42-0 [Archive] - Wildcat Nation Forums - Kentucky Wildcat Discussion and News

noone

10-14-2006, 10:44 PM

wyldkatzky wrote: lol @ the replies to my comment. seriously i didn't even bother listening to this game - i knew it was hopeless, perhaps the players did as well. it would have been nice to score but LSU was that much better - i just hope our team is still focused on getting those 3 wins and getting ot a bowl game. getting to a bowl game will help our recruiting a lot, thus giving us a better team.

we all had this game marked down as a loss coming into it in our predictions, i dont see why the score makes much of a difference as long as we still manage to win the three we were predicted to win, and then next year we win the games we are predicted to win as even a better team. Sure I would love to go undefeated but i'm not dissapointed when we lose to a team, even by a lot that we weren't supposed to be able to come close to beating anyway..

Okay, we went to Florida and put forth a decent effort. Granted, it wasn't Florida's best performance, and they still smoked us in the 2nd half. Nonetheless, we had lead in the 2nd quarter, and also had the ball, down 12, with plenty of time to go in the 4th quarter.

So basically, we gave ourselves a chance. Those kind of losses do not completely demoralize a team the way this one did.

Even worse, it comes a week after a loss to South Carolina, that we actually did need to win, no matter what the Spinmeister Rich Brooks has to say about it.

Was last week a must win? No, it wasn't. But, if you really want to believe we are improving, then it was a game we needed.

Why, because UK is not that good, and it doesn't have the ability to simply take weeks off, or, start placing games in the win colum - any games - before they are even played.

If we don't win the 3 we need, you may just come around in your line of thinking.

How can Kentucky get killed like this and come away with any good feelings, or anything to build off of.

You've gotta try and compete. This team doesn't do it consistently enough to please me.

poodoo

10-15-2006, 08:43 PM

Spinmeister Rich Brooks QUOTE

______

Any media member who deals with Coach Brooks will refute that label for Brooks. :)If anything, Coach Brooks gets himself into trouble by just telling it like it is.

AFTER UK lost to South Carolina and the players were devastated, he reminded his players and the press that the team is STILL on track to get at least six wins and get toa bowl. To be honest, though, IF we play as we did last night, we're not on track to get to that bowl game. IF we play like that, we can win one more game, at best.

Personally, I am very disappointed about how we played. HOWEVER, I am notAS DOWN as I was after the South Carolina loss, for in that one we gave away a good chance to put ourselves in great shape to reach that bowl game. This last game, on the other hand, was just so disappointing and embarrassing.

What matters most is that the players themselves put the terrible performance behind them and WORK HARD to improve and be ready to get a win over MSU on the road. That's where mind already is, to be perfectly honest.

noone

10-15-2006, 09:06 PM

poodoo wrote: To be honest, though, IF we play as we did last night, we're not on track to get to that bowl game. IF we play like that, we can win one more game, at best.

Honesty is the best policy.

Spanish Moss

10-16-2006, 05:33 AM

wyldkatzky wrote: lol @ the replies to my comment. seriously i didn't even bother listening to this game - i knew it was hopeless, perhaps the players did as well. it would have been nice to score but LSU was that much better - i just hope our team is still focused on getting those 3 wins and getting ot a bowl game. getting to a bowl game will help our recruiting a lot, thus giving us a better team.

we all had this game marked down as a loss coming into it in our predictions, i dont see why the score makes much of a difference as long as we still manage to win the three we were predicted to win, and then next year we win the games we are predicted to win as even a better team. Sure I would love to go undefeated but i'm not dissapointed when we lose to a team, even by a lot that we weren't supposed to be able to come close to beating anyway..

Have you heard of a word called PRIDE. Do you have any idea how it would feel to have a college football team that people respect? No one respects our program and if our fans don't even bother listening to the game why should they? Why should our players have any pride if fans don't bother to listen?

As long as our fans expect to be humiliated by the opponent then we will continue to be Kentucky football. The bottom of the barrel with no hope of moving up. If we as fans do not demand a good program, our AD and our coaching staff will go through the motions, cash their pay check and play golf at the local country club, laughing under their breath as to how stupid we fans are.

Based on the performance of our team last Saturday night, I seriously doubt half of our coaches have any pride. If I put out the performance week after week that these coaches put out I would seriously consider switching careers or retiring to the nearest lake.

You may not be disappointed in this team but some of us are not only disappointed, we are ashamed. We are dead last out of 119 college football teams in total defense. Dead last. And you are not disappointed? I have a hard time understanding comments like those.

poodoo

10-16-2006, 10:35 AM

Besides us fans, the coaches and players alike should be very embarrassed. Frankly, we did not compete, period. :(It was most disappointing. While I had expected this game to be our worst loss of the season (partly because of LSU's having the top defense in the nation AND our defensive line's being so thin and unhealthy and the defense's having given up so much yardage even with healthy linemen), I had expected to be more competitive and not totally embarrassed as we were.

Regardless, it's ON TO THE NEXT GAME. If the coaches and players wallow in self-pity, doom and gloom, etc., INSTEAD of working hard these next two weeks, this team is not going to reach its main goal of playing in a bowl game. We fans, of course, are not coaches or players who MUST look ahead to the game.Yet, personally, that's still my choice.That's just me. :)GO CATS! BEAT MSU!

Buck_Naked

10-16-2006, 10:51 AM

Good Morning Folks,

After the Louisville game I was lambasted when I came in here and offered the theory that it was unfair – and wrong -- to place all the blame upon the coaching staff, and now I have a little more “ammo” to back up that claim. Sure, this coaching staff has more deficiencies than Carter has liver pills – and I’m not a Brooks fan AT ALL, but just look at the facts:

Why does UK play well and match up well against the likes of Central Michigan, Vandy, Ole Miss, etc? Because those are the type of teams our player’s talent levels more closely match, period. The Cats are losing to the Florida’s, the Louisville’s and LSU’s of the world NOT necessarily because their coaches are “better”, but because their players are bigger, faster and stronger. Knute Rockne or Bear Bryant could have been wearing the headset for UK on Saturday night and the outcome would have been near the same, because we simply don’t have the talent to compete on that level. That’s not to say the coaching staff could make better use of the talent we have, but to use an analogy, you’re not going to beat a Ferrari in a drag race when you’re driving a Chevette.

I would venture a guess that at least 80% of UK’s players did not receive scholarship offers from schools that are as high profile as UK (and by high profile I only meanthe fact that we're aDivision 1 SEC team), and it shows on the field against top-notch competition. This IS NOT a knock on the players personally, or an attack on their character; I know they play to the best of their abilities, but that’s simply not enough against the majority of the SEC schools or other Top 25 teams.

I have always and will always support this team 100% and cheer them on regardless of the W-L record, but to say the coaching staff is totally responsible for the losses – especially a 49-0 blowout, is as unfair as it is just plain wrong.

Face it, UK is caught in a vicious Catch-22; you can't recruit the "studs" without the tradition, but you can't build the tradition without the "studs".

Oh well, have a great day everybody, and maybe we’ll get ‘em next week!

ukbob

10-16-2006, 10:58 AM

Buck_Naked wrote: Good Morning Folks,

After the Louisville game I was lambasted when I came in here and offered the theory that it was unfair – and wrong -- to place all the blame upon the coaching staff, and now I have a little more “ammo” to back up that claim. Sure, this coaching staff has more deficiencies than Carter has liver pills – and I’m not a Brooks fan AT ALL, but just look at the facts:

Why does UK play well and match up well against the likes of Central Michigan, Vandy, Ole Miss, etc? Because those are the type of teams our player’s talent levels more closely match, period. The Cats are losing to the Florida’s, the Louisville’s and LSU’s of the world NOT necessarily because their coaches are “better”, but because their players are bigger, faster and stronger. Knute Rockne or Bear Bryant could have been wearing the headset for UK on Saturday night and the outcome would have been near the same, because we simply don’t have the talent to compete on that level. That’s not to say the coaching staff could make better use of the talent we have, but to use an analogy, you’re not going to beat a Ferrari in a drag race when you’re driving a Chevette.

I would venture a guess that at least 80% of UK’s players did not receive scholarship offers from schools that are as high profile as UK (and by high profile I only meanthe fact that we're aDivision 1 SEC team), and it shows on the field against top-notch competition. This IS NOT a knock on the players personally, or an attack on their character; I know they play to the best of their abilities, but that’s simply not enough against the majority of the SEC schools or other Top 25 teams.

I have always and will always support this team 100% and cheer them on regardless of the W-L record, but to say the coaching staff is totally responsible for the losses – especially a 49-0 blowout, is as unfair as it is just plain wrong.

Face it, UK is caught in a vicious Catch-22; you can't recruit the "studs" without the tradition, but you can't build the tradition without the "studs".

Oh well, have a great day everybody, and maybe we’ll get ‘em next week!

I agree that there is no way the staff is totally responsible, however, they are the ones that recruited these players and the ones teaching them. They are the ones that need to coach them up, build confidence, put them in the best positions to succeed. I have not seen much of any of this in this tenure.

I also understand our youth issues and they are issues. However, there is no excuse for some of the things we have seen...10 men on the field FIVE TIMES last week, motivation issues against UL and LSUthat Brooks himself admitted to , etc, etc, etc.

It is not a matter of support, because we all want UK to get better, but something has to give. You can create all of the excuses in the world, but we should not be 119th in defense in Brooks' 4th year. No way. And we should be competitive in every game, regardless of foe and regardless of the outcome.

Just my take.

Buck_Naked

10-16-2006, 11:26 AM

ukbob wrote: I agree that there is no way the staff is totally responsible, however, they are the ones that recruited these players and the ones teaching them. They are the ones that need to coach them up, build confidence, put them in the best positions to succeed. I have not seen much of any of this in this tenure.

I also understand our youth issues and they are issues. However, there is no excuse for some of the things we have seen...10 men on the field FIVE TIMES last week, motivation issues against UL and LSUthat Brooks himself admitted to , etc, etc, etc.

It is not a matter of support, because we all want UK to get better, but something has to give. You can create all of the excuses in the world, but we should not be 119th in defense in Brooks' 4th year. No way. And we should be competitive in every game, regardless of foe and regardless of the outcome.

Just my take.

I don't disagree with you Bob, but did it ever cross your mind that, given UK's lack of tradition, Brooks' (or any Coach here) hands are tied and hecan recruit until he's blue in the face (no pun intended), but that doesn't mean he can secure top-notch talent.

Seems to me you have to admit that when a blue-chip High School player starts getting offers, and you have schools like (for example) Ohio State, Florida, Oklahoma, and USC recruiting you -- in addition to UK, the odds that kid is going to pick UK are slim, unless it's a case where he just always wanted to play here. There's also the issue of exposure for the next level; I'm sure the players feel this way, and I would assume pro scouts will be more likely to look at successful programs for quality players. It would just belogical -- and human nature -- for them toexpect that a floundering program probably doesn't have too many potential NFL players.

Again, I have No love lost for Brooks and Co., but they aren't the ones out on the field making -- or NOT making the plays, and Lord knows this recruiting issue/lack of traditiondidn't begin with their tenure.

Yes, they're supposed to be teaching them HOW to make the plays, but they can't get on the field and do it for them. Since these kids are paid to play (it's called a scholarship instead of a salary), I see no reason why there shouldn't be some level of accountability for them as well. That's the main point I'm trying to get across...

ukbob

10-16-2006, 11:30 AM

Buck_Naked wrote: ukbob wrote: I agree that there is no way the staff is totally responsible, however, they are the ones that recruited these players and the ones teaching them. They are the ones that need to coach them up, build confidence, put them in the best positions to succeed. I have not seen much of any of this in this tenure.

I also understand our youth issues and they are issues. However, there is no excuse for some of the things we have seen...10 men on the field FIVE TIMES last week, motivation issues against UL and LSUthat Brooks himself admitted to , etc, etc, etc.

It is not a matter of support, because we all want UK to get better, but something has to give. You can create all of the excuses in the world, but we should not be 119th in defense in Brooks' 4th year. No way. And we should be competitive in every game, regardless of foe and regardless of the outcome.

Just my take.

I don't disagree with you Bob, but did it ever cross your mind that, given UK's lack of tradition, Brooks' (or any Coach here) hands are tied and hecan recruit until he's blue in the face (no pun intended), but that doesn't mean he can secure top-notch talent.

Seems to me you have to admit that when a blue-chip High School player starts getting offers, and you have schools like (for example) Ohio State, Florida, Oklahoma, and USC recruiting you -- in addition to UK, the odds that kid is going to pick UK are slim, unless it's a case where he just always wanted to play here. There's also the issue of exposure for the next level; I'm sure the players feel this way, and I would assume pro scouts will be more likely to look at successful programs for quality players. It would just belogical -- and human nature -- for them toexpect that a floundering program probably doesn't have too many potential NFL players.

Again, I have No love lost for Brooks and Co., but they aren't the ones out on the field making -- or NOT making the plays, and Lord knows this recruiting issue/lack of traditiondidn't begin with their tenure.

Yes, they're supposed to be teaching them HOW to make the plays, but they can't get on the field and do it for them. Since these kids are paid to play (it's called a scholarship instead of a salary), I see no reason why there shouldn't be some level of accountability for them as well. That's the main point I'm trying to get across...

I agree. There should definitely be accountability on both ends. I do think we have talent, albeit young. But I don't feel at all confident this staff, minus Sanders, can maximize it.

Mountain Cat

10-16-2006, 11:41 AM

Buck_Naked wrote: Good Morning Folks,

After the Louisville game I was lambasted when I came in here and offered the theory that it was unfair – and wrong -- to place all the blame upon the coaching staff, and now I have a little more “ammo” to back up that claim. Sure, this coaching staff has more deficiencies than Carter has liver pills – and I’m not a Brooks fan AT ALL, but just look at the facts:

Why does UK play well and match up well against the likes of Central Michigan, Vandy, Ole Miss, etc? Because those are the type of teams our player’s talent levels more closely match, period. The Cats are losing to the Florida’s, the Louisville’s and LSU’s of the world NOT necessarily because their coaches are “better”, but because their players are bigger, faster and stronger. Knute Rockne or Bear Bryant could have been wearing the headset for UK on Saturday night and the outcome would have been near the same, because we simply don’t have the talent to compete on that level. That’s not to say the coaching staff could make better use of the talent we have, but to use an analogy, you’re not going to beat a Ferrari in a drag race when you’re driving a Chevette.

I would venture a guess that at least 80% of UK’s players did not receive scholarship offers from schools that are as high profile as UK (and by high profile I only meanthe fact that we're aDivision 1 SEC team), and it shows on the field against top-notch competition. This IS NOT a knock on the players personally, or an attack on their character; I know they play to the best of their abilities, but that’s simply not enough against the majority of the SEC schools or other Top 25 teams.

I have always and will always support this team 100% and cheer them on regardless of the W-L record, but to say the coaching staff is totally responsible for the losses – especially a 49-0 blowout, is as unfair as it is just plain wrong.

Face it, UK is caught in a vicious Catch-22; you can't recruit the "studs" without the tradition, but you can't build the tradition without the "studs".

Oh well, have a great day everybody, and maybe we’ll get ‘em next week!

I dare say that New Mexico State has player talent that is significantly below that of UK, yet they hung 534 yards and 28pts on the #18 ranked Boise State team in a 40-28 loss yesterday.

Somehow Dumme, as some refer to him, has found a way in year #2 to compete against top teams and not be embarrassed (well except for his embarrassing hair :lol:) regardless of his circumstances.

Buck_Naked

10-16-2006, 11:58 AM

Mountain Cat wrote: Buck_Naked wrote: Good Morning Folks,

After the Louisville game I was lambasted when I came in here and offered the theory that it was unfair – and wrong -- to place all the blame upon the coaching staff, and now I have a little more “ammo” to back up that claim. Sure, this coaching staff has more deficiencies than Carter has liver pills – and I’m not a Brooks fan AT ALL, but just look at the facts:

Why does UK play well and match up well against the likes of Central Michigan, Vandy, Ole Miss, etc? Because those are the type of teams our player’s talent levels more closely match, period. The Cats are losing to the Florida’s, the Louisville’s and LSU’s of the world NOT necessarily because their coaches are “better”, but because their players are bigger, faster and stronger. Knute Rockne or Bear Bryant could have been wearing the headset for UK on Saturday night and the outcome would have been near the same, because we simply don’t have the talent to compete on that level. That’s not to say the coaching staff could make better use of the talent we have, but to use an analogy, you’re not going to beat a Ferrari in a drag race when you’re driving a Chevette.

I would venture a guess that at least 80% of UK’s players did not receive scholarship offers from schools that are as high profile as UK (and by high profile I only meanthe fact that we're aDivision 1 SEC team), and it shows on the field against top-notch competition. This IS NOT a knock on the players personally, or an attack on their character; I know they play to the best of their abilities, but that’s simply not enough against the majority of the SEC schools or other Top 25 teams.

I have always and will always support this team 100% and cheer them on regardless of the W-L record, but to say the coaching staff is totally responsible for the losses – especially a 49-0 blowout, is as unfair as it is just plain wrong.

Face it, UK is caught in a vicious Catch-22; you can't recruit the "studs" without the tradition, but you can't build the tradition without the "studs".

Oh well, have a great day everybody, and maybe we’ll get ‘em next week!

I dare say that New Mexico State has player talent that is significantly below that of UK, yet they hung 534 yards and 28pts on the #18 ranked Boise State team in a 40-28 loss yesterday.

Somehow Dumme, as some refer to him, has found a way in year #2 to compete against top teams and not be embarrassed (well except for his embarrassing hair :lol:) regardless of his circumstances.

I think a lot of that has to do with your style of play, or rather adapting your style of play to fit your talent. Mumme did that here, and had relative success. And if he hadn't been such an "off-field"idiot --andhadn't surrounded himself with idiots -- we might actually have something to be proud of by now. Brooks (not unlike Morris and Curry and Claiborne before him) wants to play smash-mouth football, and we simply don't have the hosses here to get it done against SEC opponents.

IMHO, when you get right down to it, Kentucky's defense has been woefull for years now. The only way I can see circumventing this problem is by installing an offense designed to score a bunch of points. I say to hell with a ball controloffense. Again, that's what Mumme did, and because of running a wide-open offense he had more luck getting decent players at the skill positions (WR, QB, etc.) as well.

poodoo

10-17-2006, 07:18 PM

Again, I have No love lost for Brooks and Co., but they aren't the ones out on the field making -- or NOT making the plays, and Lord knows this recruiting issue/lack of traditiondidn't begin with their tenure.

Yes, they're supposed to be teaching them HOW to make the plays, but they can't get on the field and do it for them. Since these kids are paid to play (it's called a scholarship instead of a salary), I see no reason why there shouldn't be some level of accountability for them as well. That's the main point I'm trying to get across...QUOTE by Buck Naked

________

Well-said, Buck Naked. As ukbob just agreed, the accountability must be SHARED.

Ironically, I had just responded to a poster (one I know and respect a great deal) who said that he would trade Coach Brooks for any of the other eleven coaches in the SEC. As I said there, in general (although not always, and, yes, coaches must get their players to overachieve), coaches TEND to look as good as the players they have. Our current talent IS young, and many of these SEC teams are indeed bigger, stronger, faster, AND more experienced.

That does not absolve the coaching staff from of responsibility, especially for a performance like the one at LSU and the defense's ranking 119 out of 119 in total yardage given up, BUT there is too much blame being placed on Coach Brooks, as I see it. We all WANT TO WIN, and we want to win now. As I have repeatedly posted (and Cats' Pause writers wrote), we squandered numerous opportunities against South Carolina that could have changed that game's outcome.

NO, we are not remotely near LSU. Let's just worry about beating MSU and going from there. GO CATS!

Mountain Cat

10-17-2006, 07:33 PM

poodoo wrote: Again, I have No love lost for Brooks and Co., but they aren't the ones out on the field making -- or NOT making the plays, and Lord knows this recruiting issue/lack of traditiondidn't begin with their tenure.

Yes, they're supposed to be teaching them HOW to make the plays, but they can't get on the field and do it for them. Since these kids are paid to play (it's called a scholarship instead of a salary), I see no reason why there shouldn't be some level of accountability for them as well. That's the main point I'm trying to get across...QUOTE by Buck Naked

________

Well-said, Buck Naked. As ukbob just agreed, the accountability must be SHARED.

Ironically, I had just responded to a poster (one I know and respect a great deal) who said that he would trade Coach Brooks for any of the other eleven coaches in the SEC. As I said there, in general (although not always, and, yes, coaches must get their players to overachieve), coaches TEND to look as good as the players they have. Our current talent IS young, and many of these SEC teams are indeed bigger, stronger, faster, AND more experienced.

That does not absolve the coaching staff from of responsibility, especially for a performance like the one at LSU and the defense's ranking 119 out of 119 in total yardage given up, BUT there is too much blame being placed on Coach Brooks, as I see it. We all WANT TO WIN, and we want to win now. As I have repeatedly posted (and Cats' Pause writers wrote), we squandered numerous opportunities against South Carolina that could have changed that game's outcome.

NO, we are not remotely near LSU. Let's just worry about beating MSU and going from there. GO CATS!

I do not blame the players one bit.

The players were the ones that this coach bragged about as being the most talented he had thus far, and that the Team of these players show to be improved when they took the field this fall.

Bull hockey.

Brooks needs to take what's left of his reputation and step down, or else MB should fire him, or else Dr. T should can Mitch, or else James F. Hardymon should start a search committee for a new President, or else the Governor should replace the Board, or else we elect a Governor who will.

Somewhere up the food chain, someone has to make the changes necessary for UK to have a winning football team.

I've had it up to here with this crapola that Brooks puts on the field and calls football.

Spanish Moss

10-17-2006, 07:37 PM

I just can't join in with the blaming of the players. The coaches prepare these young men and they are responsible for their performance. With the proper leadership these young men can play winning football. Most of them were winners in high school and most want to win in college. They just need someone to get it out of them and make them perform on the field.

When I was a Drill Sgt in the Army we would pick up recruits at the reception station that were often the dredges of society. (we had a draft back then) Some were told by a judge to join the army or they were going to jail. We took these malcontents and made soldiers out of them. By the end of eight weeks they could march in a formation, shoot a weapon and knew what espirt de corps was. They were ready to fight and kill the enemy.

You give this team to Georgia's coach, or Florida's coach or LSU's coach and I guaranteee you they will not get beat by 49 or 50 points. You give these players to UL's coach and he beats South Carolina. Steve Spurrier would have beaten South Carolina with our players.

Coaching makes a football team, not individual players. A coach molds individual players into a team, a unit that performs up to the standards set by the coach. That has been proven time after time. It all boils down to coaching. Unfortunately, the players are performing to the standards set by this coaching staff. How can our head coach produce a winner at Kentucky when he has a lifetime losing record? Should we expect any different?

Mountain Cat

10-17-2006, 07:46 PM

Spanish Moss wrote: I just can't join in with the blaming of the players. The coaches prepare these young men and they are responsible for their performance. With the proper leadership these young men can play winning football. Most of them were winners in high school and most want to win in college. They just need someone to get it out of them and make them perform on the field.

When I was a Drill Sgt in the Army we would pick up recruits at the reception station that were often the dredges of society. (we had a draft back then) Some were told by a judge to join the army or they were going to jail. We took these malcontents and made soldiers out of them. By the end of eight weeks they could march in a formation, shoot a weapon and knew what espirt de corps was. They were ready to fight and kill the enemy.

You give this team to Georgia's coach, or Florida's coach or LSU's coach and I guaranteee you they will not get beat by 49 or 50 points. You give these players to UL's coach and he beats South Carolina. Steve Spurrier would have beaten South Carolina with our players.

Coaching makes a football team, not individual players. A coach molds individual players into a team, a unit that performs up to the standards set by the coach. That has been proven time after time. It all boils down to coaching. Unfortunately, the players are performing to the standards set by this coaching staff. How can our head coach produce a winner at Kentucky when he has a lifetime losing record? Should we expect any different?

Excellent post. :thumbup

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 08:10 AM

Mountain Cat wrote: Spanish Moss wrote: I just can't join in with the blaming of the players. The coaches prepare these young men and they are responsible for their performance. With the proper leadership these young men can play winning football. Most of them were winners in high school and most want to win in college. They just need someone to get it out of them and make them perform on the field.

When I was a Drill Sgt in the Army we would pick up recruits at the reception station that were often the dredges of society. (we had a draft back then) Some were told by a judge to join the army or they were going to jail. We took these malcontents and made soldiers out of them. By the end of eight weeks they could march in a formation, shoot a weapon and knew what espirt de corps was. They were ready to fight and kill the enemy.

You give this team to Georgia's coach, or Florida's coach or LSU's coach and I guaranteee you they will not get beat by 49 or 50 points. You give these players to UL's coach and he beats South Carolina. Steve Spurrier would have beaten South Carolina with our players.

Coaching makes a football team, not individual players. A coach molds individual players into a team, a unit that performs up to the standards set by the coach. That has been proven time after time. It all boils down to coaching. Unfortunately, the players are performing to the standards set by this coaching staff. How can our head coach produce a winner at Kentucky when he has a lifetime losing record? Should we expect any different?

Excellent post. :thumbup

So, let me see if I've got this straight; when the Cats beat an Ole Miss, Brooks is doing a good job coaching, but when they get humiliated at LSU he's not? That, as another poster so eloquently said, is the "bull hockey"!

The reason we beat the Texas State's and Ole Miss's and Central Michigan's of the football world is solely because those are the type of teams with which our talent matches up well or exceeds, IMO. I think it's just too easy to always blame the Coaching Staff for everything.

Just ask yourself, "why did the same offensive plays and defensive schemesthat worked so well against the 3 teams we've beaten not work against the teams that have beaten us"? The answer is plain and simple; the teams that beat us have better talent. Again -- and I can't stress this enough, thisIS NOTmeant to be a knock on the heart or character of our players, and personally I didn't want Brooks here in the first place, but the cold, hard fact is that we're getting beaten by superior talent on the field moreso than superior coaching on the opposing sideline!

I've also noticed a lot of talk about this being a "young team". Well pardon me, but anybody who pays attention knows this is what they've beensaying every year at Kentucky for as long as I can remember!! IMHO that's just thepolitically correct way of saying "we're not going to be very good this year". How does that happen? How do you have a young team year after year? Are they running kids off after their sophomore year or something? Please, somebody enlighten me!!

Kentucky does not (and hasn't for years) have the drawing power to get the top-notch blue-chip football recruits, and we're not alone. There are dozens and dozens of other Division 1 schools in the same boat. In the recruiting world the cruel reality is that there are the"haves" and the "have nots", and if it makes anybody feel better, we're not even close to being the only team that resides in the "have nots" category. That's why you see virtually the same teams in the Top 25 year in and year out.

Finally, to address one specific comment; give this same UK team to Spurrier or Petrino, and they still get beaten convincingly by LSU last Saturday.

LOL, I sure didn't mean to ruffle so many people's feathers, I'm justvoicing my opinion, same as all of you...

FatCatDaddy

10-18-2006, 08:36 AM

Buck_Naked wrote: Mountain Cat wrote: Spanish Moss wrote: I just can't join in with the blaming of the players. The coaches prepare these young men and they are responsible for their performance. With the proper leadership these young men can play winning football. Most of them were winners in high school and most want to win in college. They just need someone to get it out of them and make them perform on the field.

When I was a Drill Sgt in the Army we would pick up recruits at the reception station that were often the dredges of society. (we had a draft back then) Some were told by a judge to join the army or they were going to jail. We took these malcontents and made soldiers out of them. By the end of eight weeks they could march in a formation, shoot a weapon and knew what espirt de corps was. They were ready to fight and kill the enemy.

You give this team to Georgia's coach, or Florida's coach or LSU's coach and I guaranteee you they will not get beat by 49 or 50 points. You give these players to UL's coach and he beats South Carolina. Steve Spurrier would have beaten South Carolina with our players.

Coaching makes a football team, not individual players. A coach molds individual players into a team, a unit that performs up to the standards set by the coach. That has been proven time after time. It all boils down to coaching. Unfortunately, the players are performing to the standards set by this coaching staff. How can our head coach produce a winner at Kentucky when he has a lifetime losing record? Should we expect any different?

Excellent post. :thumbup

So, let me see if I've got this straight; when the Cats beat an Ole Miss, Brooks is doing a good job coaching, but when they get humiliated at LSU he's not? That, as another poster so eloquently said, is the "bull hockey"!

The reason we beat the Texas State's and Ole Miss's and Central Michigan's of the football world is solely because those are the type of teams with which our talent matches up well or exceeds, IMO. I think it's just too easy to always blame the Coaching Staff for everything.

Just ask yourself, "why did the same offensive plays and defensive schemesthat worked so well against the 3 teams we've beaten not work against the teams that have beaten us"? The answer is plain and simple; the teams that beat us have better talent. Again -- and I can't stress this enough, thisIS NOTmeant to be a knock on the heart or character of our players, and personally I didn't want Brooks here in the first place, but the cold, hard fact is that we're getting beaten by superior talent on the field moreso than superior coaching on the opposing sideline!

I've also noticed a lot of talk about this being a "young team". Well pardon me, but anybody who pays attention knows this is what they've beensaying every year at Kentucky for as long as I can remember!! IMHO that's just thepolitically correct way of saying "we're not going to be very good this year". How does that happen? How do you have a young team year after year? Are they running kids off after their sophomore year or something? Please, somebody enlighten me!!

Kentucky does not (and hasn't for years) have the drawing power to get the top-notch blue-chip football recruits, and we're not alone. There are dozens and dozens of other Division 1 schools in the same boat. In the recruiting world the cruel reality is that there are the"haves" and the "have nots", and if it makes anybody feel better, we're not even close to being the only team that resides in the "have nots" category. That's why you see virtually the same teams in the Top 25 year in and year out.

Finally, to address one specific comment; give this same UK team to Spurrier or Petrino, and they still get beaten convincingly by LSU last Saturday.

LOL, I sure didn't mean to ruffle so many people's feathers, I'm justvoicing my opinion, same as all of you...

It is the coach's job to get the most out of the talent. Upper echelon teams all have similar talent and that is where coaching comes in. What makes a great coach is a coach who can beat better talent with lesser talent consistantly. If you give this same team to Spurrier or Petrino they would not have been destroyed by LSU. They may not have won, but they would not have been beaten 49-0. Spurrier and Petrino would both make Woodson look all world at QB.

Mountain Cat

10-18-2006, 09:06 AM

Rank of last few years classes according to Rivals:

2006: UK - 36 UL - 34

2005: UK - 67 UL - 45

2004: UK - 45 UL - 64

2003: UK - 63 UL - 35

4yr Ave: UK - 53 UL - 45

So why is UL the #6 team in the country and UK #63?

Could it possibly be .....coaching?:shrug:

noone

10-18-2006, 09:11 AM

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 09:17 AM

FatCatDaddy wrote: It is the coach's job to get the most out of the talent. Upper echelon teams all have similar talent and that is where coaching comes in. What makes a great coach is a coach who can beat better talent with lesser talent consistantly. If you give this same team to Spurrier or Petrino they would not have been destroyed by LSU. They may not have won, but they would not have been beaten 49-0. Spurrier and Petrino would both make Woodson look all world at QB.

I can't really disagree with you because you've reinforced several of my points, whether you meant to or not. It's pure speculation to say that they would have faired better against LSU with a different coach, and as far as Spurrier or Petrino making Woodson look "all world", that goes back to what I said earlier about adapting your style of play to your talent. That's why Mumme had relative success here; he knew he couldn't play smash-mouth football against SEC opponents with the talent that UK is able to recruit, period.

Name one Coach who consistently beats better talent that isn't already coaching a top-tier program. An occasional victory over better teams is what gets coaches looks and offers from "quality" schools when positions open up, and then they're coaching better talent than most of teams they play; so that doesn't happen often (that's why they call it an "upset").

Brooks & Co. need to go, there's no doubt about that, but to place all the blame on the staff after a 49-0 butt-whoopin' is misguided criticism that doesn't pass muster with me. I guess all we can do is agree to disagree on that one.

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 09:31 AM

Mountain Cat wrote: Rank of last few years classes according to Rivals:

2006: UK - 36 UL - 34

2005: UK - 67 UL - 45

2004: UK - 45 UL - 64

2003: UK - 63 UL - 35

4yr Ave: UK - 53 UL - 45

So why is UL the #6 team in the country and UK #63?

Could it possibly be .....coaching?:shrug:

That's interesting reading, but IMHO you can take that "ranking" of a recruiting class to MCDonalds and you'd still need a dollar to get a cup of coffee! That's just fodder for the talking heads as far as I'm concerned. There's no guarantee that a HS football "star" will have any impact at the college level, because he's all of the sudden playing against other "stars" and not just the rest of the kids in his home city/state.

Of course the Coach has a lot to do with it, but why is it (especially regarding Kentucky) that when the team wins, all ofthe praise goes to the players and their performance, but when they lose it's the Coaches fault?

I'll stand my ground and argue until we're all blue in the face that a 49-0 loss means you got hammered by superior talent, first and foremost, with the coaches "performance" being only a secondary factor at best.

noone

10-18-2006, 10:04 AM

Buck_Naked wrote: Mountain Cat wrote: Rank of last few years classes according to Rivals:

2006: UK - 36 UL - 34

2005: UK - 67 UL - 45

2004: UK - 45 UL - 64

2003: UK - 63 UL - 35

4yr Ave: UK - 53 UL - 45

So why is UL the #6 team in the country and UK #63?

Could it possibly be .....coaching?:shrug:

Of course the Coach has a lot to do with it, but why is it (especially regarding Kentucky) that when the team wins, all ofthe praise goes to the players and their performance, but when they lose it's the Coaches fault?

I'll stand my ground and argue until we're all blue in the face that a 49-0 loss means you got hammered by superior talent, first and foremost, with the coaches "performance" being only a secondary factor at best.

A lot of praise went to Hal Mumme when he took Bill Curry's sorry bunch from '96 and turned them into an exciting team in '97. Even more praise was slung his way when the '99 team went to a bowl game, after seeing Tim Couch depart early.

Guy Mo got plenty of praise for the work he did in '02.

I'm not sure why it is that people forget these things.

catfanintn

10-18-2006, 10:10 AM

Mountain Cat wrote: Rank of last few years classes according to Rivals:

2006: UK - 36 UL - 34

2005: UK - 67 UL - 45

2004: UK - 45 UL - 64

2003: UK - 63 UL - 35

4yr Ave: UK - 53 UL - 45

So why is UL the #6 team in the country and UK #63?

Could it possibly be .....coaching?:shrug:

I grew up in southern Kyduring the Fran Curcy (sp?) daysand was at UK when we, IMHO, had the last great UK team (D. Ramsey, S. Collins, Art Still, etc.). However, I've lived here in Tennessee now (26 years) longer than I lived in Ky (23 years). I'm still an AVID UK BB fan, but due to the pitiful state of the football program, have become a "closet" UT follower :blush:(do not own anything orange, yet, and never will). I still long for the day, however, that UK will once again gain some sort of respectability and still root for them against UT, though I don't recall the last time we've beaten them.

My question for you folks there in God's country (Ky) is this: how in the world did UL suddenly become a top 20 team? Was it the hiring of Petrino? Was it a renewed emphasis by the athletic dept? What was it? It is definately not easy to make a name for yourself in the football realm due to the number of high quality players needed - but UL has done it! Why can't UK? Why can't the state schoolin the premier football conference bring in the best talent - especially the best ofthe state of Ky?

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 10:16 AM

noone wrote: Buck_Naked wrote: Mountain Cat wrote: Rank of last few years classes according to Rivals:

2006: UK - 36 UL - 34

2005: UK - 67 UL - 45

2004: UK - 45 UL - 64

2003: UK - 63 UL - 35

4yr Ave: UK - 53 UL - 45

So why is UL the #6 team in the country and UK #63?

Could it possibly be .....coaching?:shrug:

Of course the Coach has a lot to do with it, but why is it (especially regarding Kentucky) that when the team wins, all ofthe praise goes to the players and their performance, but when they lose it's the Coaches fault?

I'll stand my ground and argue until we're all blue in the face that a 49-0 loss means you got hammered by superior talent, first and foremost, with the coaches "performance" being only a secondary factor at best.

A lot of praise went to Hal Mumme when he took Bill Curry's sorry bunch from '96 and turned them into an exciting team in '97. Even more praise was slung his way when the '99 team went to a bowl game, after seeing Tim Couch depart early.

Guy Mo got plenty of praise for the work he did in '02.

I'm not sure why it is that people forget these things.

You make good points, but that hasn't been the case in the Brooks era. Is that because nobody (except Barnhart) really wanted him here in the first place?

Think about this; Bill Curry got run out of Alabama for going only 9-3. He brings his same coaching style to UK and couldn't win his way out of a wet paper bag! Why is that? I'll tell you why; because the talent level at UK is consistently lower than that of the "marquee" programs. It has been for years, and IMO it would take several years of consistent winning to change that.And by "consistent winning" I don't mean going7-5 for 3 or 4 years like UK fans have proven they'd be contentto see. It has as much or more to do with tradition than it does anything, including who is the current Head Coach.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I believe superior talent beats superior coaching dang near every time. And when that doesn't happen, they call it an UPSET.

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 10:19 AM

catfanintn wrote: Why can't the state schoolin the premier football conference bring in the best talent - especially the best ofthe state of Ky?

The person that can successfully answer that question -- and implement the solution, would be revered as a God around here forever!

;)

catfanintn

10-18-2006, 10:37 AM

Buck_Naked wrote: catfanintn wrote: Why can't the state schoolin the premier football conference bring in the best talent - especially the best ofthe state of Ky?

The person that can successfully answer that question -- and implement the solution, would be revered as a God around here forever!

;)

All goes back to PERCEPTION. Kentucky is perceived as a LOSER school in terms of football. That's pretty obvious. How do you change perception? How did UofL?

Very hard to do, even in BB which takes MUCH less talent (case in point - UT).

Definately has to start with coaching, however. Most schools realize this. Is this how UL got it's growth (is Petrino that good)? S. Carolina tried this with Holtz but he was too old for high school kids to take seriously. They're trying it now with Spurrier and may succeed.

Question is whether UK is committed enough to get a top notch coach or diligent enough to find that "diamond in the rough" young coach to get everyone (including the media outside Kentucky) excited. Brooks, imho, might have what it takes to make UK into a top 50 team, but never a top 20 - never above 4th in the SEC east.

ukbob

10-18-2006, 11:08 AM

catfanintn wrote: Buck_Naked wrote: catfanintn wrote: Why can't the state schoolin the premier football conference bring in the best talent - especially the best ofthe state of Ky?

The person that can successfully answer that question -- and implement the solution, would be revered as a God around here forever!

;)

All goes back to PERCEPTION. Kentucky is perceived as a LOSER school in terms of football. That's pretty obvious. How do you change perception? How did UofL?

Very hard to do, even in BB which takes MUCH less talent (case in point - UT).

Definately has to start with coaching, however. Most schools realize this. Is this how UL got it's growth (is Petrino that good)? S. Carolina tried this with Holtz but he was too old for high school kids to take seriously. They're trying it now with Spurrier and may succeed.

Question is whether UK is committed enough to get a top notch coach or diligent enough to find that "diamond in the rough" young coach to get everyone (including the media outside Kentucky) excited. Brooks, imho, might have what it takes to make UK into a top 50 team, but never a top 20 - never above 4th in the SEC east.

I will tell you how UL did it and it did not happen overnight.......

They brought in Schnellenberger who made UK fans laugh when he proclaimed that UL was going to be put on the map one day. He arranged schedules to meet their needs, and when the opportunity arose they performed and beat Bama in a Bowl game. Fast forward....they make a greta hire in Jurich who in turn makes football a priority. After dumping Cooper and others who were nothing but losers, Jurich brings in Johnelle:)Smith/ Jurich gave him a manageable schedule in a terribly weak conference and Smith took full advantage of it. They won games...lots of games. They went to Bowls and even though they lost the Bowls, the went. Exit Johnelle and enter Jurich again. He brings home a guy who is rising and knows the school in Petrino...the rest is history. They hire a real DC in Cassity who completes the process. They now are in a better conference and are threatening (if the chips fall right)to be close to playing for a title. On top of that, they are expanding the Slice to 60,000 in 2 years. Schnellenberger's dream is brought to fruition.

I am certainly not fond of Jurich and I have met him, but the guy not only has a vision but knows how to act upon it without prejudice. He wants something...he goes and gets it. When Petrino bolts...and he will....the UL folks are more than confident that Jurich will hire someone that will allow them not to miss a beat.

UK has no such luxury of playing constant weak schedules to increase wins. We are stuck in aconference that is over our heads and will always be. On top of that, we have had administrations that could not get out of their own way and brought football down even farther, if possible. And only time will tell if Barnhart is any better than the others(concerning football). He must get something going pretty soon and while the hiring of Brooks was criticized, it was also easy to understand why he was brought in.

The next hire is the crucial one. I hope MB is up to it like Jurich was and remains.

Other schools like USC have their story as well and it is an up and down one for sure. Our story is still being written and right now, it is not a real good one. But it could be.

catfanintn

10-18-2006, 11:19 AM

Great reply, Bob.

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 11:33 AM

ukbob wrote:
I will tell you how UL did it and it did not happen overnight.......

You make only passing references to the fact that they played in a Conference that consistently ranked near the bottom of the power ratings. That, IMO, is one of the biggest factors of their rise to respectability. By playing the weak teams/schedules year after year they learned how to win and developed a "winners mentality".

As successful as UL has been over the past few years, you still have to admit that they haven't exactly "lit up" top notch competition, and still only have a few "signature" wins. Heck, look at their schedule this year: only 3 ranked teams, and only one of those currentlyin the Top 10, where UK's Conference has 3 in the Top 10 and FIVE in the Top 15!

Stick UK in a Conference like the old Cupcake USA or A-10 or the MAC (well, maybe not the MAC) and they could build some confidence and tradition as well.

Again, the brutal -- and unfair -- reality is that you'll have a very hard time recruiting the kids that can make you a consistent winner unless you're already a consistent winner.

ukbob

10-18-2006, 11:41 AM

Buck_Naked wrote: ukbob wrote:
I will tell you how UL did it and it did not happen overnight.......

You make only passing references to the fact that they played in a Conference that consistently ranked near the bottom of the power ratings. That, IMO, is one of the biggest factors of their rise to respectability. By playing the weak teams/schedules year after year they learned how to win and developed a "winners mentality".

As successful as UL has been over the past few years, you still have to admit that they haven't exactly "lit up" top notch competition, and still only have a few "signature" wins. Heck, look at their schedule this year: only 3 ranked teams, and only one of those currentlyin the Top 10, where UK's Conference has 3 in the Top 10 and FIVE in the Top 15!

Stick UK in a Conference like the old Cupcake USA or A-10 or the MAC (well, maybe not the MAC) and they could build some confidence and tradition as well.

Again, the brutal -- and unfair -- reality is that you'll have a very hard time recruiting the kids that can make you a consistent winner unless you're already a consistent winner.

I did reference it quite a bit I thought. It was not UL's fault they were in a sucky conference. But they took advantage of it instead of just trying to survive in it. Then they took the opportunity to move. The BE will never be compared to the SEC for sure, but then again, I don't think we belong in the SEC anyway. I think we are saying the same thing there.

And I agree with your last sentence. Tough to catch up with the real powers when youa re so far behind and continue to be behind.

catfanintn

10-18-2006, 11:58 AM

It's too bad for UK that SOMEONE has to be the cellar dweller in the SEC-East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee are die hard perennial powerhouses who live, eat, and breath football. Football is the culture here in the south. They would sacrifice their first born to stay in the top 10.

How do you compete against that mentality at a school where football is THIRD after BB and horse racing (we used to play night games during Keeneland back in the 70's - do they still do that?).

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 12:04 PM

catfanintn wrote: It's too bad for UK that SOMEONE has to be the cellar dweller in the SEC-East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee are die hard perennial powerhouses who live, eat, and breath football. Football is the culture here in the south. They would sacrifice their first born to stay in the top 10.

How do you compete against that mentality at a school where football is THIRD after BB and horse racing (we used to play night games during Keeneland back in the 70's - do they still do that?).

Yeah, they still play in the evening when Keeneland is in session, and if UK's Baseball and Women's basketball teams repeat their success of last season, football might find itself in FIFTH!

catfanintn

10-18-2006, 01:15 PM

You know, you DO feel sorry for the players sometimes because of all this. My son plays on a team that is winless this year because they're in a high school division here in south Tn that is well above them. He goes to a private Christian school with only a little over 100 in their high school and they play against schools with 300-400 in their schools. Makes a HUGE difference. He's 6'1" - 160 lbs. and has to body up against 200 pounders constantly. Many a wonder he hasn't been hurt yet.

Size of the school is not the issue here, but the calibre of players is. As much as we may love our players, it's extremely difficult for them to not only line up against guys more talented and/or bigger than them, but also coming at them in waves of substitutes, which Kentucky's never had.

Buck_Naked

10-18-2006, 01:24 PM

poodoo

10-18-2006, 03:52 PM

catfanintn wrote: You know, you DO feel sorry for the players sometimes because of all this. My son plays on a team that is winless this year because they're in a high school division here in south Tn that is well above them. He goes to a private Christian school with only a little over 100 in their high school and they play against schools with 300-400 in their schools. Makes a HUGE difference. He's 6'1" - 160 lbs. and has to body up against 200 pounders constantly. Many a wonder he hasn't been hurt yet.

Size of the school is not the issue here, but the calibre of players is. As much as we may love our players, it's extremely difficult for them to not only line up against guys more talented and/or bigger than them, but also coming at them in waves of substitutes, which Kentucky's never had.

Excellent post, catfanintn. FWIW, someone said that Spurrier WOULD HAVE won that game over South Carolinaif he hadbeen the coach of the UK players. Idon't think there is any way that we can definitely say that. Perhaps that is true, but who knows! All I know is that my husband mentioned after the game how he had noticed how much substituting South Carolina was doing defensively that game with seemingly much more talented depth than UK. :(In only thesegments of the LSU game that I saw onBrooks' television show, it was surely obviousy that those guyswere bigger,faster, stronger, etc.

It does make a difference, no doubt. Yes, coaches have to make their players overachieve and to play to the best of their ability. There is also no doubt that they did not succeed in doing so the LSU game. Yet, I really felt for our players that game, for they fully realized that they were overmatched. LSU had come out really ready to play after its loss to Florida (a game in which LSU had had turnovers that influenced the outcome), while UK seemed to be still hurting from the narrow loss to South Carolina, one they knew that they COULD have won.

Most of all, though, this thread is titled 42-0. HOWEVER, thankfully, that is NOT the score of the season. Some are posting as if the season is OVER, and, frankly, it is NOT OVER. It could be a lot closer to being over if we lose to MSU next Saturday, admittedly, but meanwhile I'm going to continue BELIEVING that we can get to a bowl game and greatly improve this UK football program I love. I expect neither the coaches nor the players to quit, and as a fan I expect the same of myself, FWIW. Again, good post, catfanintn. GO CATS! BEAT MSU!

poodoo

10-18-2006, 04:12 PM

I do not blame the players one bit. QUOTE

________

Personally, I don't like the word BLAME at all, period. I also rarely use the word HATE, but I doHATE the Blame Game. When people play the Blame Game, they tend to blame ONE person. Again, I agree with Buck_Naked and ukbobthat anyACCOUNTABILITY for our performancesmust be shared. Personally, I prefer to call it sharingaccountability or responsibility, rather than sharing blame.

Regardless, I would not BLAME a player or players for anything. Yet, it surely seems to me that playershave someresponsibility for how a team performs. In my post I even said that I think Coach Brooks takes TOO MUCH of the blame. I meant that some seem to blame him entirely for the team's performance (and the pasted quote is just an example). Putting ALL the blame on Coach Brooks simply does not make sense to me, although he is at the same time ULTIMATELY responsible for his team's performance, of course.

In the LSU game, actually, although the players' performance was just horrid, most of the blame should probably go on the coaching staff for the way things fell apart. :(YET, in the South Carolina game, no, those dropped balls, or the missed fumble recovery, or the dropped interception, all of which were easy plays that any one of which COULD have changed the game's outcome, cannot be TOTALLY blamed on Coach Brooks, at least in my opinion.

For me, it's not just about Coach Brooks himself. As I watched some of the happenings in the NFL game between the Bears and the Cardinals, I felt that I was watching UK football as the Bears came back to win the game in one crazy way after the other. :(How many times I had seen similar occurrings in Commonwealth Stadium, for decades, one UK coach after the other. :(Anyway, the point is that Coach Dennis Green will be BLAMED for the loss by many fans, BUT to me, the players must share the responsibility. Coach Green did not let Leinart get blindsided, cause Edgerrin James to lose control of the ball, cause the kicker to miss the winning field goal, etc., etc., etc. That's just the way I see it, folks.

CatFanInTheBathtub

10-18-2006, 06:11 PM

ukbob wrote: I don't think we belong in the SEC anyway.

I don't think you can look at it like "our football program is in the sec". You have to see it as "our sports program is in the sec". I see ourgeneral bottom-feeder status in football as a trade-off for the other sports that we are successful in. You really can't be good at everything unless you're uf and we allknow that they have adavntages that no one else will ever have. Now, I want football success as much as the next Cat,I yearn for the day I see us sitting in the bcs picture this time of year, but I sure would never want to downgrade to a sissy conference to pick up a few more wins.

I love playing the best week after week becausethat's just another chance for a huge win

Art Vandelay

10-19-2006, 03:05 PM

You can always find reasons to justify losing. People with a losers' mentality do that. I've heard Kentucky fans moan about how hard it is to compete in the SEC for as long as I can remember. Of course it's hard, but that should make the administration try that much harder. Use it as motivation, not an excuse.

First of all, I agree with everything UKbob had to say - except the part where he said we don't belong in the SEC. We are a charter member of the conference and this is where we belong.Louisville is a legitimate top ten team. Despite the neysayers on this board, U of L could compete with anybody in the SEC right now. They had the luxury of playing in weaker conferences while developing, but what they have done since bringing Schnellenberger and then Jurich on board is nothing short of miraculous. The good thing for UK is it proves it can be done. We have far more resources than U of L.

The last time we hired a coach, we hired a guy with a lifetime losing record whose best record EVER as a head coach is 9-4. We shouldn't be surprised that he's had a hard time competing in the SEC, he hasn't competed very well anywhere. Make any excuse you want, but until UK hires a serious coach and puts enough money into the program we will be losers. I really believe Kentucky can be winners in the SEC. Bear Bryant did it and the SEC was just as tough in those days. We need to lose this losers' mentality and give football everything we've got.

Finally, I think the kids we have right now would be more competitive if we had a better, more agressive, more confident coaching staff. Quit reminding everybody about our history of losing, quit talking about needing better players, etc. and bust your asses to win games now. Try that and things will get better immediately.For example, Coach Brooks, FIRE ARCHER NOW! Last place in the NCAA is unacceptable. Take over the defense yourself for the rest of the year and let everyone know that failure is uncacceptable to you. Let the players know that they deserve better coaching than they have gotten. Give them their best opportunity to win. Make them believe they can compete with and beat anybody they play. Try that the rest of the season. I think our team deserves it. I know the fans do.

poodoo

10-20-2006, 09:36 PM

You can always find reasons to justify losing. People with a losers' mentality do that. I've heard Kentucky fans moan about how hard it is to compete in the SEC for as long as I can remember. Of course it's hard, but that should make the administration try that much harder. Use it as motivation, not an excuse. QUOTE

__________

Justifying losing doesn't make sense to me, FWIW. Too, that "losers' mentality," though, has existed, unfortunately, in UK football for a long periodof time (with a few bright spots).

THAT is indeed whatMUSTchange. We THOUGHT that it might be changing when we got Bill Curry. I remember being so thrilled about the coaching hire. It didn't happen. :(The Mumme years with Tim Couch were "fool's gold." Even in the one nice Morris year we stillhad the LSU Hail Mary completion. :(

I still believethings CAN change for UK football, even in the SEC. I had hopes we were on the way toBELIEVING in ourselves (based on both players' and coaches' comments), but then we squandered huge opportunities against South Carolina (and didNOT do the things WINNERS have to do) and then took a huge step backwards againstLSU. :(

Personally, I just hope we can recover. I hope the damage can be undone.I doubt players are believing in themselves as much, and certainly our national reputation has suffered from the last two losses, especially the blowout loss at LSU. IF we had beaten South Carolina (which was much closertohappening than many herearechoosing to believe), I believe a bowl game would have beenvery near our grasp ANDrecruiting success, which is themain way a program rises to another level.

In one sense wearenow back to square one. How we perform the rest of the season means so much about our futurein the SEC (a league that makes it impossible for us to rise at the pace Louisville rose). Just myhumble opinion on the matter. GO CATS! BEAT MSU!