More of the same

[VirginiaBlue]

This article laments the sad state of the ACC. It's really convenient for everybody to think that the only reason UK was able to beat FSU was because of their depleted depth chart. Nobody seems to remember that UK was favored in the game BEFORE the academic scandal news broke...

Saddest of all, its depth chart depleted by a cheating scandal, Florida State fell to Kentucky.

Link (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/sports/colleges.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-01-05-0045.html)

[poodoo]

Exactly, VirginiaBlue. Too, here are words from the AP account of the game on the CJ's front page:

"The Seminoles (7-6) were playing THREE DOZEN players short because of injuries and suspensions stemming from an academic cheating scandal."

"Woodson capaitalized and finished the season with 40 touchdown passes..."

What a shame for the Cats that such became the focus! Sure, it will be soon forgotten, and Woodson's and the other seniors' legacy will not be damaged. Right now, though, it makes me mad :mad: for them and the other UK players and coaches (and I hardly ever get mad!).

Besides our already having been favored, FSU did NOT play without THREE DOZEN players that would have otherwise played in the game, not even remotely close to that (besides most all of their leading playmakers' having played in the game). Their own athletic director noted that up to TEN of the players were walk-ons who would not have traveled, regardless.

So evidently 26 players were not available for FSU, and, again, many of those would likely not have played. Too, FSU actually had only ONE DOZEN, rather than three dozen, less SCHOLLY players available, based on the reports from the two schools. Much of the media repeatedly reports the BIGGER number and more attention-getting story without sharing the rest of the significant facts.:mad:

Yes, FSU was hurt in the area of depth. The reports, though, have been so misleading and unfair to our Cats! I hear you, VirginiaBlue.

[RV]

If they were redshirting zero players and had zero injuries the 36 figure may have had some validity.

By comparison UK had reshirted 18 of the 85 scholarship players, had one starter suspended (Leger) and numerous players including some starters injured and out for the game and season (Oninku, Locke, Minton, Thurmond etc.). All this adding to the 'fact' that UK had to play the game TWO AND HALF DOZEN PLAYERS SHORT.

[kyjohn]

They(media or whomever),can say all that want,but they will never diminish UKs' great victory.

[BamaCat86]

I work with an FSU alum and he admitted that most of the 36 players would not have seen the field had they made the trip to the bowl game.

A lot of the suspended players were walkons and redshirts.

[poodoo]

If they were redshirting zero players and had zero injuries the 36 figure may have had some validity.

By comparison UK had reshirted 18 of the 85 scholarship players, had one starter suspended (Leger) and numerous players including some starters injured and out for the game and season (Oninku, Locke, Minton, Thurmond etc.). All this adding to the 'fact' that UK had to play the game TWO AND HALF DOZEN PLAYERS SHORT.


Tell them, RV!!! :icon_mrgreen: Too, THANK YOU!

Thinking back to that line that FSU played the game "short three dozen players" and that Andre supposedly "capitalized" on that situation STILL upsets me! :mad: Too, we're talking about a supposedly factual AP article. :icon_frown:

Don't mess with my Cats!!! ;)

[Russ24ky]

If they were redshirting zero players and had zero injuries the 36 figure may have had some validity.

By comparison UK had reshirted 18 of the 85 scholarship players, had one starter suspended (Leger) and numerous players including some starters injured and out for the game and season (Oninku, Locke, Minton, Thurmond etc.). All this adding to the 'fact' that UK had to play the game TWO AND HALF DOZEN PLAYERS SHORT.

and it's tough going 11 VS 18.. Seems the officals TRIED to give it to them too