Right, I think UK is obviously much less likely to achieve maintained success than Louisville but I don't think going 8-4 on down years would be unreasonable. Louisville plays UK, UVA, BC, NC State, Wake, Clemson, Syracuse, Florida State, and a random coastal opponent every year.
Thats 9 games. Louisville has been scheduling games with teams like Alabama and Auburn to open the season but those are probably an exception to the rule. Most years UL can easily get 3 wins in their non-conference. UL should nearly always be better than Wake, UVA and Syracuse or at least rarely lose to them, that's 5-6 wins. UK, NC State, BC, FSU, random coastal team and Clemson round out the schedule. I don't think its far fetched at all to think they would win 2 of those as long as the program hasn't totally bottomed out. So I think even when UL isn't great the schedule should allow for them to be at the very least a bowl eligible team.
If Louisville can get the right coach in place to recruit consistent top 30 classes...(something Petrino was very close to and that staff was a disaster) then Louisville should consistently have more talent than BC, Syracuse, Wake, UVA, NC State and probably UK. It all starts with recruiting and developing. As I said, with Louisville's schedule and the right coach there's room to build a program and maintain success in the ACC.