Feeling the Pressure, Steve Spurrier Gets Down and Dirty

Brian, the only blowup about Nick Saban – as you correctly linked – was your own overheated rhetoric. As you did earlier this year (http://www.alabamagameday.net/2008/02/alabamagameday-interview-brian-cook_17.html), you continue to play the spokesman for the downtrodden college athlete. But you'll find there are few buyers for that.

Given the way Tim Tebow – among others – has used Florida athletics to maximize his marketability, your attempts to paint college football as a plantation and the athletes as endentured servants is intellectually dishonest at the very least.

Reply

As a Tide fan myself, I can speak to how easily some of my fellow fans are goaded into responding to anything thrown onto the tubes.

The interviewer in the link was yours truly, so that part was a tad self-serving. The point was, there was no real controversy about over-signing at Alabama; Brian created one by donning his sackcloth and ashes and calling Nick Saban a snake oil salesman. Tide fans dutifully took the bait and voil
á, blowup achieved.

College athletes are offered scholarships in the hopes they can contribute to the team; in exchange, players are given the opportunity to better themselves through an education, and possibly through parlaying their talents into a lucrative career in the NFL. They all know the bargain.

I genuinely do feel for the athletes that don't make it, as I do for anyone who fails to realize their dreams. But it's self-righteous to see college athletics in terms of the evil coaches lording it over the cowering players.

Reply

Can't say that I have, but that's honestly a fascinating idea. I'd also encourage Brian to do the same when he's done being the Advocate of the Little Man.

Cold-blooded? No; jaded perhaps. I know not every athlete is using the school as a stepping stone to an endorsement deal and a spot on MTV Cribs. Many (most?) are guys who want to use whatever ability they have to get a education they can use when their playing days are over.

I just don't see it in the black and white terms of yourself or Mr. Cook. If college athletics is nothing more than coaches taking advantage of their helpless charges, then let's shut the whole thing down and make these mean coaches get jobs torturing kittens or something.

Reply

For the record, the first time I heard of the 'Bama oversigning was actually a piece in the Birmingham News on al.com. From there, it seems Brian Cook took the figurative ball and ran.

Reply

So much righteous indignation, so little time...

Anyone reading this thread without the blinders of their own self-importance can see I don't advocate throwing poor, helpless children out in the street, or at least out onto the Quad. Let's take a deep breath, get over ourselves, and look at the real world; not the magical land where scholarships and employment and whatever else you like is irrevocable and unconditional.

College athletes receive scholarships for one reason: they may be able to contribute to the team. Their spot on the team is predicated on a combination of their grades and their continued ability to help the team. That's not cold-hearted, that's just the reality of the situation. Just as an employer hires at will, so that it can turn a profit, a college fields sports teams as a way to generate revenue for the school. Feel free to delude yourself that it's a noble, altruistic venture.

And what of the kids that get cut from the team? Well, maybe they get a job and pay their way through school like I did. Maybe they go to a tech or vocational college. Or maybe (shudder), they enter the workforce without the benefit of five years of lettin' their hair grow and experimenting.

My point is, and has been, that these are young adult males we're talking about, not babes in the big, bad world. I sleep fine at night, because I have confidence that young men can adapt to and overcome their circumstances in life without the help of condescending, guilt-ridden do-gooders who want to shield them from the realities of adult life.

Reply

Tony Orlando's comments are so full of non-sequiturs, red herrings and overall faulty logic, it is hard to know where to start.

First, it's "indentured" not "endentured".

Second, you suggest "let's shut the whole thing down and make these mean coaches get jobs torturing kittens or something." This is a red herring. No one stated that all college football coaches do is take advantage of athletes, only that some take advantage of the technicalities inherent in the NCAA's rules. That being said, it does not follow that that just because something is allowed that it is the right or advisable thing to do and consequently that these rules should not be changed. Thus, oversigning and cutting scholarships of non-contributors, while technically allowed, may not be practices that we want to continue. Isn't it worthy of asking the question?

Another point, I don't think anyone here is saying that people cannot adjust to adversities such as having a scholarship revoked, but again it does not follow that because people can overcome obstacles such as this that it is advisable to allow such obstacles be put up by coaches.

And to compare this to an employment setting is not apt. Where is the remuneration then? Oh I know you will say the athlete will be marketable in the future, but the same can be said for employment and employees are still paid. The more apt concept is promissory estoppel, where (1) there is no contract, (2) an individual makes a promise and (3) someone reasonably relying on that promise acts accordingly. A scholarship offer is (or should be) the promise of four years of college paid by the institution; the athlete reasonably relies on this promise by electing to go to the school with the expectation that they will get four years tuition free. Who should be punished? The athlete for believing the coach? Or the coach who later thinks it advantageous to renege on this promise? I know Tony thinks that college is just experimentation for long-haired hippies but it also is a requirement for advanced degrees and many desirable jobs. I'm sure Tony has no experience with any of the foregoing so likely was not aware of such requirements.

Reply

There are two promises made:

1. The athlete promises to work hard and do his best to contribute, while maintaining the necessary grades.

2. The coach promises to provide 4 years school with the tuition paid for.

It doesn't matter that the schools make money or that the athletes try to market themselves once at the school. Keep in mind that the player never guarantees he will be a star, only to play football. It is disingenuous for a coach to offer a scholarship and then try to push that player out. The kid gets 4 years, plain and simple.

Reply

So, Orlando, is that the pitch that Saban makes when he enters the living room:
"Well, I'll be here to give your son a scholarship on a year-by-year basis, so long as he helps our team out more than a Rivals five star. Now, if entering his senior year, there's a recruit who looks more impressive... well, I'll probably be telling your son to move along to a different school. . . I've got alot of pressure on me to win, you know."
How many parents agree to that?

Reply

So, Tony Orlando's argument essentially boils down to "righteous indignation is for pussies; College football is about money; I paid for college myself!" Cool, guy.

But when faulting 17 year old kids for being non-performers, you're essentially saying that the coaching staff shouldn't have to live with its own manifested inability to evaluate talent. Look, recruiting is a crapshoot. That's why you're allowed to sign 25-28 kids a year for a sport that allows 21 kids to play at any given time. If you walk, as a grown man, walk into a child's house and tell his mother that you will help her son achieve his goals, you need to be a man and honor that promise. It's called integrity. Unfortunately, integrity isn't marketable and it doesn't calm down pissed off alumni.

As for your other arguments, Tony Orlando, they don't hold water. You paid for your own college? Congrats. A couple semesters at Bishop State Community College shouldn't have set you back too far. As for CFB being a money maker, you're both right and wrong. Sure, it makes money. But if you want to treat kids like professionals, you've got to pay them like professionals.

Reply