aha, both my teams maxed out. I like how the prestiges are accurate. NC at 4 stars is good, as well as Cal at 3 for instance.
What is this Bama gang crap? One thread doesn't go by without a dispute about a player I swear...then stats are thrown around in an attempt to amaze everybody. >.>
I mean I don't really follow UK football but they're a .500 program with 2 conference titles and continually finish near the bottom of their division. I don't know what would qualify them to be better than a 2*.
I don't have a problem with them being a 3*, but going back to my original statement, I don't see how they UK would even be considered a 4*.
Kentucky should be a high 3, low 4 area. They have been to 4 bowls in a row and won 3 of em. And this is coming from a Louisville fan who hates Kentucky like no other.
Using bowl games as an argument nowadays isn't saying much considering many teams with .500 records go to bowls. The fact is that Kentucky has been nothing more than a barely above .500 team if you take their records over the past 4 seasons. And of those past 4 seasons they haven't finished above 4-4 in the SEC. So 3* is right where they need to be.