Brooks & Howard Schnellenberger

[cobbycobb]

I have read and heard people for years cry that we did not get Schnelly to be our coach on a couple different occasions. A majority of fans hold Schnelly in very high esteem. He was a good coach and a very likable person. I think we have that exact same character/coach in Rich Brooks.

Rich Brooks is laying the foundation for UK to excel in the future, and that future is nigh!

Let's look at the coaches a little...

Howard Schnellenberger
Years As Collegiate Coach: 20
Collegiate Record: 128-107-3 (.544)
At Miami: 41-16 (.719) [independant]
At Louisville: 54-56-2 (.491) [independant]
At Oklahoma: 5-5-1 (.500) [Big 12]
At Florida Atlantic: 28-30 (.482) [Sun belt]

Bowl Record: 4-0
1980 Peach Bowl, beat Virginia Tech 20-10
1983 Orange Bowl, beat Nebraska 31-30
1990 Fiesta Bowl, beat Alabama 34-7
1993 Liberty Bowl, beat Michigan State 18-7
<>

Rich Brooks
Years As Collegiate Coach: 21yrs
Collegiat record as HC 100-134-4
AT Oregon 91-109-4(18yrs) [Pac 10]
AT UK 9-25 (3yrs) [SEC]

1995 Rose Bowl Lost No. 2 Penn State 38-20
1992 Independence Bowl Lost Wake Forest 39-35
1990 Freedom Bowl Lost Colorado St 32-31
1989 Independence Bowl Beat Tulsa 27-24


Now, at first glance Schnelly is clearly the better coach. I won't argue that. However, if you look closer they are not as far off as one might guess. Schnelly benefited from playing a weaker schedule by being an independant. Sure, he would play anybody anywhere, but the bulk of his opponents were not the equal to what Brooks has had to face against the P-10/SEC. Some proof could be garned at the fact that while at OK he did not have the same success. This was a traditional power school and he did no better than .500 and was let go.

The point though is not who they have played but that BOTH coaches helped to build their former programs. They BOTH have layed the solid foundations that their respective schools have used to build upon and prosper. Time will prove that Brooks was the Best choice for UK.

To replace the coaching staff now--unless we only win <3 games--would be a detrimental mistake. This coaching staff is bringing in the talent, the speed, and just as importantly changing the attitudes of the players on the UK football team. By replacing them now, we would be set back another 2 years. IF we can keep this staff in place and allow them to prosper, we--UK--will be on a collision course with Destiny! WE will win the BCS championship! It is just a matter of time!

[LAcat]

cobbycobb wrote: I have read and heard people for years cry that we did not get Schnelly to be our coach on a couple different occasions. A majority of fans hold Schnelly in very high esteem. He was a good coach and a very likable person. I think we have that exact same character/coach in Rich Brooks.

Rich Brooks is laying the foundation for UK to excel in the future, and that future is nigh!

Let's look at the coaches a little...

Howard Schnellenberger
Years As Collegiate Coach: 20
Collegiate Record: 128-107-3 (.544)
At Miami: 41-16 (.719) [independant]
At Louisville: 54-56-2 (.491) [independant]
At Oklahoma: 5-5-1 (.500) [Big 12]
At Florida Atlantic: 28-30 (.482) [Sun belt]

Bowl Record: 4-0
1980 Peach Bowl, beat Virginia Tech 20-10
1983 Orange Bowl, beat Nebraska 31-30
1990 Fiesta Bowl, beat Alabama 34-7
1993 Liberty Bowl, beat Michigan State 18-7
<>

Rich Brooks
Years As Collegiate Coach: 21yrs
Collegiat record as HC 100-134-4
AT Oregon 91-109-4(18yrs) [Pac 10]
AT UK 9-25 (3yrs) [SEC]

1995 Rose Bowl Lost No. 2 Penn State 38-20
1992 Independence Bowl Lost Wake Forest 39-35
1990 Freedom Bowl Lost Colorado St 32-31
1989 Independence Bowl Beat Tulsa 27-24


Now, at first glance Schnelly is clearly the better coach. I won't argue that. However, if you look closer they are not as far off as one might guess. Schnelly benefited from playing a weaker schedule by being an independant. Sure, he would play anybody anywhere, but the bulk of his opponents were not the equal to what Brooks has had to face against the P-10/SEC. Some proof could be garned at the fact that while at OK he did not have the same success. This was a traditional power school and he did no better than .500 and was let go.

The point though is not who they have played but that BOTH coaches helped to build their former programs. They BOTH have layed the solid foundations that their respective schools have used to build upon and prosper. Time will prove that Brooks was the Best choice for UK.

To replace the coaching staff now--unless we only win <3 games--would be a detrimental mistake. This coaching staff is bringing in the talent, the speed, and just as importantly changing the attitudes of the players on the UK football team. By replacing them now, we would be set back another 2 years. IF we can keep this staff in place and allow them to prosper, we--UK--will be on a collision course with Destiny! WE will win the BCS championship! It is just a matter of time!Howard Schenellenberger was run out of Oklahoma after one year. I don't see the comparison.

[cobbycobb]

"Howard Schenellenberger was run out of Oklahoma after one year. I don't see the comparison."


The comparison is that both took programs and laid a solid foundation for the future.

Look at Miami and Louisville before and after Schnelly... Then look at Oregon before and after Brooks... Both built solid foundations. UK was in shambles before Brooks got here and we are just now getting out of that thanks to Brooks and co. We need to keep RB & staff, IMO.

[T75]

cobbycobb wrote:
Look at Miami and Louisville before and after Schnelly... Then look at Oregon before and after Brooks... Both built solid foundations. UK was in shambles before Brooks got here and we are just now getting out of that thanks to Brooks and co. We need to keep RB & staff, IMO.


I too believe our program is in tremendously better shape than it was when Brooks took over. I was opposed to his hiring and I've certainly not been satisfied with our teams' recordsin the first three years. BUT, I think we'll see significant improvement in the win/loss record this season and then a good team bound to a decent bowl in 2007.

I believe that Brooks deserves and will get his full 5 years (of his contract) unless this year is a total disaster--only 3 or 4 wins. Then the following year some maturity will start to set in---At UK believe it or not---and Brooks will be in control of his future from that point. My guess is that he'll have had enough after 2007 and will have shown the ability to rebuild a miserable program--ready to retire gracefully and with pride.

This is my hope.

[The Hack]

Good post, and interesting analysis, CobbyCobb. Nationally, most would rank Scnelly higher, because of his title at Miami, but Brooks did the very unlikely at Oregon, and appears to be on the cusp of doing it again, here.

I really hope that we can get at least a 5-7 mark this year, just enough to keep Brooks and his staff, and then T75's thoughts kick in.

2007 should be a bowl year . . . . and 06 might be.

Get to a bowl either, or both years, and Brook's will look like a genius.

We don't see much discussion of it here, but should Brook's make his 10 years, as he originally said he hoped for, we have an interesting mix of folks on the staff who could then be in the running. Obviously, Archer and Joker have and will continue to receive mention, BUUUUT they might get a run for their money from Chuck Smith.

Goal one, though, is to get some wins in the next 25 months, so we can keep 'em all.

[RedandBlackATTACK]

Howard never had a prayer at OU. What OU did to not only Howard but Bev as well was criminal.

Rick

C-Bus

[Aike]

Beat Texas State, Central Michigan, La-Monroe, Vandy, MSU, and Ole Miss, and Brooks is a genius?

The Hack wrote:

Get to a bowl either, or both years, and Brook's will look like a genius.

[Athens2005]

*delete*

[Athens2005]

The Hack wrote: Get to a bowl either, or both years, and Brook's will look like a genius.


Looks can be deceiving.

[RedandBlackATTACK]

Beat Texas State, Central Michigan, La-Monroe, Vandy, MSU, and Ole Miss, and Brooks is a genius?
Given what he has to work with, getting by Vandy,MSU and Ole Miss and receiving an invite to the Liberty Bowl (Much speculation on another UK Board about the Liberty) would IMO would be more than a successful year. A job well done on Brooksy's part and I don't think you can wack a guy after taking over a train wreck and getting to a bowl game.

Rick

[Aike]

Successful? Given our track record, I will certainly give you that. But beating all of the teams that you are supposed to beat, and losing to all of the teams that are supposed to beat you hardly qualifies as genius in my book.

Train wreck is inaccurate, imo. Clearly we had problems, but we were coming off of a 7-5 season, and had enough talent to go Bowling in Brooks' first year. Instead, we were a mediocre 4-8, and have been treading water at best ever since.


But yes, all things considered, I will be satisfied with .500 ball the next two years.


RedandBlackATTACK wrote: Beat Texas State, Central Michigan, La-Monroe, Vandy, MSU, and Ole Miss, and Brooks is a genius?
Given what he has to work with, getting by Vandy,MSU and Ole Miss and receiving an invite to the Liberty Bowl (Much speculation on another UK Board about the Liberty) would IMO would be more than a successful year. A job well done on Brooksy's part and I don't think you can wack a guy after taking over a train wreck and getting to a bowl game.

Rick

[baldcat]

I'll go to my grave wondering what would have happened if UK had hired The Pipe back in the early 80's after Curci left.

Maybe in some parallel universe we're a national football power.

[RedandBlackATTACK]

I'll go to my grave wondering what would have happened if UK had hired The Pipe back in the early 80's after Curci left.

Maybe in some parallel universe we're a national football power.
You know, I wonder if the old coach is thinking the same thing.

Rick

C-Bus

[The Hack]

I have to go along with the Trainwreck analogy.

Someone said "looks can be deceiving," and that is certainly true. The 2003 team at first blush looked like the 2002 team that went 7-5, but had several missing bodies that hollowed out the defense, Big Dewayne Robertson being the most notable.

I have often looked at Kentucky thinking they had sufficient talent to win big, and then a few years later I have run across my old Media Guide, and I look back at all the kids that went undrafted and realized that my blue tinted glasses had deceived me, originally.

We must remember that Brooks was handed a team with more recruiting restrictions than any team in the country, and at the time of his arrival that team had a three year combined record of 11-23, compiled against virtually the same schedules he would face, and compiled LARGELY BEFORE THE RECRUITING RESTRICTIONS KICKED IN.

It is less of a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in his first year, than it is a miracle that he didn't have a winless season in his first three seasons.

So, the million dollar question is whether my usually optimistic nature is misleading me on this season.

I think Brook's and company have brought in enough talent the last three years to win 6. Could this be compiled against less than stellar teams? Yes, and thank God we finally have the teams listed by Aike, to go along with our usualmurderer's row in the SEC.

Aike, I'm willing to bet I've followed UK as long as you, and I remember Claiborne's 0-1-10 mark in 1982, and Curry's 1-10 in 1994.

While exceeding Curry's worst mark in the down times does not qualify Brooks as a genius, one must consider that avoiding the depth Claiborne achieved is a substantial success, considering that Claiborne retired as one of the 10 winningest coaches in the country.

[Aike]

In 2003, we had four wins. To reach six wins that season, we would have needed to bat down one ball in overtime against Arkansas, and beat Vandy. I do not think it is a stretch to say that the 2003 team could have easily been a bowl team.

Claiborne bounced back admirably from the 1982 season to take us to back to back bowls. Furthermore, he never won less than five games after '82. I'm still waiting for Coach Brooks to reach the magical nickel mark (though I will be somewhat surprised if that doesn't happen this season).

I don't even want to talk about Bill Curry. :cool:

The Hack wrote: I have to go along with the Trainwreck analogy.

Someone said "looks can be deceiving," and that is certainly true. The 2003 team at first blush looked like the 2002 team that went 7-5, but had several missing bodies that hollowed out the defense, Big Dewayne Robertson being the most notable.

I have often looked at Kentucky thinking they had sufficient talent to win big, and then a few years later I have run across my old Media Guide, and I look back at all the kids that went undrafted and realized that my blue tinted glasses had deceived me, originally.

We must remember that Brooks was handed a team with more recruiting restrictions than any team in the country, and at the time of his arrival that team had a three year combined record of 11-23, compiled against virtually the same schedules he would face, and compiled LARGELY BEFORE THE RECRUITING RESTRICTIONS KICKED IN.

It is less of a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in his first year, than it is a miracle that he didn't have a winless season in his first three seasons.

So, the million dollar question is whether my usually optimistic nature is misleading me on this season.

I think Brook's and company have brought in enough talent the last three years to win 6. Could this be compiled against less than stellar teams? Yes, and thank God we finally have the teams listed by Aike, to go along with our usualmurderer's row in the SEC.

Aike, I'm willing to bet I've followed UK as long as you, and I remember Claiborne's 0-1-10 mark in 1982, and Curry's 1-10 in 1994.

While exceeding Curry's worst mark in the down times does not qualify Brooks as a genius, one must consider that avoiding the depth Claiborne achieved is a substantial success, considering that Claiborne retired as one of the 10 winningest coaches in the country.

[EricBigNally]

Honestly, it never occured to me to compare these coaches. I don't know why it didn't, but it just didn't.

At any rate, it seems to me that Brooks has the foundation needed to begin winning some ball games in terms of talent. I still have to admit that we are going to be a bit on the low end of the totem poll there in regardst o talent and/or talented depth. Look at last season with all the injuries. I know we had a good recruiting class and have most of our good players returning. The good thing about last season is the amount of experience it gave the "youngsters" on the team.We should be getting strength and speed coming in and returning. All of these things put together with the right mindset of the players/coaching staff, and some calls/breaks to go our way and I think they could be in the mix of things as far as making it to a bowl this season. However, that very well may be my optimism breaking through as I tend to do that on almost anything UK.

I have to say honestly that it looks more like the real test will be what happens with the few schollys we have next year and if we can get some good talent with those to step in and help out. OUr returning talent next season will be more of a veteran team and we have some big home games that year if I'm not mistaken (UL, UF, UT) that are always tough. I'm itching just as bad as all of you are at seeing us take down the likes of UL along with the powerhouses of the SEC like Florida, Tennessee (used to be anyway) and Georgia. I just don't think it is going to be easily done just yet. The "winnable" games (of course I believe that any team can beat any team on any given day) MUST be won to get a chance to put us in the right position to continue to recruit well and become a dominant team in the future.

[Athens2005]

The Hack wrote:

It is less of a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in his first year, than it is a miracle that he didn't have a winless season in his first three seasons.



Which season did you think we should've gone winless?

[The Hack]

I did not state we "should have" gone winless.

I state that it is less of a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in his first year than it is a miracle he did not have a winless season during the depths of the probationary period.

Could it have happened?

Well, the 2004 Ohio U. debacle ranks well with the North East Louisiana debacle of 1994, and with the Kansas State and Kansas debacles in 1982. But, at least Brook's teamin its worst season, pulled out a 4th quarter home victory over Vandy in 2004, and ran past I.U. at home.

I suspect (I hope) that 2004 will forever be the low mark of Brook's career at Kentucky, and given that we had a home loss to a MAC school, and that year was the depth of the effects of the recruiting scandal, 2004 would be the year when we were facing the potential depths of prior times.

I'm too damn much of a Cat fan to ever say we "should have" gone winless. :)

[Athens2005]

The Hack wrote: I did not state we "should have" gone winless.

I state that it is less of a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in his first year than it is a miracle he did not have a winless season during the depths of the probationary period.

Could it have happened?

Well, the 2004 Ohio U. debacle ranks well with the North East Louisiana debacle of 1994, and with the Kansas State and Kansas debacles in 1982. But, at least Brook's teamin its worst season, pulled out a 4th quarter home victory over Vandy in 2004, and ran past I.U. at home.

I suspect (I hope) that 2004 will forever be the low mark of Brook's career at Kentucky, and given that we had a home loss to a MAC school, and that year was the depth of the effects of the recruiting scandal, 2004 would be the year when we were facing the potential depths of prior times.

I'm too damn much of a Cat fan to ever say we "should have" gone winless. :)


Using the word "miracle" as a way to describe an SEC team not going winless, seemed rather strong to me.

Especially an SEC team not located in Nashville, and one that puts a IAA team on its schedule basically every year.

Oh, and by the way, I thought last year was the "depth of the effects of the recruiting scandal." That always seems to be a moving target for folks around here.

[The Hack]

Well, the word "miracle" might be too strong for you, but I really think Brooks has been as short handed, at least '04 and '05, as has been any coach in our history.

And if you read my original post carefully, I think it is neither a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in 2003, nor a realmiracle that he avoided a winless season. My phraseology minimized both propositions, with emphasis onthe results of the '04 season.

As to the depths of the probation, you state that 2005 is the "moving target for folks around here."

I include you among the folks around here. Do you have an opinion as to the moment of the greatest depths of the probation limitations on our beloved program, or do you merely minimize the opinions of the "folks around here" who recognize the problems the program has faced?

Do you totally minimize the effect of the scholarship reductions for three seasons that left us undermanned, and for at least this season and the next, quite young compared to most of our opponents?

Going back to Cobbycobb's initial analysis,do Brook's struggles the first three years here compare favorably to (essentially) the same results Shnelly had at Louisville (against the likes of Tulane, Memphis, Tulsa, etc.) in the mid-eighties? Do they compare unfavorably?

It is easy to be sour regarding the last three seasons. I was at the Vandy road loss in '04, and the Ohio U. loss, as well.

But given that we were an SEC school with with5 winning seasons in the 20years prior to Brook's arrival, that we had terrible press with the Mumme/Bassett scandal, limited scholly's, no bowl eligibility for two seasons, etc., etc., could we have realistically expected better from the last three seasons?

When I detect dissappointment from my friends who are fans, I understand their dissappointment, but I do not understand their attitudes toward the coaching staff.

You or another poster mentioned Claiborne's 5 wins several seasons in a row. Take a look back in the media guide and check out who those 5 wins included from '85 to '88. For every Georgia ('88--ranked 11th) and Clemson ('85, finished 7-4) there are numerous East Tennessee's . . . . Kent (State's) . . . . Indiana's (when they were REAL down).

The simple truth that Kentucky fans do not like to admit, is that Brook's 4-8, 2-9, 3-8 seasons do not stand out as statistical anomolies in a 50 year study of Kentucky Football. Those numbers are fairly standard through the decades.

But the circumstances Brook's faced upon his arrival here are quite unusual even in Kentucky's 50 year effort to reinvent the Bryant years: only the '78-'82 period with the Curci scandals/probation compare to the challenges faced by this staff. And that era included a winless season with a pretty decent staff in it's first year here.

[Aike]

I'm not going to drudge up every Rich Brooks' post of the past year, but I will reiterate my primary concern.

IMO, it is too often the case that Rich Brooks does not get this team motivated to win games that we should have won. Measuring Brooks' accomplishments against our meager history does not elevate Brooks in my mind.

That being said, I grew weary of this argument some time ago. It is my hope that I have no reason to pick it back up this Fall. Go Cats.

The Hack wrote: Well, the word "miracle" might be too strong for you, but I really think Brooks has been as short handed, at least '04 and '05, as has been any coach in our history.

And if you read my original post carefully, I think it is neither a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in 2003, nor a realmiracle that he avoided a winless season. My phraseology minimized both propositions, with emphasis onthe results of the '04 season.

As to the depths of the probation, you state that 2005 is the "moving target for folks around here."

I include you among the folks around here. Do you have an opinion as to the moment of the greatest depths of the probation limitations on our beloved program, or do you merely minimize the opinions of the "folks around here" who recognize the problems the program has faced?

Do you totally minimize the effect of the scholarship reductions for three seasons that left us undermanned, and for at least this season and the next, quite young compared to most of our opponents?

Going back to Cobbycobb's initial analysis,do Brook's struggles the first three years here compare favorably to (essentially) the same results Shnelly had at Louisville (against the likes of Tulane, Memphis, Tulsa, etc.) in the mid-eighties? Do they compare unfavorably?

It is easy to be sour regarding the last three seasons. I was at the Vandy road loss in '04, and the Ohio U. loss, as well.

But given that we were an SEC school with with5 winning seasons in the 20years prior to Brook's arrival, that we had terrible press with the Mumme/Bassett scandal, limited scholly's, no bowl eligibility for two seasons, etc., etc., could we have realistically expected better from the last three seasons?

When I detect dissappointment from my friends who are fans, I understand their dissappointment, but I do not understand their attitudes toward the coaching staff.

You or another poster mentioned Claiborne's 5 wins several seasons in a row. Take a look back in the media guide and check out who those 5 wins included from '85 to '88. For every Georgia ('88--ranked 11th) and Clemson ('85, finished 7-4) there are numerous East Tennessee's . . . . Kent (State's) . . . . Indiana's (when they were REAL down).

The simple truth that Kentucky fans do not like to admit, is that Brook's 4-8, 2-9, 3-8 seasons do not stand out as statistical anomolies in a 50 year study of Kentucky Football. Those numbers are fairly standard through the decades.

But the circumstances Brook's faced upon his arrival here are quite unusual even in Kentucky's 50 year effort to reinvent the Bryant years: only the '78-'82 period with the Curci scandals/probation compare to the challenges faced by this staff. And that era included a winless season with a pretty decent staff in it's first year here.

[Athens2005]

The Hack wrote: Well, the word "miracle" might be too strong for you, but I really think Brooks has been as short handed, at least '04 and '05, as has been any coach in our history.

And if you read my original post carefully, I think it is neither a shame that Brooks went 4-7 in 2003, nor a realmiracle that he avoided a winless season. My phraseology minimized both propositions, with emphasis onthe results of the '04 season.

As to the depths of the probation, you state that 2005 is the "moving target for folks around here."

I include you among the folks around here. Do you have an opinion as to the moment of the greatest depths of the probation limitations on our beloved program, or do you merely minimize the opinions of the "folks around here" who recognize the problems the program has faced?

Do you totally minimize the effect of the scholarship reductions for three seasons that left us undermanned, and for at least this season and the next, quite young compared to most of our opponents?

Going back to Cobbycobb's initial analysis,do Brook's struggles the first three years here compare favorably to (essentially) the same results Shnelly had at Louisville (against the likes of Tulane, Memphis, Tulsa, etc.) in the mid-eighties? Do they compare unfavorably?

It is easy to be sour regarding the last three seasons. I was at the Vandy road loss in '04, and the Ohio U. loss, as well.

But given that we were an SEC school with with5 winning seasons in the 20years prior to Brook's arrival, that we had terrible press with the Mumme/Bassett scandal, limited scholly's, no bowl eligibility for two seasons, etc., etc., could we have realistically expected better from the last three seasons?

When I detect dissappointment from my friends who are fans, I understand their dissappointment, but I do not understand their attitudes toward the coaching staff.

You or another poster mentioned Claiborne's 5 wins several seasons in a row. Take a look back in the media guide and check out who those 5 wins included from '85 to '88. For every Georgia ('88--ranked 11th) and Clemson ('85, finished 7-4) there are numerous East Tennessee's . . . . Kent (State's) . . . . Indiana's (when they were REAL down).

The simple truth that Kentucky fans do not like to admit, is that Brook's 4-8, 2-9, 3-8 seasons do not stand out as statistical anomolies in a 50 year study of Kentucky Football. Those numbers are fairly standard through the decades.

But the circumstances Brook's faced upon his arrival here are quite unusual even in Kentucky's 50 year effort to reinvent the Bryant years: only the '78-'82 period with the Curci scandals/probation compare to the challenges faced by this staff. And that era included a winless season with a pretty decent staff in it's first year here.

I wrote a response and thought it was fair, and even left it out here over night.

But, then I thought about it and realized that this conversation is just getting too old.

I'm glad that you're here. You are apparently very popular with some, and I'm sure that you can provide some insight.

Nonetheless, you're a little late to the party on this argument (no fault of your own), and you're not really bringing anything to the table on this that hasn't been addressed before.

Anything I say in response can be found (in probably too many places) on this board already.

It's not that I agree with you, I just think it is silly to have this conversation with you, when I've already had it numerous times.

Feel free to scroll around and find the history. There's even a good thread from last season about why South Carolina should fire Steve Spurrier that you might enjoy.

Anyway, I look forward to what will hopefully be a fun football season.

One with a lot of success, and no, "I told you so's." The latter isn't any fun. It creates bitterness between folks that would otherwise probably be getting along just fine.

Enjoy the season and Go CATS!

[The Hack]

I've never gotten into "I told you so" type stuff either.

Hopefully Brooks and staff and the team will prove neither of us right or wrong, but simply prove themselves capable of 6 wins this season.

Best o luck at UGA next semester, Athens2005!!

[poodoo]

In 2003, we had four wins. To reach six wins that season, we would have needed to bat down one ball in overtime against Arkansas, and beat Vandy. I do not think it is a stretch to say that the 2003 team could have easily been a bowl team. QUOTE by Aike

________

I agree with you, Aike, that the 2003 team "could have easily been a bowl team." HOWEVER, I was at that Arkansas game and moved down to seats close to the action after many fans had left. It was so sad to watch our defenders barely be able to walk back to the bench after each defensive possession in those overtimes. On the field the players appeared to be earily able to get there and bat down one of those balls, and looked frozen in their tracks. I will NEVER forget that loss, which I think was the reason that team did not make it to a bowl that season.

After having lost the heartbreaker to Florida, losing that game (which I absolutely attribute to PROBATION and the lack of numbers and depth) meant that UK could only make it to a bowl IF it beat UT, something it had not done in decades. Thus, a team that had lost two heartbreakers and a really realistic chance to make it to a bowl did NOT even show up at Vandy. No, I don't blame that on Coach Brooks, but on human nature, especially a team composed of players who were still missing their old coach, whom they had so loved. That's just the way I honestly saw it.

Too, Hack is so right that the 2003 team was missing so many key ingredients of the 7-5 team. Those ingredients have often been mentioned in threads throughout the years. Hack mentioned Dewayne Robertson, who anchored our defensive line and was taken fourth overall in the NFL draft. Obvious other key losses were the SEC Offensive Player of the Year (Artose Pinner), the SEC's best punter (Glenn Pakulak), Mr. Touchdown (Aaron Boone), and our best blocker (Chase Harp).

Regardless, yes, we still could have easily gone to a bowl that season. We just differ on where to place the blame that we did not make it to a bowl. Again, I firmly believe PROBATION killed us, probably in both of the heartbreaking losses (as we had led Florida by 18 points going in to the fourth quarter). Then, as I see it, human nature killed us in the Vandy game.

IF we had just been able to knock down one of those Arkansas passes during those overtimes, we're not even having this discussion. With this staff's recruiting abilities, even under adversity, I really believe this UK football program would be in FAR better shape at this time if only Coach Brooks had indeed been able to lead those guys to a bowl game and wonover morefolksbefore the worst of probation set in.

[RedandBlackATTACK]

Again, I firmly believe PROBATION killed us, probably in both of the heartbreaking losses (as we had led Florida by 18 points going in to the fourth quarter). Then, as I see it, human nature killed us in the Vandy game.

Agreed Poo. Many times if not most, it's simply a numbers game.



Rick

[cobbycobb]

I don't understand how anyone can argue that probation did not seriously affect our program. Limited scholly's, less depth, and lower self esteem. With fewer bodies that means the program had a smaller degree of error for recruiting witch did not happen for the Morriss era.

Morris left us in even greater problems by not recruiting decent talent or numbers of OL. Train WRECK is exactly what Brooks inherited.

[rickdacatkilla]

The only thing they have in common is their age....

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/33/334360.jpg

BIGGER,STRONGER,FASTER

[UedK]

rickdacatkilla wrote: The only thing they have in common is their age....

If you don't have any actual discussion to add, take your crap to the smack board and stay there.

[TrueblueCATfan]

rickdacatkilla wrote: The only thing they have in common is their age....

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/33/334360.jpg

BIGGER,STRONGER,FASTER
this is NOT the smack board.............

[rickdacatkilla]

UedK wrote: rickdacatkilla wrote: The only thing they have in common is their age....

If you don't have any actual discussion to add, take your crap to the smack board and stay there.

Come on guys, this isn't smack, it's common sense. Snelly is a HOF coach to compare Brooks to him is ...well just not right.

[Athens2005]

RedandBlackATTACK wrote: Again, I firmly believe PROBATION killed us, probably in both of the heartbreaking losses (as we had led Florida by 18 points going in to the fourth quarter). Then, as I see it, human nature killed us in the Vandy game.

Agreed Poo. Many times if not most, it's simply a numbers game.



Rick



I'll admit, I don't know when all the ramifications of probation kicked in, but can someone please explain to me how PROBATION helped us blow a 21-3 4th quarter lead, in Brooks 4th game back in 2003?

Thanks.

[poodoo]

I'll admit, I don't know when all the ramifications of probation kicked in, but can someone please explain to me how PROBATION helped us blow a 21-3 4th quarter lead, in Brooks 4th game back in 2003? QUOTE by Athens2005

__________

Athens2005, we did not have as many available players as Florida.I witnessed the difference in fatigue levels during the Arkansas game that same year, as I shared. In other words, Arkansas' players had not played nearly as many downs as had UK's players. I assume (and, yes, I know the danger in that!) :ggrin:that lack of depth COULD have been a factor in UK's losing that league in the fourth quarter against Florida. That surely seems logical to me.Personally, though, I think our players' not really BELIEVING that they could hold on for the victory hurt more in that particular game.

I do know that I have read previously that UK's fourth quarter performances have mostly hurt them in Brooks' tenure, which is logically related to the lack of depth because of probation (both in numbers and in the lower number of talented players available, making the most talented play too many downs). In regard to that particular 2003 season (of which the Florida game was a part), I believe I recently read that our roster numbered only in the sixties. Hopefully someone can verify (or dispute) that.

[cobbycobb]

Athens2005 wrote: RedandBlackATTACK wrote: Again, I firmly believe PROBATION killed us, probably in both of the heartbreaking losses (as we had led Florida by 18 points going in to the fourth quarter). Then, as I see it, human nature killed us in the Vandy game.

Agreed Poo. Many times if not most, it's simply a numbers game.



Rick



I'll admit, I don't know when all the ramifications of probation kicked in, but can someone please explain to me how PROBATION helped us blow a 21-3 4th quarter lead, in Brooks 4th game back in 2003?

Thanks.

I guess the whole theory of DEPTH has passed you by?:shrug: Less talented players playing more often = FATIGUE! not really that hard to figure out... When you are fatigued, you are not as quick, strong, and you make more mental mistakes... Of course, that is just an excuse I guess:tongue

[cobbycobb]

TrueblueCATfan wrote: rickdacatkilla wrote: The only thing they have in common is their age....

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/33/334360.jpg

BIGGER,STRONGER,FASTER
this is NOT the smack board.............


Not smack? Common... you know that is B.S. Brooks has a stadium named after him and has TONS of respect from other coaches accross the NFL and college. If you don't believe me try doing your own research. Of course, you will be blinded by your dirty bird glasses and look only at the record. You will argue that Howard builds programs... Guess what! so does Brooks.

I am a Miami Hurricane fan also. I know all about Howards accomplishments and respect him. I was an IBIS fan long before I followed UK football. I started watching and liking Miami (Dolphins & Canes) in the late 70's. I didn't get into UK football until the 90's and that was just a natural progression from being a UK basketball fan.

[Aike]

I guess the coaching staff was fatigued too. How else can you explain 12 men on the field? Excuses are what they are. Go Cats.

cobbycobb wrote: Athens2005 wrote: RedandBlackATTACK wrote: Again, I firmly believe PROBATION killed us, probably in both of the heartbreaking losses (as we had led Florida by 18 points going in to the fourth quarter). Then, as I see it, human nature killed us in the Vandy game.

Agreed Poo. Many times if not most, it's simply a numbers game.



Rick



I'll admit, I don't know when all the ramifications of probation kicked in, but can someone please explain to me how PROBATION helped us blow a 21-3 4th quarter lead, in Brooks 4th game back in 2003?

Thanks.

I guess the whole theory of DEPTH has passed you by?:shrug: Less talented players playing more often = FATIGUE! not really that hard to figure out... When you are fatigued, you are not as quick, strong, and you make more mental mistakes... Of course, that is just an excuse I guess:tongue

[Athens2005]

cobbycobb wrote: Athens2005 wrote: RedandBlackATTACK wrote: Again, I firmly believe PROBATION killed us, probably in both of the heartbreaking losses (as we had led Florida by 18 points going in to the fourth quarter). Then, as I see it, human nature killed us in the Vandy game.

Agreed Poo. Many times if not most, it's simply a numbers game.



Rick



I'll admit, I don't know when all the ramifications of probation kicked in, but can someone please explain to me how PROBATION helped us blow a 21-3 4th quarter lead, in Brooks 4th game back in 2003?

Thanks.

I guess the whole theory of DEPTH has passed you by?:shrug: Less talented players playing more often = FATIGUE! not really that hard to figure out... When you are fatigued, you are not as quick, strong, and you make more mental mistakes... Of course, that is just an excuse I guess:tongue

I guess what I'm asking, kind sir, is what exactly were the reductions in 2003, and is it rational to consider that that was the cause of our collapse that September afternoon?

If it was, why didn't we collapse every game, etc? Did we ever come out and play stronger in the 2nd half, than in the 1st? Did we ever have a good fourth quarter? If so, how? Why was it different from game to game?

Did you watch the Florida game? Did the players really look tired, to you? I'm curious.

Perhaps a DEPTH of intellect has passed you by?

If not, then a normal response, without all your sarcastic "wing-dings" would be appreciated.

[TrueblueCATfan]

cobbycobb wrote: TrueblueCATfan wrote: rickdacatkilla wrote: The only thing they have in common is their age....

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/33/334360.jpg

BIGGER,STRONGER,FASTER
this is NOT the smack board.............


Not smack? Common... you know that is B.S. Brooks has a stadium named after him and has TONS of respect from other coaches accross the NFL and college. If you don't believe me try doing your own research. Of course, you will be blinded by your dirty bird glasses and look only at the record. You will argue that Howard builds programs... Guess what! so does Brooks.

I am a Miami Hurricane fan also. I know all about Howards accomplishments and respect him. I was an IBIS fan long before I followed UK football. I started watching and liking Miami (Dolphins & Canes) in the late 70's. I didn't get into UK football until the 90's and that was just a natural progression from being a UK basketball fan.

Ibelieve you are missing my point..........he is smacking UK.... there is a forum for that..this is the football forum.

[cobbycobb]

Trueblue, I know what YOUR point was.

[TrueblueCATfan]

cobbycobb wrote: Trueblue, I know what YOUR point was.
that is cool...........I guess I misunderstood your post..I thought you were talking to me

[TrueblueCATfan]

cobbycobb wrote: Trueblue, I know what YOUR point was.

[rickdacatkilla]

TrueblueCATfan wrote: cobbycobb wrote: TrueblueCATfan wrote: rickdacatkilla wrote: The only thing they have in common is their age....

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/33/334360.jpg

BIGGER,STRONGER,FASTER
this is NOT the smack board.............


Not smack? Common... you know that is B.S. Brooks has a stadium named after him and has TONS of respect from other coaches accross the NFL and college. If you don't believe me try doing your own research. Of course, you will be blinded by your dirty bird glasses and look only at the record. You will argue that Howard builds programs... Guess what! so does Brooks.

I am a Miami Hurricane fan also. I know all about Howards accomplishments and respect him. I was an IBIS fan long before I followed UK football. I started watching and liking Miami (Dolphins & Canes) in the late 70's. I didn't get into UK football until the 90's and that was just a natural progression from being a UK basketball fan.

Ibelieve you are missing my point..........he is smacking UK.... there is a forum for that..this is the football forum.


No Ter, I know this is a uk site, but trying to compare Brooks to Snelly is like a VW to a Porsche...

[poodoo]

I guess the coaching staff was fatigued too. How else can you explain 12 men on the field? Excuses are what they are. Go Cats. QUOTE

________

While this comment was not directed toward me, I would like to mention something about that. A huge positive this past season, in my opinion, was our not having such penalties. In fact, at one point UK was the least penalized team in the league and may have ended the season in "first place" in that category. While the staff did seem to have more than its share of such penalties that first year, that has not recently been the case. Let's hope we keep going the same direction this season. :)

Ironically, the coach many had so wanted to be at UK this past season performed poorly in that area this past year. I'm speaking of Steve Spurrier (who is a great coach, for sure).I watched one USC game in which Spurrier's team looked so undisciplined that even the commentators were talking about it. It was not the first time such had occurred, as theyhad goneon to mention another USC game that had gone similarly. Too many men on the field, Spurrier's angrily calling timeout because too many players were on the field, etc. were some of the things I noticed. It was not a pretty picture. Ironically, both Brooks and Spurrier had something in common. They were coaching their first year in a new program. Perhaps that could have been part of it.

Regardless, there is no doubt that the twelve men on the field penalty really hurt against Florida that year. I remember that a player had had to go on the field because of an injury to another player and then had messed up and stayed after the special teams had left the field, something weird like that, and the coaches did not get a timeout called quickly enough. UK has certainly had more of its share of "weird" happenings (see the Hail Mary pass of the LSU game) for, weird happenings that have too often influenced the outcomes of games.

Now back to Brooks and Howard S.