i agree that the term rival implies on equal terms. However the word that describes our relationship with UK is arch rival and for example NY Yankees vs Red Sox. No, both teams don't have to be good every year. It is better for the sport but it doesn't diminish the "hate" each other have. They despise everything about their "rival". Ask the Gamecocks if they don't want to beat Clemson today or Auburn against Alabama. Ask Arizona if it wasn't sweet to deny Arizona st bowl eligibility last night. Kerry has provided many examples of the animosity that exists between the two programs. That is never going away whether they play or not but it makes it more "enjoyable" when they do. I can think of no other program that would equal the "hate" or animosity.
Rival vs Archrival
- Thread starter nccardfan
- Start date
Been watching college game day all morning. ESPN is carrying our game, but if they have mentioned us vs ky, I sure missed it. What's up with that?
They don't care about our game today we are not going to the playoffs. So it is back to no respect as always.
I still think the best thing that ever happened for the UK athletics program was the emergence of Louisville as a major player over the past 30 years. The state badly needed two major teams and a rivalry that motivates both schools to seek excellence. This is paying dividends in academics and student enrollment for both schools, too.
That the rivalry has expanded to all sports is great. I love to see UofL succeed in the ACC because I know that'll make UK work harder to succeed in the SEC. Being archrivals is benefitting both schools.
That the rivalry has expanded to all sports is great. I love to see UofL succeed in the ACC because I know that'll make UK work harder to succeed in the SEC. Being archrivals is benefitting both schools.
I agree to a certain point...Because we have no NFL, NBA or MLB teams in the area (note: no offense to the Triple A teams and the Louisville Soccer Club in the state), but we have to be fans of teams in Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, etc. If you like them...great...if you don't like them...great and no problem. I disagree with from the standpoint of this...because of the lack of professional sports, we are all drawn to college sports. UK arguably was the only game in town, until UofL stepped up their programs. Part of that is not correct, because UofL has had success through out history...but came to the forefront in 1980. UKs attitude and IMHO, arrogance, was not to route for UofL Athletic Program success, but use it as a sticking point to trash and insult the school. There are other schools in this state that are competing in the National Level and experiencing success. UofL has stepped up their game, not to compete with just UK, but the nation. There will be a time that UofL will grow beyond the confines of this state and not be ruled over by UK. Eventually, because of money in sports, their will not a rival game between the schools, because both will be successful. Both need each other now, but in the future they wont...UofL, then UK.
Oh, I think the Cards have been there for a while. After joining the ACC, UofL has completed the most remarkable ascension of a school from a high mid-major to an elite status in D1 that I've ever seen.
Yes, Louisville has always had a brand but it wasn't as nationally known and feared as it is today. Thanks to Tom Jurich, UofL fans enjoy one of the most rounded and successful athletic programs in the nation. It will be a travesty if the school doesn't honor him with a statue on the campus when he finally retires.
I'm old, so I've been able to follow the progress of the school and its programs. Take it from me, UofL is a bona fide power every bit the equal of UK, or everybody else for that matter, on the national stage.
Last edited: