Of UK or U of L, which football program is more relevant right now?

I know I've been bouncing around as a guest host or guest co-host on different shows and it's tough to find me sometimes I know (just like I know all you listeners are desperately searing for me if you haven't found me yet). But, one of the topics we've been throwing out there as of late is which fooall program is more relevant nationally right now, Louisville or Kentucky?

I'm going with Louisville. They're more nationally relevant in college football.

Look, I know Louisville had a sub-par season last year. But, as a program, they've been talked about for the last 6-8 years in a much brighter light. Yes, I know Kentucky is on the uptick, and they defeated Louisville last year (not to mention # 1 LSU). That's a lot of good stuff to chew on as far as relevance is concerned.

But that's one year.

Louisville has been more relevant for longer. They've had good stuff to chew on for years. Kentucky hasn't. Sure, Louisville lost to the Wildcats last year.

But that's one year.

When you've been talked about seriously as a national championship contender in the last two seasons... guess what, you're more relevant than the third place finisher in the almighty SEC East.

Don't let your love for Rich Brooks cloud your judgment. Don't let the power of the respect-demanding SEC put you in a trance.

The Big East, while less powerful as a conference, is easier to climb up, although it may take awhile for U of L to reascend up that mountain. But in the SEC East traditionally, it's Georgia and Tennessee and Florida. Maybe if Urban Meyer and Mike Richt keel over, Kentucky has a chance to be relevant.

Fat chance.

And save the hate mail Kentucky fans. I don't hate UK. In fact, you may very well win your second straight game in the series in Papa John's Cardinal Stadium on August 31st.

You're just not more relevant nationally... yet.

(Thanks to Mike Rutherford at Card Chronicle for the pic)