At some point the folks in the SEC will realize they made the same mistake that the Big 12 made......not inviting Louisville.
Kentucky has no synergy partner in the SEC, no team that they can play off of. In the ACC Carolina can play off of Duke. In the B1G Ohio State plays off of Michigan and likewise in the Big 12 Oklahoma plays off of Texas (used to be Nebraska).
Kentucky's problem is the demise of Vanderbilt. Vandy just like Wake Forest struggles to "keep up" with the schools around them. Neither will ever have the opportunity to produce the kind of revenue necessary to compete in their own leagues.
Louisville would have been the perfect choice to raise Kentucky's profile and make them relevant. Kentucky could be a good football team (never a great one) but what they really need is someone to play their basketball off of.
Does Kentucky belong in the SEC....Yes, but not by themselves....they really need some help.

(09-19-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  At some point the folks in the SEC will realize they made the same mistake that the Big 12 made......not inviting Louisville.
Kentucky has no synergy partner in the SEC, no team that they can play off of. In the ACC Carolina can play off of Duke. In the B1G Ohio State plays off of Michigan and likewise in the Big 12 Oklahoma plays off of Texas (used to be Nebraska).
Kentucky's problem is the demise of Vanderbilt. Vandy just like Wake Forest struggles to "keep up" with the schools around them. Neither will ever have the opportunity to produce the kind of revenue necessary to compete in their own leagues.
Louisville would have been the perfect choice to raise Kentucky's profile and make them relevant. Kentucky could be a good football team (never a great one) but what they really need is someone to play their basketball off of.
Does Kentucky belong in the SEC....Yes, but not by themselves....they really need some help.

Why would you need an instate, in conference rival to excel? It's not like Kentucky is on the other side of the country. There are plenty of reasons for Kentucky to want to be good, and they have made an effort. They want to win, their players want win, and their fans want to win. They are recruiting well. Look over their last few recruiting classes.

Louisville being in the Big East and now the ACC and winning should push them enough if that's the only thing that would truly motivate them.

Louisville is a good fit for the ACC. They give you another great basketball program, a good baseball and another good football program.

The problem the ACC has faced in the past is the stereotype that you are a basketball only conference. You guys as a whole have been down in football for a while and Louisville provided a spark. Clemson is competing for National Championships, FSU is competing for National Championships, Miami is on the way back up, Pitt looks like they are gonna be very good here in the next couple of seasons. Syracuse with Babers in the next couple of years will be solid.

I know you're an academics guy and I respect that but at the same time the reason you get so much athletic revenue is because of athletics. Louisville was the only true option you had to add a competitive athletics programs that could help immediately that brought true value.

Some schools you pick up and keep for academics, some you have because they were founding members, you get a school or 2 for markets, and some you add for their athletics.

As I stated before, the ACC made the best decision that could by adding Louisville.

Not adding Louisville is no mistake on the part of the SEC.

Johnie-come-lately in football doesn't do much for the SEC, or Kentucky.

(09-19-2016 02:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not adding Louisville is no mistake on the part of the SEC.

Johnie-come-lately in football doesn't do much for the SEC, or Kentucky.

Yeah, it was a ridiculous assertion anyway. We didn't need the market even if their academics, history, etc., were strong and they weren't. I'd say if the SEC winds up adding OU & KU that Kentucky would have that historic blue blooded foe off of which to play. Not to mention the Western division would have their equivalent of Vanderbilt for a conference rest weekend in football.

The only conference that made a mistake by not adding Louisville is the Big 12. That's a bullet that Louisville dodged.

IMO the biggest problem with Kentucky football is their AD coaching hires. Calipari should have been hired right after Tubby left. The only good football hire he has made is Brooks & the rest have been duds. Their recruiting has been excellent but they currently aren't doing anything with their talent. Anyone who says that they can't have good/competitive football in Lexington is dead wrong.

(09-19-2016 05:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The only conference that made a mistake by not adding Louisville is the Big 12. That's a bullet that Louisville dodged.

IMO the biggest problem with Kentucky football is their AD coaching hires. Calipari should have been hired right after Tubby left. The only good football hire he has made is Brooks & the rest have been duds. Their recruiting has been excellent but they currently aren't doing anything with their talent. Anyone who says that they can't have good/competitive football in Lexington is dead wrong.

This is a solid post. Kentucky/ Stoops have been recruiting very well. It's the coaching and the scheme that is flawed.

I actually think it would serve Kentucky football well to play a true road game at a school like UCF or SMU - winning a competitive game in a good recruiting area can generate a lot of momentum for the program. Beating New Mexico State or Charlotte might be easier, but does little in way of player preparation aside from the backups who get to play when the game gets out of hand.

Kentucky basketball could stand one more road game before going to Indiana, Louisville, or North Carolina for many of the same reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-19-2016 07:32 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(09-19-2016 05:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The only conference that made a mistake by not adding Louisville is the Big 12. That's a bullet that Louisville dodged.

IMO the biggest problem with Kentucky football is their AD coaching hires. Calipari should have been hired right after Tubby left. The only good football hire he has made is Brooks & the rest have been duds. Their recruiting has been excellent but they currently aren't doing anything with their talent. Anyone who says that they can't have good/competitive football in Lexington is dead wrong.

This is a solid post. Kentucky/ Stoops have been recruiting very well. It's the coaching and the scheme that is flawed.

Unfortunately for the Cats that's a problem that they may not be able to afford to fix at the end of this season. Stoops has a $12 million buyout. It's $17.98 million for the whole staff. Goes back to the poor decision making of their AD. Perhaps they should start there before trying to fix their football.

http://www.kentucky.com/sports/college/k...46002.html

(09-19-2016 07:55 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-19-2016 07:32 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(09-19-2016 05:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The only conference that made a mistake by not adding Louisville is the Big 12. That's a bullet that Louisville dodged.

IMO the biggest problem with Kentucky football is their AD coaching hires. Calipari should have been hired right after Tubby left. The only good football hire he has made is Brooks & the rest have been duds. Their recruiting has been excellent but they currently aren't doing anything with their talent. Anyone who says that they can't have good/competitive football in Lexington is dead wrong.

This is a solid post. Kentucky/ Stoops have been recruiting very well. It's the coaching and the scheme that is flawed.

Unfortunately for the Cats that's a problem that they may not be able to afford to fix at the end of this season. Stoops has a $12 million buyout. It's $17.98 million for the whole staff. Goes back to the poor decision making of their AD. Perhaps they should start there before trying to fix their football.

http://www.kentucky.com/sports/college/k...46002.html

Wow. That's ridiculous. The AD should be fired. Coached a season and a half. Then gets a huge contract. WTF.

Kentucky does belong. Not every SEC school needs to be a football-first university. Kentucky basketball is as storied as any top-notch football program. That being said, sometimes cellar-dwellers can have a great season. Kansas, Wake Forest, Washington St, Oregon St, Purdue, and Syracuse (among others) all made a BCS bowl. If more realignment occurs, I'd love to see the SEC pick up one or two basketball-first schools like North Carolina, Duke, Iowa St, or Kansas.

I've actually been on record back when We still had Charlie Strong and Petrino was at WKU and beating Kentucky, They needed Petrino as Their Head coach after Joker was gone. No One took it seriously. Petrino, love him or hate Him is still one of the absolute best football coaches out there. If Kentucky was serious about winning, They had the chance to get Him. It's Kentucky's loss and Louisville's gain to have him back Home in Cardinal red. I still believe Stoops can pull out a decent season at Kentucky , He needs His assistant coaches burning the midnight oil up late working out a plan with Stoops. Before the season he said that practices were uninspiring . That is where You should build Your program. Good Teams have great practices to motivate each other.

Don't get me wrong I like the addition of Louisville in the ACC, but it could have been a great "content" add for the SEC. A mid-western partner for Missouri and a basketball rival for Kentucky (plus good baseball and football). I think some of the lesser schools in the SEC may have been afraid of Louisville's potential.
If content is the way of the future, you missed the boat on this one....now it's Oklahoma or bust.
Your loss, our gain.

(09-20-2016 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Don't get me wrong I like the addition of Louisville in the ACC, but it could have been a great "content" add for the SEC. A mid-western partner for Missouri and a basketball rival for Kentucky (plus good baseball and football). I think some of the lesser schools in the SEC may have been afraid of Louisville's potential.
If content is the way of the future, you missed the boat on this one....now it's Oklahoma or bust.
Your loss, our gain.

I concur that it was your gain. However, it was hardly our loss. Besides the next couple of years will give everyone the final impression of that move.

(09-20-2016 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Don't get me wrong I like the addition of Louisville in the ACC, but it could have been a great "content" add for the SEC. A mid-western partner for Missouri and a basketball rival for Kentucky (plus good baseball and football). I think some of the lesser schools in the SEC may have been afraid of Louisville's potential.
If content is the way of the future, you missed the boat on this one....now it's Oklahoma or bust.
Your loss, our gain.

I concur that it was your gain. However, it was hardly our loss. Besides the next couple of years will give everyone the final impression of that move.

Definitely not a loss for us. You mentioned content right there in your thread. The SEC has plenty of content lol. Whether we add Oklahoma or not will not take away from what we provide. How can Louisville be our loss when we never wanted to add them or tried to add them? We have plenty of programs that win. The ACC doesn't. Take Louisville out of the ACC and you have Clemson and FSU right now that are the only legit title contenders as I stated before and it hasn't been that way for a long time. For a while the ACC was down and was considered the worst football conference of the Big 6 even below the Big East in performance. The BCS bowl record was horrible. As I have stated numerous times now. Louisville was a great add for you and a much needed add.

Also, up until recently, you have bashed the Louisville add saying you "had to take them" and complaining about academics...

Way to flip the switch lol.

(09-20-2016 04:38 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Don't get me wrong I like the addition of Louisville in the ACC, but it could have been a great "content" add for the SEC. A mid-western partner for Missouri and a basketball rival for Kentucky (plus good baseball and football). I think some of the lesser schools in the SEC may have been afraid of Louisville's potential.
If content is the way of the future, you missed the boat on this one....now it's Oklahoma or bust.
Your loss, our gain.

I concur that it was your gain. However, it was hardly our loss. Besides the next couple of years will give everyone the final impression of that move.

Definitely not a loss for us. You mentioned content right there in your thread. The SEC has plenty of content lol. Whether we add Oklahoma or not will not take away from what we provide. How can Louisville be our loss when we never wanted to add them or tried to add them? We have plenty of programs that win. The ACC doesn't. Take Louisville out of the ACC and you have Clemson and FSU right now that are the only legit title contenders as I stated before and it hasn't been that way for a long time. For a while the ACC was down and was considered the worst football conference of the Big 6 even below the Big East in performance. The BCS bowl record was horrible. As I have stated numerous times now. Louisville was a great add for you and a much needed add.

Also, up until recently, you have bashed the Louisville add saying you "had to take them" and complaining about academics...

Way to flip the switch lol.

Better not tell JR that content does not matter, or that the SEC has plenty. Content has been the basis of many of his posts over the last several years.

(09-20-2016 06:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:38 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Don't get me wrong I like the addition of Louisville in the ACC, but it could have been a great "content" add for the SEC. A mid-western partner for Missouri and a basketball rival for Kentucky (plus good baseball and football). I think some of the lesser schools in the SEC may have been afraid of Louisville's potential.
If content is the way of the future, you missed the boat on this one....now it's Oklahoma or bust.
Your loss, our gain.

I concur that it was your gain. However, it was hardly our loss. Besides the next couple of years will give everyone the final impression of that move.

Definitely not a loss for us. You mentioned content right there in your thread. The SEC has plenty of content lol. Whether we add Oklahoma or not will not take away from what we provide. How can Louisville be our loss when we never wanted to add them or tried to add them? We have plenty of programs that win. The ACC doesn't. Take Louisville out of the ACC and you have Clemson and FSU right now that are the only legit title contenders as I stated before and it hasn't been that way for a long time. For a while the ACC was down and was considered the worst football conference of the Big 6 even below the Big East in performance. The BCS bowl record was horrible. As I have stated numerous times now. Louisville was a great add for you and a much needed add.

Also, up until recently, you have bashed the Louisville add saying you "had to take them" and complaining about academics...

Way to flip the switch lol.

Better not tell JR that content does not matter, or that the SEC has plenty. Content has been the basis of many of his posts over the last several years.

And it will continue to be. It is the only guaranteed revenue producer in a world in which the delivery model could change with the next innovation.

(09-20-2016 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 06:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:38 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='XLance' pid='13594831' dateline='1474403430']
Don't get me wrong I like the addition of Louisville in the ACC, but it could have been a great "content" add for the SEC. A mid-western partner for Missouri and a basketball rival for Kentucky (plus good baseball and football). I think some of the lesser schools in the SEC may have been afraid of Louisville's potential.
If content is the way of the future, you missed the boat on this one....now it's Oklahoma or bust.
Your loss, our gain.

I concur that it was your gain. However, it was hardly our loss. Besides the next couple of years will give everyone the final impression of that move.

Definitely not a loss for us. You mentioned content right there in your thread. The SEC has plenty of content lol. Whether we add Oklahoma or not will not take away from what we provide. How can Louisville be our loss when we never wanted to add them or tried to add them? We have plenty of programs that win. The ACC doesn't. Take Louisville out of the ACC and you have Clemson and FSU right now that are the only legit title contenders as I stated before and it hasn't been that way for a long time. For a while the ACC was down and was considered the worst football conference of the Big 6 even below the Big East in performance. The BCS bowl record was horrible. As I have stated numerous times now. Louisville was a great add for you and a much needed add.

Also, up until recently, you have bashed the Louisville add saying you "had to take them" and complaining about academics...

Way to flip the switch lol.

Better not tell JR that content does not matter, or that the SEC has plenty. Content has been the basis of many of his posts over the last several years.

Yes, I agree. If you would have read my post, you would have seen, that I said we had plenty and if we didn't add Oklahoma it would not take away from what we can provide. Are either of those statements incorrect?

Also, we will add more teams when the time is right and we will add those that we want.

The SEC added 2 new markets and quality content with the additions of Texas A&M and Missouri. When we expand again I know for a fact we're looking at new markets again. Content is #1, as I said, I do agree with that. However, the media companies are also looking at who is watching said content. We want to add quality in new areas.

Anyone arguing with that is wrong, period.

Almost every comment you make here is telling us how we're wrong on this, we missed out here, we have no choice in this situation and that situation. Discussion is fine, but your trolling is getting old.

Midwestern is a dirty word in the SEC.

That's reason 9,235 why Louisville wasn't right for us.

(09-20-2016 08:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Midwestern is a dirty word in the SEC.

That's reason 9,235 why Louisville wasn't right for us.

How is Kentucky Southern, and Louisville, being in Kentucky, Midwestern ? Much of Louisville's population is from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Alabama as well as from Illinois, Ohio, Indiana. Pennsylvania? Lexington is very similar in it's population make up as is much of the state. Louisville residents during the Civil War fought on both sides equally as well as being neutral.

(09-21-2016 07:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 08:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Midwestern is a dirty word in the SEC.

That's reason 9,235 why Louisville wasn't right for us.

How is Kentucky Southern, and Louisville, being in Kentucky, Midwestern ? Much of Louisville's population is from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Alabama as well as from Illinois, Ohio, Indiana. Pennsylvania? Lexington is very similar in it's population make up as is much of the state. Louisville residents during the Civil War fought on both sides equally as well as being neutral.

The legacy of the alumni is decidedly more old world.

The Kentucky blue-bloods, no pun intended, have historically viewed themselves and primarily Southern.

I don't think there is really any more to say about that.