It started with a legitimate concern mixed with an unsubstantiated pot-shot at Nick Saban by FanHouse's Brian Cook. I replied, and so did a whole bunch of other Alabama bloggers. Brian took Round Two to his personal blog, MGOBLOG, and his post is most certainly neither work-safe nor child-friendly. The one good thing about Brian's post, is he more clearly enumerates his points. The bad thing is that he failed to do so without resorting to something on the order of an ad hominem every other paragraph, which tends to make him sound like a petulant child [Enter: The FanHouse Baby] as opposed to the college football analyst that he is known in the blog world to be. Both sides have some valid points, which will be addressed in turn. The sole exception being the whine that Alabama's recruiting class shouldn't be ranked #1... the only suitable reply to which is pictured at right.
Executive summary from Brian's post at MGOBLOG (NSFW):
Issue #2. Nick Saban has taken the concept of oversigning and stretched it unto its breaking point. This is a nasty, filthy practice only undertaken by a program that couldn't really give a crap about the idea of a mutual commitment between player and school.
The crux of Brian's argument is that if, come August, a team has more than 85 players who should be getting football scholarships, the overage will need to be unceremoniously dumped to come within the NCAA's limitations. This is an undeniable fact. Brian would have you believe that makes him right and everyone else stupid, but there's more to it than that. First, it's a hypothetical situation which has not yet come to pass and is far from a certainty. Second, there's a lot of room for reasonable people to differ on "who should be getting [a] football scholarship[]."
The responding posts by Alabama bloggers tend to focus how the 86+ scholarshipped class will not come to pass. One factor for which Brian did not originally account was non-athletic scholarships. He attempts to dismiss this by asserting: "Anyone on scholarship and on the football team counts against the 85 limit."
This, of course, is false. Take, for example, Bryant Scholarship players (the Bryant scholarship is given to sons and daughters of his former players), as demonstrated quite clearly by The Capstone Report (whose author continues to butcher my last name) by simply citing the NCAA rule. The gist of it is this: non-athletic scholarships don't count until "the student athlete engages in varsity intercollegiate competition." So, with all due respect to Mr. Cook, he needs to take another read through the NCAA Bylaws.
At this point, Brian's post takes a particularly nasty turn, displaying the vast vocabulary of this Michigan Man: "The f****** point is that f****** Alabama is going to kick kids off the f****** team for no f******* reason." He goes on to erect and destroy straw men with great proficiency, but the inescapable fact his this: we won't know until August whether or not "someone gets it right in the ass," as he so eloquently puts it.
The argument is that if a coach over-promises with respect to the 85 scholarship limit, that's definitely scummy because either a previously scholarshipped student or a recruit is going to have to go without that scholarship. This is a potential problem. As noted above, however, there are a number of ways to avoid that problem all together. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, come August, after all of the maneuvering and fiddling has been completed, Alabama ends up with 86 players on scholarship. One player will have to have his scholarship revoked.
As far as I'm concerned, nothing scummy has necessarily taken place... yet. There are a number of options which I suspect any neutral observer would concede are fair and non-scummy, for example:
1. A non-contributing scholarship player who is not putting in the effort to become a contributing player turns into a walk-on. Scholarships are year-to-year. Nobody is guaranteed four or five years of scholarship. Cook draws an arbitrary line at fourth year juniors to try to advance his argument, but even he concedes that revoking scholarships is within the rules of the game. Consider academic scholarships for non-athletes... typically, if you drop below a certain GPA, you lose your scholarship. Same situation here.
2. A player is cut from the team for some legitimate reason. Some of those reasons might include violations of team rules, run-ins with the law, failure to meet academic standards (above and beyond eligibility requirements), or simply not working hard enough.
The bottom line is that you simply can't do any sort of serious analysis of the ethics or propriety of these situations by just looking at a roster and counting. There's a lot more to it than that, and while these issues certainly disappear if you don't offer more recruits scholarships than you have spots under your 85-scholarship cap, merely making the offers isn't a problem as long as it's done carefully and with the contingencies covered.
The folly of this whole debate, really, is in Cook and his supporters assuming that they know the Alabama roster and scholarship situations better than Saban and his staff. Really, all that we know right now is that there's the potential for some unfair dealings. Cook argues that the mere potential for shady dealings is, itself, unethical. With all due respect, I think that's a particularly naive view that doesn't account for the subtlety and nuance of the business of college football. We're not dealing with robots, here. We're dealing with nearly 100 individuals from a wide variety of different backgrounds.
Come August, I hope we see Brian taking another look at the Alabama roster and letting us know how things shook out. Maybe he can even learn some new words between now and then to avoid having to use the same expletive four times in one sentence.
ADVERTISEMENT
_thumbnail.jpg "NASCAR Cowboy Hats")
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. mea culpa! I think I'm going to buy glasses if I keep making mistakes with names. No excuse for that! :)
Posted at 2:20PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Capstonereport
2. No worries. As I came to realize in my time at Alabama, "Holladay" (and its variants) are the correct spelling of my name below the mason-dixon line.
Posted at 2:52PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Pete Holiday
3. Well done Pete! But can't AOL find blogger's who have a clue. Sorry Brian, but you have lost all credibility. You have displayed less knowledge of the NCAA scholorship rules than my 9 year old, and he has a much broader vocabulary. Only the vocabulary challanged stoop to using the language of the lower class. I wish Brian well and hope he can mature into a classier guy one day.
Posted at 3:16PM on Feb 16th 2008 by David In Bama
4. Thanks Pete
Last paragraph, you say you hope Brian comes back in August to take a look a the Alabama roster and to let us know how things shook out.
Hasn't he proven he is completely incapable of subjectively analyzing anything to do with Alabama / Nick Saban / etc?
I hope you find the time to write such an article, or the boys over at rollbamaroll, or actually *anyone except* Brian.
I mean, I think I speak for most Alabama fans who follow cfb blogs: I've read my last article penned by that clown
Posted at 3:25PM on Feb 16th 2008 by 3rd
5. "as opposed to the college football analyst that he is known in the blog world to be."
Chuckle.
People who break football games down to atomic levels that remind one of a CIA Intel Report aren't "analysts." They're data-jockeys. Cook analyzes the game about as well as Lee Corso.
Posted at 8:21PM on Feb 16th 2008 by domer.mq
6. Brian's whole point boils down to this: Oversigning may create a situation where Alabama has an incentive to drop players (or a disincentive to helping them stay academically eligible and out of trouble). His point is a valid one, although he did tend to overreact, probably based on the fact that Saban is a complete jerk.
Posted at 9:06PM on Feb 16th 2008 by mike
7. For a sorry crackhead jerkoff like Cook to open his stupid pie hole about ANY OTHER COACH is reason enough for AOL to give this pathetic excuse for a "sports" blogger the boot. His school hired the pond scum of the NCAA and HE has the nads to call out ANY other program????????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Hey crackhead...penis envy is a terrible thing. I suggest therapy or a pill. Try something dude! Wow. Check with Rivals about how they rate signing classes, read a little about NCAA rules(do they teach remedial reading 101 at Michigan?) and get your nose out of the Big (LOLOL) 10's ass!!!!!!!! Your conference was punked twice by the SEC in the title game, and the SEC has back to back foorball AND basketball titles, so take your PEA (penis envy anger) and direct it to your own sorry confernce! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Saban may be something of a snake, but he is mother teresa compared to the lying sleeze bag your school hired....ask around and find out for yourself, nimrod. PLEASE, stop obsessing on the SEC....we KNOW we the best. We dont need your rantings and envy to prove it!
I heard a rumor that pond scum (your new man) sure looked like he all but rolled over against Pittsburg so he could administer a knife in the back of WV admin folks before slithering off for UM. Im sure it didnt happen that way...he just really looked that pathetic and clueless with a chance to play for the National Campionship....right??? Bodes well for UM. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Dont bother blogging any more about the SEC and Bama-you have ZERO credibility. Attend to your own sorry school and conference, loser......and PLEASE, see someone about this penis envy thing. You are embarrassing yourself!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted at 10:03PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Randal Palm
8. Holiday - Pot meet kettle. You are the epitome of a blogger who doesn't check facts. Your crimson glasses are so fogged that you can't see but all things great about Alabama football. How dare anyone criticize bamer football! Did Brian's blog about Saint nick hurt your little feelings? You should use the crying baby as your signature instead of accusing others of being babies.
Posted at 9:24AM on Feb 17th 2008 by auballard
9. You're forgetting one of Brian's points - that if Alabama is over the limit, Saban will do what he can do get rid of a player, rather than keep him. If a player slips up once, he's out. Or worse, maybe the coaching staff won't try very hard to help a kid with his grades. Your "we'll never know until we see" is an approach that is bound to leave some kids out in the cold, and it's really just a safe, noncontroversial response to rid you of all consequence when/if it's shown that Alabama used shady tactics.
Two more things:
1) His posts don't seem concerned over recruiting rankings. He's said this many times. Good for you for breaking out the crying baby, though.
2) Stop acting like some paragon of morality for not swearing. Unless you're some 19th-century British housewife, cause you're not. Are you?
Posted at 12:57PM on Feb 17th 2008 by Sean
10. It would seem that both blogs (mgoblog and the Caspstone Report) are glossing over the intricacies of athletes on non-athletic scholarships. My reading of the NCAA rule says that the athlete does not count toward the 85 number if they do not engage in intercollegiate play AND "who receives institutional financial aid (as set forth in Bylaw 15.02.4.1) granted without regard in any degree to athletics ability"; In the spcific case of Wesley Neighbors it would appear unlikely this claim could be made with a straight face.
Posted at 1:49PM on Feb 17th 2008 by allan
11. A Bryant Scholarship is awarded without regard to athletic ability. Anyone, male or female, who is a child of someone who played for Bryant can use the scholarship to attend Alabama.
The rule simply boils down to the Bryant Scholarship's status as institutional aid, because it is used by non-athletes.
Posted at 8:44AM on Feb 18th 2008 by Capstonereport
12. Sean: I have no problem with profanity. There comes a point though, and Cook has long since passed it, that it really only demonstrates that the author has weak arguments. Strong arguments don't need repeated punctuation with the f-bomb.
As for what Saban will or won't do, I can't say. I don't know the man. I don't know the team. For all any of us know, there are a half-dozen players who have been breaking rules, getting into trouble, or otherwise slacking off. Cook assumes that every player on scholarship is a hard worker who doesn't make stupid decisions more often than the average college kid... if you know even 5 19-year olds, you understand how silly this assumption is.
It's been suspected by a large portion of the Alabama fan-base that many of Shula's players had turned into prima donnas, were unwilling to buy into the new system, and who really weren't pulling their weight. That's why you may see an Alabama fan laughing when you try to bend our ear to the plight of these innocent victims of Saban's nefarious dealings.
As I said: this is more complicated than just counting roster spots and scholarships.
Posted at 12:29PM on Feb 18th 2008 by Pete Holiday
13. Brian made a lot of valid points in his blog, and while Pete's right that we won't know yet how this will shake out, the truth remains: more than 85 players have been promised scholarships to Alabama this fall, and something has to give. Either certain players will not live up to their end of the bargain (grades/behavioral issues), or Saban will have engaged in some pretty base, selfish, unethical behavior. Maybe Saban already knows that certain players aren't going to live up to their end. If he doesn't, though, I don't think you can spin this as a reasonable, ethical practice.
Posted at 4:42PM on Feb 18th 2008 by Peter M.
14. what cook has written is nothing but a bunch of ifs, what ifs and mabeys. unless he has some speical power to see into the future like edgar cayce or nostradamus all his rants mean nothing. come fall we will all know if we need to wear boots or wadders because in my opion he is full of sh*t.
Posted at 11:38AM on Feb 21st 2008 by bamammv
15. that should be opinion.
Posted at 11:40AM on Feb 21st 2008 by bamammv