Back in February FanHouse's Brian Cook went on a bit of a tear, criticizing Nick Saban for signing too many recruits. This came at time when his team's coach was being lambasted in the media and blogs for his attempt to get out of his West Virginia buy-out. This timing was, I'm sure, pure coincidence. He started with some guess-work by a beat reporter in Alabama, assumed it as fact, and then concluded that "Around six guys who are playing for Alabama now or expect to be in the fall are going to be told to get bent by the time fall practice rolls around." Let's take a look and see how that shook out, shall we?
Before we go any farther, I have to acknowledge the somewhat trivial point that if a team has more than 85 kids who have been promised scholarships in a given year, some of them simply will not get scholarships. We can spend a lot of time arguing about whether players should get 4-year promises, the circumstances under which it is acceptable to revoke a scholarship, and whether or not a player who slacks off is "getting screwed" by losing his scholarship. We can debate these things ad nauseum, but nothing will come of it.
What's more interesting is taking a look at February's hand-wringing and hyperbole and compare it to what actually happened.
Alabama, by last guesstimate, has 82 players on scholarship. More importantly, short of that sneaky Jeremy Elder situation, there hasn't been a single piece of credible evidence that even one of the players who have left the team did so under duress. Bottom line: Cook's temper tantrums aside, Alabama actually had enough attrition to more than account for the apparent overage -- it's almost like Saban knew something.
We should learn a few things from this whole process. First, there's a chance that maybe -- just maybe -- Nick Saban knows how to manage a college football team. (Also, there's some evidence that there are, in fact, some literate Alabama fans out there.)
Second, the amount of information that a head coach has about his personnel absolutely dwarfs anything that bloggers or beat reporters could ever hope to compile, so when entities outside the program start speculating, take it with a grain of salt.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, tying a larger argument so inextricably to a hypothetical "case in point" will really torpedo the whole thing if it doesn't materialize.
Comments (Page 1 of 2)
What a pile of garbage you managed to string together and call an article. Try using some facts/sources in your article next time instead of just trying to ruin Brian's credibility with that Richrod-WVU comment. This article basically boils down to "Meh, Saban knows what he's doing"
"Try using some facts/sources"
Try using some reading comprehension:
"Alabama . . . has 82 players on scholarship."
"Alabama actually had enough attrition to more than account for the apparent overage"
"there hasn't been a single piece of credible evidence that even one of the players who have left the team did so under duress."
Cook's argument was that players were going to have to be kicked off the team undeservingly. It didn't happen, and no amount of ad hominem or foot-stamping changes that.
Literate, yes.
Delusional, as well.
Something did materialize, you're just looking in the wrong place. Saban had to start the season under 85 scholarships, it's the rules, so it's not exactly shocking to anyone on either side of this argument that he made it. The point Brian was trying to make was that Saban was going to have to take scholarships away from a large number of players before they had been on campus for four years. And miraculously, a coincidentally large number of players aren't coming back. The fact that Saban is now under the limit hardly disproves that it was in his best interest to kick players off the team after signing day.
That's a pretty big logical leap you made there. From "Alabama made it under the cap" to "Saban kicked players off of the team".
The only players that I'm aware of who were "kicked off" of the team committed felonies and are unlikely to be able to play this fall anyway. Besides... if Saban were going to be kicking people off just to make it under the cap, would he have gone all the way down to 82? Doubtful.
"it's almost like Saban knew something."
Are you implying Saban knew Jimmy Johns was dealing coke by the athletic complex?
Alabama did, however, conveniently have just enough players leave the team for whatever reason so they have enough scholarships
That's a convenient definition of "just enough" you must be using... the Tide is 3 to 4 players UNDER the cap. Considering the original number was 6 over, Saban must have ruthlessly booted 66% more players than he needed to... for what reason, exactly?
HA HA He is a GREAT Coach I bet the "COONASSES" hate they lost him to Miami. Now he has found a home for a few years !!!!! ROLL TIDE
STEVE
That's a pretty big straw man you set up there. From "It was in his best interest to kick players off the team after signing day" to "Saban kicked players off of the team".
So apparently Saban made it under the cap without provably kicking anyone off the team. Congratulations. Just because Saban got lucky that enough players dealt coke, committed armed robbery, "transferred", or had career ending injuries does not mean he should put himself into a situation where he needs players to leave the team.
it's not the result, it's the process. the point was that no program should be at a point where they have more than 85 players expecting a s'ship in 6months during spring practice (and even 2 months before fall camp). So, at that time Bama was in a situation where there is more impetus to have kids leave the program than to keep them in the program. whether or not Saban actually pushed kids out the door is immaterial. who the hell knows what really happened (as you rightfully point out, no one not named Saban)?
no program should be in that position where they need to root for kids who aren't contributing on the field to either flunk out, get arrested, or break team rules. Under those conditions, there is a POTENTIAL for schools to preferentially remove academic or other support from some student athletes who MAY not deserve to have the rug pulled out from under them.
finally, it wasn't that it was Bama (i have news, no one in the B10 cares about Bama anymore... probably for the same reason no one in the SEC cares about ND anymore), and it certainly wasn't a smokescreen for the RR crap (that's simply a low brow attempt at character assassination on your part). it was just a good example of this situation that happened to have some MSM-based research behind it.
I understand Cook's point, I just think it's nonsense. It is, in fact, the results that matter. The results are these: Alabama has 3-4 spare scholarships. Nobody was kicked off the team to make room for an incoming freshman.
What more do you want? In some hypothetical world events could have come to pass in which might have required Saban to revoke the scholarship of someone who previously had one. There's been a lot of hand-wringing about this. Bigger question that Cook seems unwilling to address: aren't their legitimate circumstances where a scholarship might be expendable?
Do I want to see a good kid who works his butt off for his team lose his scholarship because he's not a good football player? No. Do I care if some slacker, trouble-maker, or prima donna loses theirs to a freshman? Not at all. Players are not promised, ever, four (or five) years of scholarships. They are promised one year of scholarship, and keeping it beyond that is dependent upon other factors.
You might not like that, but that's the way it is. Those are the rules. Oddly enough, those are the rules for basically everything else in life, too. The academic scholarship I had in college required me to keep a certain GPA. To keep your job you have to do it well. Why should football be any different?
At the end of the day, nobody outside of the program has any idea how many slackers or malcontents there were left over on the team from the Shula days -- it's possible that Saban had dozens of players on scholarship who really didn't deserve it.
Here's the rub: any scholarship he takes away, even for good reason, he will need to explain to every recruit he talks to. Even if we believe that Saban is evil, self-interest dictates that he not just unceremoniously dump players. When Fulmer, Richt, or Tuberville are sitting in some recruit's living room, they'd LOVE to be able to say "Yeah, well, Alabama might be offering you a scholarship, but did you hear about John Smith? I wonder how long you'll keep yours?"
And that's all without considering other factors. For example, do we know that Saban didn't sit down with any of those recruits and say "Look, we've got a lot of guys signed up. I think we're going to end up being able to make room, but if we don't, I might need to ask you to grayshirt for a year... and I can only offer you a scholarship if you understand that's a possibility."
What would be the problem with that? The kid then gets to decide to take the "maybe" offer from Alabama or the sure thing from another school.
So, in short, there's no evidence that anything untoward was going on, there's no motivation to do anything untoward, and we really don't have anywhere near enough information to suggest any different... but that didn't stop Cook from spilling a lot of ink to try to make Saban look like some sort of baby-eating monster.
As for the complaints about calling him out for using Saban as a smoke-screen... lines like this beg for it: "Around six guys who are playing for Alabama now or expect to be in the fall are going to be told to get bent by the time fall practice rolls around. But let's all complain about how nasty Rich Rodriguez is, why don't we?"
Yeah, definitely not asking us to focus on Saban instead of Rodriguez. I'm a jerk for suggesting it.
So, Pete, what exactly did Saban know? The innerworkings of Crump's mind, to know he would "lose the love of football"? That Jimmy Johns was a coke dealer? He KNEW that was going to happen?
The fact that Alabama is under the limit is immaterial - it's mind-boggling to me that you think it matters. Brian never said Alabama wouldn't get under the limit. He said they would - and that they'd have to cross their fingers and HOPE kids committed felonies or got hurt - or else you'd see kids leaving for more nebulous reasons - like Crump "losing his love of the game". And guess what - he was right.
Now that, admittedly, is proof of nothing. But the fact that Alabama got under the 85 scholarship limit doesn't prove your point.
I'm by no means a Saban fan, but Pete you are defending your article way to much. Seems I haven't seen Brian post any comments defending himself (& thank you for that Brian)... Seems both sides are valid & posting comments will only fuel people. Let it go...
Speaking of Fuel...
Hey Mishitgan, 1732 days since you beat OSU! Go Bucks!
What a meat gazer Cook is. Clearly the fact that Alabama isn't violating a rule that would cause the NCAA to not allow them to play means everything is alright. Its pretty simple what happened here, Saban knew that a large number of kids who have been playing football their whole lives would remember how much they hate the sport and quit, all of whom happened to be low on the depth chart.
It is, in fact, the results that matter.
so, in the SEC, the ends do justify the means? i'm glad that's clear now.
The academic scholarship I had in college required me to keep a certain GPA.
weak analogy... a slightly less weak analogy: say you needed a 3.0 to keep the s'ship. after your FR year, you get a 3.22 but the U found a few kids w/ better HS transcripts/SATs and thus thought had more potential to excel than you had shown after a year on campus. you did not violate the terms of your agreement for renewal (3.22 > 3.0), but come June the U pulls your $$$ to make room for the new guys.
and there is still the hypothetical.... what if these guys who left for various reasons did stay on? what happens w/ those FR who signed a binding guarantee to play at Bama this year (a LOI)? did Saban give a guarantee back to the recruits back in DEC-FEB? if so, that's obviously disingenuous. if he did level with many of them, the situation is nonetheless NOT an even playing field recruit-to-program.
so, yea it's buyer beware to some extent. another flawed analogy: say if you commit to buy an xbox360(bama s'ship) in a store at which it isn't yet in stock. 2-3 months later the store says the xbox (the s'ship) doesn't arrive for a year. you are stuck having to wait w/ nothing b/c you can't get your money back to buy one on ebay. sure, you could have gone to another store and bought a colecovision (auburn s'ship) day-of, but that doesn't make the xbox agreement anymore fair. you may have had full knowledge of the terms, but it doesn't mean the contract shouldn't be made more fair for the consumer (recruit).
finally, the off-hand RR comment is evidence that RR was the catalyst for Brian's article? you're reading b/t the lines way too much to be making character judgments. IOW, you're assigning intent based on questionable assumptions. it was pretty clear that the intent was not to deflect blame (like Mgoblog is part of the UM AD PR dept), nor was it to say, Saban=Satan, lolz bamma = cheaters! it was an attempt to address an actual issue in CFB, in contrast to the non-issues the MSM/everyone addressed WRT RR. but here i am assuming brian's intent when i could...
I only wrote the thing on Saban because of the Gayle article that drew a picture of severe oversigning even when you take most of the reasonable departures into account. This is a general hobby-horse of mine.
Any anger you've seen about this thing is a reaction to the ludicrous excess and, frankly, overwhelming stupidity of most of the responses.
http://mgoblog.com/content/final-word-oversigning-and-alabama
so there is his intent in his own words. if you want to call him a liar, fine.... settle that w/ him.
Thanks Pete, great stuff. It honestly didn't matter what you wrote, because these whiny jackoffs had long since made up their minds that they were gonna be upset about this. The hilarious part is that not a single one of them has any evidence to back up their hysterical assertions. Not one. There's a lot of assumptions and hyperbolic declarations about lucky this and hope that, but there's no smoking gun. If there is, let's see it. Stop whining and produce it. Frankly, I love it. Coach Saban got the job done, there was no chicanery, no bending of rules, he played these chumps like puppets, AND we get to watch them gnash their teeth, wring their hands, and throw cyber tantrums Grow the F up, boys. Your superficial moral superiority ain't working for you.
Roll Tide.
Thing is, Saban has given a lot of money to fund academic scholarships, scholarships for kids who are the first in their family to go to college, etc... The remaining scholarships for this year have been awarded to walk-ons. WALK ONS. He's not saving them for some 4 or 5 star recruit next year. I think the bottom line is the Saban understands that there will always be a lot of attrition between a coaches first year and second year (even if the felonies don't occur, we'd still be under in scholarship numbers).
So, my question is: What exactly is Cook arguing? That Saban SHOULDN'T have oversigned? That he CAN'T oversign? Or that Cook himself just doesn't LIKE oversigning? If it's option number 3, then there's not much anyone can do to convince him otherwise, and all of this is a waste of the internets. If it's option 1 or 2, then we can have some discussion.
Mr Holiday-Are you related to Delaine Mountain? Your ramblings bring to mind a line from Hamlet "the lady doth protest too much me thinks". Instead of going on and on ad nauseum you should have reread the fifth paragraph of your 9:05 post where you stated that no one outside the Tide program knows anything for sure. You're nothing more than another blind Alabama apologist who never sees wrong with anything the "Tide" does and is always worrying about who is out to get them.
Idlegolfer: Going out of your way to post about someone protesting too much is like yelling for quiet. And awkwardly adding a line from Shakespeare to prove your cultural cachet? Priceless. Nick Saban stole your lunch money.