UL has had a very solid football program since the 90's. How much of that has been due to solid coaches and players and how much due to mediocre conferences...up for debate. Surely a bit of both. That said, Petrino has you on the right track and an ACC affiliation so the future looks strong.
As far as UL being UK's superbowl for most of BBN...all i can do is speak to my personal feelings and experience with personal friends and fans on the UK message boards. Right now, the UL game holds a much higher level of importance because of the current losing streak and the fact that most UK fans very much dislike Petrino. But most fans i know, have historically liked to measure our ultimate success to wins in the SEC. Clearly the SEC wins have been few and far between for the better part of five decades. But the times we've been most excited as a program have come when we were beating good teams and competitive in almost every game in the SEC(2007 being the best example). Beating UL at least a good amount of the time is seen as a crucial next step up the ladder to going to bowls consistently and making the program competitive again in the SEC. Not to mention, the benefits beating UL would add to our recent dominance of recruiting Kentucky.
What i find a bit delusional is the mindset that UL is so historically dominant over UK. UL has won about 60% of the modern series games. Coming from a fanbase that has seen 30 straight loses to Florida and a 30 and 1 mark against UT, 60% hardly qualifies as crushing dominance to us. I can almost guarantee most UK fans would prefer a win over, UF, UT, BAMA or UGA over a win over UL. Just my two cents..
It's difficult to know where to begin with this drivel. Let's make it simple, instead, shall we?
One of the primary reasons UofL has had this "nice run" since 1990 is in the fact that coaches here were under no illusions about being a recruiting powerhouse. Instead, these men stressed player development, recruiting athletes instead of peering over "star ratings" developed by suspicious sources. In the draft where Teddy Bridgewater went to Minnesota, we had two other players rated higher who also went in the first round. Both of these gentlemen were recruited initially as QB's - did you know this? Adaptability, strength, speed have been the hallmarks of defeating the challenges which were in front of Louisville. I would say we have done well in this regard. We most certainly did not begin recruiting with the same silver spoon UK chokes on yearly.
Any game which is played on the final day of the season and which presents an opportunity for a bowl game is your Super Bowl. Saying anything else is hilarious. Your urge to put yourself in some bizarre superior position is equally ludicrous. And Lord knows that is the fundamental reason you post here.
Your amazingly terrific "domination" of "recruiting the state" has somehow omitted the recruiting of James Quick, Reggie Bonnafon, Gary Barnidge, George Tinch, Devante Parker, Rodjay, Mike Bush, Brian Brohm - and a list that could exhaust us all as we assess players who actually played the game at a high level.
In other words, every single thing you said, aside from giving us credit where you did, is a reiteration of the same old crap, lol. None of it serves any purpose save for your own ego - a terrific and hilarious solipsism that defines your own unreachable self-assessment.
But you know what? Inasmuch as those delusions consist of your fan base's baseline, it also guarantees the bar set will always be about eel height.
Furthermore, your completely juvenile hostility to Louisville make it easier to mock you and makes us all less sympathetic to your consistent failure.
