My God, this has been discussed to death for 20 years. It will NEVER happen, may as well discuss Martians joining the Fellowship of the Ring
Would you be mad if Kentucky packed up and moved to the Big 10?
- Thread starter Tennessee Jones
- Start date
My God, this has been discussed to death for 20 years. It will NEVER happen, may as well discuss Martians joining the Fellowship of the Ring
Why doesnt Tennessee? When is the last time y'all won an SEC title in anything? At least Kentucky contributes. Maybe beat Vandy and win more than a life championship before running your mouth over here.
Last edited:
We currently benefit from being in the SEC recruiting wise. We get several SEC level players simply because they want to play in the premiere Football conference in the land and they know they will have a chance to play immediately at Ky. If we went to the acc, b tin or any other lesser conference, our Football fortunes would increase immediately...but only temporarily as we'd be bringing those SEC caliber players with us. Once we'd been in either conference for a while, we'd lose the benefit of having those players and would not likely be able to attract SEC level players in the future.
From a Football perspective, and that's all I care about, we should remain right where we are.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Let me count the ways:
1. Better chance to win. Even the bottom schools in the SEC recruit at a high level. That is not true in the Big 10. At our current recruiting rate, we would compete quite well against teams like Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, and even Michigan State. Only Ohio State and Michigan and Penn St would be "out recruiting" us but we have ten such schools in the SEC.
2. Better academics. Do some research. Does the SEC have Vandy? Yes. But after that, there are only 2-3 other AAU schools. The Big 10, on the other hand, has all of its members (Nebraska was on probation, but not sure if they're back in) as AAU schools. The endowments, academic rankings, and prestige are NIGHT AND DAY different between the Big 10 and the SEC. This is not even close, and anyone who has done an ounce of research would know this.
3. Rivalries. This one is subjective. I stated my case. You obviously disagree, but given your lack of knowledge on the other two topics, I'm not sure how much your opinion is worth.
Interesting perspective. I agree with you that UK probably does get some benefit in places like Ohio and Maryland and Pennsylvania by being the "northern-most" SEC school (i.e. play close to home, but still be in the SEC).
Then again, the Big 10 is lauded as best conference this year. Does the reverse effect also hold true (i.e. if the BIG starts being the "best conference" would we benefit by being the southern-most big 10 school?
I disagree with you that our recruiting would tank as a BIG or ACC school. This is a matter of opinion, but I don't think our staff's recruiting prowess goes away if our conference affiliation would change. Winning titles and increasing our average win total each year would more than help recruiting, but that's JMO.
I disagree. Kentucky is truly only "southern by culture" from Lexington south of the BG Parkway and west of I-75. Louisville and Covington are much more midwestern, and everything east of Winchester is Appalachian, a culture all to itself. We like our coffee, our venison, moonshine, ramps, and bluegrass.
I once saw a map of the "State of Appalachia" that had the aforemention parts of Kentucky, all of West Virginia, the Blue Ridge of Virginia, western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee as one state. Sure wish I had bought it, it'd be up on my wall. Don't remember what they had picked as the capital, though, couldn't really agree with it being Charleston.
1. So what...we make more money in the SEC and have already shown we can win in this conference if we hire a competent staff. Geography isn't the reason we have lost in the past....its mediocre coaching and a quarter-assed commitment from the administration. Players will go wherever best preps them for the NFL, period.
2. Again, so what? The other member institutions have nothing to do with how well we perform academically. Entirely seperate entity...UK solely is responsible for stepping up its academic game. Being in the B1G doesn't mean we suddenly attract smarter students.
3. Our rivals are Louisville, Tennessee, and Indiana. Changing conferences doesnt do anything to change that fact.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Better chance to win? AGAIN, we barely had a winning record against iu. One of, if not the worst FB school in the big10. So....yes, we MIGHT compete against the schools you mentioned but probably no better than the bottom half of the SEC schools. Stop acting like we would somehow challenge for the title every other year.
Better academics? No one is denying that the big 10 has some top academics. But again, how would that translate to your degree? IT WOULDN'T. No more than a degree from Vandy or Harvard. Your degree is only as good as the school it comes from, not your schools rivals.
If you're going to disparage another poster, you should try to make rational arguments, not hysterical rants and attacks.
You wrote "already shown", the "if" clause simply being the conditional action upon which your outcome had been dependent. If you'd written "UK is on the verge of showing that if they hire a competent staff, then they can win in the SEC", I wouldn't have taken issue with it. I might still be skeptical, but I wouldn't have taken time to disagree.
I will admit to taking "win in the SEC" to mean "have a winning record", after all, UK has won in the SEC in the past without a competent staff, I mean Joker broke the UT streak after all. So I didn't take your "win in the SEC" part to simply mean winnning a game or three.
When UK has a couple of winning seasons over three or four years, then I'll believe they can be competitive, but after four decades, pardon me if I have to see it firest before I'll believe it.
I would not mind at all, since this news in itself would be an indication that the SEC had disbanded and its members dispersed. .
I would be mad. Leaving the SEC is a quitter's mentality. It's chickens#ite....a witches brew of loser-stew. As a University, Athletic Department and fan base, we need to fund, support, recruit, retain, develop, game plan, & prepare a team of fire-pissing FB players and whip our conference rivals. THAT should be our focus....NOT how to quit and reemerge in a conference where the going is easier. GBB!
Last edited:
Are you done? OK good. Now then, I'm not the one who imposed some arbitrary timeframe on my statement...you did. We hired Bear Bryant, and he won. A lot. Then we hired other coaches who were not competent, or who may have been, but either cheated or did not have admin support which i already pointed out. So that, in conjunction wth my other points, is absolutely true; whether you agree or not is irrelevant. If you want to have another long winded tantrum be my guest. Moving on.
Screw the Big 10. What's wrong with the SEC? We just need to keep recruiting good players, and get where we can compete with the best. I don't believe you can get success
by running away from playing the best. We just need to rise to the challenge, and we can, and will. We do it in basketball, so "Why Not Football." If you don't believe you can do something, your right, you can't.
OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!
by running away from playing the best. We just need to rise to the challenge, and we can, and will. We do it in basketball, so "Why Not Football." If you don't believe you can do something, your right, you can't.
OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!
Again, you're wrong. The Big 10 and SEC are neck and neck when it comes to finances, but the SEC is either a slight winner or slight loser in the money race vs. the Big 10.
If you think that universities don't care about their peer institutions, then you don't understand academia. Being in a good academic league affects a ton when it comes to fundraising, endowments, research grants, and on and on. The SEC has improved its academics, but it's nowhere near the level of Big 10 and ACC. Sports are important, but if you look at the conference changes that have taken place over the last ten years the two most important factors are A) TV markets and B ) academics (still shocking that ACC let UL in, just goes to show you that they were in survival mode at the time or they never would have admitted a school with UL's academics into that league).
You're less wrong about the rivalries than you are on the other points, as our historic rivalries with UL, UT, and IU don't go away b/c of a conference change. However, it's still true that no one in the SEC considers UK a big rival in football. In basketball, very few of them care that much so you have only UT, Vandy, and the occasional team that rises up to be good for a few years (UF in the 2000s, Arky in 90s, etc). There's a higher chance of developing longstanding rivalries in the Big 10 due to a more competitive landscape and balance.
1. I never indicated that we would challenge Big 10 titles every year. I presented evidence that UK could better compete in the Big 10 than we do in the SEC b/c of A) ability to recruit similar (or better) athletes (as opposed to the SEC where we never recruit at the highest levels) and B) similar or better investment in football with coaches, facilities, etc.
2. University presidents (who ultimately make these decisions) care a TON about academics, peer institutions. If you're UK, you would much rather swim in a pond with a league that has all of its institutions classified as AAU institutions than you would with a league that has Auburn, Mississippi State, and LSU.
I'm not hysterical or ranting. I gave facts to back up my point of view. I know that most UK fans revere the SEC, but I'm not going to act like falsehoods are true (e.g. he keeps saying that the SEC makes more money than the Big ten, he keeps saying that academics don't matter in these decisions, etc).
Excellent point. I'd love to win in the SEC, and I will stop short of saying that we can't. But, we have a long track record of losing there. One 4-4 year does not change that.
As some has mentioned if the administration stays focused on having a successful football program, why leave? Personally, if we put up a run on bowl games like Brooks did, with the better recruiting, I am excited to see where we might end up on the pecking list in the SEC.
What "evidence" did you supply the UK would compete better? All I see is OPINION! I gave the FACT that we barely have a winning record against a bottom feeder in the big10.
No one is disputing that the big 10 is better academically overall. What I don't get is how that would automatically increase UK's academic standing.
We swim in the same pond as Bama FB. I guess in your world, if they win the NC, we should be cochamps. Lol
Some examples of how UK would [theoretically] be more competitive in Big 10:
1. The SEC regularly has 10-13 schools that recruit at a top 25 level. The Big 10 has only Michigan, PSU, OSU, and an occasional MSU / Nebraska. Conclusion: there is less overall talent in the Big 10 than in the SEC.
2. http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ The SEC has ten of the top revenue generating schools in the country. The Big 10 has 7. In other words, more resources in the SEC.
3. How can you simultaneously point to UK's record against Indiana over the years but simultaneously argue that UK is just one coaching staff away (perpetually) from being competitive in the SEC? Seems like you can't have your cake and eat it too.
4. Regarding why academics matter in college expansion, I've attached several articles that probably do a better job of explaining it than I would.
http://newsok.com/article/5473247
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal.../how-academics-really-affect-big-12-expansion
I will give you a couple of reasons. Go across the river and they cant drive and being courteous is unheard of. If you wave they want to know what your problem is.
You'll have to show me where I said we were one coaching staff away. The only thing I claimed is we barely have a winning record against a big10 bottom feeder. And you think recruiting rankings mean more than on the field performance. Lol
Bottom line, UK will never leave the SEC. Get over it.
If it wasn't you who said that, it was the other guy. Sorry, you two are indistinguishable.
Show me where i said recruiting rankings mean more than on-field performance? if our on-field performance had been great while our recruiting rankings sucked, then you'd have a point. But, you don't.
Someone else started a thread asking if UK would be better off in the Big 10. I responded. Don't be mad. "Get over it".
Who in their right mind would want to play football in Nov/Dec in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa or Nebraska, if you didn't have to????????? :sunglasses::sunglasses::sunglasses:
I don't know how old you are, but you are misrepresenting and oversimplifying the actual case. Here are Kentucky's SEC records over the most recent 15 SEC seasons.
2002: 3-5 (Guy Morriss)
2003: 1-7 (Rich Brooks)
2004: 1-7 (Rich Brooks)
2005: 2-6 (Rich Brooks)
2006: 4-4 (Rich Brooks, Music City Bowl)
2007: 3-5 (Rich Brooks, Music City Bowl)
2008: 2-6 (Rich Brooks, Liberty Bowl)
2009: 3-5 (Rich Brooks, Music City Bowl)
2010: 3-5 (Joker Phillips, BBVA Compass Bowl)
2011: 2-6 (Joker Phillips)
2012: 0-8 (Joker Phillips)
2013: 0-8 (Mark Stoops)
2014: 2-6 (Mark Stoops)
2015: 2-6 (Mark Stoops)
2016: 4-4 (Mark Stoops, Taxslayer Bowl)
In 1998, Kentucky went 4-4 in the SEC, defeated Louisville 68-34 in PJS, and lost to Penn 26-14 State in the Outback Bowl. Beginning in 1998, Kentucky assistant coach Claude Bassett committed academic fraud until his firing in 2000, by completing course work for UK players. In 1999, Bassett paid prohibited expenses and provided prohibited clothing for 5 recruits during official visits to UK. In 2000, Coach Bassett sent $1,400 in money orders to the high school coach of a recruit. The NCAA placed Kentucky on probation, restricted UK's allotment of scholarships in 2002-05, reduced UK's official campus recruiting visits in 2001-03. UK's football roster was reduced in size to no more than 80 scholarships in 2002-04. In reality, UK's roster dipped to less than 65 recruited players in 2004.
The chronology shows that Rich Brooks took Kentucky through the probation period and gradually rebuilt Kentucky's football program. In 2006, Brooks' SEC record was 4-4 (also in 1998), meaning you mis-stated the actual case when you said "one 4-4 year does not change that". By 2007, Brooks' team was knocking on the door of the 1st tier of SEC football. Brooks' 2007 passing offense was #1 in the SEC. Brooks' 2007 team defeated LSU, the #1 team in the country. When Brooks retired in 2009, Joker Phillips was promoted as Kentucky's new coach. The chronology shows that Kentucky's football program deteriorated under Phillips, but has been rebuilt by Mark Stoops and is now knocking on the SEC upper tier door again.
The chronology shows that successful Kentucky football coaches, when taking over the program following unsuccessful regimes, have needed about 4 years to rebuild. Stoops is on that path. In 2017, Stoops will bring back 19 incumbent starters plus both kickers. So your narrative, suggesting that Kentucky's record in 2016 is an isolated occurrence, misrepresents what has actually happened.
The suggestion of a move to another conference is misguided. The SEC is the best and wealthiest college football conference in the country. Kentucky is a charter member of the SEC. Kentucky isn't going anywhere.
Last edited:
It's your OPINION that a move to another conference. It is my opinion that it would be the best move, but as I said earlier, our fanbase has some odd love for the SEC, so I know that most here do not agree with me.
As for your epistle, I did say "one 4-4 year does not change that" and I stand by that. At no point in time did I ever say it was impossible to go 4-4 (clearly, as we have done that a handful of times), but going 4-4 in 2016 does not change the fact that we have performed MISERABLY in this conference.
In what universe is 4-4 success? It's the definition of MEDIOCRITY. We have failed to eclipse MEDIOCRITY since the 1970s. Repeat: the 1970s. In that time, we have watched every single other SEC school go through a boom period (Vandy won 9 games under Franklin; USCe won 11 games three years in a row; Ole Miss tied for the SEC west with Eli and nearly won it last year were it not for a Hog miracle; Arkansas went to SEC title game twice and also to a sugar bowl; MSU went to the SEC title game under Sherrill and was #1 in BCS standings at one point in 2015). So, in short, if you take away the power 6 (UT, UF, UGA, AU, UA, and LSU) every other SEC school has had a period of success while our high-water mark is 8-5 and a music city bowl win and a Hall of Fame bowl win over Wisconsin in the early 80s.
So, spare me the idea that I'm "oversimplifying" things. The facts above represent 40 years of (mostly) losing and a handful of .500 years. As fans, we have NOT received any kind of return on our investment. Am I hopeful? Yes. I like a lot of what I see. Do I think we'd be better served in the BIG or ACC? Yes.
Let's be fair and compare apples to apples here. Since 1978, Vanderbilt has had exactly TWO winning season in the SEC: 4-2 in 1982 and 5-3 in 2012. So Vandy is pretty much stuck in the same role as UK. However, every other team in the SEC has had at least SEVEN winning seasons in conference since 1980. (Not counting the new arrivals of Missouri and Texas A&M of course)
Yes. Vandy has generally been WORSE than UK, but at least they've had two winning conference records and 1-2 9 win seasons in the very recent past. They also have beaten UT, UGA, and UF recently while UK has not.
IMO, moving to the b tin would almost assure Ky of greater success in Football, but for me it would be like being a bigger fish in a smaller pond; it would be like saying, "If we can't compete in the majors, let's back down to the minors". There is some good Football in that league but it does not compare annually nor traditionally with the SEC. As for our "odd love" with the SEC, personally it's more of a cultural thing. While I cannot speak for everyone, I generally prefer most things "southern" than things considered "northern". I'd rather be associated with the South than the north as I believe most common Kentuckians would prefer.
As I've said before, IMO, we get good recruits that are interested in us because we play in the SEC..