Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

[BCash]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

...that if State was in the same situation, we'd be a much more dangerous program than they are. Hell, we already are in my opinion. I'd be pissed if we'd been to a decent bowl a few years in a row and were still a weak *** program, which Kentucky is.

 

[Todd4State]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

We could have done what UK has with better scheduling and a better coach. And yes, I'm aware that they play Louisville every year.

I think Byrne has taken care of both problems for us.

 

[Hail State]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

The best and only way to determine the better team, and this is something Ole Miss fans tend to forget, is to line them up on the field. We proved this to UK back in October

 

[BCash]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

I just think that, hypothetically, a 7 or 8 win State team is seen as a much more dangerous team by other teams in the SEC as opposed to a 7 or 8 win UK team. They basically just been treading water for the past 3 years.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

I just think that, hypothetically, a 7 or 8 win State team is seen as a much more dangerous team by other teams in the SEC as opposed to a 7 or 8 win UK team. They basically just been treading water for the past 3 years.

I'll buy that reasoning, and here is why. Since 1992 and the expansion of the SEC to 12 teams, here are UK's records against the Top 3 teams from the East:

UGA - 3-15 (wins in 1996, 2006, and 2009)
Florida - 0-18
UT - 0-18

Outside of UGA, who they've beaten 2 of the last 4 years now, they have rarely done more than offer the occasional scare to the big programs in the East, despite having better than normal football teams recently.

Meanwhile, here is MSU's record against the Top 3 programs from the West in that same period:

Auburn - 6-12 (wins in 92, 97, 98, 99, 00, and 07)
LSU - 1-17 (win in 1999)
Alabama - 6-12 (wins in 96, 97, 98, 00, 06, and 07)

Obviously, you haven't done anything against LSU really, but when you look back at the years when you've had winning teams (92, 94, 97-00, and 07) you've done some damage to those teams. In those 7 seasons when you had winning records since league expansion, you were 11-10 against the Big 3 from the West. Kentucky still doesn't pose a threat to the Big 3 in the East even when they do have successful seasons, so I'll buy your assertion.

 

[OEMDawg]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

It means that Mitch Barnhart and Larry Simpleton had 2 different views of how to resurrect a struggling program. At Kentucky, they scheduled Louisville and 3 cream puffs. Beat Louisville and you only have to win 2 in the SEC...Vandy and MSU (or whoever is the down program for that year if you slip up at MSU). Lose to UL to go 3-1 OOC and you have to step up and win a 3rd game in the SEC. Meanwhile, LT thought the way to build back MSU was thru attendance with "name" games. Forget the fact that we already had to run the gauntlet in the SEC, but bringing in Oregon, BYU, West Virginia, etc was gonna help? That doesn't even count the road games to UAB, La Tech, Houston, bad scheduling with Baylor, and flirtations with Central Michigan that he screwed us with. So in the last decade you have Kentucky that has built a bowl "tradition" while MSU has 1 bowl this decade, is on coach #3, and had some of the most poorly attended games in history (even after expansion) during the Crooms error.

 

[jcdawgman18]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

They have been better at QB than us all 3 years, and last year Adam Carlson gave them a present. Other than that, we've been better than them. And that's frustrating. I don't really think scheduling has had nearly as much to do with it, though it has made it easier for them.

We absolutely should have gone bowling both of the last two years.
(Let's not turn this into a Croom rant, just ignore who was coaching and look at the scenario)
Last year, we make a chip shot field goal against UK and we win. We catch a punt at La Tech and we win. We make a chip shot field goal against Auburn and we win. Really, we should have been 7-5. (I know AU missed a couple, too, but there's were 40+ and from the hash. Not the same deal as Carlson missing a 30 yarder dead center.)
This year, LSU. Enough said.

So really, we've missed some great opportunities the last couple of seasons. Next year hopefully we get everything on the same page and take advantage this time.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

Amen, and this comparison is another good example of why patsies are better for your program than "name" games.

A lot of fans say they don't want to go see SELA, Arkansas State, etc. and they probably don't. They'd rather see Texas, Georgia Tech, or WVU. However, the reality is, deep down they'd rather see 7-5 than 5-7. 7-5 against cream puffs generates more enthusiasm for a program and more attendance than 5-7 or 4-8 against a tough schedule.

 

[Sutterkane]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

If you feel like you have something to prove and feel like you can actually pull it off, then your fans want to see the big name teams come in and play them, because you want a shot at the big guys.

If you are in a 5 year plan/building a fence around memphis/quoting Winston Churchill, you pretty much need every win you can get and need to stay away from tough scheduling, especially if you have an SEC schedule so you can get to a bowl and make more money.

For instance, we probably could have benefited greatly on the national stage from better scheduling in 99. We were undefeated and in the SEC at 8-0 and had several teams ranked ahead of us in the polls with losses. We had something to prove and had no way of doing so other than winning the rest of our games.

 

[therightway]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

We are in so much better shape after a 5-7 record this year than would have been if the same regime would have been in place. I would venture to say that we would have lost 2 to even 3 more games. We just had bad luck this year as far as scheduling. Who would have thought that Houston would be a bad *** team this year. We were a few bad calls from winning that game. We played with GT but lost that one on our own. All I can say is I would say that our future is much brighter at MSU vs UK.

 

[OEMDawg]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

Yea they had good QB play but you are a fool if you don't think that sheduling had EVERYTHING to do with it. Like Bruiser pointed out, they have yet to beat UT or Florida and they still have to struggle with SC and Georgia every year. Just look at their OOC over the years. 2009: Miami OH, ULM, Eastern KY. 2008: Norfolk State, MTSU, Western KY. 2007: Eastern KY, Kent St., Florida Atlantic. 2006: Texas State, Central Michigan, ULM. In 2005, with Andre Woodson at QB and an 11 game schedule they didn't go to a bowl because they lost to Louisville, OOC power Indiana, beat Idaho St, and went 2 and 6 in the SEC with wins over, you guessed it, MSU and Vandy. And in their last bowl team with J Lo at the helm they beat UL, UTEP, Indiana, MTSU and went 3-5 in the SEC

 

[Todd4State]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

that's why LT did that. I have seen several people and heard several people say that they would rather watch us lose to Ohio State than us beat Louisiana-Monroe. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Of course, this was about the only time LT listened to the fans.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

If you feel like you have something to prove and feel like you can actually pull it off, then your fans want to see the big name teams come in and play them, because you want a shot at the big guys.

If you are in a 5 year plan/building a fence around memphis/quoting Winston Churchill, you pretty much need every win you can get and need to stay away from tough scheduling, especially if you have an SEC schedule so you can get to a bowl and make more money.

For instance, we probably could have benefited greatly on the national stage from better scheduling in 99. We were undefeated and in the SEC at 8-0 and had several teams ranked ahead of us in the polls with losses. We had something to prove and had no way of doing so other than winning the rest of our games.

I disagree. Your 1999 team benefitted from your weak schedule that year. I believe you only had one win over a team that finished with a winning record in that 8-0 start. You were Top 10 because of that 8-0 start. Had you played better teams earlier, you would've lost a handful of those games, and you wouldn't have been Top 10 period. Everyone was waiting for your team to have a chance to prove it, and you had that chance playing your final 3 games against 3 quality teams that year. You went 1-2 in those games. Had you won those games, you'd have jumped the teams ahead of you.

It's the SEC, so eventually you get your chance to prove yourself against great teams. You either win or you don't. Our schedule this year was weak, but we still had two big opportunities to prove ourselves against good teams (Bama and LSU). Had we won those games and our others, the schedule would not have hurt us. We failed against some average teams though, and we definitely failed to prove ourselves against a really quality opponent (Bama). In the SEC, you don't need the big name teams from out of conference, because you get big name opportunities in conference.

 

[therightway]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

In 99 we did have OSU on our schedule and beat them. You can never tell where a a team like OSU will be when you play them. Our problem or as far as rankings was we had the easiest SEC East schedule. That is where we got no respect. We still go 9-2 and end up playing a 6-5 Clemson team in the Peach bowl. The Arkansas game was the one that really cost us.

 

[Todd4State]

Kentucky has been to consecutive bowls the past few years, and I can't help but think...

and the Bama game. Alabama molested us. And against Arkansas, they called a hold that nulified a TD pass that let's just say that the commentator's are still looking for.