The benchmarks for Kentucky football

    Mark Story had an interesting story (see what I did there?) this week about why Kentucky football has failed, time and time again, to move “up the SEC ladder,” to use the phrase that we’ve heard ad nauseum in recent years. According to him, it’s because of the team’s inability to consistently beat the “Benchmark 4.”  Those four teams are Louisville, Mississippi State, South Carolina and Vanderbilt — teams that UK plays every year and could, realistically, gain the “upper hand” on throughout the years. Story offers some pretty convincing numbers to back up this idea: Since 1990 (the SEC split into football divisions in 1992), no Kentucky coach has put forth a winning record against these four teams. That includes five coaches, from Curry to Phillips and the only two that went .500 against them (Mumme and Morriss) played the least amount of games against those teams. So what does all this say?  Kentucky is failing to beat equal and/or inferior competition on a regular basis.  Obviously, South Carolina has had success in recent years, but has not been in the top tier of the SEC East historically.  The other teams — Louisville, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt — nearly always have roughly equal, or even worse, talent. Let’s think about one of the closest things Kentucky has had to a “special” season, and why the team didn’t achieve more than it did.  The 2007 season is what many consider the brightest spot in recent Kentucky football history: With wins over top-10 (at the time) Louisville and No.1 LSU, it was a season to remember, to say the least.  Beating the national champion that year (LSU), as well as the only other team to beat LSU (Arkansas), it’s clear that Kentucky had the potential to be great in 2007. So why did they only make the Music City Bowl that year?  Albeit, it’s better than the Liberty Bowl or nothing at all, but that ’07 team could have done better, and they showed flashes of that potential against LSU, Arkansas and even Florida (losing 45-37). The truth is, that team came out against the big guys, but struggled against lesser competition.  That year, there was no reason to have gone to four OT’s (and lose) against a not-great Tennessee team.  There was no reason to get shellacked by Mississippi State on Homecoming, and no reason to barely squeak a win out against Vanderbilt (27-20). Although many would say there are a million and a half problems with Kentucky football right now, there is one dominant problem that can explain a lack of success in many different seasons: That problem is the inability to come out to play against lesser SEC competition (and Louisville, sometimes).  In general, UK hasn’t had a huge issue with the random non-conference foes (the Florida Atlantics and WKU’s), but when it comes to Vanderbilt, bad Tennessee teams and the Mississippi States of the world, the Cats have struggled and there’s no denying that. I think Story has a point with this “Benchmark 4.”  Many would say, “Why are we aiming so low?” and “Why should our benchmark be beating Vandy?”  My answer to that would be because the Cats have still not shown they can be successful against those teams — at least consistently.  Until they learn how to beat these teams, year in and year out, Kentucky will not be climbing that SEC ladder.  There can be arguments made about UK not having the recruits to be successful, not enough money being spent on the program, etc and there are great points to be made there.  But the fact remains that Kentucky has to perform against equal or inferior competition before they ever hope to be something other than the laughingstock of the league. Follow me on Twitter @AshleyScoby