You do know that the rating are subjective. Additionally we have 2 star commits that ended up signing with a SEC school only to have their ranking raised to 3 stars. Seems that when SEC schools go after a player he's deemed more valuable. But if it makes you feel better about your stars so be it. By the way I made a mistake is my 10 NFL players currently on teams. Now that we've gotten down to the 53 man rosters we have 13 players who are currently on rosters. Also have you ever saw the analysis on how the star ratings of NFL players compared. You'd find a ton of players who were 2 stars or less playing in the pro bowl every year. Coaches go after talent not stars, at least those that win do. I'll go back to my play pen....by the way it's a nice, really big one with lots of bells and whistles.
Southern Miss was ranked higher than half the SEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Bleedblue33_rivals26722
- Start date
You do know that the rating are subjective. Additionally we have 2 star commits that ended up signing with a SEC school only to have their ranking raised to 3 stars. Seems that when SEC schools go after a player he's deemed more valuable. But if it makes you feel better about your stars so be it. By the way I made a mistake is my 10 NFL players currently on teams. Now that we've gotten down to the 53 man rosters we have 13 players who are currently on rosters. Also have you ever saw the analysis on how the star ratings of NFL players compared. You'd find a ton of players who were 2 stars or less playing in the pro bowl every year. Coaches go after talent not stars, at least those that win do. I'll go back to my play pen....by the way it's a nice, really big one with lots of bells and whistles.
There is no reason for us to be up 35-17 and lose this game. I'm not saying that we should have scored 4 touchdowns every quarter but we should have been able to score at least a few more times. It seemed like our biggest flaw last year was making in game corrections and it haunts us again this year. Stoops and Elliot seem to be the common factor. Promote Gran to interim HC, and hire a DC that's worth a damn.
I get what you are saying but it's a two sided coin. We don't have the resources of an SEC school so yes it would be a struggle. But then if we were in the SEC the resources and facilities would follow. So we'd have a better chance at depth building. You can't make an argument one way and not provide the opposite positives of being in the SEC.
I think you are correct that a move to the SEC will eventually mean SEC type resources, but that takes time as well. However, it also depends on a total administrative commitment to seeing the sustained success of a program. I cannot speak to your program, although it would seem as if that wouldn't be a problem. That has, for lack of a better way of illustrating, been the achilles heel of Kentucky football until recently.
I totally get that but under no circumstance would I suggest that we aren't talented enough to compete with USM. This game was not a failure of recruiting it was a failure of coaching. If it were about talent we would not have had a 35-10 lead a minute before half time.
USM in 2012-2014 went 0-12, 1-11 and 3-9. 2015 went 9-4. Their rivals.com recruiting rankings from 2012-2015 was 76, 74, 83, 81.
UK rivals.com recruiting rankings since Stoops has been here 2013-2015 was 29, 18 and 34. So let's not say UK isn't getting the best talent we've seen in recent years if not ever.
So this must make us question coaching!!!!!
UK rivals.com recruiting rankings since Stoops has been here 2013-2015 was 29, 18 and 34. So let's not say UK isn't getting the best talent we've seen in recent years if not ever.
So this must make us question coaching!!!!!
[QUOTE="BlueEmpire, post: However, the only argument I will rail against is that you DO NOT play in the SEC every single week. One reason: injuries. Your depth would be exposed and you would not enjoy the same sustained success as you have in CUSA.[/QUOTE]
That would be a valid point had the game not been played in week1.
That would be a valid point had the game not been played in week1.
Be calm ? I say be urgent, pressingly urgent.
Why I can't be calm...SM was under a new coaching staff and this was their first game, on the road, they got down 25 and who looked like the coach who knew what they were doing ?
You would think Stoops going into his 4'th year, with his own players at home, first game of a new season, in this renovated facility and up 25 would have been able to at least squeak out a win some how but to only muster up a a few yards and 2 first downs in the whole second half..........sorry but that is nothing to be calm about.
Im hoping Stoops gets this turned around but this mentality of be calm is a loser IMO.
Why I can't be calm...SM was under a new coaching staff and this was their first game, on the road, they got down 25 and who looked like the coach who knew what they were doing ?
You would think Stoops going into his 4'th year, with his own players at home, first game of a new season, in this renovated facility and up 25 would have been able to at least squeak out a win some how but to only muster up a a few yards and 2 first downs in the whole second half..........sorry but that is nothing to be calm about.
Im hoping Stoops gets this turned around but this mentality of be calm is a loser IMO.
Yep, if it ain't the Jimmys and Joes, it must be Larry, Curly and Moe.USM in 2012-2014 went 0-12, 1-11 and 3-9. 2015 went 9-4. Their rivals.com recruiting rankings from 2012-2015 was 76, 74, 83, 81.
UK rivals.com recruiting rankings since Stoops has been here 2013-2015 was 29, 18 and 34. So let's not say UK isn't getting the best talent we've seen in recent years if not ever.
So this must make us question coaching!!!!!
"That would be a valid point had the game not been played in week1."
Yes, our game was in week one, but you cant assume you can just walk into the SEC and start upsetting everyone every other week because you've had some good years in CUSA. You'll find out the disparity in your depth chart PDQ.
When UAB dropped football (who we were supposed to play) we had to fill that spot with a team from FBS. Most schedules for non conference. are made years in advance. We had a short time to find a replacement. Southern miss. Knowing they were returning a very good qb and running back, and a chance to beat an sec opponent came calling. Teams like mass, UAB. Eastern Michigan ect already have pay to play games scheduled this year. They aren't going to pick up another. So our options were slim, so a team knowing they would be pretty good seen an opportunity to beat a lower level P5 team. That's why they wanted the game. We for sure didn't want to schedule them, but had little to no choice to allow for a win to count towards bowl eligibility if we did win. We could of got morehead, Thomas Moore, or scheduled Austin peay again but that don't help getting to six.
The point of the OP is that losing to USM does not mean that you can't have a good season in the SEC. You may not be a power but I still believe you can compete in the East. Wallow in misery all you want, but from watching film your offense is vastly improved and can win games if your defense can just get off the field.
I'd rather win games than lose them. If you flip Southern Miss and New Mexico State, maybe you win them both. It's not ridiculous to think that we'll be better the third week of the season than we were in our opener. I'd rather go through those bumps, pull out a win, and then hope we can improve and beat a beatable Southern Miss.
We've lost to Florida for 30 straight years. I'm past caring about false hope or no hope in that one, because we always find a way to lose it.
That's because the pollsters knew long before UK fans how much the SECE sucks.