Only way UK leaves the SEC if they neglect thier Football program another 70 years, and the conference kicks them out. Honestly you shouldn't be able to reap conference Football money if your not committed to keeping your facilities up with the Joneses of the conference year after year, and not having 25 year gaps in your upgrading facilities.
Would UK accept an ACC invitation?
- Thread starter WahooCard
- Start date
with all this cord cutting stuff Claynole is talking about, is there a chance I might not have to suffer with Bravo, CNN, MSNBC, Lifetime or E tv? I'd almost give up sports if it meant I didn't have to experience Real Housewives anymore.
I'd rather the administration dedicate itself to being good in football and and over time we become competitive in the best conference in the sport. Why make such a short sighted decision so that we can win a few more games now? Jump to one of (if not the) worst football conference in the country? I'd rather we raise our expectations lower them. As a season ticket holder I sure as hell don't want to pay the money I'm paying to see Wake Forest, Duke, Syracuse, and Boston College. UL gets 1 maybe 2 ranked opponents in papa johns per season. They would join the SEC in a heartbeat if they could
Last edited:
Yes ram1955, à la carte television will be here soon. You will purchase individual channels that you want to watch just as you purchase apps for your phone or tablet. And you will cut your cable/satellite bill in half or more.
Wait a minute!! If you no longer have CNN, CNBC, FOX News, HLN how will any of know what to think? Those "NEWS" channels have become nothing more than semi-reality tv.
There is rarely any news on them, just politic-baiting.
If Cord Cutting results in TV money drying up then Kentucky would be insane to leave the SEC for the ACC. And the main reason is because the SEC will travel and the ACC will not. How many fans do you think Boston College or Syracuse are going to bring to town versus what we will get from Missouri or Mississippi St? There are fans of other SEC schools who actually desire an away game in October in Kentucky because of the Keeneland tradition.
If Kentucky were to leave the SEC, the only conference to consider is the Big 10. The money would be better, the basketball in on par with the ACC and the football would be as close as you can get to the SEC without being in it.
If Kentucky were to leave the SEC, the only conference to consider is the Big 10. The money would be better, the basketball in on par with the ACC and the football would be as close as you can get to the SEC without being in it.
I'm not so sure. First, this wouldn't be a "short-sighted" decision. UK has lost forever and ever.
There's no doubt that the ACC is less sexy than the SEC. But, I want what's best for UK. And, for the basketball first people at UK (there are plenty), it's a tremendous step up.
Considering that this is really the first time in school history that football is being made a priority I'd say it's short sighted. Bailing on the SEC before we know what is possible at UK with support from the administration. Maybe we can be competitive in this conference with comparable facilities and better coaching
I think the OP's question needs to be modified as follows:
Make no mistake, that is a HUGE "IF". But it does focus the question more on what would actually be best for the UK athletic program. Notwithstanding the tradition of their SEC affiliation (i.e., a charter member) some other points to be considered...
> Unless UK got stuck with annual football games against FSU, Clemson and maybe a resurgent Miami or VPI the football program would usually see an "easier" conference schedule.
> OTOH, men's basketball would see a significant increase in conference difficulty. Does UK "want" that?
> Travel distance for fans to other schools would be shorter in the SEC
> "Competitiveness" in other sports would more or less be the same BUT UK would likely have to sponsor more sports programs. ACC sponsors 14 women's and 13 men's sports; SEC sponsors 12 women's and 9 men's sports (source Wikipedia)
Just food for thought on the subject.
Peace
IF the money was the same would UK accept an ACC invitation?
Make no mistake, that is a HUGE "IF". But it does focus the question more on what would actually be best for the UK athletic program. Notwithstanding the tradition of their SEC affiliation (i.e., a charter member) some other points to be considered...
> Unless UK got stuck with annual football games against FSU, Clemson and maybe a resurgent Miami or VPI the football program would usually see an "easier" conference schedule.
> OTOH, men's basketball would see a significant increase in conference difficulty. Does UK "want" that?
> Travel distance for fans to other schools would be shorter in the SEC
> "Competitiveness" in other sports would more or less be the same BUT UK would likely have to sponsor more sports programs. ACC sponsors 14 women's and 13 men's sports; SEC sponsors 12 women's and 9 men's sports (source Wikipedia)
Just food for thought on the subject.
Peace
If UofK was to get stuck in our division, it would actually probably be tougher than what they face now. They would play us, FSU, and Clemson every year. Plus they'd also have NC State who is on the upswing and we all know BC will likely have a resurgence at some point in the near future. WF has been to a BCS bowl in last 10 years so they are no cake walk either. Syracuse would likely be the one game they could point to and feel like they could or should win.
Add to that ND every few years and then the possibility of getting a Va Tech, UNC, or Miami as a yearly crossover rival and that schedule actually looks extremely daunting. If I were them I think I'd take my chances playing Vandy, Mizzpoo, Miss St, etc. Then as you said, their basketball dominance would be over as they would be forced to start playing real teams. Trust, me the fans won't be on board with that. I honestly think they'd be better off staying in SEC.
You sir are an idiot...Turtleneck would CRAWL to Tuscalousa to switch to the sec today!!! And the schedule comparison is ridiculous.
That is incorrect. Tom has stated numerous times that the ACC is the absolute perfect fit. The SEC just doesn't make sense for us because the basketball is lousy and quite honestly being in our division is better than being in UofK's division in the SEC.
You do realize that the 'etc." you are referring to are teams like Florida, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn and Alabama. Heck even the supposed throw away schools - Missouri and Mississippi St would give anyone at the top of the ACC a great game. It's an absolutely moronic comparison.
Florida hasn't been good since their Sugar Bowl season, LSU is a consistent underachiever, Tennessee hasn't been Tennessee in many many years, and Auburn has taken a very sharp down turn. Obviously Bama is a great squad and is on par with our Clemson. The fact is while the SEC is a good conference (please make no mistake about it, I am not saying the SEC is bad), it isn't the beast that a lot on here make it out to be. It has some strong teams at the top, mainly Alabama, but the rest is kind of on par with the rest of the country. Let us not forget how bad South Carolina has become as well and you guys get to play them every year. Honestly, I think it speaks volumes to how bad the season actually was for you guys last year. The SEC East was very weak last year and you got to play Auburn as your West foe. That schedule was there for the taking and I don't think many of you on here would disagree with that.
Anyway, to finish my argument, bringing up LSU, Alabama, and Auburn really has little bearing. You only play those teams once every 4 or 6 years (whatever it is). My point was that our division of the ACC is tougher. Maybe that will change is Tenn gets better and Georgia plays up to it's potential. We know Florida can be good. So that's really all I am saying.
I am a diehard UK fan, across all sports, but lets be honest here, We have no better shot winning in football in ACC, Big10, Big12, or Pac12, Hell, not sure we would win CUSA in first few years. Thinking otherwise is foolish, have we really seen any improvement in football, short of recruiting, at some point you gotta win games. Making a bowl in year 4 would be nice, but 4-5 wins is more than likely the ceiling, hope I am wrong......We shall see
UK would just play easier OOC schedule in b-ball, like UL.
The SEC is where UK belongs. For selfish reasons I'd love to see UK play in the ACC in basketball as the games would be more fun, and in football it might be a LITTLE easier to make a bowl each year, but still some good teams at the top of the ACC with talent.
It would be an ideal fit to be in the ACC and Kentucky would be more competitive. It's much easier to compete against FSU, Virginia, Miami, Georgia Tech, UNC and Duke than it is to compete with the SEC juggernauts.
I'd rather go 9-3 in the ACC than having a losing record in the SEC.
Kentucky is an SEC school, always have been and always will be. Years ago, I thought UK should be in the ACC, I was Wrong. It makes no sense for UK to be any other conference. None.
Last edited:
2) The SEC brings in much more money than the ACC. University presidents care about this the most.
3) Texas is a big name, but Texas has only won 1 more football game in the last 2 years than we have. They aren't very good anymore. There's been a lot of talk about how Texas has played a role in the Big 12 losing some of the better schools. Notre Dame and Texas have been the most selfish (and good for them) schools in this whole conference realignment thing. I wouldn't go running to follow those programs unless you're a school like UC or UCONN desperate to get into a big conference.
4) We aren't anywhere close to competing in the ACC either. At least not for titles. We could possibly finish 6th consistently. Then who knows how that affects recruiting. I'm sure a big selling point for Stoops and Co. is selling the SEC. If we left to the ACC that's now gone. The ACC would be easier than the SEC, but I think we're long ways away from contending in either league at this point in time.
No way. We depend heavily on the state of Ohio for recruits and our big selling point to those recruits is being able to play in America's best football conference while remaining close to home. Joining the ACC makes no sense. Such a move would greatly damage our ability to recruit. And with lesser quality recruits, our ability to compete would be just as challenging, even if the schedule at first appears more manageable.
Historically, your thoughts are inaccurate. Some combination of FLA / GA / UT have always been stronger than Clemson / FSU / UL. UL is a wash, as we are playing them regardless. Clemson is relative "new money" in the college football superpower scene, and has a losing record against every sec school except for South Carolina. FSU and UF are basically a wash, but a neutral observer would certainly prefer to play UL and Clemson every year instead of UT and Georgia (based on talent, resources, fanbases, etc).
As for Wake and BC, sorry but I'd take Vandy and Mizzou over those two. South Carolina and NCST are probably a wash in historical terms though South Carolina devotes far more resources to winning football than does NC State.
Regarding crossover opponents, you are also wrong. I'd take VT or UNC or Miami 100X over having to get LSU or Bama or A&M.
As for basketball, there is no doubt that the ACC is tougher. I reject the idea that UK's days of winning big would be over, as UK already owns UL, UK holds its own with UNC (though UNC has a sizable series lead), and UK holds its own with Duke, but certainly UK would take more conference losses than it does now.
What "Tom" says isn't necessarily what Tom means. What do you expect him to say? He's a marketer who hires liars and cheats, so of course he is going to lie and cheat to serve his own needs. TJ would love to be in the SEC, but he knows that invitation is never coming so of course he is going to harp on how great it is to be in the ACC (which admittedly is a great consolation prize for UL).
To your points...
2) RIGHT NOW, you are correct that the SEC brings in more money. If the ACC were to add ND, Texas, and UK, that would change (and big-time).
3) Texas may be in a downturn, but Texas is coveted by every major conference b/c it's a huge brand with a huge national following. That doesn't go away b/c of two bad years in football. The SEC would gladly (in private) trade A&M for Texas, as Texas is a sexier brand with more followers.
4) I don't think UK is close to winning the ACC tomorrow, but if Wake and BC and UNC can win consistently in the ACC (all three have done so in the last 15 years and have competed for, or won, ACC titles), then so can UK. Not sure that will ever be the case in the SEC.
So the last 100 years were just a warm up. Now we are taking football seriously.
Sorry but that sales tag has sailed long ago.
Wouldn't even call it a warm-up because they implies effort. There was no effort on the part of the administration to make UK anything other than a cellar dweller in football for the last 100 years.
With a little effort we have a top 5 football facility in the country and are consistently recruiting in the top 25-30. We'll see where a sustained effort takes UK football assuming that the administration does sustain it. There is absolutely no reason why UK can't be a parenial top 25-30 football team
That makes no sense. If anything, your logic supports the move. Better basketball competition AND the promise of competing and winning in football.
NCAA tournament money we earn for the conference is more than the peanuts we get from bowl money. Not to mention SEC tournament revenue and without us the SEC TV contract on the basketball side is worthless. We provide great value to the SEC overall, we'll never leave and they'll never want to get rid of us.
In answer to the OP's question - absolutely not! I honestly don't know why this keeps coming up as it will never happen. Never!
Yes and no. No doubt that NCAA tourney money is large, but the SEC doesn't wither up and die (financially, though they probably do competitively) if we leave based on how the NCAA tourney pot is divvied up.
The real windfall is coming from TV and the SEC Network, and that is heavily driven by football.
The ACC Atlantic is thought of by many experts around the country as the 2nd best division in college football behind the SEC West. It's a step up from the SEC East. Case in point: FSU finished 2nd in the ACC Atlantic while UF won the SEC East but FSU won 27-2 in Gainesville.
Who are these experts? If they are seriously arguing that the ACC Atlantic is better than the Big 10 East or the Pac 12 North then they are absolutely high or imbeciles. FSU and Clemson are excellent football teams. Louisville has the potential to be a very good team. From there who is the next team that anyone is talking about even achieving the levels of being mediocre? It's very possible that no one outside of the top three even gets to six wins. So what exactly would make them the second toughest division in football? Clemson and FSU will walk through it except for when they play each other.
I don't believe that to be true, as I think most "experts" consider the Big 10 East to be the second-best division in football. Also, this ACC Atlantic craze is very recent. People forget that Clemson has only been a powerhouse the last 4-5 years. You're making broad-based conclusions based on a very small timeframe. Over time, Clemson has a losing record to every SEC school not named South Carolina.
Is that not historically true? Florida leads the overall series. Florida is THE flagship school of the state. Florida is one of the standard bearers of the nation's premier conference. FSU has more national titles and has been more dominant in general but has largely done so by racking up wins in a far inferior conference.
Historically, UF and FSU are a wash (or if not, then it's close).
All time yes. But currently there is no comparison. And really the only thing that is relevant is how things are at the current moment in my opinion. FSU has won 5 of the last 6 against UF. And FSU is outrecruiting UF at the current moment as well. Can that change? Well, history says it goes in cycles. But again, the only thing that really matters at the present time is how things are right now.