Lousville Hasn't Relinquished Football Dominance to Kentucky Quite Yet

If there are two things I'm not a fan of, they would have to be the University of Kentucky and the Courier-Journal's Eric Crawford (sorry Eric, I know you're heartbroken).  Eric has proclaimed that Lexington is now the football capital of Kentucky.

Why?  Because of a last minute touchdown last year at home, and a fourth quarter meltdown on Sunday?  Even though Kentucky controlled most of the game by just a touchdown and a field goal, that makes them the mecca of football in the state?

Hardly, Eric.

I believe that just because UK has taken two games in a row doesn't necessarily make them the greatest thing to ever happen to the sport in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  What about the four straight years prior to last year, where Louisville basically destroyed them?  Shouldn't they match that to even be considered competitive?

Seriously, I may be somewhat biased, but I usually carry pretty realistic views and expectations, and I wouldn't go so far as to say that Lexington is the football capital of Kentucky just yet.  I wouldn't even say that Louisville is either.

I might have to vote for Bowling Green since they're the last ones to see a national championship in the sport, or the only one.

Honestly, when was Kentucky's last truly stellar season?  1977 or something like that?  They weren't that good last year, and honestly, they're not that good this year.  I'm not saying that Louisville is, but I'd match up last year's Kentucky team against the 2006 Louisville team, and we'd probably walk away with at least a 25-point victory.

Point being, Kentucky is going to have to do a little more than a 7-5 season and a pretty shoddy victory (like I said in an early post, that 27-2 victory was pretty deceitful) to impress me or even be considered the "football capital of Kentucky."

Roll out a 62-7 beating en route to winning a BCS bowl, and then I'll call Lexington the football capital of Kentucky.

Bad Eric.  Bad.

Go Get Him.