While we all slog through the long doldrums between spring practice and the now-far-away next season, this is as good a time as any to post another unabashed plug for ESPN's outstanding College Football Insider podcasts. During the off-season, the podcasts are updated biweekly (they run every weekday during the season itself), and are hosted by ESPN print luminary Ivan Maisel, who's usually joined by the now-iconic Beano Cook.
The podcasts are, without a doubt, the best single piece of college football programming coming out of Bristol these days. They're everything the network's televised coverage should be, but isn't: pithy, information-packed, intelligent, funny, and still thoroughly entertaining. Better yet, there are no coaching failures, bitter has-beens, and hype-mongering homers to gum up the works with corporate-approved nonsense. Best of all, they're free, and available either from ESPN's website or iTunes (just search "ESPN college football podcast" at the iTunes store; a subscription is free). I can't think of a better place to get a quick fix of football during these dreary months of waiting for the first kickoff.
A few weeks back Maisel petitioned listeners to come up with a slogan for the podcasts. I've got the perfect one, but somehow I doubt he'll be able to use it: "Get the College Football Insider Podcast. It's 'Gameday' for smart people."
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
You Haff My Gwatitude
I somehow missed this when it first came out, but From The Bleachers was named an AJC Staff Pick for "Best Auburn Sites" by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about a month ago. Very nice, and I thank whomever thanks are due to for the recognition.
In addition, some of you may have noticed that FTB was picked up a while back as one of ten sites recommended by SportsIllustrated.com on their Auburn team page. FTB and AUNews.net are the only blogs so honored, and also the only sites out of the ten not run by large organizations.
So, to the ladies and gents at SI.com, like the man said in "The Kentucky Fried Movie," you haff my gwatitude.
In addition, some of you may have noticed that FTB was picked up a while back as one of ten sites recommended by SportsIllustrated.com on their Auburn team page. FTB and AUNews.net are the only blogs so honored, and also the only sites out of the ten not run by large organizations.
So, to the ladies and gents at SI.com, like the man said in "The Kentucky Fried Movie," you haff my gwatitude.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Randy Kennedy: Nick Sucker
Last weekend, Gentry Estes of the Mobile Press-Register posted a short article about a recent Alabama scrimmage to the Register's "Bama Beat" blog. As you might guess from the title, Estes is the Register's Alabama beat writer, and in the post he discussed the frustration of being assigned to write about a scrimmage that he hadn't actually been allowed to watch, and about players and coaches he isn't able to interview:
That's not a bad piece, as such things go. As somebody who writes about college football, I think that's pretty interesting stuff, but obviously others may not agree.
Well, scratch that. "Others," allegedly including the highest-paid employee of the state of Alabama, emphatically did not agree. You may have noticed that I didn't link to Estes's post. I didn't because I can't (or rather I couldn't; keep reading). The post inexplicably vanished from the al.com site the Register shares with several other newspapers, and only reappeared yesterday when Register columnist and all-around gadfly Paul Finebaum posted it to his own website.
Finebaum interviewed Register sports editor Randy Kennedy on Wednesday, and among other things asked why the rather mild criticism of Alabama Coach Nick "I am not going to be the Alabama coach" Saban had vanished from Estes's blog. Per a quote at the Capstone Report blog, Kennedy replied,
Now, that's lame.
Take it from me, you've got to have thick skin if you're going to write about either Alabama or Auburn, and the Estes post didn't even register on the invective scale in that state. If anything, it was a pretty toned-down look at the growing undercurrent of dislike among state sportswriters who have to deal with Saban's trademark petulance.
Pulling such a milquetoast post over alleged public reaction would be bad enough, but according to Montgomery sports radio personality Doug Amos, as quoted from Finebaum's radio show today, the demand to spike Estes's post came from none other than "Flipper" himself. According to Amos, who is also an associate athletic director at Faulkner University (and if my memory serves, a big Alabama fan), a source has told him that the article was yanked after Saban personally called Estes to complain (for the record, Estes is a Georgia graduate who, in his student days, wrote of being "Born and raised a die-hard Crimson Tide fan in Birmingham").
If accurate, that goes beyond lame. If that's true, Kennedy hung a young employee of his out to dry to mollify the hurt feelings of a spoiled-brat football coach who makes more in a month than he and Estes combined make in a year (heck, it's probably more than the entire Register sports staff makes in a year).
Even if it isn't--but given Saban's history of trying to intimidate the media, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is--Kennedy should still be ashamed of himself. What kind of self-respecting journalist spikes an accurate article because his "customers" are complaining? That's the action of a corporate flack, not a reporter. If Kennedy disagreed with Estes, he should have said so, either in a column or a blog post of his own, but going out and trying (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) to flush the column down the memory hole was an act of abject cowardice, and one that goes a long way towards discrediting the Register sports section as being anything resembling responsible journalism.
So, Randy Kennedy, this is your big day. You are now the latest recipient of the FTB Nick Sucker Award.
Wear it in shame.
UPDATE: Estes re-posted the original piece Thursday evening, with the following note:
I should note that Estes does not say that nobody at UAT contacted him to complain about the blog entry. Continuing:
For the second time in eight days, Alabama simulated game action at Bryant-Denny Stadium without the media (and general public) there to witness it. For the second time, Alabama issued statistics (Yeah, I've got 'em listed below) as to what supposedly transpired. For the second time, Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban was the only one made available to offer his take (Tide players do not address reporters after scrimmages and Saban's assistant coaches, of course, never do).
It can be frustrating. Those of us who cover this team would love to offer the kind of detailed assessments available at basically every other major program. Is that currently an option at Alabama?
No.
It's not that I'm complaining. This operation is Saban's baby. He has had success with his approach in the past. He can (and does) do as he pleases. I'm OK with that, and knew it when I signed on last August.
But in the interest of fairness ... I would like to point out a few things before fans delve too far into statistics and stories about any of Alabama's spring or preseason scrimmages. ...
Without the media present, there is no objective vantage point to the coverage. First off, the information you're receiving is only what Alabama wants you to know. This is not an ideal situation for a journalist who values a balanced account, and it's worth disclosure and a warning to readers: Take it for what it's worth.
Also know that in-house scrimmages are often molded into whatever the coaches want them to be. As I predicted last week on Scott Griffin's radio show, Alabama's offense would fare much better the second time. Lo and behold, they did.
How did I know that? Because I've seen coaches tweak the format to help a struggling unit. The first-team offense is doing poorly? Put them against the third-string defense for a while and see how those numbers turn out. Did that happen here? I don't know. Since I didn't watch the scrimmage, I can't tell you the circumstances behind John Parker Wilson's apparent 200-yard performance or Roy Upchurch's supposed rushing resurgence.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to this: Scrimmages are glorified practices. Fans should digest them that way. They do not tell you much about an upcoming season. They are a hint, but far from the entire picture.
That's not a bad piece, as such things go. As somebody who writes about college football, I think that's pretty interesting stuff, but obviously others may not agree.
Well, scratch that. "Others," allegedly including the highest-paid employee of the state of Alabama, emphatically did not agree. You may have noticed that I didn't link to Estes's post. I didn't because I can't (or rather I couldn't; keep reading). The post inexplicably vanished from the al.com site the Register shares with several other newspapers, and only reappeared yesterday when Register columnist and all-around gadfly Paul Finebaum posted it to his own website.
Finebaum interviewed Register sports editor Randy Kennedy on Wednesday, and among other things asked why the rather mild criticism of Alabama Coach Nick "I am not going to be the Alabama coach" Saban had vanished from Estes's blog. Per a quote at the Capstone Report blog, Kennedy replied,
"We just decided it was more trouble than it was worth…this was not necessarily the battle he wanted to pick with the people who were supposed to be our customers."
Now, that's lame.
Take it from me, you've got to have thick skin if you're going to write about either Alabama or Auburn, and the Estes post didn't even register on the invective scale in that state. If anything, it was a pretty toned-down look at the growing undercurrent of dislike among state sportswriters who have to deal with Saban's trademark petulance.
Pulling such a milquetoast post over alleged public reaction would be bad enough, but according to Montgomery sports radio personality Doug Amos, as quoted from Finebaum's radio show today, the demand to spike Estes's post came from none other than "Flipper" himself. According to Amos, who is also an associate athletic director at Faulkner University (and if my memory serves, a big Alabama fan), a source has told him that the article was yanked after Saban personally called Estes to complain (for the record, Estes is a Georgia graduate who, in his student days, wrote of being "Born and raised a die-hard Crimson Tide fan in Birmingham").
If accurate, that goes beyond lame. If that's true, Kennedy hung a young employee of his out to dry to mollify the hurt feelings of a spoiled-brat football coach who makes more in a month than he and Estes combined make in a year (heck, it's probably more than the entire Register sports staff makes in a year).
Even if it isn't--but given Saban's history of trying to intimidate the media, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is--Kennedy should still be ashamed of himself. What kind of self-respecting journalist spikes an accurate article because his "customers" are complaining? That's the action of a corporate flack, not a reporter. If Kennedy disagreed with Estes, he should have said so, either in a column or a blog post of his own, but going out and trying (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) to flush the column down the memory hole was an act of abject cowardice, and one that goes a long way towards discrediting the Register sports section as being anything resembling responsible journalism.
So, Randy Kennedy, this is your big day. You are now the latest recipient of the FTB Nick Sucker Award.
Wear it in shame.
UPDATE: Estes re-posted the original piece Thursday evening, with the following note:
Two days later, after feeling compelled to respond to numerous comments from readers, the blog was threatening to become a time-consuming distraction to my work as Alabama beat writer for the Press-Register. This was a battle I began to feel would do no good for my newspaper or myself. I wish to be known for objectivity and reporting skills rather than a mere blog that made myself the story. This was heading in an opposite direction from those goals. So I deleted the post. Never at any time did anyone from the University of Alabama request or suggest that I remove the blog entry.As noted earlier, that's pretty lame stuff. Either you--and if you work for a newspaper, your employer--stand behind what you write or you don't. Since when does any self-respecting reporter or paper care about criticism over an accurate story?
I should note that Estes does not say that nobody at UAT contacted him to complain about the blog entry. Continuing:
After hearing some of what has been said in public forums the past few days and insinuations that have no merit or truth, I now regret the decision to remove the blog post, but not my decision to write it in the first place. So hopefully to clear the air completely, I am now posting the original blog in its entirety.Better late than never, I suppose.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Postmortem
One more post on l'affaire Muschamp:
First, I am satisfied at this point that "Story Two" as outlined in this post is essentially Muschamp's side of his brief job search, as related by the coach to his own friends. I'm sorry to contradict Phillip Marshall, whose work I hold in the highest regard, but from talking to people inside and outside of the AU athletic department, I now believe the portion of Story Two concerning bowl tickets is essentially accurate. Whether any conflict or misunderstanding or what have you regarding those tickets did or should have contributed to Muschamp's decision is beyond my pay grade (which, considering I don't get paid for this, isn't saying very much).
One thing that is clear to me is that almost nobody has come out of this mess looking good, with the sole and somewhat ironic exception of Tommy Tuberville. If Muschamp really let his emotions get away from him over words he didn't like in his contract and/or a few bowl tickets badly enough to yank up his family and move halfway across the country to take a pay cut, quite frankly he needs to grow up. If, conversely, he simply thought Texas presented a better opportunity and he's using the contract-and-tickets story to semi-privately justify himself, he also needs to grow up. Neither option puts him in a good light, and although I think the guy is a superb young football coach, everybody involved is probably better off with him working somewhere else after all of this.
Auburn athletic director Jay Jacobs also moves on with a considerable black eye. At the very least, Jacobs did not shine in displaying managerial skills over the past few days. Even if you accept Jacobs' version of events--namely that Muschamp was upset over language that had been in his contract for over a year--that doesn't excuse Jacobs' failure to defuse the situation when it occurred. If you are the CEO of a multi-million-dollar business who values a key employee enough to make him the highest-paid individual in his job in your market, you damn well ought to do a better job of managing that individual to keep him from leaving for a competitor, albeit a distant one.
Auburn has now lost three very highly-regarded coaches under Jacobs' watch, and while I don't see how he could bear any responsibility for Gene Chizik's departure in early 2005, the same can't be said for either Muschamp or, worse, David Marsh, an alumnus and the most successful college coach in the history of the state of Alabama. Jacobs came into his current job with a widely-held perception that he got it based on who he knew rather than what he had done to earn it. Three years in, he's done little to change that perception.
As noted earlier, about the only person at Auburn who's come out looking better for the experience is Tuberville, who by most accounts put his foot down and told Muschamp to, er, spit or step away from the spittoon after his now-ex-assistant returned to Auburn on Friday, and who appears poised to name a replacement within the next few days. I've heard from a number of observers that Tuberville was not a bit happy to find himself caught in the middle of one of his own agent's infamous coaching shuffles; one can only hope that the head coach will remember how that feels the next time Jimmy Sexton starts floating Tuberville's own name for other jobs--again.
First, I am satisfied at this point that "Story Two" as outlined in this post is essentially Muschamp's side of his brief job search, as related by the coach to his own friends. I'm sorry to contradict Phillip Marshall, whose work I hold in the highest regard, but from talking to people inside and outside of the AU athletic department, I now believe the portion of Story Two concerning bowl tickets is essentially accurate. Whether any conflict or misunderstanding or what have you regarding those tickets did or should have contributed to Muschamp's decision is beyond my pay grade (which, considering I don't get paid for this, isn't saying very much).
One thing that is clear to me is that almost nobody has come out of this mess looking good, with the sole and somewhat ironic exception of Tommy Tuberville. If Muschamp really let his emotions get away from him over words he didn't like in his contract and/or a few bowl tickets badly enough to yank up his family and move halfway across the country to take a pay cut, quite frankly he needs to grow up. If, conversely, he simply thought Texas presented a better opportunity and he's using the contract-and-tickets story to semi-privately justify himself, he also needs to grow up. Neither option puts him in a good light, and although I think the guy is a superb young football coach, everybody involved is probably better off with him working somewhere else after all of this.
Auburn athletic director Jay Jacobs also moves on with a considerable black eye. At the very least, Jacobs did not shine in displaying managerial skills over the past few days. Even if you accept Jacobs' version of events--namely that Muschamp was upset over language that had been in his contract for over a year--that doesn't excuse Jacobs' failure to defuse the situation when it occurred. If you are the CEO of a multi-million-dollar business who values a key employee enough to make him the highest-paid individual in his job in your market, you damn well ought to do a better job of managing that individual to keep him from leaving for a competitor, albeit a distant one.
Auburn has now lost three very highly-regarded coaches under Jacobs' watch, and while I don't see how he could bear any responsibility for Gene Chizik's departure in early 2005, the same can't be said for either Muschamp or, worse, David Marsh, an alumnus and the most successful college coach in the history of the state of Alabama. Jacobs came into his current job with a widely-held perception that he got it based on who he knew rather than what he had done to earn it. Three years in, he's done little to change that perception.
As noted earlier, about the only person at Auburn who's come out looking better for the experience is Tuberville, who by most accounts put his foot down and told Muschamp to, er, spit or step away from the spittoon after his now-ex-assistant returned to Auburn on Friday, and who appears poised to name a replacement within the next few days. I've heard from a number of observers that Tuberville was not a bit happy to find himself caught in the middle of one of his own agent's infamous coaching shuffles; one can only hope that the head coach will remember how that feels the next time Jimmy Sexton starts floating Tuberville's own name for other jobs--again.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Cause And Effect
"2008 is shaping up to be a pretty interesting year."
--FTB, January 2, 2008
That might be the most inadvertently-accurate prediction I've ever made. Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.
As everybody reading this likely knows by now, Will Muschamp, Auburn's highly-regarded defensive coordinator, resigned from AU yesterday to take basically the same position at the University of Texas (full disclosure: I attended and earned degrees from both Auburn and UT). Thus far, media reports have been more-or-less limited to straight accounts of the story itself, due in no small part to the speed of Muschamp's job change, as well as the official silence coming out of both Auburn and Austin regarding how and why that changed occurred.
The only point everybody agrees on right now is that this all happened very quickly, and it came as a surprise to just about everyone involved. Beyond that, things devolve quickly into the realm of "chatter." The two leading tales right now (and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive) go like this:
Story One: Back in December, Muschamp interviewed for and by most accounts was offered the head coaching job at Southern Miss. At that point, he went to Tommy Tuberville and basically said that while he'd like to stay at Auburn, a head job was something he'd have a hard time turning down. When asked what it would take to get him to stay at AU, Muschamp allegedly asked for a salary over $400,000 and a two-year guaranteed contract. Auburn agreed, proffering a $850,000 two-year deal, and Mushchamp declined USM's offer.
A few weeks later, Larry MacDuff resigned from Texas, and the ever-active Jimmy Sexton started calling Austin to sell Muschamp as a replacement. According to Story One aficionados, Tuberville thought his staff was settled for the year and was not happy when he found out Sexton had made overtures to Texas, either with or without Muschamp's urging. When Muschamp arrived back in Auburn yesterday after interviewing with Texas, he was told bluntly by Tuberville to either honor his agreement with Auburn or hit the road. At that point Muschamp resigned from AU and accepted the job at UT.
Again, this is not a confirmed account. This is Story One, based on underground chatter over the last 18 hours or so.
The other half of the tales making the rounds comprise Story Two: Prior to the Chick-Fil-A Bowl in Atlanta, Georgia native Muschamp went to Auburn's ticket manger, Tim Jackson, and asked about extra bowl tickets for his friends and family, only to be told that no extra tickets were available. According to the chatter, Muschamp learned after the bowl that a number of extra tickets had in fact been held back by the ticket office and given to others in the athletic department, but Jackson never mentioned them to Muschamp.
According to Story Two, things got worse when athletic director Jay Jacobs handed Muschamp his new contract, which was supposed to meet the agreement (two years guaranteed at $425,000 per year) outlined in Story One. Either Muschamp or Sexton read through the contract and discovered fine print that gave AU the ability to back out of the term and remaining salary at any time, basically negating the "guaranteed" portion of the agreement. Per the chatter, Muschamp went back to Jacobs to have that clause removed, but Jacobs refused, saying basically, "You're going to leave after next season anyway, so what difference does it make?"
It's no particular secret that Muschamp is something of a hothead, and according to Story Two, the alleged administrative shenanigans with the new contract combined with the ticket incident pushed him over the edge. Per the chatter, he called Sexton on Wednesday with the instructions to "get me out of here." By Thursday he was on a plane to Austin, and on Friday he had a new job.
Once again: this is all based on chatter. It is not confirmed fact.
I will say this: Story Two has a lot of adherents, and a lot of them are in positions to know what they're talking about. There are indications--again, unconfirmed--that Story Two is actually Muschamp's own account of what happened in the last week, as told to his friends.
A few notes:
Tim Jackson is, to say the least, not the most popular figure in the Auburn athletic department. In his defense, Jackson is a guy who has to say "no" to an awful lot of people, and that kind of job just doesn't win you a lot of friends, often through no fault of your own. On the other hand, under Jackson the ticket office has developed a reputation for incompetence, and it has a customer service attitude that might as well have been lifted from the old Lily Tomlin routines about the Phone Company, whose motto was, "We don't care. We don't have to."
There are plenty of Auburn people who've encountered Jackson's often high-handed attitude who can easily sympathize with Muschamp's alleged anger. As an aside, Jay Jacobs was promoted to AD in 2005 after working alongside Jackson in Auburn's ticket priority fundraising office for a number of years.
The one thing I'm sure of is that Tuberville certainly had a "short list" of possible replacements in hand long before all this went down. Muschamp had interviewed for at least three head coaching jobs during December, and very likely would be settling into a big office in Fayetteville right now if Bobby Petrino hadn't made his own snap decision to bolt from the NFL. Auburn should have a new defensive coordinator within a few days, and given Tuberville's track record, he'll probably be a very good coach.
The other fallout from Muschamp's sudden departure, either on the field or within the confines of the Auburn athletic department, is yet to be seen.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
News Flash From OU
PHOENIX, AZ-- In a long-anticipated move, University of Oklahoma president David L. Boren announced early today that OU has officially changed its name to Overrated University. The name change came immediately after OU lost its fourth consecutive BCS bowl game, in this case the Fiesta Bowl, in embarrassing fashion.
During brief remarks to the media following the heavily favored Sooners' 48-28 loss at the hands of a coachless West Virginia, Boren said, "We felt it was time for the University's name to more accurately describe the true nature and proclivities of our football team, and hopefully to remind the national pollsters just what they're getting in for when they rank us highly in the future."
Boren did deny reports that "Overrated University" had been selected in a close vote over the alternate suggestion of "Chokelahoma." When asked about the name change, OU head coach Bob Stoops ducked out of the interview room without comment. However, University of Arizona head coach Mike Stoops said in a written statement that he will continue to over-rate his brother's team in the USA Today Coaches' Poll, and encouraged all other voters to follow suit.
During brief remarks to the media following the heavily favored Sooners' 48-28 loss at the hands of a coachless West Virginia, Boren said, "We felt it was time for the University's name to more accurately describe the true nature and proclivities of our football team, and hopefully to remind the national pollsters just what they're getting in for when they rank us highly in the future."
Boren did deny reports that "Overrated University" had been selected in a close vote over the alternate suggestion of "Chokelahoma." When asked about the name change, OU head coach Bob Stoops ducked out of the interview room without comment. However, University of Arizona head coach Mike Stoops said in a written statement that he will continue to over-rate his brother's team in the USA Today Coaches' Poll, and encouraged all other voters to follow suit.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Just Peachy
Hey, happy new year. Quite a month, eh?
Okay, okay, sorry for being away for so long, but so long as blogging remains a hobby, I reserve the right for life (including down time) to intrude. That said, with due deference to the current drought, an awful lot of water has passed under Auburn's bridges since Thanksgiving weekend, and I'll try to hit on everything eventually. Might as well start with the most recent events, namely the Peach Bowl (oh, go stuff your corporate name; I intentionally had a burger today just because I'm completely sick of seeing "EAT MORE CHIKIN").
Obviously, this was not your average mid-level bowl game for Auburn. I doubt we're going to see too many games period when any team--particularly Auburn--is going to put in an entirely new offense after nine practices, but there it was.
It's no secret that I'm not a particularly big fan of "the spread," but then again, "the spread" has become more lazy sportswriter shorthand than an actual descriptive term these days. Picking a few teams at random, Florida, West Virginia, Texas Tech and Missouri are all regularly identified in the press as being "spread teams," even though the four of them don't have much in common other than the base formations. Still, the Tony Franklin offense is seriously far removed from the Pro-I variants that have dominated college football for the last generation. No huddle for a whole game, never lining up under center, no lead blockers? It's gonna take some getting used to.
I won't deny it's exciting, though. Even with AU's limitations at wide receiver, there were guys open all over the field Monday night. Given a couple of months of extra practice, and the quarterback protection ought to get a lot better--or at least you have to hope so if you're a Tiger fan. And what the heck, it worked. Clemson has a very good defense for an ACC team, and they gave up several long drives; Auburn's problems in scoring had more to do with AU screwing things up than Cousin Clem shutting things down.
As much as Brandon Cox deserved to lead his team one last time (and all things considered he did that well once again) I liked seeing Kodi Burns getting all those snaps. I've been waiting all season for Burns to fake a run and then drop back for a long pass, even if either Burns or Rod Smith had his wires crossed when they actually tried it in the bowl game. It killed me when that play never appeared during the regular season. Of course, Burns handled the pressure just fine, all the way down to putting the thing away in overtime.
You certainly have to give Franklin credit for one call that nobody in the stadium expected, namely running Cox on a third-and-long quarterback draw during AU's game-tying drive in the fourth quarter. That one was the very definition of "unpredictable," and it worked like a charm. I've never been a fan of platooning quarterbacks, but once again: it worked. Auburn moved the ball at least as consistently as in any big game this season, and the offense was far, far less predictable than it's been since November of 2005.
The thing that bothers me about this set is, you can talk all day about spreading out the defense and creating gaps, but there are still going to be times when you need to line up tight and pound the ball for two or three yards. Not all "spread" teams can; when Missouri had a first and goal on the one against Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship, they lined up in the shotgun and couldn't get that yard, settling for a field goal and really conceding the game to OU. Auburn could still do that in the Peach Bowl; Brandon Cox effectively won the game by gutting out a first down on fourth and short during overtime. We're going to need to keep that capability in the future.
And yeah, the manic signal-calling on the sidelines is a hoot. I'm reasonably sure Neil Caudle was just making up stuff by the middle of the second quarter. Seeing the front line stand up and look to the sidelines for a signal was, to say the least, different. I've seen this picture on a few message boards today, and credit where it's due, it's really funny and more than a little accurate:
The most important thing about the new offense showed up in the fourth quarter. Clemson was just flat-out gassed by then, and Auburn was able to blow the Other Tigers off the line repeatedly (and as an aside, that would have been a perfect time to revert to a standard formation and run right at them, but who am I to argue with success?). I like the idea of wearing teams out and beating them in the fourth quarter (or, er, overtime), no matter how you get there.
Defensively it was just another ho-hum shutdown of a good team. I'll be honest, Clemson's offense scared me to death: a balanced attack with lots of playmakers and a very smart guy calling the plays. They reminded me a lot of this year's Georgia team. It was very heartening to see AU handle them for the majority of the game. Clemson didn't have an extended drive, and without that really impressive (to say the least) C.J. Spiller touchdown run and Auburn's fourth-quarter interception, they never would have been in the game. Pat Sims and Antonio Coleman had a fantastic game up front, and Patrick Lee finished his last game in style.
Nobody starts off a season hoping they'll play in the Peach Bowl (well, okay, maybe Ole Miss), but it was still a good win, a good way to send out a remarkable senior class, and a whale of a football game. The atmosphere in the Dome was great, and both teams were clearly up for the game and fighting hard for the win; you don't get that in every bowl these days.
And of course, where Auburn was concerned, it also included a very big change. 2008 is shaping up to be a pretty interesting year.
Okay, okay, sorry for being away for so long, but so long as blogging remains a hobby, I reserve the right for life (including down time) to intrude. That said, with due deference to the current drought, an awful lot of water has passed under Auburn's bridges since Thanksgiving weekend, and I'll try to hit on everything eventually. Might as well start with the most recent events, namely the Peach Bowl (oh, go stuff your corporate name; I intentionally had a burger today just because I'm completely sick of seeing "EAT MORE CHIKIN").
Obviously, this was not your average mid-level bowl game for Auburn. I doubt we're going to see too many games period when any team--particularly Auburn--is going to put in an entirely new offense after nine practices, but there it was.
It's no secret that I'm not a particularly big fan of "the spread," but then again, "the spread" has become more lazy sportswriter shorthand than an actual descriptive term these days. Picking a few teams at random, Florida, West Virginia, Texas Tech and Missouri are all regularly identified in the press as being "spread teams," even though the four of them don't have much in common other than the base formations. Still, the Tony Franklin offense is seriously far removed from the Pro-I variants that have dominated college football for the last generation. No huddle for a whole game, never lining up under center, no lead blockers? It's gonna take some getting used to.
I won't deny it's exciting, though. Even with AU's limitations at wide receiver, there were guys open all over the field Monday night. Given a couple of months of extra practice, and the quarterback protection ought to get a lot better--or at least you have to hope so if you're a Tiger fan. And what the heck, it worked. Clemson has a very good defense for an ACC team, and they gave up several long drives; Auburn's problems in scoring had more to do with AU screwing things up than Cousin Clem shutting things down.
As much as Brandon Cox deserved to lead his team one last time (and all things considered he did that well once again) I liked seeing Kodi Burns getting all those snaps. I've been waiting all season for Burns to fake a run and then drop back for a long pass, even if either Burns or Rod Smith had his wires crossed when they actually tried it in the bowl game. It killed me when that play never appeared during the regular season. Of course, Burns handled the pressure just fine, all the way down to putting the thing away in overtime.
You certainly have to give Franklin credit for one call that nobody in the stadium expected, namely running Cox on a third-and-long quarterback draw during AU's game-tying drive in the fourth quarter. That one was the very definition of "unpredictable," and it worked like a charm. I've never been a fan of platooning quarterbacks, but once again: it worked. Auburn moved the ball at least as consistently as in any big game this season, and the offense was far, far less predictable than it's been since November of 2005.
The thing that bothers me about this set is, you can talk all day about spreading out the defense and creating gaps, but there are still going to be times when you need to line up tight and pound the ball for two or three yards. Not all "spread" teams can; when Missouri had a first and goal on the one against Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship, they lined up in the shotgun and couldn't get that yard, settling for a field goal and really conceding the game to OU. Auburn could still do that in the Peach Bowl; Brandon Cox effectively won the game by gutting out a first down on fourth and short during overtime. We're going to need to keep that capability in the future.
And yeah, the manic signal-calling on the sidelines is a hoot. I'm reasonably sure Neil Caudle was just making up stuff by the middle of the second quarter. Seeing the front line stand up and look to the sidelines for a signal was, to say the least, different. I've seen this picture on a few message boards today, and credit where it's due, it's really funny and more than a little accurate:
The most important thing about the new offense showed up in the fourth quarter. Clemson was just flat-out gassed by then, and Auburn was able to blow the Other Tigers off the line repeatedly (and as an aside, that would have been a perfect time to revert to a standard formation and run right at them, but who am I to argue with success?). I like the idea of wearing teams out and beating them in the fourth quarter (or, er, overtime), no matter how you get there.
Defensively it was just another ho-hum shutdown of a good team. I'll be honest, Clemson's offense scared me to death: a balanced attack with lots of playmakers and a very smart guy calling the plays. They reminded me a lot of this year's Georgia team. It was very heartening to see AU handle them for the majority of the game. Clemson didn't have an extended drive, and without that really impressive (to say the least) C.J. Spiller touchdown run and Auburn's fourth-quarter interception, they never would have been in the game. Pat Sims and Antonio Coleman had a fantastic game up front, and Patrick Lee finished his last game in style.
Nobody starts off a season hoping they'll play in the Peach Bowl (well, okay, maybe Ole Miss), but it was still a good win, a good way to send out a remarkable senior class, and a whale of a football game. The atmosphere in the Dome was great, and both teams were clearly up for the game and fighting hard for the win; you don't get that in every bowl these days.
And of course, where Auburn was concerned, it also included a very big change. 2008 is shaping up to be a pretty interesting year.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Flip Out?
According to West By God Virginia, the SEC's real evil genius--Jimmy Sexton--is at it again:
For what it's worth, I'd personally score this one in the "extremely unlikely at best" category, but then again, there's this:
Sources close to University President Mike Garrison have informed WBGV that Nick Saban’s agent has contacted WVU regarding our vacant head-coaching position.In an update, WBGV adds that WVSports.com (Rivals.com's West Virginia affiliate) has confirmed the story on the premium ($$) side of their site.
These sources tell us that Saban is extremely unhappy in Tuscaloosa and has failed to recapture the situation he had in Baton Rouge with LSU. The purpose of the agent’s call was to express initial interest in the position and to have WVU athletics put together a compensation package enough to lure Saban from Alabama. This package would not need to be as much as Saban is currently making at Alabama, but enough to not result in a 50% paycut.
For what it's worth, I'd personally score this one in the "extremely unlikely at best" category, but then again, there's this:
Interestingly, while working the story last year, a source in West Virginia told me that the governor would essentially be the one who would hire the new Mountaineer coach when Rodriguez left for Alabama.Interesting. Here's quite a bit more background on Saban's relationship with Manchin.
Of course, I didn't know at the time that the governor was Joe Manchin -- who is a close friend of Nick Saban and godfather to Saban's son Nicholas.
(No, not starting the Saban-to-West Virginia rumors. Just pointing out an interesting sidebar).
Manchin was a quarterback for the Mountaineers and now, as governor, has his own parking spot outside the West Virginia stadium.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Lame Excuses at the Alex City Outlook
As promised in emails from publisher Tim Reeves and editor Kevin Taylor, the Alexander City (AL) Outlook published an apology, of sorts, for the Bruce Meyers column noted here. The Sunday column, written by sports editor Matt Dischinger, opens with,
For whatever it's worth, I have no problem with Bruce Meyers writing whatever opinions he wants to write, and no problem with the AC Outlook publishing them--no matter how dumb, irrelevant, or badly-written those opinions happen to be. As a commenter to my previous post noted, it's not worth getting worked up over an unknown columnist for a paper with a miniscule readership.
But I do have a problem when Meyers or anybody else goes out and steals somebody else's words and claims them as his own. I have a big problem when his section editor blithely writes off outright plagiarism as "a mistake," and the paper's editor and publisher sign off on a lame whitewash.
What Meyers did Friday is not "a mistake," Mr. Reeves. It's not "inadvertent," Mr. Taylor.
It's plagiarism. It's theft. And you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for excusing it.
Dozens of readers responded to the mistakes made in the commentary section of Friday's sports page.That's it. The piece also contains several column-inches of scolding, but the scolding is directed at readers who complained about the content of Meyers' column, rather than at Meyers himself for blatantly (and really stupidly) plagiarizing one of the most widely-read national columns on Bobby Petrino from last week.
Some found significant mistakes on the part of a guest columnist Bruce Meyers, with the most noteworthy one being a section of the column that was inadvertently plagiarized from a column by Pat Forde appearing on ESPN.com. The mistakes were not caught by The Outlook's editorial staff, and we apologize for the mistake on our part and Bruce's part. It was certainly not intentional.
...
We appreciate the many responses from readers calling attention the problems with Friday's column. Those mistakes have been addressed with the author. The Outlook staff will always try to minimize mistakes when they are found in any guest column.
For whatever it's worth, I have no problem with Bruce Meyers writing whatever opinions he wants to write, and no problem with the AC Outlook publishing them--no matter how dumb, irrelevant, or badly-written those opinions happen to be. As a commenter to my previous post noted, it's not worth getting worked up over an unknown columnist for a paper with a miniscule readership.
But I do have a problem when Meyers or anybody else goes out and steals somebody else's words and claims them as his own. I have a big problem when his section editor blithely writes off outright plagiarism as "a mistake," and the paper's editor and publisher sign off on a lame whitewash.
What Meyers did Friday is not "a mistake," Mr. Reeves. It's not "inadvertent," Mr. Taylor.
It's plagiarism. It's theft. And you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for excusing it.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Plagiarism at the Alex City Outlook
From Pat Forde's column at ESPN.com on December 11, 2007:
From Bruce Meyers' column in the Alexander City (AL) Outlook, December 13, 2007:
UPDATE: As of the morning of December 15, the Alex City Outlook has replaced Meyers' column at the link above with an unrelated AP article.
Uh, guys, this is the internet. We can save stuff. And we have. Try again.
UPDATE UPDATE: Per an email response from AC Outlook publisher Tim Reeves, the Meyers column was replaced on the website due to the site's policy of posting items on consecutive days under the same "tagline." I've replaced the link above with the correct link to the Friday Meyers column, and also corrected the date of that column above to December 13.
[T]hose Arkansas fans ready to embrace their new hotshot coach and his pretty ball plays need to understand one thing:(Emphasis mine above and below.)
The disingenuous drifter doesn't love you or any other fan base. He doesn't love any school or any NFL franchise. He loves himself, his playbook and his bank account.
That's it. Don't expect it to change.
Bobby Petrino will return your embrace, Hog fans. But while he's hugging you he'll be looking over your shoulder, scanning the terrain for his next hook-up.
Even in a profession rife with dishonest posturing, Petrino is singularly mercenary. Loyalty, allegiance, commitment and honesty are foreign concepts to him. It must be a sad existence.
I apologize to Alabama's Nick Saban -- last year I named him president of the Liar's Club. He's been impeached and replaced by the disingenuous drifter.
From Bruce Meyers' column in the Alexander City (AL) Outlook, December 13, 2007:
Nick Saban should send flowers to Petrino for taking the Arkansas job. Now the media can get off of Saban's back about how he handled the job change. They are calling Petrino the disingenuous drifter.Meyers makes it a point to say twice in the column linked above, "I am not an Alabama fan." Maybe, maybe not, Bruce, but you are a plagiarist.
To the Hog fans: Petrino doesn't love you or any other fan base. He doesn't love any school or NFL franchise. Petrino loves himself, his playbook and his bank account. Petrino is a mercenary at best. Loyalty, allegiance commitment and honesty are foreign concepts to this guy.
Coach Saban, you have been impeached and replaced.
UPDATE: As of the morning of December 15, the Alex City Outlook has replaced Meyers' column at the link above with an unrelated AP article.
Uh, guys, this is the internet. We can save stuff. And we have. Try again.
UPDATE UPDATE: Per an email response from AC Outlook publisher Tim Reeves, the Meyers column was replaced on the website due to the site's policy of posting items on consecutive days under the same "tagline." I've replaced the link above with the correct link to the Friday Meyers column, and also corrected the date of that column above to December 13.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Shameless Self-Promotion
I've got a post up at VodkaPundit regarding John Feinstein's recent dumb column on Nick Saban's dumb statements. Fair warning (which is more than Feinstein gave his WaPo readers): there's political content.
Monday, November 26, 2007
All Your Nutt Are Belong To Us
Forget Steve Spurrier. The real Evil Genius in college football isn't even a coach. He's uber-agent Jimmy Sexton.
According to published reports, Sexton's just-unemployed-at-Arkansas client Houston Nutt is in the midst of entertaining offers from Ole MIss and Georgia Tech, both of whom fired their own coaches within the last 72 hours.
That's mind-boggling. Here we have a middling, just run off from his own alma mater coach who'd be the biggest clown in the SEC if not for Les Miles and Ed Orgeron (and I guess now I should limit that to Miles)... and Sexton's got two founding members of the conference firing their coaches and upping the ante to hire the guy. Yeah, they're founding members who ain't what they used to be by a long shot, but still.
Even if this is just another example of Sexton spinning to gullible mediots, it's still amazing. Sexton's evil, but he's like, Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter evil. You can't help but watch in awe.
UPDATE: Ole Miss "wins" the Nuttstakes, per this AP article in the Clarion-Ledger (I like the Department of Redundancy Department notice about Nutt's record: "He is 111-70 in 15 years as a head coach, compiling a 111-70 record at Arkansas, Boise State and Murray State").
It's obvious that Nutt will be a better coach than Ed Orgeron; then again, my sister's dog would be a better head coach than Ed Orgeron. The questions are whether Nutt can (a) recruit in a small state that unlike Arkansas, he doesn't have to himself, (b) manage the unrealistic (to be polite) expectations of the Ole Miss fanbase, and (c) keep his clown act in enough check to placate the "Ole Miss Whiteheads" who bankroll that program.
According to published reports, Sexton's just-unemployed-at-Arkansas client Houston Nutt is in the midst of entertaining offers from Ole MIss and Georgia Tech, both of whom fired their own coaches within the last 72 hours.
That's mind-boggling. Here we have a middling, just run off from his own alma mater coach who'd be the biggest clown in the SEC if not for Les Miles and Ed Orgeron (and I guess now I should limit that to Miles)... and Sexton's got two founding members of the conference firing their coaches and upping the ante to hire the guy. Yeah, they're founding members who ain't what they used to be by a long shot, but still.
Even if this is just another example of Sexton spinning to gullible mediots, it's still amazing. Sexton's evil, but he's like, Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter evil. You can't help but watch in awe.
UPDATE: Ole Miss "wins" the Nuttstakes, per this AP article in the Clarion-Ledger (I like the Department of Redundancy Department notice about Nutt's record: "He is 111-70 in 15 years as a head coach, compiling a 111-70 record at Arkansas, Boise State and Murray State").
It's obvious that Nutt will be a better coach than Ed Orgeron; then again, my sister's dog would be a better head coach than Ed Orgeron. The questions are whether Nutt can (a) recruit in a small state that unlike Arkansas, he doesn't have to himself, (b) manage the unrealistic (to be polite) expectations of the Ole Miss fanbase, and (c) keep his clown act in enough check to placate the "Ole Miss Whiteheads" who bankroll that program.
Fear The Toes
Back on September 22, the ESPN Gameday circus came to Tuscaloosa for the Alabama-Georgia game. UAT was 3-0, and had just watched Auburn slump to 1-2 with a loss to Mississippi State. The crowd behind ESPN's stage was filled with signs sneering at the cross-state archrival, and most of them were personally directed at Auburn's quarterback: "We Love Brandon Cox" and "Cox For Heisman" were prominently featured for the national television cameras.
As in most of the decisions made in Tuscaloosa over the past decade, putting those signs up turned out to be a spectacularly bad call. By the time the Iron Bowl rolled around, UAT had suffered its own ignominious Crooming, and worse. By the time the Iron Bowl was over, Brandon Cox finished his career with a perfect record against Alabama, and had his own sign for the bammies who'd mocked him a few weeks earlier:
It goes without saying that I've enjoyed all of Auburn's wins during the current streak, but with the possible exception of the 2002 upset, I don't think any of them have been quite as satisfying as Saturday's 17-10 triumph.
I'm willing to bet the Auburn team feels the same way. After eleven months of having The Great Saban shoveled down our throats by the in-state press and legions of loudmouth idiots in Alabama's fan base (as ever, please forgive the redundancy), watching the Tide get outplayed and outcoached for the duration went down sweeter than Toomer's lemonade on a hot August day.
For the last several years, you could get a good read on how Auburn was going to finish a game by watching how they started. Against Florida, Arkansas and LSU, the Tigers came out strong, scoring on their first possession and stuffing the opposition. Against Georgia and MSU, early turnovers led quickly to defensive breakdowns, and things tended to go downhill from there. When AU came out of the gate Saturday to slam Alabama for three-and-out and followed up with a solid opening touchdown drive, they set a tone that UAT couldn't answer, even with help from an interception and some awful officiating later in the game.
There were a lot of reasons why Auburn won again in '07, but the most important was this: Auburn is a lot tougher than Alabama, which is just this side of soft. Rather inexplicably, UAT's coaching staff tried to play AU straight up with the running game rather than attacking the Tigers' most glaring weakness, the long ball. Suffice to say, it didn't work, even with a freshly-un-suspended Glenn Coffee running the ball behind also un-suspended linemen. When Minor--whoops, sorry, Major Applewhite did try to go to the air, Will Muschamp showed that with a strong push up front and a steady cover-two, Sarah Jessica Parker Wilson is an exceptionally average passer.
The much-vaunted Tide passing game rarely got anything done, and never hit the big strike that Auburn fans had been fearing all week. Even with "El Matador" Chris Capps confined to the bench for his last Iron Bowl, UAT's linemen were rarely able to do more than hold and pray nobody would notice; Auburn successfully rushed four defenders for most of the game. The only Alabama receiver even close to impressive was Nikita Stover, who was wiling to take a hit to make a big catch. That's a lot more than I can say for D.J. Hall, who appeared to be more concerned about messing up his pretty hairdo than playing physical football. Hall botched UAT's lone chance to take control of the game just before halftime; his end-zone bobble to Jerraud Powers was the biggest nail in the Tide's sixth coffin.
Not only was the Auburn defense more than capable of stuffing an anemic Tide offense--which is going to be feeling the bruises dispensed Saturday night by Tray Blackmon until roughly 2010--you could tell by AU's first offensive play that Auburn had come prepared for a physical game and Alabama hadn't. Auburn wide receiver Rod Smith laid a crushing, get-off-the-field block on UAT linebacker Rashad Johnson, setting the tone for the rest of the night. Here's a tip: when their wideouts are out-hitting your linebackers, you're probably going to lose. By the game's last meaningful play, Auburn had established dominance across both lines of scrimmage, making Brad Lester's in-your-face 12-yard run on fourth and one perfectly predictable, if no less satisfying.
Defensively, Alabama was lucky that things weren't much worse. Cox's standard workmanlike performance was good enough to win, but if he hadn't misfired on wide-open routes to Carl Stewart in the first half and Smith and Montez Billings in the second, the fourth quarter would have amounted to little more than a formality. Al Borges was able to take advantage of Saban's habit of setting the defense based on the tight end positions by returning to the shifts that served AU so well during 2004-05 (I should add that they've been sorely missed ever since), and turned in a solid game plan, although I think if he'd stuck to the run in the third quarter, the final margin would have been at least a bit larger. Then again, if Auburn had pulled away, we'd have missed the return of that icon of the Mike Shula era, the late, fruitless onsides kick. That would have been a shame.
Believe it or not, this isn't a criticism, but Nick Saban's defense is not one that's known for sophistication or trickery. Again, not kidding, that's to Saban's credit. When he has the players, he'll try and beat you straight up, and in my mind that's smarter tactics than, say, John Thompson's manic scheming. The weakness, of course, is when he doesn't have the players, and he definitely doesn't have them right now. Alabama's front seven is simply no match for a physical offense, and Auburn proved that again by gashing the Tide up the middle for the duration of the game (and with three true freshmen to boot). The contrast between the two teams was striking; on one side you had a finesse-oriented team trying to play smash-mouth, and on the other a physical team doing all the smashing.
Ah, it was fun, maybe best of all because Tommy Tuberville had coached up Auburn to play the kind of football that Alabama claims to take great pride in, while Nick Saban was unable do the same. Cutting corners on discipline and throwing your own players under the bus in the media will do that to you, Nicky. I can only imagine the grimacing among the UAT beat writers who'd been pushing the phony "Tubs is gone to A&M" story for the last couple of months as they watched the carnage. This is what they wanted to see for their team, but instead they had to watch it happen to their team.
As in most of the decisions made in Tuscaloosa over the past decade, putting those signs up turned out to be a spectacularly bad call. By the time the Iron Bowl rolled around, UAT had suffered its own ignominious Crooming, and worse. By the time the Iron Bowl was over, Brandon Cox finished his career with a perfect record against Alabama, and had his own sign for the bammies who'd mocked him a few weeks earlier:
It goes without saying that I've enjoyed all of Auburn's wins during the current streak, but with the possible exception of the 2002 upset, I don't think any of them have been quite as satisfying as Saturday's 17-10 triumph.
I'm willing to bet the Auburn team feels the same way. After eleven months of having The Great Saban shoveled down our throats by the in-state press and legions of loudmouth idiots in Alabama's fan base (as ever, please forgive the redundancy), watching the Tide get outplayed and outcoached for the duration went down sweeter than Toomer's lemonade on a hot August day.
For the last several years, you could get a good read on how Auburn was going to finish a game by watching how they started. Against Florida, Arkansas and LSU, the Tigers came out strong, scoring on their first possession and stuffing the opposition. Against Georgia and MSU, early turnovers led quickly to defensive breakdowns, and things tended to go downhill from there. When AU came out of the gate Saturday to slam Alabama for three-and-out and followed up with a solid opening touchdown drive, they set a tone that UAT couldn't answer, even with help from an interception and some awful officiating later in the game.
There were a lot of reasons why Auburn won again in '07, but the most important was this: Auburn is a lot tougher than Alabama, which is just this side of soft. Rather inexplicably, UAT's coaching staff tried to play AU straight up with the running game rather than attacking the Tigers' most glaring weakness, the long ball. Suffice to say, it didn't work, even with a freshly-un-suspended Glenn Coffee running the ball behind also un-suspended linemen. When Minor--whoops, sorry, Major Applewhite did try to go to the air, Will Muschamp showed that with a strong push up front and a steady cover-two, Sarah Jessica Parker Wilson is an exceptionally average passer.
The much-vaunted Tide passing game rarely got anything done, and never hit the big strike that Auburn fans had been fearing all week. Even with "El Matador" Chris Capps confined to the bench for his last Iron Bowl, UAT's linemen were rarely able to do more than hold and pray nobody would notice; Auburn successfully rushed four defenders for most of the game. The only Alabama receiver even close to impressive was Nikita Stover, who was wiling to take a hit to make a big catch. That's a lot more than I can say for D.J. Hall, who appeared to be more concerned about messing up his pretty hairdo than playing physical football. Hall botched UAT's lone chance to take control of the game just before halftime; his end-zone bobble to Jerraud Powers was the biggest nail in the Tide's sixth coffin.
Not only was the Auburn defense more than capable of stuffing an anemic Tide offense--which is going to be feeling the bruises dispensed Saturday night by Tray Blackmon until roughly 2010--you could tell by AU's first offensive play that Auburn had come prepared for a physical game and Alabama hadn't. Auburn wide receiver Rod Smith laid a crushing, get-off-the-field block on UAT linebacker Rashad Johnson, setting the tone for the rest of the night. Here's a tip: when their wideouts are out-hitting your linebackers, you're probably going to lose. By the game's last meaningful play, Auburn had established dominance across both lines of scrimmage, making Brad Lester's in-your-face 12-yard run on fourth and one perfectly predictable, if no less satisfying.
Defensively, Alabama was lucky that things weren't much worse. Cox's standard workmanlike performance was good enough to win, but if he hadn't misfired on wide-open routes to Carl Stewart in the first half and Smith and Montez Billings in the second, the fourth quarter would have amounted to little more than a formality. Al Borges was able to take advantage of Saban's habit of setting the defense based on the tight end positions by returning to the shifts that served AU so well during 2004-05 (I should add that they've been sorely missed ever since), and turned in a solid game plan, although I think if he'd stuck to the run in the third quarter, the final margin would have been at least a bit larger. Then again, if Auburn had pulled away, we'd have missed the return of that icon of the Mike Shula era, the late, fruitless onsides kick. That would have been a shame.
Believe it or not, this isn't a criticism, but Nick Saban's defense is not one that's known for sophistication or trickery. Again, not kidding, that's to Saban's credit. When he has the players, he'll try and beat you straight up, and in my mind that's smarter tactics than, say, John Thompson's manic scheming. The weakness, of course, is when he doesn't have the players, and he definitely doesn't have them right now. Alabama's front seven is simply no match for a physical offense, and Auburn proved that again by gashing the Tide up the middle for the duration of the game (and with three true freshmen to boot). The contrast between the two teams was striking; on one side you had a finesse-oriented team trying to play smash-mouth, and on the other a physical team doing all the smashing.
Ah, it was fun, maybe best of all because Tommy Tuberville had coached up Auburn to play the kind of football that Alabama claims to take great pride in, while Nick Saban was unable do the same. Cutting corners on discipline and throwing your own players under the bus in the media will do that to you, Nicky. I can only imagine the grimacing among the UAT beat writers who'd been pushing the phony "Tubs is gone to A&M" story for the last couple of months as they watched the carnage. This is what they wanted to see for their team, but instead they had to watch it happen to their team.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
$666,666: The Paycheck of the Beast
So, let's see here. UAT's "savior" just finished 6-6 with loss #6 to Auburn. His $4 million annual salary works out to $666,666 per win (none of which, I hasten to add, was earned against Louisiana-Monroe, much less Auburn).
No wonder the little jerk is widely known as "Nick Satan." Makes perfect sense.
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Oh, and bammies: you could have kept Mike Shula, saved $3 million, and still finished 6-6. Heck, Little Mikey proved in '06 that could beat La-Mo (by a lot), so odds are he'd have probably done even better. Talk about wasted money. But then again, you've provided the rest of us with so much entertainment over the last month, maybe it wasn't entirely wasted after all...
No wonder the little jerk is widely known as "Nick Satan." Makes perfect sense.
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.Oh, and bammies: you could have kept Mike Shula, saved $3 million, and still finished 6-6. Heck, Little Mikey proved in '06 that could beat La-Mo (by a lot), so odds are he'd have probably done even better. Talk about wasted money. But then again, you've provided the rest of us with so much entertainment over the last month, maybe it wasn't entirely wasted after all...
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Looking At The Numbers
With a combined twenty-two games in the books over the 2007 season, we might as well do a little statistical evaluation of Auburn and Alabama before this Saturday's closer.
Turning to the SEC's official site, the first thing that jumps out at you is how little separation there is between the two teams in most categories. Given Auburn's much-noted offensive woes, you'd think the Tide would be way ahead in scoring offense, but no, UAT is number 7 in the SEC with a 28.4 average while AU is just over a field goal behind at number 9 and 25.0. Conversely, Auburn's reputation as run-first vs. Alabama's more-heralded passing game would make you think the Tigers are way ahead on the ground, but #8 AU actually trails #7 UAT by an average of a rushing yard per game.
This goes on and on. In 15 of the 29 significant categories tracked by the conference, Auburn and Alabama are either right next to each other in the team standings or separated by just one other team (I didn't count stuff like on-side kick recovery, since that's such a rare occurrence that the stats aren't meaningful). One of the more surprisingly-even stats to me was passing efficiency, where both teams are essentially tied near the bottom of the conference pack (AU is #7 at 117.4, UAT #8 at 115.7). Neither team is very good at either converting on third down or stopping opponents from doing the same.
So let's look at where we do see some separation between these teams. The first item that jumps out at you is scoring defense, where Auburn leads the conference allowing 17.3 points a game; Alabama's defense is a respectable #5 with 22.3 ppg, but still nearly a touchdown behind the Tigers. On the other hand, the Tide's large lead in passing offense (#5 at 231.8 vs. AU's #9 at 178.8) gives Alabama a corresponding lead in total offense, but as noted above, that advantage hasn't translated into a lot of additional points on the scoreboard.
The most eye-popping differentials on the page come in a couple of exceptionally important categories. Alabama has a huge advantage in first downs, second in the conference with an impressive 259 over eleven games; Auburn is nearly bringing up the rear at number 10 with fifty (fifty!) fewer first downs. Then again, that offensive production just hasn't been translated into points for the Tide, and surprisingly to me, it also hasn't translated into an advantage in time of possession, where #7 UAT trails #3 AU 29:36 to 31:27. Two minutes can be a very big deal in a game like this.
The second big difference illustrates Auburn's team strength this year, namely the defense. AU is second in the conference in Red Zone Defense, allowing opponents only 15 touchdowns and 10 field goals in 34 red zone situations. Alabama is dead last in this category, allowing points to opponents in scoring position over 90% of the time (30-33, 8 field goals and--ouch--22 touchdowns). That's pretty lousy, especially for a team coached by a "defensive genius." I'd call it a game-decider--but that would assume the Auburn offense can drive to the red zone enough times. I'm not ready to make that claim just yet.
It's worth noting that two categories with big discrepancies could be turned upside-down Saturday due to injuries. Alabama has a big lead in kick returns, but their star returner, Javier Arenas, has a bad ankle sprain and won't play. On the other side, Auburn is bringing up the SEC rear in kickoff returns this year, but the Tigers will welcome speedster Tristan Davis back this week in the lead return slot after a season-long injury spell. How those changes will play out this weekend, I can safely say nobody knows.
Turning to the SEC's official site, the first thing that jumps out at you is how little separation there is between the two teams in most categories. Given Auburn's much-noted offensive woes, you'd think the Tide would be way ahead in scoring offense, but no, UAT is number 7 in the SEC with a 28.4 average while AU is just over a field goal behind at number 9 and 25.0. Conversely, Auburn's reputation as run-first vs. Alabama's more-heralded passing game would make you think the Tigers are way ahead on the ground, but #8 AU actually trails #7 UAT by an average of a rushing yard per game.
This goes on and on. In 15 of the 29 significant categories tracked by the conference, Auburn and Alabama are either right next to each other in the team standings or separated by just one other team (I didn't count stuff like on-side kick recovery, since that's such a rare occurrence that the stats aren't meaningful). One of the more surprisingly-even stats to me was passing efficiency, where both teams are essentially tied near the bottom of the conference pack (AU is #7 at 117.4, UAT #8 at 115.7). Neither team is very good at either converting on third down or stopping opponents from doing the same.
So let's look at where we do see some separation between these teams. The first item that jumps out at you is scoring defense, where Auburn leads the conference allowing 17.3 points a game; Alabama's defense is a respectable #5 with 22.3 ppg, but still nearly a touchdown behind the Tigers. On the other hand, the Tide's large lead in passing offense (#5 at 231.8 vs. AU's #9 at 178.8) gives Alabama a corresponding lead in total offense, but as noted above, that advantage hasn't translated into a lot of additional points on the scoreboard.
The most eye-popping differentials on the page come in a couple of exceptionally important categories. Alabama has a huge advantage in first downs, second in the conference with an impressive 259 over eleven games; Auburn is nearly bringing up the rear at number 10 with fifty (fifty!) fewer first downs. Then again, that offensive production just hasn't been translated into points for the Tide, and surprisingly to me, it also hasn't translated into an advantage in time of possession, where #7 UAT trails #3 AU 29:36 to 31:27. Two minutes can be a very big deal in a game like this.
The second big difference illustrates Auburn's team strength this year, namely the defense. AU is second in the conference in Red Zone Defense, allowing opponents only 15 touchdowns and 10 field goals in 34 red zone situations. Alabama is dead last in this category, allowing points to opponents in scoring position over 90% of the time (30-33, 8 field goals and--ouch--22 touchdowns). That's pretty lousy, especially for a team coached by a "defensive genius." I'd call it a game-decider--but that would assume the Auburn offense can drive to the red zone enough times. I'm not ready to make that claim just yet.
It's worth noting that two categories with big discrepancies could be turned upside-down Saturday due to injuries. Alabama has a big lead in kick returns, but their star returner, Javier Arenas, has a bad ankle sprain and won't play. On the other side, Auburn is bringing up the SEC rear in kickoff returns this year, but the Tigers will welcome speedster Tristan Davis back this week in the lead return slot after a season-long injury spell. How those changes will play out this weekend, I can safely say nobody knows.
Blowback
From Mobile Press-Register columnist Neal McCready today:
In an email sent to other journalists afterwards, McCready said, "While the ownership of the station has not spoken to me about the situation, I was told that I wasn't pro-Alabama enough," and went on to say, "I knew some Alabama boosters down here who were advertisers on the station were applying pressure to the Johnson family [the owners of WNSP], who are huge Alabama fans and boosters in their own right."
Camp has denied that accusation, but admitted in the same breath that he was responding to advertiser complaints by firing McCready. WNSP has reportedly suppressed callers complaining about McCready's firing over the last week, and a number of other sports writers who'd previously done call-in work for WNSP's shows have resigned in protest.
The whole fracas is interesting for a couple of reasons. Number one, it illustrates the UAT fan base's weird insistence on having smoke blown up its collective hindquarters at all times, particularly by the local media. Second, it's a sign that the old red (neck) guard of boosters is actively trying to intimidate the media in Alabama, and specifically in Mobile (hmm, why there in particular, I wonder?).
If so, that kind of buffoonery certainly isn't new. For decades, negative stories about Alabama football were spiked before they could see print in the state papers. In 1991, I knew personally about one very damaging story regarding an Alabama player that a reporter for the Birmingham News had chapter and verse on--but it never saw print. That kind of thing Just Wasn't Done in the days when a very few people controlled an even smaller number of media outlets.
What the guys trying to bully McCready and his colleagues don't seem to understand, as McCready notes in a different context above, is that the world has changed. Leaning on a radio station owner or depending on a "friendly" sports editor or publisher won't kill a story in the 21st Century. And if you try the old bullying tactics these days, you're just going to draw attention to yourself and cause more trouble.
I thought all intelligent people knew that. Then again, we're not really talking about intelligent people here, are we?
Nick Saban said he saw it coming.A bit of background is in order here. McCready, who attended Ole Miss and graduated from Louisiana-Monroe (back when it was Northeast Louisiana), hosted a drive-time sports call-in show on Mobile's WNSP radio up until last Wednesday, when he was unceremoniously fired by programming director Tim Camp.
How clairvoyant. I wish he'd said something. I would have caught the first flight to Las Vegas, taken the 24 points and laid a bundle on my alma mater.
While I would have listened, Saban's warning would have primarily fallen on deaf ears. Many Alabama fans, as the Crimson Tide's $32 million man is learning the hard way, have an aversion to the truth.
...
We've learned that despite the considerable hype and the worshipping adoration of his followers, Saban isn't some omnipotent football god who can reverse the fortunes of a struggling program merely by showing up. We've learned that despite the absurd comparisons to a coach from a bygone era, Saban can't take his and beat yours and then take yours and beat his.
...
For myriad reasons, the regional and national college football landscapes have permanently changed. Alabama, like many other programs around the country and in the SEC, is still wandering in the wilderness a bit, searching for a comfortable spot to settle down. Shoot the messenger if it makes you happy, but all the bullying in the world doesn't change the truth in the message.
Of course, the truth hurts sometimes, especially when you refuse to open your eyes to see it.
In an email sent to other journalists afterwards, McCready said, "While the ownership of the station has not spoken to me about the situation, I was told that I wasn't pro-Alabama enough," and went on to say, "I knew some Alabama boosters down here who were advertisers on the station were applying pressure to the Johnson family [the owners of WNSP], who are huge Alabama fans and boosters in their own right."
Camp has denied that accusation, but admitted in the same breath that he was responding to advertiser complaints by firing McCready. WNSP has reportedly suppressed callers complaining about McCready's firing over the last week, and a number of other sports writers who'd previously done call-in work for WNSP's shows have resigned in protest.
The whole fracas is interesting for a couple of reasons. Number one, it illustrates the UAT fan base's weird insistence on having smoke blown up its collective hindquarters at all times, particularly by the local media. Second, it's a sign that the old red (neck) guard of boosters is actively trying to intimidate the media in Alabama, and specifically in Mobile (hmm, why there in particular, I wonder?).
If so, that kind of buffoonery certainly isn't new. For decades, negative stories about Alabama football were spiked before they could see print in the state papers. In 1991, I knew personally about one very damaging story regarding an Alabama player that a reporter for the Birmingham News had chapter and verse on--but it never saw print. That kind of thing Just Wasn't Done in the days when a very few people controlled an even smaller number of media outlets.
What the guys trying to bully McCready and his colleagues don't seem to understand, as McCready notes in a different context above, is that the world has changed. Leaning on a radio station owner or depending on a "friendly" sports editor or publisher won't kill a story in the 21st Century. And if you try the old bullying tactics these days, you're just going to draw attention to yourself and cause more trouble.
I thought all intelligent people knew that. Then again, we're not really talking about intelligent people here, are we?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Off The Reservation
Over the last 11 months, the in-state media in Alabama has acted as an extension on Alabama coach Nick "I'm not going to be the Alabama coach" Saban's press office. While the national media has given Saban a richly-deserved pummeling for his apparently endless reservoir of obnoxious attitude, empty aphorisms and utter lack of character, the in-state press and delusional Alabama fan base (please forgive the redundancy) motored along spouting happy talk about the "Great Saban," and seldom was heard a discouraging word.
Until today. Here's Kevin Scarbinsky, the feature sports columnist of the Birmingham News:
Until today. Here's Kevin Scarbinsky, the feature sports columnist of the Birmingham News:
I've never heard, and I hope I've never made, a statement about college football as outrageous, over-the-top and offensive as the one Nick Saban made at his weekly press conference/psychology lecture Monday.Here's radio host and Mobile Press-Register columnist Paul Finebaum, who led the charge to hire Saban, and who's been a relentless advocate for "Flipper" since January, going so far as to call Alabama's loss to LSU "inspiring" in a remarkably silly (and well-parodied) column a few weeks ago:
Listen. These were his words. His exact words.
"Changes in history usually occur after some kind of catastrophic event," Saban said. "It may be 9/11, which sort of changed the spirit of America relative to a catastrophic event. Pearl Harbor got us ready for World War II or whatever, and that was a catastrophic event.
"And I don't think anyone in this room would've bet that we would lose back-to-back games to Mississippi State or ULM, no disrespect to either one of those teams."
That's right. The head football coach at Alabama included the lost lives in New York, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Hawaii with the lost games against Mississippi State and Louisiana-Monroe in his very serious discussion of "catastrophic events."
What historical tragedy will he reference Saturday when Alabama loses a sixth straight game to Auburn? The Holocaust?
That sound you heard late Saturday afternoon was Bear Bryant rolling over in his grave. Nearly a quarter century after his death, his beloved football program has seemingly fallen and it can't get up.Here's Huntsville Times columnist Mark McCarter:
On Saturday, against a directional school from northeast Louisiana, one who plays in a league whose champion earns an automatic berth into something called the New Orleans Bowl, the Tide(tanic) hit another iceberg, shredding this season into four million pieces and raising questions for the first time whether Nick Saban has a solid handle on his job as head football coach at Alabama.
...
Saban warned the Alabama faithful in the offseason that booing is bad for business. He repeated that admonition at every stop on the rubber-chicken circuit. However, based on Saturday's embarrassing scene, it appears the fans now pay about as much attention to him as his Alabama players.
Do you think Saban will be able to go into the home of top recruits and make a case that Alabama is a program built on class, integrity and discipline?
Saban also appeared to be throwing his senior class under the bus in his post-game comments by saying part of the problem could be a "pattern of personality." He said the problems now seem to be the same ones that cropped up in the past.
Translation: This is Mike Shula's fault.
Well, no it isn't, Nick. This has happened on your $32 million watch.
...
So what's the problem here?
Saban said he stressed all week that you can't take a team like this lightly. Well, apparently, they didn't listen. Why not?
Could it be the team has tuned out the master of the process? Could it be they don't care what he has to say any more? Or perhaps, they simply can't relate to a coach who makes so much money and who has crisscrossed the nation the last few years like an Amway salesman.
One could assume that's the case with DJ Hall, the team's most talented offensive weapon. Hall didn't play in the first half (Saban said he violated team rules), but with Alabama struggling at halftime, Saban suddenly decided that Hall's suspension was over.
Asked for an explanation afterward, Saban said: "It was what it was?"
Huh?
When a reporter challenged him, Saban silenced him like a stern father talking to a teenager asking for his car keys a second time.
At least Saban could been honest and said, "Hey man, I'm trying to win the stupid football game. Aight! That's what you people are paying me $4 mil to do."
[N]ot long ago I interviewed a former NFL player who was casually talking football with a friend on the 94th floor of a World Trade Center tower when the phone line suddenly went dead. "If there's a blessing, he never knew what hit him," the ex-player said of his friend, whose office was struck by the nose of a hijacked plane.Sounds like somebody has worn out his welcome. I'm guessing the off-season of 2008 just might be a bit different from the extended Nick Sucking honeymoon of 2007.
The ex-player lost his New York apartment near the World Trade Center and 150 people that he personally knew. I don't think he'd ever equate that with any games he lost.
Nick Saban did so on Monday.
...
Saban arrived with a rich reputation for his insensitivity. Usually it's directed toward media or minions.
On Monday, that insensitivity stretched well beyond the protected confines of his kingdom when he concocted such an insulting, ill-advised analogy. An experienced, expensive coach has to do better.
Maybe Saban was just too wrapped up in emotion and hyperbole. Maybe, like some fourth-and-two play, he didn't give it enough thought. Maybe it was dramatic effect. Maybe it was self-preservation, a bold statement to a fan base where some are already second-guessing the investment.
Whatever the reason, to borrow from his war-time comparisons, Nick Saban bombed.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Heh
Louisiana-Monroe's Charlie Weatherbie is the lowest-paid head coach in Division 1-A football, with a $130,000 annual salary.
D.J. Hall and The Incredible Shrinking Suspension
Alabama fans were greeted Saturday with the game-time announcement that the team's star player, receiver D.J. Hall, would be suspended for what was expected to be a "tune-up game" against lightly-regarded Louisiana-Monroe. AL.com bloggers Paul Gattis (Huntsville Times) and Ian Rapoport (Birmingham News) both reported before kickoff that Hall's suspension would be for the ULM game; there was no mention in the contemporaneous accounts of a "one half suspension."
Flash forward a couple of hours. As Alabama was tied with ULM in the second half and being dominated throughout the third quarter, Hall's suspension was magically lifted and he returned to play (as it happened, it didn't matter whether Hall was on the field or not; UAT was shut out in the second half). Gattis, to his credit, reiterated the point about Hall's suspension at that time:
You know, this team looks more and more like it's still being coached by Mike Shula. Discipline problems, charges of favoritism from the coaches, long losing streaks and now a loss to one of the worst teams in the country. Has anything really changed other than the coach being a jackass and the school paying a whole lot more money for the same results? Why not just give Hall an ice cream cone and make it official?
Flash forward a couple of hours. As Alabama was tied with ULM in the second half and being dominated throughout the third quarter, Hall's suspension was magically lifted and he returned to play (as it happened, it didn't matter whether Hall was on the field or not; UAT was shut out in the second half). Gattis, to his credit, reiterated the point about Hall's suspension at that time:
Alabama leading receiver DJ Hall, who was said to have been suspended for today's game, started the second half for the Tide.After the game, Rapoport asked Alabama Coach Nick "I am not going to be the Alabama coach" Saban about Hall's sudden reinstatement, and received the following enlightening response:
Hall did not play in the first half.
UA football SID Jeff Purinton said that Hall would not play today because of a violation of team policy.
I asked Saban post-game if receiver DJ Hall was suspended for 30 minutes from the beginning. As in, was it a game suspension that turned into a half suspension?C'mon, Flipper. Everybody knows you're a snake and a liar who'll do anything to win football games. Why not go ahead and admit it: not losing to a bottom-feeder was a lot more important to you than maintaining discipline in your program. You panicked and put Hall back in the game because you didn't think you could win without him (you were wrong, of course, but that's beside the point).
"It was what it was," he said.
So, I asked, a half suspension?
"What it was," Saban said.
You know, this team looks more and more like it's still being coached by Mike Shula. Discipline problems, charges of favoritism from the coaches, long losing streaks and now a loss to one of the worst teams in the country. Has anything really changed other than the coach being a jackass and the school paying a whole lot more money for the same results? Why not just give Hall an ice cream cone and make it official?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)