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.
