Skip to content

Kentucky Sports Radio

University of Kentucky Basketball, Football, and Recruiting news brought to you in the most ridiculous manner possible.

BTI’s Rants and Ramblings: The Football Debate- Win Less, Score More OR Win More, Score Less

I had a very interesting conversation amongst co-workers last week about this upcoming UK football season.  Certainly, excitement has not been this high in the UK football fanbase since at least Andre Woodson’s senior season or maybe earlier. But the difference is that this excitement revolves around the start of the a new era of football, and not as much around the prospects of how good this team can be.  Anybody who looks at it rationally can say that this 2013 UK football team might find some lumps against a very difficult schedule.  But it lead to a debate about what would make the BBN happy this season.  Would you rather:

-See an exciting product on the field that doesn’t win as much

OR

-See a less exciting product that wins more

Let’s take Option A first.  I like to call this option the Hal Mumme Option.  I would imagine when you ask people about the 4-year Hal Mumme era  most would call that era a fairly successful stretch.  The truth is Hal Mumme went 20-26 in his stint in Lexington.  20 wins and 26 losses.  That is a 43% winning percentage.  He only went to bowl games in 2 of his 4 seasons, losing both.  And yet, people call that era (sans the probation) a success.  And the reason was simple: people loved the offensive product people put on the field.  They loved seeing points put up on the board.  People walked away from 59-31 drubbings against Tennessee with a smile on their face because, HEY, we just scored 31 points on Tennessee.  But the truth is Hal Mumme teams never got within 28 points of Tennessee.  Bill Curry got within 28 points 4 times, and twice got within 10 points of Tennessee.  Which product did you like more?

Which brings us to Option B.  Less than exciting product but a couple more wins.  I like to call that the Rich Brooks Option.  Besides the final 2 years of Andre Woodson, the offense was often stale under Rich Brooks.  Struggles at the QB and WR position often made the UK offense limited.  This led to more than a few games played in the 10’s and 20’s.  But, starting in Year 4, Brooks made a bowl game every season and won 3 of them.  He did it with an improved defense and enough ball control and turnover margin.  It wasn’t sexy, but it brought 6 or 7 wins every year.  And Joker Phillips kept that style of play into a bowl game into his first year.  His downfall though was when the wins dried up but the style of play did not.

I would imagine starting in 2014, this won’t even be a debate.  It seems the Cats are committed to putting out an exciting offense product and with the incoming talent, the wins should come much easier.  But for 2013, I wonder what fans would rather see.  Would you rather see a team that wins 3 games and scores 30 points per game or wins 5 games and score 20 points per game?

Article written by Bryan the Intern

76 Comments for BTI’s Rants and Ramblings: The Football Debate- Win Less, Score More OR Win More, Score Less



  1. Bubba Earl
    9:03 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Fear and Respect!



  2. Wampus
    9:04 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    3/30. That will keep the recruits coming in.



  3. NotSatire
    9:05 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    This is false logic. Both sides of the ball can be excellent. I choose option C.



  4. mike
    9:08 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Don’t know why it has to be either. We have upgraded our recruiting significantly on the defensive side of the ball, and I always thought we already had the players to succeed on offense, our playbook just sucked. We are gonna be all around better this year and continue to grow into next year.



  5. mightymidge
    9:08 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    3/30 No doubt, keep the offensive recruits coming. Then let Stoops take his defensive recruits to another level and option C will take place in 2-3 years. Exciting times in the Lexington area



  6. Marty
    9:09 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I prefer wins over an exciting offense, but I would prefer both. That being said I don’t think the numbers tell the whole story, especially with the Hal Mumme era. He took over a team that won 2 or 3 games the year before and, similar to this year, nothing was expected his first year. I remember all of the local guys predicting a blowout against UL and a long process of building the program. He won 5 games and beat Alabama for the first time in 75 years. He then went to bowl games the next 2 years. At the same time he was starting to get better recruits. Then it all fell apart in his 4th year. I guess you can’t say it was a success based on how it ended, but the excitement and good memories were all in the first 3 years where wins were up and it appeared fb was turning the corner.



  7. Herm Edwards
    9:09 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Hello!?! You PLAY to WIN THE GAME!



  8. UK Rifle >>>> TCU Rifle
    9:10 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Offense sells tickets but defense wins championships.

    I will take defense first every time.

    Brooks = free tomatoes
    Mumme = Grapes of Wrath



  9. Calf
    9:10 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    What kind of dumb question is this? You play to win football games. I wouldn’t care if we won 3-0 every game as long as there is a W beside us and an L beside the other team.



  10. ForTheWin
    9:11 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Winning is exciting. I would go for the wins.



  11. asdf
    9:14 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Oklahoma and Texas Tech have both long ago proven that you can win big with this offense and a solid defense. In Oklahoma’s case, they won a national championship with it.



  12. dc
    9:14 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Stupid argument mumme went 500 twice in SEC brooks only did that once in 7 years back then played 11 games so had to go 6-5 to make bowl not 6-6 mumme went 5-6 one year another cupcake would have given him 3 bowls in 4 years winning wise mummme was better than Brooks



  13. wizard
    9:17 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    would you rather score more points then the team your playing or hold them to less points then you score? end of the day, the team with the most points on the board wins. what we are trying to do is have a high scoring offense and a shut down defense.



  14. Grammar Cat
    9:19 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Hey dc, see all those dots, dashes, and squiggly things on your keyboard? It’s called punctuation. Try it sometime, and you might find that people can better understand your point (which by the way is a good one once you figure out what the heck you’re trying to say).



  15. Num1UKFan
    9:21 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    BTI, you’re an idiot, please stop drowning us with your useless, pointless, unthoughtful, and uneducated so-called “rants”. They are a waste of time and energy, get a real job, something you’re good at, maybe dishwasher, who knows. You suck at sports writing.



  16. njCat
    9:21 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    what a ridiculous question… see 7 above.

    see also 12. above.

    people do not give Mummy the recognition he deserves. Even though his teams played no defense, he at least was competitive in the SEC. Brooks NEVER was. And Mummy didn’t get KY into trouble any more than Calipari got UMass and Memphis in trouble, so give the guy some respect. His assistants and offensive schemes are everywhere in college football. Where are Brook’s schemes and assistants? Probably coaching middle school teams across America.



  17. Joker
    9:22 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    “I thought it was win less AND score less…my bad”



  18. Champ
    9:24 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Mumme needs to learn how to tie a windsor knot.



  19. Paul
    9:25 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    If Coach Mumme had brought a good defensive coordinator in with him, he would still be here. Add an even average defense with the offense would have made a huge difference. I believe that Mike Major, an old friend of Mumme, was a high school coach when hired to be the D coordinator. Sure there was the issue of recruiting violations, but coachs get fired for losing, not for cheating. The kiss of death is to cheat and lose.

    The current Coach has brought in an solid O coordinator to suppliment his defensive focus. I am very optimistic that better days are ahead.



  20. Common Sense
    9:26 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    18

    Correction – Double Windsor*



  21. Clay
    9:27 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    There really isn’t that big of a difference between 30pts and 20 points. It doesn’t matter about “looking good to keep recruits”….they are all coming right now for PLAYING TIME. They could care less if this years team is awful. That’s all these kids really care about….PT….this idea that if we do bad we will lose recruits is a big misconception.



  22. Heidi
    9:29 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Just a suggestion. Go watch the players practice and provide us fans with some information instead of hypothetical situation stuff. Great journalist write stories from the field, between the hash marks, in the trenches with the players.



  23. John Madden
    9:29 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    You know, it’s usually the team that wins in the end, that wins the game.



  24. jimlowe7
    9:30 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    DUH!!! Win 5 games this year! We all KNOW this offense will SCORE ALOT once we have a dozen top notch WR’s (we will only have HALF that number with that quality this year AT BEST). For us to win 5 games with limited scoring means the DEFENSE is WORKING and THAT will be the difference between Stoops and Mumme. EVERYBODY can score in the SEC, but DEFENSE wins!



  25. BigBlueAces
    9:32 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    This is the dumbest question ever posed. YOU PLAY TO WIN!! I don’t care if it’s 3 points or 100 points. Win is a win is a win.



  26. Clay
    9:32 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    22- The thing is these writers have no clue about the game of football. Probably couldn’t even tell you schematically what the difference is between Minter’s Defense and Stoops. They wouldn’t even know what to report on. “Jalen Whitlow looks good throwing the ball….and receivers caught it” would be about all you got.



  27. Winner
    9:33 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Losers never win! 5 games doesn’t make a bowl. Success isn’t related to failure. Don’t under estimate this years team. Their hands were tied with last years offensive coaching.



  28. Clay
    9:34 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    They probably could tell you what 4-3 even means….or what the 4 other players positions are…



  29. J A Brooks
    9:37 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    So would u be OK with going 12-0 if it meant winning every game 7-0?

    If your answers no then you’ve got issues



  30. CATandMONKEY
    9:37 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    False dichotomy. T’is not really an either-or situation.
    I would expect this premise from Corey.
    Similar to what others have opined: I would rather win every game by a safety than lose 97-86 to Alabama.



  31. winbaby
    9:37 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Take the wins and hopefully competitive with an improving “D” in the losses. Plus, if we are scoring 30+ and losing then our “D” would be really struggling and that might shake some confidence in Stoops and Elliott.



  32. niaps
    9:42 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I want nothing even close to what Joker did here. His style was no style at all. You gotta score no matter what and hope the D can hold enough to win.



  33. J A Brooks
    9:42 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I think we’ll get 4-5 wins and average about 27 points per game this season.

    However I’m not nearly as optimistic if Nate Willis and Javess Blue don’t get eligible



  34. J A Brooks
    9:44 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    As Billy Hoyle famously said… “You’d rather look pretty and lose than look bad and win..”

    Post like this reveal a lot about people. If your more concerned with looks and glamour than production and results you’ve got your priorities mixed uo



  35. cat888
    9:46 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Brooks was a faiure with the offense he brought to UK somebody had to go thru the OC under the bus and put Joker as Oc. after LSU game opened up the offense for one year beat LSU went back playing not to lose never recovered.Good offense wins games.Mumme’s last year was a year in turmoil so offense wasn’t the problem. Majors had a high school coach mentality and was not smart enough to change he actually tried went to other schools to learn as it turned out his first defense was his best got worse every year as he tried to change. I have never thought we could get the players to win with a conserative offense. The conserative coache refuse to recruit there past has been a major problem.



  36. Honky Kong
    9:47 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Score more & win more !!



  37. Clay
    9:48 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I have faith in Stoops’ D in 2014…. With the additions of ZaDarius Smith, Jason Hatcher, Alvonte Bell, Regie Meant, Melvin Lewis (if he qualifies), Tymere Dubose, Denzel Ware, Adrian Middleton, and Matt Elam, you have the makings of a solid d-line.

    Then in the secondary you have the likes of Marcus McWilson, Nate Willis, Jaleel Hytchye, Blake McClain, Jared Tucker, Darius West, Mike Edwards, Shyquawn Pullium and maybe a couple more. 6 of those guys run at least 4.5/40’s….



  38. Mumme
    9:49 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    People forget that the 1998 football Cats had the best season in the last 25 years. Yes, they were better than the 2007 team. Take out Mumme’s last year when things started to fall apart. Something tells me his win % will be higher than Brooks. And let’s not forget that Rich Brooks is still under .500 himself as head coach



  39. Clay
    9:50 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    33- Nate Willis will be fine….Javess Blue however I think isn’t gonna make it…



  40. JerryC
    9:55 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    BTI you’re a tool. See #15 and #22.



  41. Blueneck
    9:56 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    What a retarded debate! As if there is a choice. If you can’t score you won’t win. UK has a disadvantage in almost every area compared to SEC schools so you need to at least be exciting. Joker’s biggest problem was that he was boring an thought he could out execute other teams despite being predictable and having way less talent.



  42. Joe
    9:59 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    16, You’ve got to be kidding re: Brooks and Mumme being competitive in the SEC. Let’s compare both coaches’ best years:

    Mumme
    1997: (5-6, 2-6 in SEC) SEC wins over 4-7 Alabama and 3-8 Vandy.
    1998: (7-5, 4-4 in SEC) SEC wins over 1-10 South Carolina, 4-7 LSU, 8-5 Miss. St. team that played in the Cotton Bowl, and 2-9 Vandy.
    1999: (6-6, 4-4 in SEC) SEC wins over 8-4 Arkansas team that played in the Cotton Bowl, 0-11 South Carolina, 3-8 LSU, and 5-6 Vandy.

    Of course, in 2000, Mumme was 0-8 in the SEC. In four years, he beat two bowl teams and one other team that won five games. The other SEC wins were over horrible teams.

    Brooks
    2006: (8-5, 4-4 in SEC) SEC wins over 4-8 Ole Miss, 3-9 Miss. St., 9-4 Georgia team that played in Chick-Fil-A Bowl, 4-8 Vandy.
    2007: (8-5, 3-5 in SEC) SEC wins over 8-5 Arkansas team that played in Cotton Bowl, 12-2 LSU team that won the national title, 5-7 Vandy team.
    2009: (7-6, 3-5 in SEC) SEC wins over 8-5 Auburn team that played in Outback Bowl, 2-10 Vandy, and 8-5 Georgia team that played in Independence Bowl.

    In Brooks’s three best years, he beat five bowl teams, one of which won the national championship, and another team that won five games.

    Both coaches were 10-14 in those three best years. Now, who was competitive in the SEC (if either)?



  43. J
    10:00 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    How would Brooks have been judged after just year 4?



  44. Jarod
    10:02 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I dont really care what they as long as Kentucky wins more games than 2 or 3 each year.



  45. cjcat
    10:04 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Stupid question! You play to win, 5 beats 3.



  46. Jake from State Farm
    10:05 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    It’s not whether you win or lose. It’s the point spread.



  47. Paul
    10:09 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Why can’t ppl read the question- would you rather win 3 and score 30 or win 5 scoring 20? I’ll take the 5 but only because the scoring delta isn’t that wide. Make it 5 wins at 15 pts and ill take the 3 wins. Why? Because I wish to be entertained. For me, I’d prioritize getting bowl eligible, marque wins, then exciting offense. I’m assuming 5 wins misses the 1st two so give me more points and fewer wins in this hypothetical.



  48. Musehobo
    10:09 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    For a one-off season? You play to win. However, I think most people believe that a potent offense gives us the best chance at winning, when combined with decent recruiting (which appears to be shaping up quite nicely). Within the parameters you set, I’d take the wins. But I think the “Option C” is what people believe will happen soon enough. Potent offense and wins.



  49. Paul
    10:11 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Naturally, going 12-0 and winning the nat’l title while averaging 2pts a game is superior to either option presented, but it’s not part of the hypothetical.



  50. the Big Dog
    10:18 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Since when does a team with a good offense have to be less successful than a team with a bad offense? It’s like asking if you would prefer to have your left foot cut off at the ankle or have your right arm cut off above the elbow. I’ll pass on both.



  51. Remember When
    10:27 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    The Jerry Claiborne era may be the best example of tough but low-scoring football in UK’s last 30 years. We were in most every game for 3 quarters or so and rarely got blown out but the win totals were not that great. I’d like to see that toughness and integrity with the fun offense of the Mumme teams. Is that possible?



  52. yesterdays
    10:29 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Brooks clearly elevated the program. Brooks also clearly gained by coaching during the Kragthorpe era and getting that as an automatic win. Vandy was also not competitive whatsoever. Not a knock on Brooks, but just keeping it in perspective. I think you can do both.



  53. Duck Fuke
    10:31 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I am only concerned with how this team differs itself from the joker era. You know how every play on offense required the QB to look over to the sideline for randy sanders to call an audible, thereby wasting 30 seconds and incurring countless delay of game penalties and allowing the better and more talented defense we were playing to get set and read the audible and adjust? Don’t do that anymore! I want the wideouts to actually catch a ball, funny because last years head coach was a receiver! I want them to rank better than 119 out of 120 teams in scoring offense!

    More importantly I want the team to look prepared, be put in the best possible position to win by the coaches and most of have fun and enjoy what they are doing as much as we enjoy watching! The joker Phillips era had as much fun and enthusiasm as a death march. It’s not about wins and losses at this point it’s the entire culture that needs to change.



  54. SMH
    10:38 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I think the really important question here is, what the hell is BTI doing back? I thought he left for greener pastures?



  55. ThankfulCat
    10:51 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    You want your defense good enough to force turnovers with pressure. Your offense needs to score at a very high rate. Nothing wrong with winning 49-30. Stop them enough to get the ball back and make them pay for giving it back tou your offense. Only thing I’m worried about is does this staff place enough emphasis on running the football. To win the SEC, you must have a running game. Even Auburn with its spread, ran the ball with Newton.



  56. floorgeneral22
    10:51 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Great players come to win games, not to hang 30 every game. Winning is fun. Scoring 30 points in a loss sucks. I don’t think anyone should want players coming here who will be satisfied so long as they run up a ton of yards and score points. That’s what the entire Hal Mumme era was; and we don’t have shit to show for it.



  57. Rusty
    11:04 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    …6 wins and 17 points, but not 5 and 20 points.



  58. Hal Munster
    11:11 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    It’s not even worth arguing about, you WIN, even if EVERY final score is 7-0. Just WIN!



  59. MustangCat
    11:13 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Hadn’t heard there were issues with Blue and Willis? Knew Willis almost couldn’t get in UK, but hadn’t heard a thing about Blue?! Details anyone?
    The way i see it, Stoops is basically starting from scratch on both sides of the ball. Build up both. I thought Mumme was an idiot for not caring about defense at all?! Loved his offense, but his defense was embarrassing. Anyone with a brain knows you have to play D. Stoops is definately building both, so this is a mute point question. Fair question though BTI. Always found it amazing watching people make fools of themselves by trying to insult others….



  60. lex leader
    11:43 am June 18, 2013 Permalink

    This really is a STUPID article. We can do better than this, can’t we?



  61. Dr. Funke
    12:02 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    52 – Dude, don’t give me the argument that Brooks had an easy schedule. Look at 16s post. The teams in the SEC were not nearly as tough as they were in Brooks’ time. The same goes to the guy who was talking about 11 games under Mumme vs 12 games under Brooks. Brooks had a much tougher time no matter how you slice it.



  62. Butch
    12:08 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    This is why you are an intern, stupid topic, if you win 3-0 or 68-67, does it matter?



  63. Dr. Funke
    12:08 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    By the way, there is no direct relationship between better recruiting and better offense. There is however a relationship between wins and recruiting. The teams that have more wins usually get better recruits, and visa versa.



  64. Kentucky Freethinker
    12:15 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Last time I checked, sports was still about winning. I want wins. Period. Other things are nice to have, but everything else is subservient to winning.



  65. njCat
    1:11 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    42. We’re talking about competitive against SEC, right? Even counting his throw away last year, Mumme had a better overall winning percentage and points for/against against SEC competition. In Brooks two best years he was still outscored by SEC opponents by 33 and 44 points and was one game short of a .500 record. In Mumme’s two best years he was outscored by 15 and 20 points and had a .500 record.

    Brooks also got outscored by UL by 37 points and Mumme outscored UL by 14.

    Face it, Brooks loaded up on really bad non-SEC opponents to make the seasons look respectable. In his last 3 years, he was 8-16 against SEC opponents. (In his first three he was 4-20!)

    … and Mumme’s teams were much more fun to watch.



  66. duh
    1:22 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    This post is inane. Anyone that doesn’t want more wins, whatever the sacrifice, is silly. As others have said, winning attracts top recruits as much or more than points.



  67. bart edwards
    1:26 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Learn how to spell, BTI. It’s “led,” not “lead”.
    Further, you have authored yet another ludicrous post.



  68. matfug
    2:02 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Who cares as long as cats are winning in the SEC,recruits will come. Idk if its a 7-3 game as long as UK wins.



  69. Joe
    2:06 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    65. Look, I was there. I remember it. Mummeball was fun. Until he got us on probation which is why 2004 and 2005 were such putrid years. The real reason that Brooks’s SEC numbers are less than impressive is that Mumme gutted his 2004 and 2005 teams because of probation. Meanwhile, everybody wants to forget this about Mumme– he subscribed to his dumb cowboy “If we’re gonna, lose we might as well lose by 40 mentality.” Newsflash– You can’t win games you’re not in. Mumme lost 9 SEC games by 27 or more points in 4 years. Brooks lost 3 SEC games by that margin in his last four years. For that matter, even including his ugly probation years, he lost 8 SEC games by that margin in 8 years– that’s one per year. (And by the way, on your stats, 2006 and 2007 were Brooks’s best years, with one total bad loss between the two. In 1998 and 1999, Mumme’s best years, he lost by 38 to UT, 28 to Florida, and 35 to UT– and by 28 to UL in the game that turned the tide of that whole series).

    Mumme had one really good year, where Couch carried him (1998). That said, that team lacked any kind of big signature moment. They beat a 4-7 LSU team at LSU and an 8 win Miss. St. team at home. Give me 2007, when Kentucky ended Louisville’s run, beat the #1 team in the country, and won at a bowl-bound Arkansas team. Or 2009, when a young team with no real passing game won at Auburn and Georgia teams that both played in bowls. Or 2006, when UK knocked off Georgia and ended a two decade plus bowl win drought. I don’t care if we play a receiver at quarterback and throw for 15 yards. I care that we’re competitive and that we win games. (In the opposite order, but you can’t win games that you’re not competitive in).



  70. Dr. Funke
    2:36 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    65 – The SEC was a lot different during Mumme’s time. Just look at coaches in the SEC. Brooks had to go up against Saban, Les Miles, Petrino, Spurrier, Richt, Urban Myer on a week to week basis. The best coaches in the SEC when Mumme was here were Spurrier and fat Phil Fulmer. Just look how Fulmer started to tank after the rest of the SEC coaching improved.



  71. HB
    3:10 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Wins FTW



  72. Jim 1
    3:22 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    You seem to imply an exciting offence with a bad or not so good a defense can not produce a winning season. But doesn’t a good O and a good D go equally hand in hand. Hopefully with Stoops and company, with strong financial backing and good support from the fan base, are on tract for a strong football program in the future.

    But please realize that an exciting offence brings out the fans and a boring O (Joker style) even with a good defense will never win. That’s why Stoops brought in Brown and a good D will follow.



  73. northfork
    3:40 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    I want to know when we scored less and won more?



  74. Mumme
    3:54 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    Sure, Mumme’s teams got blown out by 28+ a couple of times by Florida and UT. Let’s not forget that one of those UT teams had a guy named Peyton Manning playing quarterback who did that to pretty much everyone. The other UT team won the national championship. As for Florida, this is when Spurrier took great pride in running the score up on us (see 2011, UK v. USC)and they were STACKED.

    Should Mumme have spent more time on defense? Absolutely. But at least when he got blown out his teams were able to put 30 points on the scoreboard. Anyone remember losing 49-0 at LSU? How about 42-10 at Auburn? 62-17 against Georgia for Homecoming? Or losing 45-13 to INDIANA? Say what you want, but we never got routinely crushed like that during the Mumme era



  75. Dee W.
    11:04 pm June 18, 2013 Permalink

    A losing program isn’t what I would call exciting.



  76. BigBlueStew
    7:55 am June 19, 2013 Permalink

    This has to be the worst question ever.