiday Bowl. Like I said before, look at the records of teams playing in better bowls, they are no different than UK's, so all the detractors tell me - WHY?

[Benchwarmer]

Nah we're cool. I like Benchwarmer. Im not calling him names to be mean. Just some good natured jabbing, thats all
Im sure he'd agree with me on that, at least, lol..

I actually like discussing things with you.

[Benchwarmer]

2005-Southern Miss won 7 games. Thats never a cakewalk.
2006- Hawaii won 11 games. They had a Heisman candidate for a quarterback.
2007- Florida State was picked to win the ACC Atlantic. Houston won 8 games (after winning 10 in '06).
2008- Clemson was pre-season #9.
2009- Va Tech was pre-season #6.
2010 & 2011- Penn State..

Anything else, Mr Wizard?

But you said top 10-15 every year.

[Shady Grady]

SG, I don't think you have read my past posts. I absolutely mean beef up the schedule, but what you have not taken from my posts, is that I am not suggesting to beef up the competition.

Do you honestly think that putting BCS conference schools Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Rutgers, Indiana, Northwestern is beefing up the schedule. My argument is these teams are probably as bad as Akron, WKU or any of the other non-conference teams that UK plays. My argument is about building the Strength of Schedule points. If UK played any of those teams that I mentioned, they would have beaten them just as bad as they did Akron or WKU. Those points on the schedule is what gets you better bowls. Just look at the bowl list and see that teams playing in those better non-BCS bowls had records similar to UK.

Not only do wins against BCS conference schools increase your points tremendously, it gives your kids real confidence. Maybe enough confidence to beat an SEC team like UT. But you and I both know that playing an Akron does nothing for your program. Beating Indiana is not making first five minutes of ESPN highlights, but at least it makes highlights somewhere in the broadcast. Not Akron.

Bottom-line, something has to change, because this program has topped out. If you repeat what you always do, you will always get the same results.

So let me get this straight. If UK had beaten Duke, Indiana, and Northwestern instead of Akron, Western, and Charleston Southern and still finished 6-6, they would have gotten a better bowl?

[TidesHoss32]

I actually like discussing things with you.

Likewise, and I hope and pray you dont take anything I say personally (saying you dont know crap about football, etc..). I DONT mean that stuff, lol...but yeah, I like debating with you too. As far as your post about top 10-15 every year, they started that in 2007 really..They played Hawaii, who was picked high, and finished in the top 25, and Florida State was pre season 18th or 20th. The next three years were when we started playing a top 15 school, with a home and home with Penn State..

[Shady Grady]

I agree with everyone, UK has topped out. However, we disagree on the solution. UK will never, and I mean never get over the hump with coaches on training wheels. Get a proven winner and spend money on recruiting. When UK hires a basketball coach, do they hire an assistant with 0 wins? No, they go after someone who can recruit and win. Why a different approach with football? Money talks. Give a big name coach some big time money, then they will turn the corner. The truth of the matter is, UK wants no better. They use the football money to fund the basketball program. They get a cut of television revenue and bowl money, no matter what. So, it's all by design. Hire a bargain basement football coach, still sell 65,000 tickets a game, and give the money to Coach Cal.

[Shady Grady]

Let's all play nice boys. Shady Gray has not even broke down to calling ME names yet!

:lmao:

[Benchwarmer]

Likewise, and I hope and pray you dont take anything I say personally (saying you dont know crap about football, etc..). I DONT mean that stuff, lol...but yeah, I like debating with you too. As far as your post about top 10-15 every year, they started that in 2007 really..They played Hawaii, who was picked high, and finished in the top 25, and Florida State was pre season 18th or 20th. The next three years were when we started playing a top 15 school, with a home and home with Penn State..

I take nothing personal :Thumbs: If I had you would have recieved a pm. This is what its about. talking sports. By the way you said I have a hatred toward Alabama I was pulling for Bama to beat Michigan State into the ground. I have mentioned before when it comes to bowl games I cheer for all SEC teams.

[Jarons]

I agree with everyone, UK has topped out. However, we disagree on the solution. UK will never, and I mean never get over the hump with coaches on training wheels. Get a proven winner and spend money on recruiting. When UK hires a basketball coach, do they hire an assistant with 0 wins? No, they go after someone who can recruit and win. Why a different approach with football? Money talks. Give a big name coach some big time money, then they will turn the corner. The truth of the matter is, UK wants no better. They use the football money to fund the basketball program. They get a cut of television revenue and bowl money, no matter what. So, it's all by design. Hire a bargain basement football coach, still sell 65,000 tickets a game, and give the money to Coach Cal.

I agree with you. It has been that way since Bear Bryant was there. Unfortunately, a big name coach will never come to UK IMO.

[TidesHoss32]

I take nothing personal :Thumbs: If I had you would have recieved a pm. This is what its about. talking sports. By the way you said I have a hatred toward Alabama I was pulling for Bama to beat Michigan State into the ground. I have mentioned before when it comes to bowl games I cheer for all SEC teams.

Well, I dont take anything personal either. When Dusty wrote that we needed to calm down, I got worried that you may have taken something wrong. We're both pretty good at being smart allecks (the Stump the Schwab thing was genius, lol), but I think we are better at good natured debating. Im sure you back your boys at UK just like I do mine at Bama, and we both chomp at the bits when someone says something about them. Honestly though, back to the thread, I wasnt saying that UK needed to put tougher teams on the schedule. I like to think of it as a trickle down effect. If you put teams with better names on the schedule, fans will be happier, a sell out will be assured. I'd keep Western. I'd lose Akron and Charleston Southern or whoever else they played other than Louisville. I'd put Indiana back on the schedule (UK is miles ahead of IU) and bring back that rivalry, and I swear, a Duke game is another game theyd win by 20 to 30 every year, and it would generate some buzz. Fans that shell out huge ticket prices would be a million times happier, and theyd still get an easy 3 non conference wins (with UL being the toss up, because I think Louisville, as bad as I hate to say it, will challenge for the Big East title either next year or the year after)..I agree with you, that when you take Penn State off Bamas non conference schedule, its pretty weak, lol..On the other hand, UK dont need rescheduling to get their six wins and a bowl. I think it would help recruiting somewhat though, and push them over this 6 and 7 win hump, and move them to the middle tier of the SEC..

[Stardust]

I agree with everyone, UK has topped out. However, we disagree on the solution. UK will never, and I mean never get over the hump with coaches on training wheels. Get a proven winner and spend money on recruiting. When UK hires a basketball coach, do they hire an assistant with 0 wins? No, they go after someone who can recruit and win. Why a different approach with football? Money talks. Give a big name coach some big time money, then they will turn the corner. The truth of the matter is, UK wants no better. They use the football money to fund the basketball program. They get a cut of television revenue and bowl money, no matter what. So, it's all by design. Hire a bargain basement football coach, still sell 65,000 tickets a game, and give the money to Coach Cal.

HAHA:lmao: I just spit on the screen

[Stardust]

Well, I dont take anything personal either. When Dusty wrote that we needed to calm down, I got worried that you may have taken something wrong. We're both pretty good at being smart allecks (the Stump the Schwab thing was genius, lol), but I think we are better at good natured debating. Im sure you back your boys at UK just like I do mine at Bama, and we both chomp at the bits when someone says something about them. Honestly though, back to the thread, I wasnt saying that UK needed to put tougher teams on the schedule. I like to think of it as a trickle down effect. If you put teams with better names on the schedule, fans will be happier, a sell out will be assured. I'd keep Western. I'd lose Akron and Charleston Southern or whoever else they played other than Louisville. I'd put Indiana back on the schedule (UK is miles ahead of IU) and bring back that rivalry, and I swear, a Duke game is another game theyd win by 20 to 30 every year, and it would generate some buzz. Fans that shell out huge ticket prices would be a million times happier, and theyd still get an easy 3 non conference wins (with UL being the toss up, because I think Louisville, as bad as I hate to say it, will challenge for the Big East title either next year or the year after)..I agree with you, that when you take Penn State off Bamas non conference schedule, its pretty weak, lol..On the other hand, UK dont need rescheduling to get their six wins and a bowl. I think it would help recruiting somewhat though, and push them over this 6 and 7 win hump, and move them to the middle tier of the SEC..

Cripes, if it's now going to turn into a Lovefest, then forget it, go back to the mud slinging! :devilflam

[kentuckynole]

SG, I don't think you have read my past posts. I absolutely mean beef up the schedule, but what you have not taken from my posts, is that I am not suggesting to beef up the competition.

Do you honestly think that putting BCS conference schools Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Rutgers, Indiana, Northwestern is beefing up the schedule. My argument is these teams are probably as bad as Akron, WKU or any of the other non-conference teams that UK plays. My argument is about building the Strength of Schedule points. If UK played any of those teams that I mentioned, they would have beaten them just as bad as they did Akron or WKU. Those points on the schedule is what gets you better bowls. Just look at the bowl list and see that teams playing in those better non-BCS bowls had records similar to UK.

Not only do wins against BCS conference schools increase your points tremendously, it gives your kids real confidence. Maybe enough confidence to beat an SEC team like UT. But you and I both know that playing an Akron does nothing for your program. Beating Indiana is not making first five minutes of ESPN highlights, but at least it makes highlights somewhere in the broadcast. Not Akron.

Bottom-line, something has to change, because this program has topped out. If you repeat what you always do, you will always get the same results.

Strength of schedule has nothing to do in the bowl selection process. That might help the basketball team get a higher seed but it has nothing to do with the bowl selection process.

SEC standing is what matters finish better than 2-6 in the SEC and they will get to a better bowl. Beat Tennessee which should have happened 4 out of the last 5 years and I guarantee we would have been in a better bowl.

It has nothing to do with playing 3 patsies and UL.

[Stardust]

Strength of schedule has nothing to do in the bowl selection process. That might help the basketball team get a higher seed but it has nothing to do with the bowl selection process.

SEC standing is what matters finish better than 2-6 in the SEC and they will get to a better bowl. Beat Tennessee which should have happened 4 out of the last 5 years and I guarantee we would have been in a better bowl.

It has nothing to do with playing 3 patsies and UL.

LOL, are you kidding me? Seriously? You best do some research on this partner, because NON-CONFERENCE SOS is defintely a critical factor in Bowl selection.

[crazytaxidriver]

I diasgree. No one said remove cupcakes, but improve the "Name" of the cupcake. Like I have said many times, you get players because they want to play in the SEC and play in "Bigger" than the Toilet Bowl! You get that by strength of schedule points. Akron and Duke are no better than each other, and UK dominates them both. But, a win over Duke is remendously more impressive when Bowl invitations go out. A recruit would much rather tell his family he has a chance to play in the, who knows, Cotton Bowl than telling them my team annually has a lock on the Holiday Bowl. Like I said before, look at the records of teams playing in better bowls, they are no different than UK's, so all the detractors tell me - WHY?

Argh. You just busted my bubble. But I agree with you that the names of then guaranteed wins needs to change. But I just find it sad that ky HAS to schedule three guarantees for the benefit of their record. Playing in the sec is hard enough and I don't want them to look any worse than they do. But my argument was just that Alabama does for easement. Ky does it because they have to for the chance at a winning record

[Stardust]

Argh. You just busted my bubble. But I agree with you that the names of then guaranteed wins needs to change. But I just find it sad that ky HAS to schedule three guarantees for the benefit of their record. Playing in the sec is hard enough and I don't want them to look any worse than they do. But my argument was just that Alabama does for easement. Ky does it because they have to for the chance at a winning record

Amen brother.:Thumbs: But I also contend that an Akron can be replaced by a celler-dweller in a BCS conference. Beating a team from a legit conference has to do more for your confidence than beating the kind of teams UK plays. Everyone is missing the argument about having cupcakes. Florida and Bama have deserved the right to play cupcakes and their cupcakes can be anyone they want them to be. UK's cupcakes have to have a bigger purpose.

[Shady Grady]

LOL, are you kidding me? Seriously? You best do some research on this partner, because NON-CONFERENCE SOS is defintely a critical factor in Bowl selection.

The only way it is a factor is if a team is in the running for a BCS bowl. UK has a long way to go to get to that point. As far as the Peach, Outback, etc., the SOS means nothing. Finishing higher in the conference does. The bowl tie-ins start picking in order of conference finish after the teams qualify for the BCS bowls. If the top two teams are in a BCS bowl, then the Sugar Bowl gets the SEC number 3, the next bowl gets the SEC number 4, and it goes down the line until the toilet bowl gets UK, or UT, or Georgia.

[Stardust]

The only way it is a factor is if a team is in the running for a BCS bowl. UK has a long way to go to get to that point. As far as the Peach, Outback, etc., the SOS means nothing. Finishing higher in the conference does. The bowl tie-ins start picking in order of conference finish after the teams qualify for the BCS bowls. If the top two teams are in a BCS bowl, then the Sugar Bowl gets the SEC number 3, the next bowl gets the SEC number 4, and it goes down the line until the toilet bowl gets UK, or UT, or Georgia.

SG, The bowls do use the SOS to build their match-ups and make offers to teams. Prior to the Cotton Bowl, the CB Committee chair discussed this in great length about how the Bowl process works. Tie-ins are certainly a key, but even as the gentleman said, tie-ins went out the window with the BCS, and now the Bowls are all looking to build the most intriguing games. Unless this guys was making it up, then I'm sticking to what I heard word-of-mouth.

[Shady Grady]

SG, The bowls do use the SOS to build their match-ups and make offers to teams. Prior to the Cotton Bowl, the CB Committee chair discussed this in great length about how the Bowl process works. Tie-ins are certainly a key, but even as the gentleman said, tie-ins went out the window with the BCS, and now the Bowls are all looking to build the most intriguing games. Unless this guys was making it up, then I'm sticking to what I heard word-of-mouth.

So, again, if UK had beated Duke, Indiana, and Northwestern instead of Akron, Western, and Charleston Southern and still finished 6-6, would they have gotten a better bowl?

[kentuckynole]

LOL, are you kidding me? Seriously? You best do some research on this partner, because NON-CONFERENCE SOS is defintely a critical factor in Bowl selection.

Is this enough research for you? No where in article does it mention SOS.


http://cached.secsports.com/index.php?s=...icle_id=44