The Myth that UK must always be bad in football

[STUCKNBIG10]

Every single thread seems to have a handful of posters who believe that UK will always be bad in football. Though I understand the depression and pessimism, I do not agree with that theory. Here is why:

1. Some schools cannot compete because of a lack of resources. UK has plenty, and has one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country. The coffers will continue to grow with SECN TV money.

2) Some schools cannot compete because of recruiting. Though UK may have a tough time ever recruiting evenly with schools like Florida and Alabama, schools with similar geographies (UL), worse geographies (Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas State), harder academic restrictions (Northwestern, Vandy), and weather (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois) have all managed to have some success in recent years. In this section, I'm talking strictly about proximity to good football players.

3) Some schools do not care about football. Indiana, Kansas, and Duke come to mind. If we've proven anything, it is that UK football fans care and are more loyal than we ought to be (based on results).

4) Some schools are unwilling to invest in football. UK has proven that it will spend money on coaches and on facilities (and on athletic directors, as ours is among the more highly-paid AD in the country). Admittedly, this section 4 took way too long for UK, but the willingness to invest is now there.

5) Other schools with less history, fewer advantages, and more natural roadblocks have managed to win in football since the turn of the century (not all of these are consistent winners but they've at least had a good mini-run over the last 15+ years).
-Candy: Abysmal history, academic restrictions, pitiful fanbase - won 9 games twice, beat UT multiple times
-South Carolina: Abysmal history (worse than ours heading into the 2000s), has to share a state with a school that has had far more football success, competing head-on with Georgia and UT for players in its own backyard - won 11 games 3 times, went to new year's day bowl games, won the SEC East (and probably should have won it another time or two)
- Miss State: The worst location in the SEC, battling Ole Miss, Bama, and Auburn in its own back yard, has to play the murderous SEC West every year, terrible brand and history - went to the orange bowl, has beaten UK 7 straight times, has managed to beat LSU and Ole Miss and Florida and others
- Illinois: Apathetic fanbase, mediocre history despite proximity to Chicago and being THE in-state school in a big state - mixed results, but did go to the Rose Bowl within the last 5-10 years
- Louisville: Small fanbase, terrible history prior to 2000, always second fiddle to UK in its own state (and some would argue, it's 50/50 in its own city) - I don't need to tell you what UL has been able to accomplish b/c we get 5 or 6 of them here all the time to remind us how amazing they are
- Kansas State: Terrible location, pretty bad school, the worst program in the country for years and years and years before Snyder - multiple big time bowls, won the Big 12, came close to playing for national titles several years were it not for upsets to A&M and Iowa State

-Wisconsin: Worst football school in the Big 10 prior to Alvarez. No great natural recruiting base. Cold weather. - Multiple big 10 titles, multiple rose bowls, multiple wins vs. SEC on new year's day (and multiple losses too, just saying)

Conclusion: Every situation above is the direct result of A) great coaching / talent development (and usually catering to a specific system) and B) an athletic director or administration with some vision. The only reason UK is not on the list above is because of our gaping void where A&B should be. If ever we decide to change that, we will win and probably win more than many here would have ever imagined.

 

[kentuckyrld]

UK doesn't compete simply because they refuse to hire an experienced coach with proven credentials.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

Both posts so far = DEAD ON CORRECT.

 

[STUCKNBIG10]

UK doesn't compete simply because they refuse to hire an experienced coach with proven credentials.

Obviously, I agree, but I think it's a little more than that. We've done that before (Brooks and Curry) with mixed results. I think we've lacked vision and I think our expectations are too low. Barnhart has at least said that we want to compete for SEC titles in every sport. For basketball and the non-revenue sports, he has delivered. For football and baseball, he has failed miserably.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I don't think we have to always be bad in football, but I think it's a much tougher task than many of our fans want to admit. We have had small runs of mild success over the last 60 years, so it can be done. That being said, I think most fans want a consistent winner that can occasionally challenge for an SEC title. It's hard to find a historically bad program in a power conference that has gone from occasional success to consistent success. I think the reasons for that have been talked to death, but mainly that schools like us have to gamble a little bit when it hires a coach because top flight, well established coaches aren't interested in taking on the risk of coaching here. So we, along with every other similar program, are gambling with every coaching hire. Usually, those gambles do not pay off. Some fans seem to think it is a very straight forward process to create a winning program here. I would suggest that if that were really the case, you would see a lot of similar programs go on to become consistent winners. You don't see a lot of that in Power 5 conferences. I'm hopeful, but I'm not fooling myself into thinking that changing ADs or coaches will bring a higher probability of success. Winning here on a consistent basis is an extremely difficult challenge.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

Obviously, I agree, but I think it's a little more than that. We've done that before (Brooks and Curry) with mixed results. I think we've lacked vision and I think our expectations are too low. Barnhart has at least said that we want to compete for SEC titles in every sport. For basketball and the non-revenue sports, he has delivered. For football and baseball, he has failed miserably.

Both the Brooks and the Curry hires need qualification, if only in retrospect.

With Curry, we broke the same rule that Minnesota did when they hired Tubby Smith: "Never hire a (football/basketall) coach that a (football/basketball) school ran out of town." Alabama fans wanted Curry gone yesterday, and guess what? They knew what they were doing.

As for Brooks: I compare this hire to that of Jerry Claiborne. Both solid, successful coaches who were in the twilight of their careers. Tabbed to clean up messes (Curci, Mumme), both succeeded and elevated UK to a solid if not exalted plane. UK was primed to take the next step, and both times we shot ourselves in the foot, first with Curry, then with the Joker.

 

[AVCat]

Every single thread seems to have a handful of posters who believe that UK will always be bad in football. Though I understand the depression and pessimism, I do not agree with that theory. Here is why:

1. Some schools cannot compete because of a lack of resources. UK has plenty, and has one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country. The coffers will continue to grow with SECN TV money.

2) Some schools cannot compete because of recruiting. Though UK may have a tough time ever recruiting evenly with schools like Florida and Alabama, schools with similar geographies (UL), worse geographies (Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas State), harder academic restrictions (Northwestern, Vandy), and weather (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois) have all managed to have some success in recent years. In this section, I'm talking strictly about proximity to good football players.

3) Some schools do not care about football. Indiana, Kansas, and Duke come to mind. If we've proven anything, it is that UK football fans care and are more loyal than we ought to be (based on results).

4) Some schools are unwilling to invest in football. UK has proven that it will spend money on coaches and on facilities (and on athletic directors, as ours is among the more highly-paid AD in the country). Admittedly, this section 4 took way too long for UK, but the willingness to invest is now there.

5) Other schools with less history, fewer advantages, and more natural roadblocks have managed to win in football since the turn of the century (not all of these are consistent winners but they've at least had a good mini-run over the last 15+ years).
-Candy: Abysmal history, academic restrictions, pitiful fanbase - won 9 games twice, beat UT multiple times
-South Carolina: Abysmal history (worse than ours heading into the 2000s), has to share a state with a school that has had far more football success, competing head-on with Georgia and UT for players in its own backyard - won 11 games 3 times, went to new year's day bowl games, won the SEC East (and probably should have won it another time or two)
- Miss State: The worst location in the SEC, battling Ole Miss, Bama, and Auburn in its own back yard, has to play the murderous SEC West every year, terrible brand and history - went to the orange bowl, has beaten UK 7 straight times, has managed to beat LSU and Ole Miss and Florida and others
- Illinois: Apathetic fanbase, mediocre history despite proximity to Chicago and being THE in-state school in a big state - mixed results, but did go to the Rose Bowl within the last 5-10 years
- Louisville: Small fanbase, terrible history prior to 2000, always second fiddle to UK in its own state (and some would argue, it's 50/50 in its own city) - I don't need to tell you what UL has been able to accomplish b/c we get 5 or 6 of them here all the time to remind us how amazing they are
- Kansas State: Terrible location, pretty bad school, the worst program in the country for years and years and years before Snyder - multiple big time bowls, won the Big 12, came close to playing for national titles several years were it not for upsets to A&M and Iowa State

-Wisconsin: Worst football school in the Big 10 prior to Alvarez. No great natural recruiting base. Cold weather. - Multiple big 10 titles, multiple rose bowls, multiple wins vs. SEC on new year's day (and multiple losses too, just saying)

Conclusion: Every situation above is the direct result of A) great coaching / talent development (and usually catering to a specific system) and B) an athletic director or administration with some vision. The only reason UK is not on the list above is because of our gaping void where A&B should be. If ever we decide to change that, we will win and probably win more than many here would have ever imagined.

Over 100 years of football and we have an all time winning percentage of .494. 100+ years of losing football speaks for itself. I have wished my whole life for a winning program at UK but I don't think I will live long enough to see it. I hope I'm wrong but history says I'm not.

 

[JasonS.]

As for Brooks: I compare this hire to that of Jerry Claiborne. Both solid, successful coaches who were in the twilight of their careers.

Worth noting this is what Duke has done with Cutcliffe (and on the sexier side also South Carolina with Spurrier). Hire a known quantity and throw a lot of money behind him (Duke has made bigtime investments in its football program in recent years).

 

[WildCard]

Good post STUCK. Some comments...

1) Yep, agree completely

2) Yep, equally and even more challenged programs have recruited "better" based on the on field performance

3) Certainly used to be true about UK fans, what I have sometimes referred to as the Stoll Field Faithful. But what's left of that group is like me, old. The Joker ticket boycott showed there is a new fan base and they are pretty mercurial in their support and, for better or for worse, simply demand more than the old guard.

4) Maybe it hasn't kept up with the Jones of the SEC but it is hard for me to say football has been completely ignored. CWS is the newest stadium in the SEC and, when built, was lauded as the thing that would "make UK competitive". The Nutter Field House was hailed as the "last piece of the puzzle". Until recently Barnhart's hands were completely tied on any athletic project that required bonding.

The basketball center was the #1 athletic infrastructure priority when Barnhart arrived (Memorial was simply overcrowded). It was wayyy behind in the fund raising when Barnhart got here and it still took him several years (and ~$6M from Joe Craft) to get it done. OTOH, the new football training complex materialized pretty quickly.

UK is indeed spending money on coaches but they have yet to get their money's worth. As I have said before, football needs a guy that has shown he can do more with less.

5) Well, I think IL football is still as you described it and Snyder's work at Kansas State may go down as the best coaching work in football history. But, yes, "turnarounds" are usually started by great coaching (usually guys that have a knack of doing more with less) AND, once "turned", a commitment by the administration and the fans to stay there. And staying there jus always more difficult than getting there.

Peace

 

[Deeeefense]

You can dismiss every excuse the excuse makers come up with with 4 letters: UofL
as much as we hate to admit it, they have become what we could have become with similar dedications to mission and resources.

 

[KyGradStudent]

Every single thread seems to have a handful of posters who believe that UK will always be bad in football. Though I understand the depression and pessimism, I do not agree with that theory. Here is why:

1. Some schools cannot compete because of a lack of resources. UK has plenty, and has one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country. The coffers will continue to grow with SECN TV money.

2) Some schools cannot compete because of recruiting. Though UK may have a tough time ever recruiting evenly with schools like Florida and Alabama, schools with similar geographies (UL), worse geographies (Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas State), harder academic restrictions (Northwestern, Vandy), and weather (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois) have all managed to have some success in recent years. In this section, I'm talking strictly about proximity to good football players.

3) Some schools do not care about football. Indiana, Kansas, and Duke come to mind. If we've proven anything, it is that UK football fans care and are more loyal than we ought to be (based on results).

4) Some schools are unwilling to invest in football. UK has proven that it will spend money on coaches and on facilities (and on athletic directors, as ours is among the more highly-paid AD in the country). Admittedly, this section 4 took way too long for UK, but the willingness to invest is now there.

5) Other schools with less history, fewer advantages, and more natural roadblocks have managed to win in football since the turn of the century (not all of these are consistent winners but they've at least had a good mini-run over the last 15+ years).
-Candy: Abysmal history, academic restrictions, pitiful fanbase - won 9 games twice, beat UT multiple times
-South Carolina: Abysmal history (worse than ours heading into the 2000s), has to share a state with a school that has had far more football success, competing head-on with Georgia and UT for players in its own backyard - won 11 games 3 times, went to new year's day bowl games, won the SEC East (and probably should have won it another time or two)
- Miss State: The worst location in the SEC, battling Ole Miss, Bama, and Auburn in its own back yard, has to play the murderous SEC West every year, terrible brand and history - went to the orange bowl, has beaten UK 7 straight times, has managed to beat LSU and Ole Miss and Florida and others
- Illinois: Apathetic fanbase, mediocre history despite proximity to Chicago and being THE in-state school in a big state - mixed results, but did go to the Rose Bowl within the last 5-10 years
- Louisville: Small fanbase, terrible history prior to 2000, always second fiddle to UK in its own state (and some would argue, it's 50/50 in its own city) - I don't need to tell you what UL has been able to accomplish b/c we get 5 or 6 of them here all the time to remind us how amazing they are
- Kansas State: Terrible location, pretty bad school, the worst program in the country for years and years and years before Snyder - multiple big time bowls, won the Big 12, came close to playing for national titles several years were it not for upsets to A&M and Iowa State

-Wisconsin: Worst football school in the Big 10 prior to Alvarez. No great natural recruiting base. Cold weather. - Multiple big 10 titles, multiple rose bowls, multiple wins vs. SEC on new year's day (and multiple losses too, just saying)

Conclusion: Every situation above is the direct result of A) great coaching / talent development (and usually catering to a specific system) and B) an athletic director or administration with some vision. The only reason UK is not on the list above is because of our gaping void where A&B should be. If ever we decide to change that, we will win and probably win more than many here would have ever imagined.

All you guys need is a competent coach. You guys show too much support to be given a bad product in return. Get a guy to change the UK football culture and everyone if you will be satisfied.

The SEC East will be down for the foreseeable future which means UK will have plenty of opportunities to move up in the division and play for SEC titles soon.

 

[NCukcat62]

This is a great thread. And as many posters have eluded to is that UKs ineptitude to hiring proven head coaches. Whether it be due to laziness or hoping to find a diamond in the rough. The point I look to is that Brooks set this program up to succeed when he left but our administration chose to go with the route of hiring back to back coordinators. What Brooks has accomplished has all been voided out sadly.

 

[KyGradStudent]

This is a great thread. And as many posters have eluded to is that UKs ineptitude to hiring proven head coaches. Whether it be due to laziness or hoping to find a diamond in the rough. The point I look to is that Brooks set this program up to succeed when he left but our administration chose to go with the route of hiring back to back coordinators. What Brooks has accomplished has all been voided out sadly.

The way the college football has become leaves AD's with no room for bad hires. Look at UL and Petrino for instance. The main reason he was bought back by Jurich was because of the move to the ACC and the fact that UL was in no position as a program to hire an already established head coach at another program and hiring an upcoming coordinator with no head coaching experience was just too big of a risk for UL.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Worth noting this is what Duke has done with Cutcliffe (and on the sexier side also South Carolina with Spurrier). Hire a known quantity and throw a lot of money behind him (Duke has made bigtime investments in its football program in recent years).

I was just thinking today about Cutcliffe and Duke vs Cutcliffe and Ole Miss. I need to go back and look at his year by year records at each place, but my gut response is he is a big success at Duke and failed badly enough at Mississippi to get fired. Which, if true, would argue less about resources and more about the difficulty in winning in the ACC vs the SEC.......

 

[NCukcat62]

The way the college football has become leaves AD's with no room for bad hires. Look at UL and Petrino for instance. The main reason he was bought back by Jurich was because of the move to the ACC and the fact that UL was in no position as a program to hire an already established head coach at another program and hiring an upcoming coordinator with no head coaching experience was just too big of a risk for UL.

This is what I don't get. You're in the SEC, arguably the most dominant football conference in the past 15 years and you choose to hire an unproven coach? It's quite perplexing to say the least.

 

[JasonS.]

I was just thinking today about Cutcliffe and Duke vs Cutcliffe and Ole Miss. I need to go back and look at his year by year records at each place, but my gut response is he is a big success at Duke and failed badly enough at Mississippi to get fired. Which, if true, would argue less about resources and more about the difficulty in winning in the ACC vs the SEC.......

I dream of the day we fail like he failed at Ole Miss.

44–29 overall, 25–23 in the SEC.

 

[KyGradStudent]

This is what I don't get. You're in the SEC, arguably the most dominant football conference in the past 15 years and you choose to hire an unproven coach? It's quite perplexing to say the least.

Mitch better take a risk and get Art Briles if he is still available

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

I dream of the day we fail like he failed at Ole Miss.

44–29 overall, 25–23 in the SEC.

that's ok, they got Big Ed after they fired Cut!

 

[NCukcat62]

Mitch better take a risk and get Art Briles if he is still available

The same Mitch that preaches morals and would never talk to one that doesn't have a perfect past?

 

[JasonS.]

that's ok, they got Big Ed after they fired Cut!

Resulted in a fairly good movie?

 

[KyGradStudent]

The same Mitch that preaches morals and would never talk to one that doesn't have a perfect past?

Well things will never change..

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

The same Mitch that preaches morals....

Curious, what has he preached about morals?

 

[NCukcat62]

Well things will never change..

Just think about this. Mitch did not want to contact Cal. People and the boosters literally had to go over his head because he didn't want him. Mitch would of destroyed our basketball program because of his morals

 

[KyGradStudent]

Just think about this. Mitch did not want to contact Cal. People and the boosters literally had to go over his head because he didn't want him. Mitch would of destroyed our basketball program because of his morals

From what I gather Mitch just isn't cut out to be a big time college AD. I refuse to give him any credit for UK basketball success since cal has been there because like you said, it wasn't his doing in hiring Cal. Unlike Mitch, football is the baby of every other AD at any P5 team in the country. There's a reason why so much is invested in the sport because it's the money maker and life line of every athletic department.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Just think about this. Mitch did not want to contact Cal. People and the boosters literally had to go over his head because he didn't want him. Mitch would of destroyed our basketball program because of his morals

It's amazing how many times this has been debunked and yet people still continue to spout it as if there is anything remotely accurate about it.

 

[ScrewDuke1]

OP is 100% spot on. There are teams with a similar or worse past than UK and find winning coaches. If they can do it there's no reason we can't

 

[BlueRunner11]

Just think about this. Mitch did not want to contact Cal. People and the boosters literally had to go over his head because he didn't want him. Mitch would of destroyed our basketball program because of his morals

I think Mitch plays the morality card when it suits his purposes.

He hired a known alcoholic with multiple DUIs with a only sweet sixteen resume at the most winning and greatest basketball program of all time. That told me everything I ever needed to know about MB.

And the OP is spot on.

 

[Tskware]

I would add West Virginia, who won the Fiesta and the Sugar Bowl plus numerous wins over SEC teams in regular season, with a state half the size, no recruiting base at all to speak of.

Cincinnati has also had some pretty good teams, albeit not as good as West Va's best teams. Houston is now on a hell of a run as well.

TCU, etc., etc.

We just suck. That is all.

 

[rmattox]

The highest level of administration needs to make a statement about Football. If they make a commit to winning Football and make that a priority for everyone below them, especially the AD, that would be a start. The bottom line is this: we have a very small pool of in-state recruits; we are the northern most school in the SEC (why would you want to come to Kentucky when you can stay in a warmer climate?); we don't have the tradition that SEC powers have...the list goes on. When other SEC schools hire a coach based on his ability to win, we are at a disadvantage when our school imposes additional standards.
Until the highest level of administration demands winning football, makes the point of sending those responsible for less out the door, we will NOT have a winner.

 

[BigBlue8]

I don't think we have to always be bad in football, but I think it's a much tougher task than many of our fans want to admit. We have had small runs of mild success over the last 60 years, so it can be done. That being said, I think most fans want a consistent winner that can occasionally challenge for an SEC title. It's hard to find a historically bad program in a power conference that has gone from occasional success to consistent success. I think the reasons for that have been talked to death, but mainly that schools like us have to gamble a little bit when it hires a coach because top flight, well established coaches aren't interested in taking on the risk of coaching here. So we, along with every other similar program, are gambling with every coaching hire. Usually, those gambles do not pay off. Some fans seem to think it is a very straight forward process to create a winning program here. I would suggest that if that were really the case, you would see a lot of similar programs go on to become consistent winners. You don't see a lot of that in Power 5 conferences. I'm hopeful, but I'm not fooling myself into thinking that changing ADs or coaches will bring a higher probability of success. Winning here on a consistent basis is an extremely difficult challenge.

Well said, I have felt this way for years. I have seen to many examples of schools that have gone from mediocre to fielding good teams.

 

[Shavers48]

It's amazing how many times this has been debunked and yet people still continue to spout it as if there is anything remotely accurate about it.

it stays out there because of the FACT that he didn't talk to Cal and instead hired billy Clyde. so it seems at least plausible.

 

[CardHack]

Your biggest hindrance to success is the cruel fate of many college football programs...lack of natural resources which is exacerbated by the reality that you're in a conference abundant in them. Lacking those you have to get really creative, visionary, et al. That was the attempt with Mumme which had potential, but it's not enough to just recruit a Robertson or a Dennis Johnson...you have to protect them at some point which is the danger of having a spread attack.

Recruiting in the state of Kentucky is extremely cyclical and will continue to be so as numbers of football players within our borders continues to drop; we're seeing it big time in Jefferson Co. at the parochial grade school level which used to be saturated with kids playing football in every parish--I can foresee a time in the next ten years where all grade school programs are combined into just four football playing schools. I don't know if that's the case in Northern Kentucky or not.

 

[mdlUK.1]

Well I don't know if it's a myth that we will always be bad in fb but it is a myth that UK doesn't care or doesn't do anything for FB.

Multi million dollar stadium upgrades. Multi million dollar practice facility.

We've hired winning head coaches. Brooks, Curry and Claiborne. We've hired top assistants, stoops, John Ray.

It goes back a long time but the 59-60 staff had amazing talents.

Blanton Collier went on to win an NFL championship.

Don Shula, undefeated Super Bowl winner

Howard Schnellenberger, built Miami and won a NC.

John North went o to coach The New Orleans Saints

Chuck Knox went on to coach the LA Rams and be coach of the year

So, it isn't just the coaching. Winning in the SEC from the bottom, is incredibly tough.

 

[Myotis]

You can dismiss every excuse the excuse makers come up with with 4 letters: UofL
as much as we hate to admit it, they have become what we could have become with similar dedications to mission and resources.

UofL isn't in the SEC

 

[catfanlou]

Both the Brooks and the Curry hires need qualification, if only in retrospect.

With Curry, we broke the same rule that Minnesota did when they hired Tubby Smith: "Never hire a (football/basketall) coach that a (football/basketball) school ran out of town." Alabama fans wanted Curry gone yesterday, and guess what? They knew what they were doing.

As for Brooks: I compare this hire to that of Jerry Claiborne. Both solid, successful coaches who were in the twilight of their careers. Tabbed to clean up messes (Curci, Mumme), both succeeded and elevated UK to a solid if not exalted plane. UK was primed to take the next step, and both times we shot ourselves in the foot, first with Curry, then with the Joker.

Shorty after I began a new job I had to attend a national convention. We had just hired Curry.
The lead guy from Alabama stopped me and said "Aren't you from Ky . You guys just hired Bill Curry. Let me buy you a drink . You're gonna need it. "

 

[STUCKNBIG10]

I was just thinking today about Cutcliffe and Duke vs Cutcliffe and Ole Miss. I need to go back and look at his year by year records at each place, but my gut response is he is a big success at Duke and failed badly enough at Mississippi to get fired. Which, if true, would argue less about resources and more about the difficulty in winning in the ACC vs the SEC.......

No doubt that it's MUCH tougher to consistently win in the SEC than the ACC. However, I gave examples of elevated SEC programs earlier...South Carolina had 14-15 years of good to great football. Vandy's run was shorter, but they had 3 good years under Franklin. We have won an SEC title more recently than Ole Miss, but they are now competing in the west and have beaten Alabama twice in row...

 

[LeonThe Camel]

I would add West Virginia, who won the Fiesta and the Sugar Bowl plus numerous wins over SEC teams in regular season, with a state half the size, no recruiting base at all to speak of.

Cincinnati has also had some pretty good teams, albeit not as good as West Va's best teams. Houston is now on a hell of a run as well.

TCU, etc., etc.

We just suck. That is all.

One of the things I had harped on was lack of a recruiting base. But then I did some research.

Louisville has over 30 players on its roster from the state of Kentucky. 30+!!! I found that hard to believe. Kentucky owns the state when it comes to access to recruits, yet they have 30+ players from here.

Are we choosing the wrong players, wrong coaches, failing to develop the players. If Kentucky players are not as good nationally how has Louisville succeeded with Kentucky players.

I will probably bring this up several times when I see posts about lack of recruiting base because Stoops can go into nearly any high school in the state and get someone's attention.

 

[Tannerdad]

I am not sure we can ever be truly successful in the SEC. Ever. You would have to lower the standard of what successful is.

But I am sure that we will never be anything more than what we are with this AD.

 

[megablue]

Being the northern-most school in the SEC in a state that doesn't produce large numbers of SEC-level players makes becoming successful in the conference very difficult. To me, it does not appear that such a heavy concentration (about a third) of scholarships in Ohio is a winning strategy. A big-name coach is certainly a good idea, but the assumption is that he will be able to bring quality talent in huge numbers to Lexington. I've been a fan for over 50 years and, quite frankly, I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that it would be truly wonderful if we could ever have a program that can consistently win at least half of its conference games.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

I am not sure we can ever be truly successful in the SEC. Ever. You would have to lower the standard of what successful is.

But I am sure that we will never be anything more than what we are with this AD.

I disagree with that since Brooks was able to win with Barnhardt. The AD does not prevent the coach from success.

The recruiting budget is set, the coach chooses his targets, signs players, develops the talent, designs the schemes and calls the plays.

The AD can only be criticized for picking the wrong coach. But as I said in another thread, who were our realistic options.