Oh, I completely agree that Meyer was politicking. I just think Kiffin's spin on it is a bit contrived, is all.
I like the direction the program seems to be going. Really, I do. But would someone please remind Lane Kiffin that we have a losing record? And that we lost to a Pac-10 weakling, and a divisional conference opponent by double digits?
Since when is it okay to talk trash when you're on a losing streak?
I like the direction the program seems to be going. Really, I do. But would someone please remind Lane Kiffin that we have a losing record? And that we lost to a Pac-10 weakling, and a divisional conference opponent by double digits?
Since when is it okay to talk trash when you're on a losing streak?
Id this what it's come to? We're gleeful over winning the media battle?
When do we start winning at football?
CLK is going to milk the controversy for all its worth. Even if he has to make up some new ones.
I will absolutely concede that.
Ok so what does "they weren't going for the win" mean? If Kiffin said that about any other team would you be here flaming him for being a jacka@@?? And what self respecting coach in this country will allow another coach to suggest that his team was intentionally playing for any other purpose but to win the game??
I beg of you, read the rest of it, in context.
Hm. i'd still be willing to bet that this one meant more to kiffin and co. than uf. daddy had to get to work early so lane didn't look like a complete fool. and he was successful, i'll give him that.
we have no playmakers at wr. we're a running team this year, unfortunately. not going to score a bunch of points without turnovers, and you guys did your part there.
and yes, you did have 2 games before us. you beat up western k and lost to ucla, which further supports my argument that a.) you were looking ahead and/or b.) the game plan isn't as good when given a limited amount of time.epper: