Hey, everybody, long time, no see.  I thought I'd jump on the moaning, teeth-gnashing bandwagon while it was still rolling and put our fair fanbase into even more panic and turmoil by examining Kentucky's recruiting class for FOOTBALL in 2010.  You remember football, don't you?  The game with that oblong ball and the grass with pads and stuff?  Good.

I checked Rivals this morning because I'd noticed a complete dearth of comment on Joker's first freshman class as head coach and nearly had an aneurysm.  Brace yourselves, Cats fans: sliding in at last place in the SEC (and it's not even close), your own Kentucky Wildcats.  We have zero five star commitments (expected).  We have zero four star commitments (not expected at all).  We have fifteen three stars (meh).  And some other guys to carry Morgan Newton's Gatorade, I guess.

What gives?  Wasn't Joker's strategy of (1) Don't sign anyone early; (2)__________; (3) PROFIT! supposed to bring in some really stellar high school talent?  Wasn't that part of the whole "head coach in waiting" benefits package, recruiting continuity and improvement?  Why is that dog over there laughing at me?  These are a lot of questions that I would like to answer, but cannot.  Here's hoping Joker knows what he's doing, or his seat will start heating up before he even gets to sit in it.

Okay, that's that.  You may now resume attacking our basketball team via Twitter, Omegle, and YouFace.  Go Cats!

That's Lane Kiffin's house.  via riannanworld.typepad.com

I'll go ahead and preface this post by saying I'm not quite as confident going into Saturday's game as Ken is.  After the jump (in a continuing effort to keep Howlett's good work on the level), I'll explain in a little more detail why I'm less than enthused about our chances this weekend.  Oh, and whoever that guy is who always says "not a football fan, but Kentucky basketball forever!", come on, man.  Come. On..

Continue reading this post »

We're all well aware that the sages of Garnet and Black Attack and our very on Truwhateveritis are editors of the weekly SEC Power Poll.  Tru hasn't posted his votes (I don't think) just yet, so I thought I'd take a moment and put together my own.  Naturally, this doesn't count whatsoever in the big-boy poll, so I can put the Cats ANYWHERE I PLEASE, SUCK IT VOLZAAAAAHHHGGH!

Excuse me, blacked out there.  Anyway, hyah it is:

1. Alabama - The score was close but the game wasn't so much.  They were pretty dominant.
   
2. LSU - Washington outgained the Bayou Bengals and rolled up over 400 yards in a loss.  That Tiger D needs to get it together fast.
   
3. Ole Miss - Jevan Snead & Co. looked pretty shaky in the first half against Memphis.  Not sure whether or not to chalk it up to first-game jitters.  The D did look pretty solid.
4. Auburn - They were actually losing for a minute before the managed to take control and pile on a pretty good Louisiana Tech team.
   
5. Kentucky - Only here because they were the one of the few schools to play a D-1 team and beat them into the turf.
   
6. Tennessee - Yes, it was against Western Kentucky.  But they showed they had a lot more on offense than anyone thought.
7. Georgia - There are lots of excuses for losing that game, but Okie State's defense had a lot to do with it.
   
8. South Carolina - The defense was OMG scary, the offense was pretty terrible.  Still, a win over a BCS school should count for something.
9. Florida - Might as well have played a high school team.  Are they really worse than any of the teams above?  Of course not, but until they play someone other than a 1-AA team, they don't get the cred.
10. Vanderbilt - Looked great in their opener against Western Carolina.  But beating cupcakes won't get you very far in the SEC, it's common practice.
11. Arkansas - Petrino may have that offense in high gear again, but it's hard to tell against Missouri State.
    
12. Mississippi State - Could be better than we thought.  I don't think they put up 47 points in all of 2008.

Some caveats: Please remember this is a week-by-week deal.  Commies fans will not like being ranked where they are, but I ask that they remember that they played a bad team from the FCS.  Kentucky is probably not better than UT, Georgia, and definitely not Florida, but they looked better against tougher competition (marginally, anyway).  That being said, feel free to rip me apart in the comments.

Picture is unrelated. Via pictureisunrelated.com

So I, like some of you who can manage to distract yourselves from the "Guiding Light" episode that seems to be the everyday lives of Rick Pitino and Billy Gillispie, have been reading quite a few preseason picks for the SEC lately.  And I'd say 4 out of 5 of them have Kentucky finishing dead last in the SEC East.  In most years, I'd say that's par for the course and work on mending my tent so I could camp out for Midnight Madness tickets.  But if the last three years have taught us anything, it's that Kentucky doesn't totally suck at football anymore.  You've read what Ken, Tru et al. have had to say about the team.  It's probably better (if reports from camp are true) than it was last year, and even though last year was tough to swallow, it still ended in a bowl win.  So you'd think that other people might notice, right?  Wrong.  This one from Team Speed Kills in particular just really grinds my gears, disclaimer by the author notwithstanding:

Kentucky

 

DATE	OPPONENT	OUTCOME
5-Sep	@ Miami (OH)	W
19-Sep	Louisville	W
26-Sep	Florida	L
3-Oct	Alabama	L
10-Oct	@ South Carolina	L
17-Oct	@ Auburn	L
24-Oct	Louisiana-Monroe	W
31-Oct	Mississippi State	W
7-Nov	Eastern Kentucky	L
14-Nov	@ Vanderbilt	L
21-Nov	@ Georgia	L
28-Nov	Tennessee	L

Kentucky just wasn't very good last season, and they made it to bowl season largely on the back of a terrible non-conference schedule. The terrible non-conference schedule is back, but I just don't see improvement from the Wildcats that many of the other conference teams will make. Going with Mike Hartline under center over Randall Cobb didn't inspire confidence, and losing Jeremy Jarmon was the last straw.

One SEC win.  One.  With two All-America candidates in the defensive secondary.  With one of the few QBs in the league with actual game experience.  With a freaking stable of thoroughbred running backs and receivers that can apparently catch the football now. 

Are we still dealing with this?  The cupboard behind last year's starters wasn't bare, folks.  If Coach Brooks says we're better than we were last year, I believe him.  Some might chalk that up to coach-speak, but if there's one currency we know Papa Rich doesn't trade in, it's BS.  So am I right to get my shorts in a wad every time I read something like this, or should I just suck it up and let the Cats prove it on the field?  I'm inclined to do both, but let me know if you see it differently.

UPDATE:  Here's a link to the story.

I would have to guess that most anyone with a high school diploma read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 at some point in time.  It's not the most fun book to read but it does, in a roundabout fashion, warn its readers against the dangers of censorship and the relinquishment of control to authority in general.  Well apparently, the thinktank that put together the SEC's new media and ticketholder policy totally missed that week of English class or are huge fans of the George Orwell's 1984 antagonist, Big Brother, because check it out:

Continue reading this post »

via assets.espn.go.com

Take the above image and repeat about five or six times and you have Commies at Cats, 2008.  Several blogs lately have pointed out that the Doormat Bowl has evolved from answering the question of "who's going to be at the bottom of the league" to "who's going to be at the bottom of the league, but also gets to go to a bowl?"  That wasn't the case in 2008, as Kentucky got torched and still went to the Liberty Bowl.  It might not be the case in 2009, either, as South Carolina or Tennessee could easily fail their way to the same East basement that Vandy and UK have struggled so mightily to climb out of.  Of course, every conference game is important, but, because UK/VU tends to happen so late in the season, it always seems like a fulcrum-type game, and 2009 looks to shape up that way, too.  Chris Low calls the game a "fork in the road" for Kentucky, and Team Speed Kills calls it one of the 10 games that will shape the SEC this year.

Cocknfire over at TSK does a pretty good job breaking down the game, and I've taken a look at it myself recently, albeit a brief one.  Of all the games on the schedule this year for both the Cats and Commodores, this was the hardest one for me to pick (or push).  Here's a deeper look, and why it's probably not going to matter come November 14th anyway:

Continue reading this post »

"...and then I poked him RIGHT IN THE EYE." via cache.daylife.com

View full size photo »

I love Jimmy Buffett so I was going for the song thing in the title, but nothing rhymes with "strategy."  Moving on...

Recruiting isn't really Tru's thing, I know, and it's not mine, either.  I like to pretend that recruiting doesn't actually happen; that the kids that show up at Kirwan I every fall are there because they, you know, like it in Lexington or something.  Having to consider what actually happens on the recruiting trail hurts my headspot too much, so I ignore it for the most part.  That being said, one of the most profound things I took away from last week's Media Days event was a quote from Georgia defensive tackle Jeff Owens.  Owens said (and I'm paraphrasing because Larry Vaught likes to copyright everything he writes) that the problem Kentucky's had with competing in the SEC East comes down to talent. 

That's probably true, with some caveats.  NFL types, especially scouts, seem to think that all it takes to create a successful college football team is to amass some talent and put it out there on the playing field.  NFL types also think that it's acceptable to pay $8.00 for light beer at their games.  Talent is very important of course, but to say that it's everything belies the importance of coaching said talent once it reaches said field.  Going past the coaching edge, though, and you see why the Kentuckys and Vanderbilts of the SEC have struggled so mightily for so long: they can't get enough of the right kinds of players to fill out a roster.

Kentucky has some geographic and historical mountains to climb, but Coach Brooks recently addressed a sea change in the program's approach to college football's very lifeblood:

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's Note:  I have asked AnythingButGatorade to guest blog at A Sea of Blue for a while.  I hope you will all give him a proper welcome and enjoy his commentary.]

Funny, I thought the SEC East looked just like Tim Tebow.

via www.bethelinc.com

By this point, all of the pre-season fanboy mags are out, be it Athlon, Sporting News, Lindy's, or the sainted screed of Phil Steele.  Any chance his name is kind of close to Philistine?  I think not.  In any event, if you look at how the national and regional pundits have ranked the SEC you'll find Kentucky in its usual spot: dead last or second to dead last.

As Ken pointed out earlier, there are a lot of reasons why no one gives the Cats a chance to climb their way up the ladder and reach for the stars, etc.  Kentucky has an exceedingly difficult time beating SEC competition.  You know those streaks everyone likes to talk about?  The ones that make you want to drive your Rich Brooks edition Ford F-150 into the nearest telephone pole?  They're all against teams in our own division: Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina.  The Cats have only beaten UGA once in the last fifteen tries.  Our record against Vanderbilt since 1990 is only 11-8.  And here's where the news gets even worse: everyone is getting better.

Yes, Rich Brooks and I both believe that this year's offensive unit will outperform last year's (how can it not?).  We know that the secondary is very good.  But let's look at this year's eastern division, briefly, and see how we stack up.

Continue reading this post »

As I watched the game washed my car last night, I noticed that the UK cheerleaders had new uniforms with the ubiquitous "UK" logo on them rather than the old block "K".  I have always liked the block "K" better, and now the "UK" logo is looking more and more like Houston's "UH" and some other team I can't remember at the moment.

The point is, what made the university change the logo?  I remember when it happened back in the late '90's, but I don't remember why.  Somebody help?