Mr. Obvious is at it again

[ukwebfan]

"It's important to get as much visibility for the game as we can get, and we're working at that," he said. "We have a lot of conversations going on through our league offices, and they have a lot of people calling them. Obviously it's a game that people would like to see."

Wildcats, Cardinals not on ESPN (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/SPT0202/706210316/1035/SPT)

[ukwebfan]

"There will still be 70,000 people in Commonwealth Stadium," he said. "It's still going to be important to the people in our commonwealth. That game is still going to get its share of attention."

UK-U of L looks for TV spot (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/SPT0104/706210426/1088/SPT)

[RedandBlackATTACK]

**removed**

[TrueblueCATfan]

I noticed ESPN2 is showing the Central Michigan-Purdue game..what is so exciting about this game

[Art Vandelay]

Barnhart deserves no criticism on this issue. If Kentucky vs. Louisville is indeed a rival game, it shouldn't be the first game of the year. It should be the last game of the year.

I live in SC and the USC-Clemson game is the last regular season game of the year for each. The fans look forward to that game all season and it is a great way to end the season. Of course they have been playing each other for more than 100 years. UK-UL is not even close.

[gerntz]

Barnhart deserves no criticism on this issue. If Kentucky vs. Louisville is indeed a rival game, it shouldn't be the first game of the year. It should be the last game of the year.

I live in SC and the USC-Clemson game is the last regular season game of the year for each. The fans look forward to that game all season and it is a great way to end the season. Of course they have been playing each other for more than 100 years. UK-UL is not even close.

The issue is that some people want the game on TV. If that's one's opinion, playing it last game of season will be even worse for TV exposure wiht all the rivalry games that exist then already.

Me, I consider all SEC games a bigger deal than the LV game.

[Art Vandelay]

The issue is that some people want the game on TV. If that's one's opinion, playing it last game of season will be even worse for TV exposure wiht all the rivalry games that exist then already.

Me, I consider all SEC games a bigger deal than the LV game.

I want all UK games on TV, but if playing Louisville first every year is the only way to do it, then I'm okay with the game not being televised.

[ImForKy]

I want all UK games on TV, but if playing Louisville first every year is the only way to do it, then I'm okay with the game not being televised.

:thumbup::thumbup:

[jwade]

It's about wins, not about TV. If Brooks/Barnhart think our best chance to win is scheduling later, that's what we should do.


Jim

[ukbob]

It's about wins, not about TV. If Brooks/Barnhart think our best chance to win is scheduling later, that's what we should do.


Jim

It is also about exposure. And moving this game to allow a new coach to put his wheels under him doesn't enhance our chances all that much.

But I suppose if we win, the rest of the nation can read about it on the back page of their local sports section. And if we get hammered again, then we can discuss why this move was made at all and be thankful we were not embarrassed on national TV, as we have been prone to.

Sounds to me more like UK is trying to keep UL from getting any additional publicity versus getting some of our own.

I just happen to disagree with the UK fans and Brooks on this one. I think we once again fumbled at the 10 yard line after a nice drive for the winning score. But that is just my take on it.

[jwade]

I'll expound a little on my point of view.

Personally, I like the game being the first one of the season. I like the hype during the weeks leading up to it, the almost guaranteed television, and so forth. I think it's a great way to get excited about the coming season for a fan base which, historically and to a large extent, has needed a reason to get excited about football. Yes, there are die-hards like the many in this forum who are perpetually excited about football and who don't need any external stimulus whatsoever. But, I believe the fact remains that a significant portion of the UK fan base needs a jump start in order to get excited about football and the UL game is a way to get that group going.

All that said, I'm not a professional coach nor administrator and while I have opinions as to how to build a winning program, I also have to defer to the people who have the experience in that field and who we've hired to do just that. Now if they don't make acceptable progress toward that goal (however 'acceptable progress' is defined) then they have to be replaced. But I believe you have to let the people you hire work their system. Thus I support whatever Barnhart/Brooks think is best for the program, even when I disagree with them.

With regard to exposure, I agree that in general exposure is good. But winning brings exposure. Case in point, who outside Kentucky really knew much about UL until Petrino started winning big? It's my belief that, consequently, if we start winning big the exposure will follow. Which is why I said earlier it's about wins, not about TV.

Just my $0.02.


Jim

[ukbob]

I'll expound a little on my point of view.

Personally, I like the game being the first one of the season. I like the hype during the weeks leading up to it, the almost guaranteed television, and so forth. I think it's a great way to get excited about the coming season for a fan base which, historically and to a large extent, has needed a reason to get excited about football. Yes, there are die-hards like the many in this forum who are perpetually excited about football and who don't need any external stimulus whatsoever. But, I believe the fact remains that a significant portion of the UK fan base needs a jump start in order to get excited about football and the UL game is a way to get that group going.

All that said, I'm not a professional coach nor administrator and while I have opinions as to how to build a winning program, I also have to defer to the people who have the experience in that field and who we've hired to do just that. Now if they don't make acceptable progress toward that goal (however 'acceptable progress' is defined) then they have to be replaced. But I believe you have to let the people you hire work their system. Thus I support whatever Barnhart/Brooks think is best for the program, even when I disagree with them.

With regard to exposure, I agree that in general exposure is good. But winning brings exposure. Case in point, who outside Kentucky really knew much about UL until Petrino started winning big? It's my belief that, consequently, if we start winning big the exposure will follow. Which is why I said earlier it's about wins, not about TV.

Just my $0.02.


Jim

Excellent explanation Jim and I fully understand the point of view.

And winning does bring exposure, but winning against teams like UL brings it better versus beating St. Mary's of the Lawnmower or some of the other pansies on our early schedule. UL got their exposure by playing on any night of the week against mediocre competition for the tv exposure and then winning big. We likely won't take that route, so we either have to start winning bigger games (like UL, UT, Ga, USC, FL) which are on TV or understand that we our annual 6 wins are a little bit of fool's gold.

But you are correct. The administration should know what is best and if they think this is it, then OK. I just don't agree with them from a fan's perspective. I hope they are right and I am wrong.

[gerntz]

I noticed ESPN2 is showing the Central Michigan-Purdue game..what is so exciting about this game


It's not. But ESPN is punishing UK for moving it from when they want to show it. They're making the point that ESPN is bigger than UK to UK.

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

It's not. But ESPN is punishing UK for moving it from when they want to show it. They're making the point that ESPN is bigger than UK to UK.

Or, it could have something to do with the contract ESPN had with the Big 10 that requires the network to broadcast a set number of Big 10 games every week.

Nah... that's silly. You're right. They're just trying to put us in our place.

[Mackcat]

I have a hard time believing that ESPN, the food network or whoever is out to show UK football what is up.

[Blue4ever]

Barnhart deserves no criticism on this issue. If Kentucky vs. Louisville is indeed a rival game, it shouldn't be the first game of the year. It should be the last game of the year.

I live in SC and the USC-Clemson game is the last regular season game of the year for each. The fans look forward to that game all season and it is a great way to end the season. Of course they have been playing each other for more than 100 years. UK-UL is not even close.

Barnhart will never win with some fans no matter what he does or doesn't do. And I've generally supported Coach Brooks on the direction he has taken the program. I doubt many can argue that the program is not better off today than it was five years ago. BUT! I have to think Coach Brooks pushed the move. Today AD's are really CEO's/CFO's they're not burned out coaches that the board gives a job so they can park awhile until they retire. It's all about generating revenue. Pure and simple. I'd make a sizable wager that given his druthers Mitch would have left the game where it was. Too much exposure too much TV jackola. Mitch would not have moved on this thing unless Coach Brooks pushed extremely hard.

[poodoo]

All that said, I'm not a professional coach nor administrator and while I have opinions as to how to build a winning program, I also have to defer to the people who have the experience in that field and who we've hired to do just that. Now if they don't make acceptable progress toward that goal (however 'acceptable progress' is defined) then they have to be replaced. But I believe you have to let the people you hire work their system. Thus I support whatever Barnhart/Brooks think is best for the program, even when I disagree with them.




Jim

Excellently expressed, Jim. FWIW, I feel quite similarly.

[TrueblueCATfan]

I'll expound a little on my point of view.

Personally, I like the game being the first one of the season. I like the hype during the weeks leading up to it, the almost guaranteed television, and so forth. I think it's a great way to get excited about the coming season for a fan base which, historically and to a large extent, has needed a reason to get excited about football. Yes, there are die-hards like the many in this forum who are perpetually excited about football and who don't need any external stimulus whatsoever. But, I believe the fact remains that a significant portion of the UK fan base needs a jump start in order to get excited about football and the UL game is a way to get that group going.

All that said, I'm not a professional coach nor administrator and while I have opinions as to how to build a winning program, I also have to defer to the people who have the experience in that field and who we've hired to do just that. Now if they don't make acceptable progress toward that goal (however 'acceptable progress' is defined) then they have to be replaced. But I believe you have to let the people you hire work their system. Thus I support whatever Barnhart/Brooks think is best for the program, even when I disagree with them.

With regard to exposure, I agree that in general exposure is good. But winning brings exposure. Case in point, who outside Kentucky really knew much about UL until Petrino started winning big? It's my belief that, consequently, if we start winning big the exposure will follow. Which is why I said earlier it's about wins, not about TV.

Just my $0.02.


Jim

great post jwade.....and I agree

[bleedblue79]

IMHO there are positives and negatives to this situation. The game has been moved for this season and that cannot now be changed. I want to let it play out and see what happens.

Positive-we have two games under our belt to work out the kinks and let the O-line get some gametime experience, uavel will have played some games with their new coach and we will get a look at some of their schemes.

Negative-no live TV for those not lucky enough to be in attendance or who live far away, loss of exposure from the television coverage if we should upset them.

Maybe it will all balance out. Uavel gets to choose when it's their turn to host the games. Seems fair to me.

GO BIG BLUE!!!

[poodoo]

IMHO there are positives and negatives to this situation. The game has been moved for this season and that cannot now be changed. I want to let it play out and see what happens.

Positive-we have two games under our belt to work out the kinks and let the O-line get some gametime experience, uavel will have played some games with their new coach and we will get a look at some of their schemes.

Negative-no live TV for those not lucky enough to be in attendance or who live far away, loss of exposure from the television coverage if we should upset them.

Maybe it will all balance out. Uavel gets to choose when it's their turn to host the games. Seems fair to me.

GO BIG BLUE!!!

Excellent post, bleedblue79.

Too, I agree that it is only fair that we select the date when it's our "turn." Sure, if we win this game, we're hating that we missed out on the national exposure (besides feeling for the UK fans who are unable to attend the game, period :icon_sad:). However, what concerns me the most is that we do indeed WIN THE GAME. I feel sure all UK fans feel the same about that. :) GO CATS! BEAT THE CARDS!

[JDHoss]

National exposure? If you think anyone outside of UK & UaVel fans have more than a passing interest in this game, you are kidding yourself. If televised, it's smack in the middle of the last holiday weekend of summer. No one except the UK & UaVel fans, and a portion of hardcore football fans will be watching. The majority of the country will be out enjoying their long weekend instead of glued to their tv sets. If the Cats win, it will be on the back page of the nation's papers. If the Cats lose, it will be on the back page. I'm fine with moving the game.

[DCWildcat]

National exposure? If you think anyone outside of UK & UaVel fans have more than a passing interest in this game, you are kidding yourself. If televised, it's smack in the middle of the last holiday weekend of summer. No one except the UK & UaVel fans, and a portion of hardcore football fans will be watching. The majority of the country will be out enjoying their long weekend instead of glued to their tv sets. If the Cats win, it will be on the back page of the nation's papers. If the Cats lose, it will be on the back page. I'm fine with moving the game.

Any game on TV, regardless of who we play, is great for exposure. If we played the game on the last week, here's what we'd be up against (last year's schedule):

Florida/Florida St.
South Carolina/Clemson
Notre Dame/USC
Texas/Texas A&M

Not to mention a ton of within-state rivalries (OU/Okla St., Miss/Miss St., UVA/Va Tech). There's NO chance that UK/UL gets televised in that timeframe; the mere suggestion would probably make ESPN execs crack up.

It doesn't matter that the game's in summer, we'll still get positive viewership, compared to 0 viewership if it was played at the end of the year.

Additionally, am I the only one that thinks UK/UT is a rivalry deserving of the last game slot in its own right?

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

Additionally, am I the only one that thinks UK/UT is a rivalry deserving of the last game slot in its own right?


Nope. I feel the same way. It's traditionally the last game on UK's schedule. Traditions are what make college football such a great game.

Like the tradition of playing Louisville first... :icon_sad:

[FCFS82]

Any game on TV, regardless of who we play, is great for exposure. If we played the game on the last week, here's what we'd be up against (last year's schedule):

Florida/Florida St.
South Carolina/Clemson
Notre Dame/USC
Texas/Texas A&M

Not to mention a ton of within-state rivalries (OU/Okla St., Miss/Miss St., UVA/Va Tech). There's NO chance that UK/UL gets televised in that timeframe; the mere suggestion would probably make ESPN execs crack up.

It doesn't matter that the game's in summer, we'll still get positive viewership, compared to 0 viewership if it was played at the end of the year.

Additionally, am I the only one that thinks UK/UT is a rivalry deserving of the last game slot in its own right?

Just to note... USC plays at Notre Dame each October when the game is in South Bend.

Also, when did Kentucky become Tennessee's rival?

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

Just to note... USC plays at Notre Dame each October when the game is in South Bend.

Also, when did Kentucky become Tennessee's rival?

It's a rivalry. If we were just going to win one game a year, I'd want it to be that one.

[RedandBlackATTACK]

UT UK is still a rivalry for UK, I am not convinced it remains one for Utee. UK’s last win I believe was in 84, that’s a long drought. Consideration should be given to permanently moving the UL game to that slot, if for no other reason to increase UK chances of getting a win over the Vols. Given that UK’s last win was In ‘84, you have to try something/anything to get that gorilla off your back.
Either that or resort to brining in a “witch doctor”. Desperate times-desperate measures, we’re a couple or three years away from not beating these guys in 30 years, although this year is looking good and win may even put an end to Fat Phil’s UT career.
Rick
C-Bus

[ImForKy]

Like the tradition of playing Louisville first... :icon_sad:

Yeah, the same "tradition" that Loserville broke first. :icon_rolleyes:

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

Yeah, the same "tradition" that Loserville broke first. :icon_rolleyes:


They messed up their tradition. Not ours. Louisville has been our season-opener for a long time up until this year.

[FCFS82]

It's a rivalry. If we were just going to win one game a year, I'd want it to be that one.

Uh, my friend Scott has never been worried about winning the UK game from a rivalry standpoint. Its been more of a "we (UT) better win this game or the coach is immediately fired" kinda thing.

[bleedbluelady]

National exposure? If you think anyone outside of UK & UaVel fans have more than a passing interest in this game, you are kidding yourself. If televised, it's smack in the middle of the last holiday weekend of summer. No one except the UK & UaVel fans, and a portion of hardcore football fans will be watching. The majority of the country will be out enjoying their long weekend instead of glued to their tv sets. If the Cats win, it will be on the back page of the nation's papers. If the Cats lose, it will be on the back page. I'm fine with moving the game.

IMHO, this is true. No matter how some want to argue. :icon_confused::icon_sad:

[Matt Dillon]

[QUOTE=BowlingGreenUKGrad;296340]Nope. I feel the same way. It's traditionally the last game on UK's schedule. Traditions are what make college football such a great game.

Same here.

[tedukcat]

One good thing about no TV coverage is that we won't have the ref with the red hat ( or what ever color it is), out on the field. holding things up. WHich could be a great advantage for us. I have noticed alot of times when we come out of tv timeout,, we get burned on some big play,,, sorta breaks our rythem,,and the other team has a game breaker play,,,i understand. that we should be ready for anything,, but for the most part we have had a very young team,,, who knows maybe they have grown, and won't be fooled this year by trick plays,,,aka SC!!
My 2 cents,,, and this won't buy ya nothing,,,but I'll be at the game,,screaming for the CATS to beat UofL by 50,,and if we win by 1,, i'll be the happiest cat fan there!!