KnightLight Wrote:

OSUofL Wrote:[
Actually when we started playing UK, they were usually better than we were, plus it gave us a game against the SEC, plus it gave us a chance to play in front of large crowds and gave us exposure in southern Kentucky. But to say we shcedule UK as an easy in-state win is like saying we just started playing them which is wrong. But don't worry, it's okay if your back handed compliments are wrong, I'm sure you can try to inconspicously slam Louisville some other way.

Since the UL/UK series started up again in 1994, only in 1997 when UL went 1-10, and in 2002, when UL lost their Bowl Game to finish 7-6, did UK have a better record than UL.

So no, UK was usually NOT better than UL.

I apologize for bringing in facts to the conversation.

KL

PS. UL has a 8-4 record vs UK since the series restarted in 1994.

It's funny how when you try to sound like a smart poster, you fail miserably. BTW, Who do you think got more publicity when we started the series? Who do you think gets the most publicity NOW?