Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #41
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 02:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I still think that with the current two division system, there will continue to be a hard canopy that UK will not be able to improve above. They will never be able to recruit to a point where they can challenge for the division title unless the other major programs all fall apart at the same time. Can they beat out Vandy? Sure. Can they beat out Tennessee? Sure. Can they beat out Florida, Georgia and South Carolina all in the same year? Highly unlikely.

Kentucky needs new divisions as much if not more than Tennessee.

Kentucky fans know exactly where we stand in football, and that is fine. We want to be competitive, entertaining, and develop elite players. We can do all of those things without winning a division or SEC championship in football. Being in the best football conference is better than being the top dog in a lesser conference. Ask Cincinnati which position they would rather be in right now. Kentucky football is like Ole Miss basketball. Could we catch lightning in a bottle once a generation in football? Sure, and we'd be happy with that. Every school in the SEC has to know what they bring to the table and keep improving upon it. Kentucky brings men's basketball, is doing really well in women's basketball, and have come along well in the Olympic sports. Football must keep improving, and it will. In the meantime, we know our place.

I wasn't comparing you guys to schools that would wish to be you. That is great that you accept your place in the current hierarchy. As an Iowa fan I do the same with Iowa.

I am talking about how your situation would be even better with four divisions instead of just two. Do you see what I am getting at?

Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.
08-07-2013 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 02:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I still think that with the current two division system, there will continue to be a hard canopy that UK will not be able to improve above. They will never be able to recruit to a point where they can challenge for the division title unless the other major programs all fall apart at the same time. Can they beat out Vandy? Sure. Can they beat out Tennessee? Sure. Can they beat out Florida, Georgia and South Carolina all in the same year? Highly unlikely.

Kentucky needs new divisions as much if not more than Tennessee.

Kentucky fans know exactly where we stand in football, and that is fine. We want to be competitive, entertaining, and develop elite players. We can do all of those things without winning a division or SEC championship in football. Being in the best football conference is better than being the top dog in a lesser conference. Ask Cincinnati which position they would rather be in right now. Kentucky football is like Ole Miss basketball. Could we catch lightning in a bottle once a generation in football? Sure, and we'd be happy with that. Every school in the SEC has to know what they bring to the table and keep improving upon it. Kentucky brings men's basketball, is doing really well in women's basketball, and have come along well in the Olympic sports. Football must keep improving, and it will. In the meantime, we know our place.

I wasn't comparing you guys to schools that would wish to be you. That is great that you accept your place in the current hierarchy. As an Iowa fan I do the same with Iowa.

I am talking about how your situation would be even better with four divisions instead of just two. Do you see what I am getting at?

Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.

To maintain balance in a 4 divisions system in the SEC Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, and the Mississippi schools all have to be in a different division. On average the two Mississippi's both challenge the middle and occasionally the top more frequently than Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and possibly more than Missouri will. That's why I see a breakdown like this as being somewhat more balanced:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky

South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

In this scenario each division has two fairly strong challengers and one traditionally weak team. In the case of the East there are three fairly even challengers and one weaker team and in the case of Alabama's division there are two powerful teams with two weaker than normal, but not the weakest teams. I'm not saying these will be the divisions but depending upon who we add they could look something like this in order to have a semblance of balance and geographical fit.
08-07-2013 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #43
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 02:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I still think that with the current two division system, there will continue to be a hard canopy that UK will not be able to improve above. They will never be able to recruit to a point where they can challenge for the division title unless the other major programs all fall apart at the same time. Can they beat out Vandy? Sure. Can they beat out Tennessee? Sure. Can they beat out Florida, Georgia and South Carolina all in the same year? Highly unlikely.

Kentucky needs new divisions as much if not more than Tennessee.

Kentucky fans know exactly where we stand in football, and that is fine. We want to be competitive, entertaining, and develop elite players. We can do all of those things without winning a division or SEC championship in football. Being in the best football conference is better than being the top dog in a lesser conference. Ask Cincinnati which position they would rather be in right now. Kentucky football is like Ole Miss basketball. Could we catch lightning in a bottle once a generation in football? Sure, and we'd be happy with that. Every school in the SEC has to know what they bring to the table and keep improving upon it. Kentucky brings men's basketball, is doing really well in women's basketball, and have come along well in the Olympic sports. Football must keep improving, and it will. In the meantime, we know our place.

I wasn't comparing you guys to schools that would wish to be you. That is great that you accept your place in the current hierarchy. As an Iowa fan I do the same with Iowa.

I am talking about how your situation would be even better with four divisions instead of just two. Do you see what I am getting at?

Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.

My view would be

Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
West Virginia

All four would be the northernmost programs in the SEC. All would benefit from this set up. All would be allowed to boost up their programs enough that this would not seem as unbalanced as it may appear now. It would be a division of very strong competitiveness between all four programs.

Also, to those that say the #4 seed in an eventual SEC tournament would come from that division, so what? So the #1 seed ends up with a perceived easier route through the Tournament. That is in the best interests of the Conference as a whole when it comes to maintaining its place of dominance on the national scene.
08-07-2013 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I still think that with the current two division system, there will continue to be a hard canopy that UK will not be able to improve above. They will never be able to recruit to a point where they can challenge for the division title unless the other major programs all fall apart at the same time. Can they beat out Vandy? Sure. Can they beat out Tennessee? Sure. Can they beat out Florida, Georgia and South Carolina all in the same year? Highly unlikely.

Kentucky needs new divisions as much if not more than Tennessee.

Kentucky fans know exactly where we stand in football, and that is fine. We want to be competitive, entertaining, and develop elite players. We can do all of those things without winning a division or SEC championship in football. Being in the best football conference is better than being the top dog in a lesser conference. Ask Cincinnati which position they would rather be in right now. Kentucky football is like Ole Miss basketball. Could we catch lightning in a bottle once a generation in football? Sure, and we'd be happy with that. Every school in the SEC has to know what they bring to the table and keep improving upon it. Kentucky brings men's basketball, is doing really well in women's basketball, and have come along well in the Olympic sports. Football must keep improving, and it will. In the meantime, we know our place.

I wasn't comparing you guys to schools that would wish to be you. That is great that you accept your place in the current hierarchy. As an Iowa fan I do the same with Iowa.

I am talking about how your situation would be even better with four divisions instead of just two. Do you see what I am getting at?

Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.

My view would be

Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
West Virginia

All four would be the northernmost programs in the SEC. All would benefit from this set up. All would be allowed to boost up their programs enough that this would not seem as unbalanced as it may appear now. It would be a division of very strong competitiveness between all four programs.

Also, to those that say the #4 seed in an eventual SEC tournament would come from that division, so what? So the #1 seed ends up with a perceived easier route through the Tournament. That is in the best interests of the Conference as a whole when it comes to maintaining its place of dominance on the national scene.
He1nous, stick to the Big 10 on this one. The division you propose would be the weakest sister in the SEC and the other three wouldn't stand for it. Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even the Mississippi schools would all finally be united on a single issue, your division. That's one weak school, two potentially weak schools, and one only above average school.
08-07-2013 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #45
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Kentucky fans know exactly where we stand in football, and that is fine. We want to be competitive, entertaining, and develop elite players. We can do all of those things without winning a division or SEC championship in football. Being in the best football conference is better than being the top dog in a lesser conference. Ask Cincinnati which position they would rather be in right now. Kentucky football is like Ole Miss basketball. Could we catch lightning in a bottle once a generation in football? Sure, and we'd be happy with that. Every school in the SEC has to know what they bring to the table and keep improving upon it. Kentucky brings men's basketball, is doing really well in women's basketball, and have come along well in the Olympic sports. Football must keep improving, and it will. In the meantime, we know our place.

I wasn't comparing you guys to schools that would wish to be you. That is great that you accept your place in the current hierarchy. As an Iowa fan I do the same with Iowa.

I am talking about how your situation would be even better with four divisions instead of just two. Do you see what I am getting at?

Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.

My view would be

Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
West Virginia

All four would be the northernmost programs in the SEC. All would benefit from this set up. All would be allowed to boost up their programs enough that this would not seem as unbalanced as it may appear now. It would be a division of very strong competitiveness between all four programs.

Also, to those that say the #4 seed in an eventual SEC tournament would come from that division, so what? So the #1 seed ends up with a perceived easier route through the Tournament. That is in the best interests of the Conference as a whole when it comes to maintaining its place of dominance on the national scene.
He1nous, stick to the Big 10 on this one. The division you propose would be the weakest sister in the SEC and the other three wouldn't stand for it. Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even the Mississippi schools would all finally be united on a single issue, your division. That's one weak school, two potentially weak schools, and one only above average school.

Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2013 03:58 PM by He1nousOne.)
08-07-2013 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 03:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wasn't comparing you guys to schools that would wish to be you. That is great that you accept your place in the current hierarchy. As an Iowa fan I do the same with Iowa.

I am talking about how your situation would be even better with four divisions instead of just two. Do you see what I am getting at?

Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.

My view would be

Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
West Virginia

All four would be the northernmost programs in the SEC. All would benefit from this set up. All would be allowed to boost up their programs enough that this would not seem as unbalanced as it may appear now. It would be a division of very strong competitiveness between all four programs.

Also, to those that say the #4 seed in an eventual SEC tournament would come from that division, so what? So the #1 seed ends up with a perceived easier route through the Tournament. That is in the best interests of the Conference as a whole when it comes to maintaining its place of dominance on the national scene.
He1nous, stick to the Big 10 on this one. The division you propose would be the weakest sister in the SEC and the other three wouldn't stand for it. Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even the Mississippi schools would all finally be united on a single issue, your division. That's one weak school, two potentially weak schools, and one only above average school.

Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?

Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!
08-07-2013 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #47
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.

My view would be

Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
West Virginia

All four would be the northernmost programs in the SEC. All would benefit from this set up. All would be allowed to boost up their programs enough that this would not seem as unbalanced as it may appear now. It would be a division of very strong competitiveness between all four programs.

Also, to those that say the #4 seed in an eventual SEC tournament would come from that division, so what? So the #1 seed ends up with a perceived easier route through the Tournament. That is in the best interests of the Conference as a whole when it comes to maintaining its place of dominance on the national scene.
He1nous, stick to the Big 10 on this one. The division you propose would be the weakest sister in the SEC and the other three wouldn't stand for it. Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even the Mississippi schools would all finally be united on a single issue, your division. That's one weak school, two potentially weak schools, and one only above average school.

Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?

Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!

At first perhaps but the SEC survived having it's current two divisions having a way out of whack balance in previous seasons not so long ago.

It will allow the programs of that division to build themselves up to the point where that balance isn't so bad. The current system seriously hampers those more northernly based programs. They will need to be able to recruit farther south on somewhat of a more even basis. They will never recruit evenly down south but if they have a viable route to the postseason then players down south that are looking for as much exposure as possible, they are going to see those schools in new light.

My opinion of course but I think that opinion is based on what would truly happen and not on how these programs are now or how they have been in the past.

The bigger the change, the more fluid the situation can be and the more opportunity for improvement those "border" programs would have in the SEC. If the South schools don't like that then it would be obvious that they like seeing programs like Tennessee held down.
08-07-2013 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #48
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
KSR (Kentucky Sports Radio), which is by far the most popular UK fan page/resource, had a pretty good post today about fan's expectations coming into the year. It mirrors what many have said on here but goes in a bit more detail. Here is the link http://kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=138174, and below are the bullet points:

1. Compete Every Game (unlike the end of last season)
2. Win An SEC Game
3. Score 20 Points Per Game (our offense should be much more serviceable than the defense)
4. No Losses Over 35 Points

Like I've said, we have very humble goals this year, but these are foundations to creating a culture for the upcoming years.
08-08-2013 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #49
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-07-2013 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 02:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Oh, sure, breaking into pods would give us a small victory; beating out 3 other teams instead of 6 would be much more possible. It still would not be fair if they went by geography, though. I'm assuming it would be UK, Tennessee, Vandy, and either Missouri or South Carolina. I suppose South Carolina would not be too imbalanced, but Missouri would.

My view would be

Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
West Virginia

All four would be the northernmost programs in the SEC. All would benefit from this set up. All would be allowed to boost up their programs enough that this would not seem as unbalanced as it may appear now. It would be a division of very strong competitiveness between all four programs.

Also, to those that say the #4 seed in an eventual SEC tournament would come from that division, so what? So the #1 seed ends up with a perceived easier route through the Tournament. That is in the best interests of the Conference as a whole when it comes to maintaining its place of dominance on the national scene.
He1nous, stick to the Big 10 on this one. The division you propose would be the weakest sister in the SEC and the other three wouldn't stand for it. Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even the Mississippi schools would all finally be united on a single issue, your division. That's one weak school, two potentially weak schools, and one only above average school.

Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?

Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!
I tend to agree on geography over power. Look what happened to Tennesse and Auburn? Who was South Carolina a few years ago? Powers change but geography doesn't. As long as Missouri gets to play Arky every year I am good.
08-08-2013 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #50
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-08-2013 12:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  My view would be

Tennessee
Kentucky
Missouri
West Virginia

All four would be the northernmost programs in the SEC. All would benefit from this set up. All would be allowed to boost up their programs enough that this would not seem as unbalanced as it may appear now. It would be a division of very strong competitiveness between all four programs.

Also, to those that say the #4 seed in an eventual SEC tournament would come from that division, so what? So the #1 seed ends up with a perceived easier route through the Tournament. That is in the best interests of the Conference as a whole when it comes to maintaining its place of dominance on the national scene.
He1nous, stick to the Big 10 on this one. The division you propose would be the weakest sister in the SEC and the other three wouldn't stand for it. Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even the Mississippi schools would all finally be united on a single issue, your division. That's one weak school, two potentially weak schools, and one only above average school.

Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?

Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!
I tend to agree on geography over power. Look what happened to Tennesse and Auburn? Who was South Carolina a few years ago? Powers change but geography doesn't. As long as Missouri gets to play Arky every year I am good.

Your point reminds me of that discussion you saw between me and an Ohio State poster on the Big Ten board.

Cross rivals could be maintained but at the cost of only playing the other three teams in that division once every three years instead of every other year. That will cause colleges to take serious consideration of whom they consider a true rival and whom is just labeled a rival in order to sell tickets in our currently outdated college football system.

Do you feel that strongly about Arkansas that you wouldn't care about the fact that your athletes wont experience home and away match ups during their college career with schools like A&M, LSU? Both of those are amazing experiences for players in terms of the Away game opportunity.

Your school would probably have to pick one anyway as there are other match ups that would absolutely be protected. The question would be whether Arkansas would choose you as well. I do think you would be their best cross rival option considering LSU and A&M would likely be in their division already.
08-08-2013 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #51
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-08-2013 12:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 12:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  He1nous, stick to the Big 10 on this one. The division you propose would be the weakest sister in the SEC and the other three wouldn't stand for it. Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and even the Mississippi schools would all finally be united on a single issue, your division. That's one weak school, two potentially weak schools, and one only above average school.

Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?

Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!
I tend to agree on geography over power. Look what happened to Tennesse and Auburn? Who was South Carolina a few years ago? Powers change but geography doesn't. As long as Missouri gets to play Arky every year I am good.

Your point reminds me of that discussion you saw between me and an Ohio State poster on the Big Ten board.

Cross rivals could be maintained but at the cost of only playing the other three teams in that division once every three years instead of every other year. That will cause colleges to take serious consideration of whom they consider a true rival and whom is just labeled a rival in order to sell tickets in our currently outdated college football system.

Do you feel that strongly about Arkansas that you wouldn't care about the fact that your athletes wont experience home and away match ups during their college career with schools like A&M, LSU? Both of those are amazing experiences for players in terms of the Away game opportunity.

Your school would probably have to pick one anyway as there are other match ups that would absolutely be protected. The question would be whether Arkansas would choose you as well. I do think you would be their best cross rival option considering LSU and A&M would likely be in their division already.
The SEC has been working on the Mizzou/Arky thing since our admission. coming from Missouri I am sure this will be an awesome rivalry. I have had Arky fans tell me we both need this. Being in the same division or pod would be nice.
08-09-2013 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #52
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
Totally agree with Medic that Ark/Mizzou will be tremendous for both sides. Arkansas has been stuck in that 3rd or 4th rivalry position with everybody in the west since they came into the league. They need a rival where both sides see the other as #1 or at least #2.
08-09-2013 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #53
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-09-2013 10:07 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 12:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 12:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?

Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!
I tend to agree on geography over power. Look what happened to Tennesse and Auburn? Who was South Carolina a few years ago? Powers change but geography doesn't. As long as Missouri gets to play Arky every year I am good.

Your point reminds me of that discussion you saw between me and an Ohio State poster on the Big Ten board.

Cross rivals could be maintained but at the cost of only playing the other three teams in that division once every three years instead of every other year. That will cause colleges to take serious consideration of whom they consider a true rival and whom is just labeled a rival in order to sell tickets in our currently outdated college football system.

Do you feel that strongly about Arkansas that you wouldn't care about the fact that your athletes wont experience home and away match ups during their college career with schools like A&M, LSU? Both of those are amazing experiences for players in terms of the Away game opportunity.

Your school would probably have to pick one anyway as there are other match ups that would absolutely be protected. The question would be whether Arkansas would choose you as well. I do think you would be their best cross rival option considering LSU and A&M would likely be in their division already.
The SEC has been working on the Mizzou/Arky thing since our admission. coming from Missouri I am sure this will be an awesome rivalry. I have had Arky fans tell me we both need this. Being in the same division or pod would be nice.

Sure, being in the same division would be nice but taking a look at the bigger picture, Arkansas and it's history in the SEC allows it a stronger position recruiting some of the hotbeds. Missouri overall would be better served being in a division like the one I listed. I think your record would be much better off in that division rather than one with the likes of LSU and A&M. In the SEC, success breeds more success. The Arkansas relationship can be cultivated without being in the same division/pod.
08-09-2013 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-08-2013 09:30 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  KSR (Kentucky Sports Radio), which is by far the most popular UK fan page/resource, had a pretty good post today about fan's expectations coming into the year. It mirrors what many have said on here but goes in a bit more detail. Here is the link http://kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=138174, and below are the bullet points:

1. Compete Every Game (unlike the end of last season)
2. Win An SEC Game
3. Score 20 Points Per Game (our offense should be much more serviceable than the defense)
4. No Losses Over 35 Points

Like I've said, we have very humble goals this year, but these are foundations to creating a culture for the upcoming years.


Thats pretty realistic.

UK fans shouldn't turn on Stoops after 1-2 years because it will likely be at least until 2015 before we see UK start making serious noise
08-11-2013 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-09-2013 10:07 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 12:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 12:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Tennessee shouldn't be weak. It is one of the strongest brands in your conference. West Virginia too has a pretty strong and fanatical following.

Why would LSU have a problem with being in division with Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma State? Why would the other three have any issue with that?

Why would Alabama have issue with being in a division of Ole Miss, Miss State and Vandy? Why would those three have problem with that?

The one grouping that I would see possibly having issue with this would be the grouping of Florida, Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina. That is the truly overpowered division but all of those schools have histories of having bad programs as well as good programs. None of them truly can be considered perennial Kings of the East. So together they insure that there will be a strong #2 vs #3 match up in the Semifinals.

Would the Southern schools be that worried about what positive results could be had by having a "border" division of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri?

Why wouldn't the top programs want a potentially weaker division to generally provide the #4 program that wont be providing upsets of the #1 program on a regular basis?

Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!
I tend to agree on geography over power. Look what happened to Tennesse and Auburn? Who was South Carolina a few years ago? Powers change but geography doesn't. As long as Missouri gets to play Arky every year I am good.

Your point reminds me of that discussion you saw between me and an Ohio State poster on the Big Ten board.

Cross rivals could be maintained but at the cost of only playing the other three teams in that division once every three years instead of every other year. That will cause colleges to take serious consideration of whom they consider a true rival and whom is just labeled a rival in order to sell tickets in our currently outdated college football system.

Do you feel that strongly about Arkansas that you wouldn't care about the fact that your athletes wont experience home and away match ups during their college career with schools like A&M, LSU? Both of those are amazing experiences for players in terms of the Away game opportunity.

Your school would probably have to pick one anyway as there are other match ups that would absolutely be protected. The question would be whether Arkansas would choose you as well. I do think you would be their best cross rival option considering LSU and A&M would likely be in their division already.
The SEC has been working on the Mizzou/Arky thing since our admission. coming from Missouri I am sure this will be an awesome rivalry. I have had Arky fans tell me we both need this. Being in the same division or pod would be nice.


South Carolina has similarly stuggled with rivalries. Obviously we have Clemson, but I don't think anyone else really considers us as rivals.

UGA is starting to develop nicely, but it took beating them 3 years in a row to do that. We will always be behind GT, UF, and Auburn though.

UF is always an interesting game because of the Spurrier angle.
08-11-2013 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #56
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-11-2013 03:37 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(08-09-2013 10:07 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 12:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 12:28 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Because the real balance of the 4 divisions would be way out of whack!
I tend to agree on geography over power. Look what happened to Tennesse and Auburn? Who was South Carolina a few years ago? Powers change but geography doesn't. As long as Missouri gets to play Arky every year I am good.

Your point reminds me of that discussion you saw between me and an Ohio State poster on the Big Ten board.

Cross rivals could be maintained but at the cost of only playing the other three teams in that division once every three years instead of every other year. That will cause colleges to take serious consideration of whom they consider a true rival and whom is just labeled a rival in order to sell tickets in our currently outdated college football system.

Do you feel that strongly about Arkansas that you wouldn't care about the fact that your athletes wont experience home and away match ups during their college career with schools like A&M, LSU? Both of those are amazing experiences for players in terms of the Away game opportunity.

Your school would probably have to pick one anyway as there are other match ups that would absolutely be protected. The question would be whether Arkansas would choose you as well. I do think you would be their best cross rival option considering LSU and A&M would likely be in their division already.
The SEC has been working on the Mizzou/Arky thing since our admission. coming from Missouri I am sure this will be an awesome rivalry. I have had Arky fans tell me we both need this. Being in the same division or pod would be nice.


South Carolina has similarly stuggled with rivalries. Obviously we have Clemson, but I don't think anyone else really considers us as rivals.

UGA is starting to develop nicely, but it took beating them 3 years in a row to do that. We will always be behind GT, UF, and Auburn though.

UF is always an interesting game because of the Spurrier angle.

Any expansion into the State of North Carolina would be great for the Gamecocks and one of the major reasons would be due to what you just posted about.

Whether it be North Carolina, North Carolina State or even East Carolina. That would be a great game for South Carolina.
08-11-2013 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #57
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(07-10-2013 09:49 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(07-09-2013 08:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Hard to say.

5-7 wins a year? Absolutely.

8-10 a year? I wouldn't bet on it.

He has a great class now, but how will he be able to recruit next season, especially if this season is underwhelming.

Yeah, we'll just have to see how it goes. 10 years ago, there was not a snowball's chance that anyone would say that South Carolina would compete for the SEC East year in, year out. It took the right coach and a commitment to gathering talent, especially keeping the top guys in state.
And this is why I prefer creating pods/divisions according to geography as opposed to current power structure. Power comes and goes...
08-16-2013 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oklalittledixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,554
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 129
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Oklahoma City
Post: #58
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
At what point is someone going to acknowledge that Bob Stoops is not affiliated with the University of Kentucky?
08-20-2013 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
(08-20-2013 04:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  At what point is someone going to acknowledge that Bob Stoops is not affiliated with the University of Kentucky?

We already have, way back in the thread, and the title can't be edited.
GreenHornet33 back on page 3, addressed the issue, but if you had read the comments we all knew which Stoops it was and didn't feel it necessary to make a big deal out of a first post by one of the new ESPN crowd. It's called courtesy.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2013 04:40 PM by JRsec.)
08-20-2013 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #60
RE: Do you think Bob stoops can get UK to a competitive level?
The game against WKU will be here in no time. He is doing all the right things in practice, like overly complimenting the seniors, making the practice incredibly up tempo, praising almost every day as incredible practices and then lowering the shame hammer on them when it drops off just a bit as a near apocalyptic event...
08-20-2013 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.