October 13th, 2009 at 7:35 PM ^
He is the true snake oil salesman.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:59 PM ^
Being the Alabama football coach is virtually a no-win situation. If you win a MNC, the alumni and boosters say 'good job, that's why we hired you, now go do it again.' If you struggle for a few years, you're done. As long as Saban with 10+ games a year he'll be OK. Problem is, he's never had back-to-back double-digit winning seasons.
RichRod may not have as many boosters breathing down his neck about 10+ win seasons all the time, but he has the 'faction' that is against him that he has to win over. If he continues to show improvement and recruits well, things will be fine.
Saban has a tougher road to hoe in the SEC in general, but RR has to succeed while digging out of a deeper hole than Saban had when he started. The parallels between the two mega-programs is very interesting.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:06 PM ^
but to oversign year after year, then yank the scholarships from kids who have done everything but move up the depth chart, that's just wrong.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
this Bama team will win 10 with realtive ease. Saban's perfect for the job. He's the one guy who's almost as big as the job itself. He doesn't need Alabama as much as Bama needs him, and he knows it. Yet his self-assurance doen't irritate me the way Meyer's does. Unlike Mike Shula, Mike Dubose, Dennis Francione, Gene Stallings, etc., Saban would be coveted by tons of teams that would take him in a heartbeat if they could afford him (and NFL teams can). Tide fans know it all to well, and I think they'll be happy to keep him around because they know they would be unlikely to replace him with someone better.
That said, Saban's also the poster boy for many things I dislike about the college game.
I wonder where Nick would be now if Rodriguez had jumped at the Bama job.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:13 PM ^
If the NCAA were to address this issue, how would they go about it. The problem I have with Saban is that it's really hard to police this issue. You can't unilaterally impose a rule against taking a scholarship away, can you?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:22 PM ^
and over a four year time frame; allowing for injuries, failure to make academic progress, and those who leave school voluntarily (probably a huge gray area).
October 13th, 2009 at 8:28 PM ^
the NCAA. USC, OSU, Miami and maybe Bama. The NCAA needs USC OSU(for the moment) and Bama to carry the flag of college football so they look the other way when allegations come up.
It's obvious Michigan doesn't belong at the party these days when ridiculously weak allegations about time spent are being investigated, but the Reggie Bu$h $$ money tree, numerous fiascos in Miami over the years and the all the B$ at OSU go unnoticed by the "governing body" of college sports.
Florida State fell out of the limelight and they got caught and publicly punished. Michigan has slipped over the last several years and now they start to look our way.
They key to staying 'clean' is more about $ucce$$ on the field than doing it 'the right way' and dealing with the results on the field.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^
This is about as nonsensical as it gets. Miami and Alabama have recently been punished - severely - by the NCAA. In recent years OSU has had one player (Clarett) permanently stripped of his eligibility, and another (Troy Smith) briefly suspended over eligibility issues. USC is still under investigation. How, exactly, are these programs "above the NCAA?"
Speaking of FSU, last I checked they had several players suspended for varying amounts of time during the 1994 season - the year after they won it all - in the "Free Shoes" scandal. Why would the defending national champ not be "above the NCAA?"
Finally, are you aware that we hired a law firm to investigate the practice issue? The NCAA did not take the initiative. It was us.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:03 PM ^
The Tide are complaining about just recently being dinged for 21 vacated wins so I'm not really following your argument.
Also, we are the ones (meaning the UM athletic department) who decided to investigate the too-many-hours bullshit. If Martin and Coleman had any balls they would have told the Freep and the NCAA to go fuck themselves on such a stupid issue, but instead pussy-footed around what should have been a non-story for fear of looking like cheaters.
Miami was on probation throughout a big chunk of the 1990's as well.
The NCAA has limited investigative power and does stupid shit in order to follow the letter of their silly laws (SEE Jeremy Bloom case), but I don't think they are at all biased. The Bush thing involved one guy at SC whose parents were allegedly getting a house paid for by agents unconnected with the school more than 100 miles from campus. Not exactly an open and shut case regarding the school's involvement, especially considering the lack of subpoena power. I think that one just pisses people off because SC has been so good lately so people want to believe it results from an unfair advantage.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:33 PM ^
USC has YET to to be penalized, yet Bush has been gone for three years. Everything I have read says nothing is going to come from it. Yahoo Sports knew alot at least two years ago, but nothing has come from it.
OSU, the program, has not been penalized, but the individual players did.
FSU has gotten drilled as the program has declined. Miami and Alabama were punished during the down years.
The point is when schools are on top the NCAA looks the other way, once they fall off the top perch, it seems the investigations amp up.
On the Michigan thing, I know it is school prompted and run by an independant lawyer. The point on this one is the whole thing is frivolous and there is no need or reason for the NCAA to even pay any attention.
I'm not saying the NCAA is crooked, but they know programs support them the best.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:43 PM ^
I fully understand your point. I think it's ridiculous. First of all, given that different programs have risen and fallen over the years, it makes no sense that certain programs would be sacred cows. Second, two of the very schools you mentioned (Miami and Alabama) have gotten nailed about as severely as possible in recent years. So what are you saying? That Alabama was fair game three years ago but is untouchable now? Do you realize how illogical that sounds?
Washington and Miami shared the 1991 national championship. Both went on probation a couple of years later. Were they really in decline at the time? Again, FSU had several players suspended for the Free Shoes scandal in 1994 - when they were defending national champs. Are you seriously arguing that in 1994, their program was in decline?
As for OSU, I'd say that permanently stripping a team's star player of his eligibility hurts the program a lot. And the notion that the program is untouchable but that individual players on it are fair game makes the whole argument effectively moot.
Regarding USC, if the NCAA turns up nothing, that likely has more to do with them not having subpoena power than any conspiracy. If no one wants to talk, the NCAA can't force them. Let's not forget that the first time the NCAA investigated the Ed Martin scandal (1996-97), it didn't turn up much either. Only when the FBI got involved did the four players have to sing.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:44 PM ^
than I am. All these schools seem to get dinged by the NCAA during their down years, Miami, Bama, FSU, heck even SMU(but that was an extreme case).
I never intended to mean that they don't punish anyone ever, it just seems extremely coincidental that the big schools that get punished never get punished during their successful years, it's only in the down years.
The details you guys point out are correct, but they also support my argument.
My only beef with the NCAA is that schools like USC where the Bush thing is so obvious, and yes he didn't directly receive the $$$, but his family did (seems like some violation to me), it SEEMS to get overlooked.
I don't think it's worth get negbanged over. If you disagree or have facts that are more specific, I'll agree to your point.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:09 AM ^
How do these details support your argument? Miami and Washington were fresh off a national title when the NCAA came calling. FSU had several players suspended the offseason after they won it all. OSU had Clarett suspended the year after a title. Heck, we had Marcus Ray suspended in 1998. I see no evidence that the NCAA waits until a program is on the downswing to investigate. On the contrary, I think that the NCAA investigations often help to contribute to a program's decline by making recruiting more difficult while the threat of sanctions is hanging over a program's head. We saw this happen to our basketball program.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:14 PM ^
when Miami and Alabama were punished. I don't have specific dates in front of me. My point about FSU has to do with the punishments they are getting now, not so much back in the 90s.
jmblue, I have to defer to your facts, but I also feel that the NCAA needs programs like USC and OSU to do well, especially when the collective rest of their respective progams are struggling. Look at how the Pac-10 has been in football the last few years and the Big 10 has been "down" for years.
These two schools have been the beacons of light through the dark for the last few years. I think the NCAA needs these national programs to succeed while the rest of their conferences struggle, because they can't promote the conferences any other way.
Oregon State and Northwestern have no appeal across the country, USC and OSU do.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^
The only reluctance I could ever see, would involve not wanting to strip a team of conference and national titles if there were no other punishment involved. I don't think the NCAA would want to force OSU and USC to vacate wins/championships earned with players (Bush and Clarett) who may have been or were later found to be ineligible (really the only punishment possible in the SC situation unless the investigators found out Carroll knew about Bush getting dough). Something like that would damage the history/integrity of the game's past and open a Pandora's box that I don't think they want to get into. It is the same reason nobody brings up Sam Goldberg when they talk about UCLA basketball. Other than that, I don't see any reluctance on their part to punish teams going forward after an indiscretion. Miami, SMU, Oklahoma (end of Switzer's run), FSU, and I'm sure a ton of other schools all had tons of success shortly before getting hit with big time sanctions.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:54 AM ^
This I can buy.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:53 PM ^
I am surprised Saban stayed in one place long enough to get a complete one on one interview with him.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
...makes Saban look like Paterno.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:21 AM ^
...relies on us ignoring the notion of historicity.
Looking back, a team that is said to have been at its peak at a certain time can only be at a lower level of achievement several years later, because the height of a program is something that is only defined with the advantage of the knowledge that the years that follow were worse.
It takes time for a violation to result in sanctions. There's no way to prove that success forestalls sanction, 'cause most teams are never successful in the way that Amazinblue is talking about.