It's a question that perplexes casual fans, diehards and some pundits alike.

How has Louisville been able to reach a level of football success that Kentucky hasn't?

There are lots of theories. There are strong opinions. There are surely many factors.

But there's no easy answer.

MORE - Practice Report: 11/22 | Countdown to Signing Day Blog

Before delving into some reasons for Louisville's better football fortunes over the past decade-plus, with the exception of some years pitting Rich Brooks against Steve Kragthorpe, it would be wise to qualify the underlying assumption.

It's undeniable that Louisville has had more football success than Kentucky, on the whole, dating back to the dawn of the new millennium. But in real terms just how much better has Louisville been?

Since the year 2000, Louisville has an overall record of 146-67 (.685). That period of time encompasses the third year of John L. Smith's tenure through 11 games into the third year of Bobby Petrino's second stint with the Cardinals. The Cardinals have cycled through five different coaching cycles and four different coaches during that span.

In the same period of time Kentucky's overall record is 81-123 (.397). UK's football program is also on their fifth coach since the year 2000, although Hal Mumme and Guy Morriss accounted for just three of these last 17 seasons.

Louisville has competed in 13 bowl games since 2000, compared to Kentucky's five bowl games during that period. Both teams will add a postseason participate notch to their belts after the conclusion of Saturday's game regardless of the outcome.

The height of Kentucky's success since 2000 has been a string of five-straight bowl games, with the best of those taking place in Nashville with wins over Clemson and Florida State. Louisville's high-water marks have been an Orange Bowl victory over Wake Forest, a Sugar Bowl win over Florida, and now a 2016 season that is unlikely to end with a trip to the College Football Playoff, but an outstanding year nonetheless, with the Cardinals finding themselves, legitimately, in the conversation for a shot at a national championship and a Heisman Trophy winner (though just one is the maximum they can likely hope for now).

The all-time head-to-head Governor's Cup series is knotted at 14 games apiece, but since 2000 the Cards have a commanding 11-5 lead in the annual matchup.

No, Louisville has not attained the level of consistent elite success that the sport's premier programs have. Alabama and Ohio State they are not. Nor have they been as successful as Oklahoma, USC, LSU or a host of others. But, generally speaking, Louisville's down years have still ended with a trip to the postseason, and it is simply a fact that they have proven, multiple times under multiple coaches, that they are probably capable of crashing the playoff party in one of their better years -- even if they haven't done so yet.

Meanwhile, Kentucky's glory years since 2000 have included eight-win ceilings and zero above-.500 finishes in the Southeastern Conference. During Brooks' and Joker Phillips' five-year bowl run the program did notch impressive wins over the likes of LSU, Georgia (twice), Auburn and one of South Carolina's better teams, along with the aforementioned Music City victories over quality ACC foes. But there were no East championships and this year's brief flirtation with the possibility of a trip to Atlanta was an almost unheard of rarity.

In summary, laying out the comparison between the programs in full, Louisville has emerged as a nationally-respected program. Lamar Jackson may be praised as an anomaly and a generational talent, but most who follow the sport are not especially surprised that the Cardinals were part of the playoff conversation. Kentucky has received plenty of praise this year from respected pundits like Kirk Herbstreit and others, but often the (slim) chance at an SEC East title, which existed earlier in November, still evoked incredulity from those who spoke of it.

Another major difference between the Commonwealth's two most-followed programs since 2000 has been their respective trajectories. Before 2000, Louisville infrequently enjoyed an outstanding season, such as when they routed Alabama in the 1994 Fiesta Bowl. But the Cards' current national prestige, which is real and has even been sustained on at least some level, is a byproduct of what they have done recently. They have bucked their earlier trend, which was a mixture of inconsistency and mediocrity.

Meanwhile, Kentucky's struggles since 2000 are largely a continuation of the results produced by the program since the Korean War. There were some notable exceptions, such as in the late 1970's, but these were exceptions. So while the Louisville of today is very different than the Louisville of yesterday, Kentucky's football program of the last 17 years is close to a mirror image of what fans witnessed for the previous five decades before that.

Most rivalries aren't matchups between perfect equals. On the basketball side, Kentucky has doubled-up a very storied Louisville program. The Yankees have far and away more World Series Championships than their hated rivals in Boston. North Carolina and Duke, Michigan and Ohio State -- these rivalries between equals, or rivals who are usually equal -- are rare.

So why is this even a question?

Because Louisville would seem to face many of the same challenges, in building a program, that Kentucky has faced. It's not as though the Cardinals have benefited from an above average supply of local talent to mine through. On the contrary, their local talent base is even more limited than Kentucky's. Although they have the inside track with many of the top players from the top talent-producing city in the Commonwealth, Louisville is often barely a factor with players outside Jefferson County.

Furthermore, Louisville was once regarded as a "basketball school" with little in the way of history that would command the nation's respect. While Kentucky's struggle has often been compounded by having to compete in the SEC, Louisville has had its own challenges to deal with based on conference affiliation.

That's why this is a question. Why, and how, has Louisville managed to build the kind of program that Kentucky hasn't -- yet -- been able to construct?

1. Probation. There can be little doubt that Kentucky's run-in with the NCAA at the end of the Hal Mumme era had an enormously negative impact on the program's ability to be competitive for at least several years following the onset of sanctions. The sanctions were severe and so-hamstrung the program, in an unforgiving league and with all of UK's other well-known challenges, that the NCAA's ruling effectively consigned Kentucky to irrelevance for the better part of a decade. It would be foolish to say otherwise. Of course, this was a problem of Kentucky's own making, or more accurately of those individuals who were most responsible. Louisville has avoided the kind of sanctions that crippled Kentucky's program from the start of the 2000's through the resurgence in Brooks' fourth year.

Those sanctions included a bowl ban (which prevented the 7-5 team in 2002 from playing in the postseason) as well as scholarship restrictions (down from the normal allotment of 25 to 16, 18 and 23 over a three-year period) and even a significant reduction in the number of official visits the program could sponsor. That point should not be understated, and it has rarely been given the airtime it deserves when discussing the impact of those sanctions. To limit a program to 36 official visits per year over two seasons is a major decision. That effectively meant UK would host all of their commitments (a smaller number, per sanctions), but had to be much more stingy in bringing in prospective targets that hadn't yet committed. That surely served to decrease the interest of some players who otherwise would have at least taken a free visit.

2. Conference affiliation. Since 2000, Louisville has, remarkably, competed in four different conferences. From Conference USA to the Big East and then from the American Athletic Conference to an improbable ACC bid, the Cardinals have been the consummate journeymen. Meanwhile, Kentucky has competed in the Southeastern Conference. It's safe to say, by any measure, that from 2000 through the present (particularly from 2006-2013) the SEC has enjoyed a greater degree of superiority over other leagues than any conference had ever achieved before it.

Laid out in those terms it is only fair to conclude that Kentucky's win-loss total has been worse than it would have been in probably almost any other league during the time period in question. The extent to which the SEC has hurt Kentucky's record (and ability to build momentum as a program with bowl games and perception) is debatable. It should not be exaggerated but it shouldn't be discounted as a legitimate factor. Each year college football prognosticator Phil Steele, in his preseason publication, creates a power ranking system for each FBS team. It's only a projection of course, as it's before the season, but it's noteworthy that the SEC's average team ranking is indeed, almost always, better than all the other leagues. However, on the flip side, the difference is not as stark as some of UK's most strident defenders would probably believe. A reasonable assertion might be that from 2000 through the present, had UK competed in another Power Five league -- any of them -- they might have won a game or two more, in conference, than they did in the SEC. But some years they might not have fared any better at all. That doesn't account for all the difficulties the SEC has presented for Kentucky (see: the unseemly streaks against Florida, Tennessee and South Carolina, the poor reputation of the program among southern recruits who have witnessed the losing, and the greater difficulty in reaching the very significant six-win -- and thus bowl -- threshold that leads to more practice time, more publicity and more overall success).

Louisville's conference-hopping, and the fact that they are only now returning to the status of a major conference team (after 'dropping' from the Big East to the AAC), is a similarly nuanced situation. Playing in conferences that have usually (and some might argue almost always, if not always) been weaker or far weaker than the SEC has surely allowed Louisville to pad their win total. That helps the bowl tally and the numbers in many respects.

But Louisville's conference affiliation has also been a hindrance to their program's ability to recruit the highest level of player possible. Bobby Petrino is still not pulling in recruiting classes that rank among the top classes in the country -- by the recruiting services -- but he is now, as an ACC coach, able to get his foot in the door with many players who surely wouldn't otherwise have considered Louisville when they might play one Top 25 opponent per season with no real compelling conference games.

Had Kentucky competed in Conference USA, even during probation they would have won a lot more games than they did in reality. In the Big East the Cats might never have won a conference championship (in fact reasonable people might say they never would have), but that still would have been a much easier path week-in, week-out. But what if Kentucky were to compete in the ACC right now, as opposed to the SEC? It's tough to measure the difference that might produce. The ACC Atlantic division has largely sported a stark divide between the haves and have-nots, but in recent years there haven't been many SEC East teams that a quality opponent would view as an impossible order.

Still, on the whole, it's probably safe to say that the biggest impact of the red-blue conference divide has been that the SEC has made life harder for Kentucky football fans. That is the single-biggest point to be made. But some well-versed followers of the sport could also make the case that Louisville, with the very good hires (by and large) Tom Jurich has made, might have climbed the ladder of respectability even more quickly had they landed in their current league sooner. That's only speculation, of course. It's possibly -- even equally possible, perhaps -- that had Louisville found itself in a major conference much sooner than they landed in the Big East, and now the ACC, they might have found themselves in a less promising cycle, such as the one Kentucky has forever faced.

3. Kentucky's own mediocrity since 2000 (and long before it). This is a fact that seems too obvious to mention on the surface but it bears repeating. One of the single-biggest reasons for the divergent paths of the UK and U of L programs since 2000 has been the total stagnation, over 17 years, of the Kentucky program -- and really over close to 65 years. The ups haven't been up enough and the ups haven't lasted. Thus, while Louisville's two-decade college football rise is impressive and an historical shift, even a far more modest improvement would have still created separation between the two programs for the simple fact just mentioned: Kentucky hasn't moved forward, consistently and at least until now, at all.

4. Hiring decisions. Whatever one thinks of Tom Jurich -- and in truth he, like everyone else, is a complex character that transcends the popular caricatures -- he has long been respected as one of the top professionals in his line of work. There will be those who disagree with his methods, and that's a very valid critique depending on what a person values. But one can't dispute his results. The man who guided Louisville on a path from Conference USA to a powerful ACC Atlantic division is the man who finally decided to hire Charlie Strong, when so many others had passed on the long-time coordinator. That proved to be a pivotal moment in Louisville's post-Kragthorpe resurgence. Indeed, one could argue the Strong hire was every bit as important as the first or the second Petrino hiring, because had Jurich hired someone else it's entirely possible that Kragthorpe's failures would have become Louisville's new normal. And that's to say nothing of the very good hiring of Petrino the first time around, and the, "I don't care what criticism will come," re-hiring of Petrino when Strong left for Texas.

It may not be that Mitch Barnhart has consistently made bad hiring decisions for Kentucky football, but his picks, objectively speaking, haven't yielded close to the results that Jurich's have. Some of the reasons mentioned before this factor played a role in that, no doubt, but the hires themselves are of major significance as well. Truthfully, Barnhart has made only one head coaching hire that history has already judged to be a poor decision: That of Joker Phillips as the head coach in waiting (although a fair rendering of that history will at least account for the potential positives he saw at the time). And just as Kragthorpe didn't ruin Louisville beyond repair, Phillips' worst days have given way to a different era under Stoops.

To date, the history says that Barnhart's two best decisions were to hire Rich Brooks -- ironically enough when few others would have even wanted the job -- and then to remain steadfast in support of Brooks through the worst of the criticism he faced. Time will tell if the Mark Stoops hire proves to be a game-changer, but we're left to wait and wonder until then. It must be acknowledged that Stoops' record, as has been mentioned here so often before (from 2-10 to 5-7, 5-7 and now 6-5) signifies a solidly consistent upwards movement, and even the stabilization of a relatively high five-win floor after the Phillips collapse. It should be noted that Kentucky's impressive middle of the season run in 2016 has probably spared Barnhart the potential wrath he might otherwise have faced as a result of his contract restructuring to ensure he could keep Stoops.

How much have Jurich's hires contributed to the separation that now exists between Louisville and Kentucky, and has from 2000-2016? Surely quite a bit.

There are plenty of other opinions on, "Why Louisville? And why not Kentucky?" that are tossed about annually. While the aforementioned three are virtually indisputable factors on some level, these theories hold varying degrees of merit but are far from universally accepted, nor are they likely as significant in playing a role in Louisville's recent superiority.

1. Culture. Not a few people have said that the Louisville metropolitan area is a far more attractive draw for many recruits when compared to the dynamics in Lexington. This could be the topic of a dissertation and different proponents of this theory, as a factor in Louisville's separation, will take different angles and emphasize different things. The reason this theory holds limited value, even if true on some level, is that there are a number of programs with campus, city and county dynamics strikingly similar to Kentucky who have had much greater success. Texas A&M was, for a very long time, viewed by many as a program hampered by a very conservative campus culture that wasn't as easily embraced by a large number of recruits. But Kevin Sumlin, for all his limitations, has proven that doesn't have to be a hindrance. During West Virginia's best years the Mountaineers' roster has often been littered with South Florida players who undoubtedly experienced some culture shock in Morgantown, but chose that future for themselves nonetheless. If the culture theory is to have any merit, as relates to its impact on recruiting, it should probably be admitted that it need not serve as an excuse for Kentucky, although Louisville's metropolitan vibrance and diversity are certainly strengths when their coaches take their message to players.

2. 'It's a basketball school.' There are those Kentucky football fans who are so zealous for the program they support that they harbor something akin to animosity towards the basketball program and its success, or at least the way in which it is promoted in the media and the minds of the world. They are convinced that the administration in Lexington has, for many decades, neglected to attend to the needs of an SEC football program. College basketball's all-time winningest program is, in that context, an easy target for their often-silent scorn. "So long as the basketball Cats are winning," they might think (and some do say), "The people in power are happy." There may have been some truth to that historically. Actually, the facts tend the back that up. Investments in the football program -- from facilities to head coach salaries and the paydays brought home by assistants -- were shameful for much of Kentucky's history, considering the Cats' conference affiliation. Just as some Major League Baseball owners have ditched quality players for low payrolls, losing lots of games but running home to the bank regardless, many Kentucky football fans believe that past UK administrations were outright neglectful, taking advantage of their loyalty (and their own investments in tickets and merchandise) with little interest in joining the arm's race.

If you haven't guessed by now, this writer believes there is plenty of merit to that critique -- or there was. It's tougher to make the case now that Kentucky, from the boosters to Mitch Barnhart, aren't investing in football. Stoops has said he's always had the recruiting budget he needs. His assistants have been given raises. There was that controversial and lucrative, one-sided buyout attached for Stoops himself. And, of course, the fact that Kentucky's revamped facilities are attracting national attention -- and stunned praise from recruits -- is an almost undeniable indication that Kentucky is investing in football. Big-time.

But that's only one angle to the 'basketball school' theory for why Kentucky's program has remained stagnate over the last two decades (and bear in mind, that's not to say the program is stagnate now -- the improved W/L record under Stoops has already been noted here and elsewhere ad nauseum). It also touches on perception, that all-important but intangible thing that often creates reality. There are still many recruits who, upon hearing from Kentucky, will say, "I just know about the basketball program." Indirectly, then, one might wonder whether the basketball program's outrageous success, when juxtaposed with the football program's lack of it, might serve to hurt the football program's messaging with players.

This may be true on some level, in limited and individual cases with recruits, but this theory also has major deficiencies. Louisville hasn't had Kentucky's basketball success but they are widely regarded as in the 'next tier' of program's behind the sport's five or six historic blue bloods. While UCLA and North Carolina have often been regarded as underachieving football programs (rightfully so), their programs have also historically fared better than Kentucky's, and they bear the 'basketball school' label too -- and always will. There are plenty of examples of 'football schools' going on to succeed in basketball (football money helps more in that example). There's just no reason to believe that the 'basketball school' label, and everything it comes with, is actually a legitimate excuse.

3. 'Louisville has lower standards.' For many Kentucky fans (and frankly, given the hiring of Petrino following his indiscretions, Jurich's loyalty to Rick Pitino, and the basketball program's sex scandal, this is now a critique leveled by people across the country), Louisville's rise can be attributed, in large part, to the Cardinals' consistent willingness to take some players that Kentucky (and most other programs) simply wouldn't, or couldn't, take. Further, these Big Blue advocates will contend that this is merely the symptom of the entire psyche and culture at Louisville: Winning trumps everything. Mind you, this is only laid out here as what some people will say.

Whether you call it lowering the bar or a willingness to dole out second chances, there is a reason that this stereotype and criticism exists. Louisville's recruiting classes, under Petrino and even at other times, generally don't gauge the level of talent that has actually entered their program. It has been a common occurrence to see former four- and five-star players, formerly of elite programs, fall on hard times only to land at Louisville.

This theory will be the most polarizing between Kentucky's supporters and Louisville's defenders, so it's almost useless to attempt to solve the matter objectively. Even if the numbers were to say Louisville took more 'second-chance cases' or players with checkered pasts than most other programs, a person could easily say, in an off-putting but genuine honesty, that as long as the player is eligible, according to the NCAA, then the program is perfectly within its rights to operate in such a manner. It's also true that Kentucky, and probably almost every other program, has also given second chances, brought in players with questionable track records, or stood by them, and so the dispute is not between perfect purity and lawlessness, but is only a matter of degree and frequency. Dean Smith once said he would take one player per year who might not be admitting to North Carolina as a member of the general student body. That kind of honesty is helpful, but not exactly flattering, because it's basically an admission that standards are only mostly followed, and any critique on the basis of, "They're doing it more than we are," is immediately weakened.

There are two main issues to address here. First, specifically on the topic at hand, how much has Louisville's admission standards (and recruiting requirements) for football players contributed to their rise over the past two decades?

There is no doubt that some of Louisville's 'second-chance' players have made the program more formidable on the field. But most would agree that bringing in a player with a past has its pitfalls. Those second chances have, more often than not, worked out on the field and have also avoided more major issues. Besides, college football rosters are comprised of 85 scholarship players. Football is a team sport, not one dominated by one or two individuals. The impact of some of these players has been something between marginal and moderate when one considers the immensity of a college football organization, and it's not just Louisville. Maybe it is more common at Louisville than most, but at any given point over the last 17 years no more than a handful of Louisville players would be singled out as objectionable by even the most ethically-minded outsiders. It's impossible to gauge the overall impact this has had on Louisville's success (although it should be conceded, in honesty, that as a program Louisville errs on the more lenient end of the vetting spectrum), but it would be beyond the pale to suggest that in 17 years the sum total of Louisville players that would have been rejected by Kentucky on ethical grounds would have made a huge difference on the field.

Moving beyond the issue of players with checkered pasts, expulsions or run-ins with the law, the more significant factor is academics. Most would agree that historically there have been some programs who have dramatically expanded their pools of very talented players to recruit from on the basis of lowering their academic standards below those of other schools. Here conference rules have sometimes come into play. Here only generalities belong. Yes, lowering academic standards in recruiting does allow a program to often recruit at a higher level. But it would be an impossible task to gauge the GPA's, standardized test scores and overall academic histories of preps signing with Louisville as opposed to Kentucky. It is possible that this has sometimes been a significant factor in Louisville's success, but it's also possible (given the lack of available information) that some years Kentucky may have brought in players with lower scores than Louisville. One can only speculate, the a person's speculation will likely be determined by their rooting interest.

The other issue in play, not related to the topic, is the very debate over admission and vetting standards that's at the heart of this controversy (and it is a controversy, because many Kentucky fans are absolutely convinced this is a big reason for Louisville's success).

Critics of a more libertine vetting process are saying, in effect, that they want to win but they want to win 'the right way.' One step further, they are saying that they are willing to pass on players that the NCAA would allow them to take, out of a desire to preserve the integrity of their program and university, and in accordance with their values. Without passing judgment for or against that position, it stands to reason that those who are most critical of less stringent admissions standards ought to be content with their own value judgments, even if it produces an inferior product on the field. The worst a person could then say, in reply, is that it's "not fair" that some programs are willing to give more second (or third) chances than their own (though, again, almost every program takes some), but in the eyes of the sport's very governing body, and in the judgment of the rules, that's not true. If a person has a problem with programs who lower academic standards (or admit more second-chance players) more or more frequently, because it gives them an unfair advantage over more 'upstanding' programs, they can say the NCAA ought to become more involved, giving universities less leeway, or they can rest comfortably believing that, wins and losses aside, they feel better about their school's modus operandi.

There's no doubt that Louisville has had more success on the field than Kentucky over the past two decades. Right now, the divide seems significant, as it has often been. While reasonable people can disagree on some theories as to why Louisville has been able to build a strong modern program, against the tide of history, while Kentucky has struggled to do the same, there are some factors that seem almost indisputable.

However, even the main points made in the discussion are more nuanced and complicated than they're often made to seem on the surface, where polemics and soundbites dominate the everyday conversation in the rivalry.

There is good news for Kentucky. As the rivalry has become lopsided of late, it hasn't happened because of anything that seems impossible to reverse. True, it seems like Petrino will field good to very good teams more often than not so long as he's at Louisville. But it wouldn't shock most people outside of Louisville if, five or ten years from now under a different coach, that their fortunes change dramatically. This is a program that has built itself up through shrewd management, hires and evaluation, rather than proving they can set up that revolving door of talent that comes with repeated Top 10 classes. Furthermore, while Louisville has put a lot more players into the NFL than Kentucky in recent years, Stoops has demonstrated that Kentucky is able to recruit at a higher level than most thought possible. Regardless of disappointments over the past three years, and there have been some, the change in recruiting fortunes is of great significance because, at the very least, it is now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, possible for Kentucky to recruit the level of talent required to be competitive and to take steps forward. That's another potential path to success, as opposed to the old conventional wisdom that said Kentucky required a "system," or a coach who could defy what all the recruiting evaluators say.

Mark Stoops has a new lease on life now that he will have Kentucky in a bowl game at season's end, and if he has the kind of long-term success the program's fans hope for -- and some believe he can gradually achieve -- then the uncomfortable separation between the Cards and Cats could become less a source of tension for those in blue and white. Until then, even the brightest mind's and the sport's most avid followers are probably left to wonder: Why and how has Louisville? Why hasn't Kentucky?