madness, sounds like you need a job there, you could probably run the thing I'm sure with your vast knowledge of selling newspapers and how Steve and Jack are just trying to stir things up, rrrriiiigggghhhhttt. I think Johnny was mad at Cobb's comments and that what is was about.

:dancingpa Thats alright Jumper 1, we all do, thats what makes it so much fun. I love rivial games if its college high school or middle school. It gives us something to talk about in this small town.

I love rivial games if its college high school or middle school. It gives us something to talk about in this small town.

 

These games are really about the kids playing, not us crazy adults. It just gives us old guys (and gals) something to argue and talk about. It sure is fun.:banana: :banana:

A big part of the problem was the original article with Hines' comments, which didn't give anyone from Somerset a chance to tell their side of the story. Aren't reporters supposed to get both sides of an issue?

 

Instead, this thing has dragged on much longer than it should.

No, what got it satarted was when cobb said " It was Pulaski's Super Bowl " implying that They were UK and pulaski was cumberland.

No, what got it satarted was when cobb said " It was Pulaski's Super Bowl " implying that They were UK and pulaski was cumberland.

That's your interpretation of it ... probably nowhere near what Cobb meant by it.

That's your interpretation of it ... probably nowhere near what Cobb meant by it.

Things do get taken out of context quite often with the reporting at the Commonwealth Journal. Many, many innacurate quotes make their way into print.

No, what got it satarted was when cobb said " It was Pulaski's Super Bowl " implying that They were UK and pulaski was cumberland.

I don't think that's what Coach Cobb meant at all. Although this game was huge for both teams, I do agree that this meant much more to the Pulaski program. Pulaski has won only 4 games combined the last two years and beat a two time Regional Champ--who just happens to be Somerset your biggest rival. My point being that this game has given Pulaski a much needed win over a quality opponent and will now hopefully carry over to larger success in the district this year.

:confused: I think deep down everyone knows what he meant, I dont think it was an upset at all, Those kids have competed against each other since middle school with the pulaski kids winning every football game but one. So i dont see where it such a shock to everyone.

I think deep down everyone knows what he meant

Cobb seemed to be saying that Pulaski was more up for the game than his team was. Given the circumstances and the outcome, it's a justifiable premise.

I dont think it was an upset at all.

Who said it was an upset?

Baloney . Those were indirect shots but shots nonetheless .

What were the indirect shots?

I don't think that anyone from Pulaski that will carefully read the Hines article can have much of a defense for him. It has increasingly become obvious that he stated several mistruths. As for Cobb, IMO he didn't jab at Pulaski any, Cobb took full responsibility for his teams defeat.

:bunny:Never mind all the other stuff JUMPER 1, I would just like for you to give me a explanation on why somerset wont play Pulaski and Southwestern on alternate years when they are not playing them in their bowl?????? Example : If this year they played Pulaski in the Ray Correll Bowl then why cant they play Soutwestern at Southwestern ?

:bunny:Never mind all the other stuff JUMPER 1, I would just like for you to give me a explanation on why somerset wont play Pulaski and Southwestern on alternate years when they are not playing them in their bowl?????? Example : If this year they played Pulaski in the Ray Correll Bowl then why cant they play Soutwestern at Southwestern ?

For one I don't know the answer, I'm not Somerset's AD. Seems to me you are trying to sidestep Coach Hines blatent mistake by turning attention away from Pulaski. I'm not buying it This thread is about Bob Tuckers response to Coach Hines' misleading remarks. Like I've already stated, Coach Hines has done nothing more than tarnish a deserving hard fought win against Somerset. Instead of celebrating a quality win we are getting this.

Well he seems to clarify everything. There are no "shots" towards Pulaski or their coach, The Somerset AD saw where false statements were said about his program/school, and he was simply clarifying each and every issue. He could have very well trashed Hines, but he didn't, he never once said anything against him.

 

Maybe Somerset needs to look into putting a gate or two along the fence on the visitors side, other than that it seems all the other issues are dead.