I wasn't replying to you I was replying to another post about the 2007 team. Someone was saying they were a good team, and I was saying it wasn't
Honest Bob gets a new 7 Yr./$30.6 million contract
- Thread starter DSmith21
- Start date
- Status
I wasn't replying to you I was replying to another post about the 2007 team. Someone was saying they were a good team, and I was saying it wasn't
Yeah I quoted the wrong post. Was supposed to be replying to Sluggercat..lol
No it wasn't it was about both teams being good in the years "when" they played not if they went to bowl games or not
In 2006 both had good teams....Kentucky went 4-4 in the SEC and 8-5 overall with a win over Clemson in the Music City Bowl...Louisville went 12-1 with a win in the Orange Bowl...For a better example for a Kentucky beating a Louisville team with a winning record and a Bowl team was 2010...
Their record....you don't lose to a 2-10 team at home while not having a winning record...that by most accounts does make you a good team...It makes you a .500 Non Bowl Team...Good teams are usually rewarded with a Post Season Game...what they were was a Preseason Top 10 team that didn't live up to expectations
Did they require reading comprehension at UL?
Slow down with your zealous defense. You are defending things not even said.
No...in that case Krags was just that bad....no way that team should have went 6-6 and losing to teams like Syracuse...this year Louisville still has their head coach and enough returning starters to justify their early projections as a Top 20 team....it is up to them to execute it...still we are behind two teams that are at worst Top 8 in likely #1 Clemson and Florida State...battling with UNC as the 3rd best team in the ACC.
Actually on a Crosstrainer...my mistake...1 hour of cardio before hitting the weights...just glance at it thinking you was talking about 2007
And I get it, UL fans do not want anyone to think they had a good team when Krag was a first year coach. Wow. UL should not have lost to Cuse, but much of the blame for that year goes to the defense coaches who undermined Krag in the locker room and created HUGE division on that team. It was Petrino's legacy. Jurich played too much in the process, as well. Krag was doomed when he retained so many coaches. It was a nightmare. Coaches doing battle in the locker room in front of the players. Players dividing.
You actually got something correct...good job...and most Louisville ppl will say it was a talented team that underperform
Positive...taking a quick break b4 hitting the weights....coaching staff was split which was a big issue
Don't these things go hand-in-hand? Can you be a "good" team and not go to a bowl? My starting criteria when I was thinking about which teams should be considered "good" teams was whether or not they went to a bowl. I was trying to illustrate that the series has rarely, if ever been played when both programs have fielded "good" teams during the same year. They've only met 4 times out of 22 in the modern era of the rivalry when each program was good enough to go to a bowl in the same year and even then, 3 of those 4 times I would consider those teams mediocre, the 98' UK and UL teams both went 7-5 and lost in their bowl, the '99 UK team went 6-6 and lost in their bowl, while the 99' UL team went 7-5 and lost in their bowl, and the '10 UK team went 6-6 and lost in their bowl while the UL team went 6-6 and won their bowl . Personally I don't consider a team that wins 6 or 7 games to be a good team, I consider them to be a mediocre team.
I would consider the '06, '07 UK teams as "good" teams in the modern era of the rivalry while I would consider the '00, '01, '03, '04, '05, '06, '12, '13 and '14 as the "good" Louisville teams considering 7 of those 9 teams (only 00' '03 didn't) teams finished the season ranked.
I think they were average at best last year...beat a bunch of nonbowl teams to finish the year
Louisville did beat a Bowl team on the road...NC State...going into last year saw them between 9-3 to 7-5 before the year...lost too many players from 2014...more than fine with last year results and looking forward to 2016 with 18 returning starters.
Ok...yes you beat a 6-6 bowl team, but I would like to speak to this great finish you claim you had after your first three losses and I'm excluding Samford...so a 6-2 finish...you played FIVE teams with losing records and a combined w-l record of 19-41 and beat them by a combined total of 39 pts...nothing to shout about. You played two teams that finished the regular season in the + win column and lost them both...if the sorriest team in the sec could have managed 10 pts the second then you and that sorry team end the season with identical records . So yes you were an average team at best and had the advantage of playing a super easy schedule down the stretch
If you say so....u responded...lol...was just explaining to Caveman the reason why I misread his post and I hope for your sake you workout on a daily basis as well for your overall wellness..nothing more nothing less
Last edited:
That would suggest I said Louisville was "Great"...never said any such thing...just said a very young team for the most part won the games they were favored in-(for the most part took care of business) and looking forward to 2016
So last year's Otis team was mediocre according to your criteria? So why is PE arguing with me about had good you were in finishing strong with a mediocre schedule at best!!
Still really Gay! And you misread alot of posts, and get off subject on whatever post you are responding to. Congrats on your "Banjo Bowl" victory. Remember that's the same bowl UL fans made fun of when UK was playing in them.
After UofL started 0-3 did you think we would win 8 of the last 10 games? I agree exprience and on paper last year should have been an average team at best, probably below average because we were so young.
We were very young with lots of roster turnover from Strong's teams. Every player with a passing yard returns, every rushing yard returns but 18, every Rec yard returns but 135 yds. Burgees and Rankins will be large holes to fill on defense.
So your going to tell me you weren't aided GREATLY by playing a bunch of rum dums in those games and only barely beating each of them...19-41 by a combined total of 39 pts. Average at best or by your boy Strongs admission mediorce...
Oh well that your opinion...as you can gather doesn't really bothers me...and I will take any "Bowl win" especially over an SEC opponent everytime
I will take a "ugly win" over any defeats everytime even when Louisville is favored
And Louisville within the past 4 years beat a team that Kentucky hasn't beaten since Ronald Reagan was President if you want to go that route...and head to head Kentucky currently is on a 5 game losing streak to as some say on here "Otis"
Yes Otis you were still a below average to mediocre team last year...you beat NO ONE that that says you deserve the Preseason ranking you are being given...time will tell...by the way I noticed you conveniently dodged the points on the cupcake schedule down that amazing stretch you say you had
Again Louisville will be given those rankings...that is your opinion that they don't "deserve those rankings" for 2016...the National Media and the analytics that being used by ESPN disagrees with your opinion. The ESPN FPI projects a 9-3 Overall record for Louisville in 2016
As for the schedule...basically the same P5 opponents being played by Clemson and FSU...It is what it is
Going to be a fun year
Last edited:
This year's game should be real interesting and a little more is at stake than normal as the overall series is now tied.
UK won the first 7 games of the series - 6 of these before 1925 and the first game of the renewal in 1994.
UK won the first 7 games of the series - 6 of these before 1925 and the first game of the renewal in 1994.
In your basic knowledge you are correct, but the difference is All the teams you say they played same as otis ...Clemson & FSU beat them by convincing scores most in the high teen range..not one struggle
Thats kind of the thing with preseason rankings it's a projection of what is expected based on talent coming back on a team. Much like UK will be ranked #1 preseason with an entire new starting lineup in basketball, do they not deserve that as all are unproven at the college level? What have UK done to deserve all those preseason #1 rankings?
Lamar Jackson is a proven stud and James Quick had 3 TD's against FSU, Staples had 150 yards against Pitt.
And as I said several times 2 regular season loses is the most we should have this year IMO.
Really...four ff , NC and runnerup...please!!!...but it's closer to FB season and Cal will take care of bb ...no worries there!!!..but let's no go there on the FB board..ok
A "proven" stud?...really? He may turn out to be ,but don't think he is ready for NY just yet.
Actually both were in very competitive games against Syracuse, Wake and BC and FSU lost to a under .500 Georgia Tech ....look up the box scores for yourself....again a win is a win
Really?...
Clemson 37..Syr 27..Clemson 34..BC 17..Clemson 33..WF 13..Clemson 43..GaT 24..all nail bitters there!!!
FSU 24..WF 16...FSU 14..bc 0..FSU 45..Syr 21..FSU 41..Otis 21..one possible nail biter there
Competitive is what I said not "nail biters"...FSU-Syracuse was very competitive....and FSU actually lost to Georgia Tech which had a losing record....that is one thing I am happy about last year team...despite starting/playing 6 to 8 Freshmen last year on offense they didn't lose to anyone with a losing record and they had the poise to come back from double digits deficit on the road...that is something to build on for 2016....that and after starting 0-3 bouncing back and finishing up 8-2...7-2 vs P5 opponents
This thread been interesting...you guys have fun and good luck in 2016
Trouble is cap theCards didn't beat anyone with a winning record until the bowl game against aTm...which all of a sudden had turned into gottaleavehere U. Nice win, nonetheless...but take your reality pill also.....The Cards of last year were hardly powerhouse central.
I really don't see much difference this upcoming year. Not a strong secondary, questionable at receiver, and a defense that actually UNDER performed against a mediocre schedule.
Big raise time, u betcha.
I really don't see much difference this upcoming year. Not a strong secondary, questionable at receiver, and a defense that actually UNDER performed against a mediocre schedule.
Big raise time, u betcha.
- Status