Mid-Afternoon Football Fix....by Rob Gidel (8/29)

[WildcatRick]

1) As a poster on this site reported last night in our comments section, cornerback David Jones had surgery to repair a ruptured appendix last night. Jones, who converted to cornerback from wide receiver at the beginning of fall camp, has a redshirt year at his disposal. This might finally cause the staff to use it, although there has been no official word from anyone in UK's camp that's what they intend to do. Jones changed positions in part, because he thought he had a better shot to see the field at corner this year, than at the wide receiver position he adopted last fall. The junior-to-be caught 7 balls for 101 yards in his first year at wideout, recording a career high 2 receptions for 31 yards against Vanderbilt and a season high 44 yards against Louisiana-Monroe on one reception.

2) Former UK quarterback and current Arizona Cardinal Shane Boyd looked great last night in a 33-31 loss to the San Diego Chargers. The Lexington native finished with 64 yards passing, 15 yards rushing and led the Cardinals on what should have been the game-winning drive with just over a minute left. Boyd lobbed a five-yard fade touchdown pass to 6-foot-6 rookie receiver Matt Trannon, but watched as Arizona blew the game from the sidelines, afterwards. Every NFL team must get down to 53 players by September 1rst, meaning the team still has 21 more cuts to make after Thursday's pre-season finale against Denver. For what it's worth, Boyd was one of only three quarterbacks to play. It appears the decision won't necessarily be if Boyd is the third quarterback, but if the Cardinals will carry three quarterbacks on its roster of 53. Some teams do carry two and leave a third on its practice squad.

3) The question continues to linger as to if the Wildcats can fly under the radar again in 2007. My belief is that, although the Wildcats made huge strides last year, they will still be overlooked by SEC opponents. Should they win some games early, perhaps that might change, but in the mind of many prognosticators (such as Phil Steele) and others, the Wildcats are still going to be the cellar-dweller of the SEC East. With that in mind, it's my belief, the Cardinals are the least susceptible to overlooking the Wildcats because they are an in-state rival and they've had an entire summer to hear about how improved Kentucky is going to be. Whereas the Florida's, Georgia's, LSU's, Tennessee's and Arkansas' did not. The cliché upset pick continues to be Louisville and while I agree UK's time certainly is seemingly coming in the Bluegrass Rivalry, I tend to side that Kentucky's best chance at an upset could still be during weeks that opponents will look to the Wildcats as an R&R vacation from their grueling SEC slate. There are oddly enough, great opportunities to catch teams in sandwich games in 2007.

http://blog.kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=3338

[gerntz]

"Why do you think the basketball program has been so good for so long? The alumni refuse to allow it to become middle-tier. They helped build basketball practice facilities that are state of the art, because they will not accept Kentucky being middle of the road. In football? They could care less."

This bugs me Not that he wrote it but because I believe it's accurate. I have problems with frontrunners that only support winners and folks that don't recognize the superior team game that football is.

I thought MB was going to change this perception. NOT to date apparently.

[Matt Dillon]

"Why do you think the basketball program has been so good for so long? The alumni refuse to allow it to become middle-tier. They helped build basketball practice facilities that are state of the art, because they will not accept Kentucky being middle of the road. In football? They could care less."

This bugs me Not that he wrote it but because I believe it's accurate. I have problems with frontrunners that only support winners and folks that don't recognize the superior team game that football is.

I thought MB was going to change this perception. NOT to date apparently.

UK's been a bb school (not to my liking) for so long, I don't know if anyone can change the mindset of the Big Blue bb faithful. Probably the thing that would do the most to change things would be if UK reaches the point where they're contending for the SEC title and going to a major bowl every season and, perhaps, contending for the NC occassionally.

[RCS]

UK's been a bb school (not to my liking) for so long, I don't know if anyone can change the mindset of the Big Blue bb faithful. Probably the thing that would do the most to change things would be if UK reaches the point where they're contending for the SEC title and going to a major bowl every season and, perhaps, contending for the NC occassionally.
The only way to change perception is to change reality. UK has been pretty terrible in football for the last 50 years. It is hard to support a team that never has any success. It gets old.

If UK can start contending for the SEC title the fans will come out in droves. Most UK fans want to be fans of football they are just sick of the losing. There are some people that have no real connection to UK that are UK BB fans because they were good when they were young or they liked the way they played or whatever, that probably will never support the football team, but I don't think that is the majority.

Kentucky as a state loves football. HS football is a big deal around here. If UK started wining 9 games a year every year we would no longer be called a BB school. Look at UF, even those fans, who cared WAY less about BB than we care about football have started supporting that team now that they are winners. It is much easier to support a team with 7 NC than one with no major success in 50 years. If we had a team even as good as say, Ga Tech, who has been to bowls 8 or 10 straight years and has a 10 win team every 3-4 years, there wouldn't be a seat available at Commonwealth.

[Will Lavender]

This bugs me Not that he wrote it but because I believe it's accurate. I have problems with frontrunners that only support winners and folks that don't recognize the superior team game that football is.

You must have a big problem with me, then.

I dislike the game of football and pretty much watch just UK. I think the game rewards athleticism and genetics at the amateur level more than any other major sport (for all its talk of strategy, the game is really about speed, isn't it?), and the playing field is so severely tipped toward the eight or nine big players in the country that most of the "small" programs -- like UK -- have such a difficult time overthrowing the big boys that it's almost a foregone conclusion that you're beat against these teams before you step on the field.

To wit:

I was looking at Athlon's top 50 recruiting report the other day.

Florida, Texas, and USC had 35 players on the list. Thirty-five. That's insane. It disheartened me just looking at it -- but it's only been that way, more or less, for a half-century.

[I. Melvin]

GA Tech has the huge advantage of playing in the ACC. A good league, for sure, but not the top-to-bottom March to Bataan that is the SEC.

If we really want to start going to bowls more often than not, we'll wangle an invitation to the Big 10.

[Craig the Blueheart]

"Why do you think the basketball program has been so good for so long? The alumni refuse to allow it to become middle-tier. They helped build basketball practice facilities that are state of the art, because they will not accept Kentucky being middle of the road. In football? They could care less."

This bugs me Not that he wrote it but because I believe it's accurate. I have problems with frontrunners that only support winners and folks that don't recognize the superior team game that football is.

I thought MB was going to change this perception. NOT to date apparently.

I think that MB has done a wonderful job of changing the perception. For the first time in perhaps my lifetime, we are talking about a legit football team with the chance to surprise major football programs. Ticket sales are sky high, and more student tickets have sold this year when compared to any recent seasons. That is not perception; it is reality.

[gerntz]

You must have a big problem with me, then.

I dislike the game of football and pretty much watch just UK. I think the game rewards athleticism and genetics at the amateur level more than any other major sport (for all its talk of strategy, the game is really about speed, isn't it?), and the playing field is so severely tipped toward the eight or nine big players in the country that most of the "small" programs -- like UK -- have such a difficult time overthrowing the big boys that it's almost a foregone conclusion that you're beat against these teams before you step on the field.

To wit:

I was looking at Athlon's top 50 recruiting report the other day.

Florida, Texas, and USC had 35 players on the list. Thirty-five. That's insane. It disheartened me just looking at it -- but it's only been that way, more or less, for a half-century.

Are you a front runner? If so, yes, I don't respect you as a sports fan, just someone who someone thinks they're better/smarter because they root for a winner.

If you like basketball over football because you think it takes more skill & more teamwork, then I just think you're wrong. If you like hoops for whatever aesthetic reason - say guys running around in shorts - OK, you just have a different opinion. Just what is it about hoops you like better than FB as a team game (leave UK out of it)?

Hoops players are superior primarily because because of their natural height. Yes, they work at their craft to develop the sport skill - as do those in other sports. A single hoops player can dominate a game way more than a single FB player can since there's five vs. at least 22 playing. Hence, it's not near the team sport FB is. Hoops players can develop a lot of their skills alone. That's near impossible in FB. You must grow as a group/combination. It's way more like chess with live pieces.

There's over 300 Division one hoops schools versus 120 in FB. Of course the talent is going to be more concentrated in FB.

Training as a team is much more important in FB than to hoops. Take the first team AA in hoops and put them on the court against practically any existing team and with no practice they have a good chance of winning without coaching. Try the same for FB and they have no chance against the top half of teams. Additionally, FB players are way more molded into FB players than being naturally athletic & tall as hoops players are. Linemen need developed strength & footwork that only coaches bring.

FB teams are way more molded/formed by their staffs than hoops team are. We have a decent chance against the FL team you cite with top recruits, assuming the recruiting gurus know what they're talking about, because of the FB teamwork aspect een though our recruits were considered mediorce at the time.

[RV]

This has been said before and I'll say it again. You can't apply basketball recruiting (fill in your own word) to football. No way - no how. It will always be apples to oranges.

[poodoo]

I think that MB has done a wonderful job of changing the perception. For the first time in perhaps my lifetime, we are talking about a legit football team with the chance to surprise major football programs. Ticket sales are sky high, and more student tickets have sold this year when compared to any recent seasons. That is not perception; it is reality.

FWIW, I agree that Mitch Barnhart cares a lot about UK football and has done a very good job of helping to change the perception. Having said that, I realize we now need to pull off some of those upsets of some major football programs. MAY IT HAPPEN! :) GO CATS!!!

[Will Lavender]

FB teams are way more molded/formed by their staffs than hoops team are. We have a decent chance against the FL team you cite with top recruits, assuming the recruiting gurus know what they're talking about, because of the FB teamwork aspect een though our recruits were considered mediorce at the time.

You make some great points, gerntz, and really it's just subjective anyway. It's like talking about which is a better kind of music.

But I will say that I think the deck is stacked so unfairly in college football. How long has it been since UK beat Tennessee? Florida? Before the '90s, Alabama? When you can go literally two decades and not beat a team that you play yearly, there's something severely tipped in the power balance of that sport.

[johnkyblue]

Yeah, it's called cheating.

"The only way I'll have any coach other than Brooks is if they promise to pay more of their salary to SEC refs than Fulmer." - me, two or three years ago.