Are you for -- or against -- a 9-game SEC Football Schedule?

[Darrell KSR]

Mitch Barnhart says that Kentucky's position is a consistent, "no, no, no."

Is your position the same?

If Kentucky goes to a 9-game football schedule, what would the other 3 games look like? Louisville and two patsies? Something else? Would it result in Louisville being booted?

Thoughts?

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/05/06/2629934/mark-story-barnhart-says-kentucky.html

[jazyd]

No, if we play 9 games forget a bowl

[KeithKSR]

I think play your divisional teams only.

[catmanjack]

No and I would guess most SEC teams would say no also.
A 9 game schedule would set UK and stoops back.

[dtalbersjr]

I'm 1000% for a 9 game schedule, and I want to keep Louisville on the schedule too.

My goal is not to be able to make a bowl game. 70+ teams make bowl games now. It's no longer an accomplishment. I want to play and beat good teams.

Even if we go to 9 games, we're going to have a MINIMUM of 6 winnable games every year (UofL, other 2 non-conference games, Vandy, Mizzou and Miss St). No excuses. Recruit better players, develop them, and start winning games.

[VirginiaCat]

HELL NO! Is that plain enough....

[kingcat]

I dunno. I am in favor of competing with the best.

If we can't..I really don't want to follow college football that religiously anyway.

[Terminus]

I would only vote yes if all of the other major conferences played a Championship game and the equivalent 9-game conference schedule. Obvioulsly the SEC slate is going to be the toughest, but if we're on an even playing field with the others I'm good with it.

[BarristerCat]

I'm 1000% for a 9 game schedule, and I want to keep Louisville on the schedule too.

My goal is not to be able to make a bowl game. 70+ teams make bowl games now. It's no longer an accomplishment. I want to play and beat good teams.

Even if we go to 9 games, we're going to have a MINIMUM of 6 winnable games every year (UofL, other 2 non-conference games, Vandy, Mizzou and Miss St). No excuses. Recruit better players, develop them, and start winning games.

There's no way around the fact that adding a conference game takes away one winnable game. The game that replaces it might be winnable, or it might not be. You absolutely lose one winnable game by adding a conference game, though.

Beyond that, the fact that it is our goal as a program to get to the point where we can beat all comers doesn't mean we should deliberately look to make it harder on ourselves.

[Darrell KSR]

Interesting numbers to me. Looks like nearly 90% are against it--UNLESS you drop Louisville as an out-of-conference game.

If you do that, then it's pretty much 50-50.

[suncat05]

NO, NO, and HELL NO!! 8 SEC games is enough already.

[UKHistory]

9 conference games almost requires we drop UofL to ensure home game revenue. Doesn't guarantee a win but it does allow us to have a home game.

[BarristerCat]

9 conference games almost requires we drop UofL to ensure home game revenue. Doesn't guarantee a win but it does allow us to have a home game.

A really good point.

[Darrell KSR]

9 conference games almost requires we drop UofL to ensure home game revenue. Doesn't guarantee a win but it does allow us to have a home game.


A really good point.

That is a really good point. Some years with 9 conference games, you would play only 4 home games. Would need all 3 out of conference opponents to be home games just to get to 7. Ideally, you'd like 8 at least every other year.

[ShoesSwayedBlue]

No, and after Stoops gets few in a row against U of L we need to drop them anyway.

[KeithKSR]

The SEC needs to add two more teams to get to 16, then cut the number of SEC games to 7. That gives the SEC two true divisional champions who will meet for the league title.

As it is now league games should be cut back to six and play only divisional opponents.

Any time you have interdivisional play it will result in unbalanced scheduling and you can not rely on your best team winning either division.

[Darrell KSR]

The SEC needs to add two more teams to get to 16, then cut the number of SEC games to 7. That gives the SEC two true divisional champions who will meet for the league title.

As it is now league games should be cut back to six and play only divisional opponents.

Any time you have interdivisional play it will result in unbalanced scheduling and you can not rely on your best team winning either division.

I would be in favor of this, too. It would also give the luxury to schedule an interesting out-of-conference game occasionally.

[Poetax]

I say NO, but for the reason that other weaker conferences will always have more wins while SEC would be beating up on each other. Heck, a Bama, LSU, or Texas A&M might overlook a Kentucky, Vandy, or Miss State, and lose a game which would ruin their run for a NC, and rest of us for any decent bowl game.

[ram]

We need to schedule in a way that almost guarantees bowl eligibility every year. We should be able to count on beating Vandy every year along with picking up at least one other conference game. Our ooc games need to be guaranteed wins and guaranteed home games until we reach the next level.

ram