Has the UK-U of L football series hurt Kentucky?

Mark sent along this e-mail before yesterday’s Kentucky-Louisville game:


How has the UK – UL football series helped UK? I don’t see how it has benefited UK in any way. It has only helped U of L since the inception of the series. Look at where their program was then and where it is now. Now they have more exposure than ever before and they now have their pick of Kentucky high school players that they didn’t have before. The series has not helped high school football in the state at all but it does give the good players another choice of a Div. 1 program to consider if they don’t like UK. Even if UK would win 9 out of 10 games against U of L it would not help them in any way. They would still be a part of the SEC and be on TV just for their association to that conference. Louisville has built a new stadium and even expanded it since the series began with UK. Now I know why we were so reluctant to play this series for so long. UK has nothing to gain by playing them but U of L has plenty to gain and it has taken advantage of the series to their benefit. It would be interesting to see what your readers would say about this.


This entry was posted in U of L football, UK football. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. J.B. says:

    UK was given the opportunity to beat a top 25 team but failed to do so. How would that have not benefited them (UK) is beyond me.? How this actually benefited UofL is also beyond me. Sure, both get exposure nationally by playing, sure UK if beaten isn’t good exposure, but the same is true for UofL. Another question can be asked as well, how does playing in the SEC benefit the UK football program where it can’t compete? UofL could certainly get a better team to play on the up years rather take the negative press of only beating a dilapidated UK team, likewise on their down years, getting beat by the same dilapidated UK team that does good to compete in their conference. I think it hurts UofL more than it does UK with more to gain by UK at this point now. We aren’t in the 70′s or 80′s, these football programs have changed, like it or not, Louisville isn’t the lack luster program it used to be from those times. Sure, I guess we could go ahead and schedule more programs like Middle Tenn. or Murray State in there place and know that it would benefit us more.? Really? Yes, that is just what this UK team needs…

  2. KDPearson says:

    UK administration and fans demand so little from the football team. The bar is set very low. UL is really the only real challenge set forth. That is the value of the series to the program. Take UL away and what is the goal for UK’s season?

  3. Sean says:

    So Louisville became relevant strictly because it started to play Kentucky?

    Where was this email in 2007 when Kentucky made a September statement by beating Louisville??

    At this point, the game is probably doing more harm to Louisville – they’d get a lot more mileage out of playing a real team.

  4. tubby says:

    Uk will always be LPT….PANTYWAISTS

  5. Snow Hill Pond says:

    It’s hard to imagine a scenario where the football Wildcats win on talent, but it’s actually fairly easy to imagine one where the Cats can win on being innovative. Whenever I watch SEC football, I see a lot of overwhelming talent and underwhelming offensive schemes. The powerhouse don’t have to outthink ya, they can just outplay ya with their superior talent.

    I think UK would do well by hiring a riverboat gambler as head coach. I know the Hal Mumme era ended in disaster, but I think someone like him could pull off a successful career at UK…plus it would be entertaining to watch. The current coaching staff has minimal talent to work with, an unwillingness to innovate, and no idea where they want this program to go. It’s just boring…