The Old School JPS
01-03-2008, 01:03 PM
. . . for the longest time, U of L could not shut up about how absolutely necessary it was that the UK vs. UL game be the very first one of the season. That was all well and good for them when they had a stable program and coaching situation, lots of returning stars and bowl-related extended practices when Kentucky did not.
Now that the tables are turned, though, how vocal will that same crew be about insisting that the game always be the first of the season?
They wouldn't dare suggest changing it for next season, after all the crying they've done over the issue. I know, they did it once previously, when it suited their purposes to get in an extra game ahead of UK by scheduling New Mexico State - and thus demonstrated that leading the season off with the rivalry game was not, in fact, all that important to them on principle.
However, if things continue as they have - UK bowling consistently, Kragthorpe and Co. continuing to have difficulties, especially now that they're rebuilding without the likes of Brohm, Urrutia, etc. - how long until that insistence that it be the first game simply disappears?
The news media - more committed to stirring up controversy where there is none, instead of just reporting facts - hugely abetted UL in making a big deal out of this. Will they step up to the plate just as vocally if UL starts to back away from their previous position?
Regardless, in 2008, that dynamic - the UK vs. UL game being the first of the season, and only one of the two teams having the advantage of extra bowl-related practices - favors UK, not UL.
Now that the tables are turned, though, how vocal will that same crew be about insisting that the game always be the first of the season?
They wouldn't dare suggest changing it for next season, after all the crying they've done over the issue. I know, they did it once previously, when it suited their purposes to get in an extra game ahead of UK by scheduling New Mexico State - and thus demonstrated that leading the season off with the rivalry game was not, in fact, all that important to them on principle.
However, if things continue as they have - UK bowling consistently, Kragthorpe and Co. continuing to have difficulties, especially now that they're rebuilding without the likes of Brohm, Urrutia, etc. - how long until that insistence that it be the first game simply disappears?
The news media - more committed to stirring up controversy where there is none, instead of just reporting facts - hugely abetted UL in making a big deal out of this. Will they step up to the plate just as vocally if UL starts to back away from their previous position?
Regardless, in 2008, that dynamic - the UK vs. UL game being the first of the season, and only one of the two teams having the advantage of extra bowl-related practices - favors UK, not UL.
