Thursday, June 18, 2009
Good Stuff
Chris Brown at Smart Football breaks down the Gus Malzahn offense so you--er, that is, I don't have to. Check it out.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Follow-Up
Per Ian Rapoport in the Birmingham News, the NCAA has ordered Alabama to "vacate" (as opposed to forfeit) the following 21 (!) football wins from 2005-2007:
That brings the Tide's official records for those years to 0-12 in 2005 and 2006, and 2-10 in 2007. I think we can safely say now that the 2000's will go down in the record books as the worst decade in Alabama football history.
Despite players in 15 other sports (pretty remarkable number all by itself) also being involved in the textbook scandal, apparently only one other team win will be vacated. Why exactly these games are being considered "vacant" as opposed to forfeits was the NCAA's call; in the past, they have ordered actual forfeits in sanctions cases, notably in Alabama's 1995 Antonio Langham sentence, and in a major violations case at Mississippi State in the mid-70's.
I'm still asking around regarding the coaches' poll issue, but as far as I can tell to date, Alabama is in the same boat as Oklahoma, and will be eligible for that poll, and thus for the BCS, going forward.
I haven't had much of a chance to read through the morning's editorial reaction yet, but Kevin Scarbinsky really lays the wood in this column. A sample:
That's not a rhetorical or academic question. Too bad Witt didn't have to answer it.
2005: Middle Tennessee, Southern Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah State, Mississippi State, and Texas Tech (Cotton Bowl).
2006: Hawai'i, Vanderbilt, Louisiana-Monroe, Duke, Mississippi, and Florida International.
2007: Western Carolina, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Houston, and Mississippi.
That brings the Tide's official records for those years to 0-12 in 2005 and 2006, and 2-10 in 2007. I think we can safely say now that the 2000's will go down in the record books as the worst decade in Alabama football history.
Despite players in 15 other sports (pretty remarkable number all by itself) also being involved in the textbook scandal, apparently only one other team win will be vacated. Why exactly these games are being considered "vacant" as opposed to forfeits was the NCAA's call; in the past, they have ordered actual forfeits in sanctions cases, notably in Alabama's 1995 Antonio Langham sentence, and in a major violations case at Mississippi State in the mid-70's.
I'm still asking around regarding the coaches' poll issue, but as far as I can tell to date, Alabama is in the same boat as Oklahoma, and will be eligible for that poll, and thus for the BCS, going forward.
I haven't had much of a chance to read through the morning's editorial reaction yet, but Kevin Scarbinsky really lays the wood in this column. A sample:
The last thing Robert Witt wants to do at a press conference is answer questions, even on a day when the integrity of his institution has been called into question.
Again.
Instead, the president of the University of Arrogance chose merely to read a statement Thursday afternoon. In those 256 words, he made a statement that helps explain why his school leads the Football Bowl Subdivision with four major infractions cases in the last 14 years.
Through multiple presidents, athletics directors, coaches, administrators, student-athletes, boosters and sports.
Alabama has what Nick Saban might call a cultural problem.
It's a culture that demands doing the right thing -- but only after you've been caught doing the wrong thing.
[snip]
Witt should've applauded the Infractions Committee members. Unlike their counterparts in 2002 -- current chairman Paul Dee was the only holdover to hear the rogue booster and textbook cases -- they didn't stop Alabama from competing.
Have they stopped Alabama from cheating?
That's not a rhetorical or academic question. Too bad Witt didn't have to answer it.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Alabama On Probation... And Banned From the BCS?
As noted virtually everywhere by now, the NCAA placed Alabama on three years of probation today, after almost every varsity sport at the school was found to have players who'd abused the textbook reimbursement system between 2005-2007 (and probably longer than that, but UAT threw away their older records).
Scuttlebutt had held for weeks that Alabama was looking at a small handfull of scholarship reductions (on the order of two to six) in football, but as it turned out, no team was so penalized; officially, the only sanction is a chump-change fine (about $41,000) and forfiets in a large number of victories during the past school years in question.
Forfiets are always a weird sanction. They're at once the most appropriate and the most meaningless of penalties. Appropriate because fundamentally, a team that competes with ineligible players does so outside the rules and should not be allowed to claim a victory won in that fashion, but meaningless because few people take a forfiet seriously after the fact. I doubt that the various directional schools who lost to Alabama in, say, 2005 are going to put up any billboards over their new 1-0 record book "win."
But there's one other thing to consider here, and I'm not talking about the standard five-year extension of the "repeat offender window" following this four-peat of Alabama major violations cases.
Under the rules of the coaches' poll, a team on probation cannot be ranked. As of today, the coaches' poll comprises one-third of the BCS total. I'm not aware of a precedent here, but it stands to reason that a team on NCAA probation can never collect that one-third of BCS points, and thus is effectively banned from BCS bowls.
If that holds up, then football probation all by itself, regardless of any other sanctions, just became a major, major penalty.
UPDATE: Or not. Oklahoma is still on probation until the middle of next year, and they played in last year's BCS championship. Heck if I know how they squared that circle, but I'll read up and see what I can find.
UPDATE UPDATE: Well, this is clear as mud. The American College Football Coaches Association website indicates that "the coaches’ poll does not include teams on either NCAA or conference-sanctioned probation." USA Today, the sponsor of the poll, tempers that with the modifier "major probation," but what exactly that separates "major probation" from (presumably) "not-major probation" isn't spelled out anywhere I've been able to locate.
Obviously, since Oklahoma was not excluded from the coaches poll last year, it's doubtful that Alabama would be excluded from 2009-2011. It's a weird situation, perhaps somebody will ask the ACFA or the BCS to issue a clarifying statement in the near future.
UPDATE^3: Here's one funny bit: assuming that the NCAA rejected Florida State's recent appeal, this decision would mean that nobody won the 2007 UAT-FSU game, and in theory, it wasn't actually played...
Scuttlebutt had held for weeks that Alabama was looking at a small handfull of scholarship reductions (on the order of two to six) in football, but as it turned out, no team was so penalized; officially, the only sanction is a chump-change fine (about $41,000) and forfiets in a large number of victories during the past school years in question.
Forfiets are always a weird sanction. They're at once the most appropriate and the most meaningless of penalties. Appropriate because fundamentally, a team that competes with ineligible players does so outside the rules and should not be allowed to claim a victory won in that fashion, but meaningless because few people take a forfiet seriously after the fact. I doubt that the various directional schools who lost to Alabama in, say, 2005 are going to put up any billboards over their new 1-0 record book "win."
But there's one other thing to consider here, and I'm not talking about the standard five-year extension of the "repeat offender window" following this four-peat of Alabama major violations cases.
Under the rules of the coaches' poll, a team on probation cannot be ranked. As of today, the coaches' poll comprises one-third of the BCS total. I'm not aware of a precedent here, but it stands to reason that a team on NCAA probation can never collect that one-third of BCS points, and thus is effectively banned from BCS bowls.
If that holds up, then football probation all by itself, regardless of any other sanctions, just became a major, major penalty.
UPDATE: Or not. Oklahoma is still on probation until the middle of next year, and they played in last year's BCS championship. Heck if I know how they squared that circle, but I'll read up and see what I can find.
UPDATE UPDATE: Well, this is clear as mud. The American College Football Coaches Association website indicates that "the coaches’ poll does not include teams on either NCAA or conference-sanctioned probation." USA Today, the sponsor of the poll, tempers that with the modifier "major probation," but what exactly that separates "major probation" from (presumably) "not-major probation" isn't spelled out anywhere I've been able to locate.
Obviously, since Oklahoma was not excluded from the coaches poll last year, it's doubtful that Alabama would be excluded from 2009-2011. It's a weird situation, perhaps somebody will ask the ACFA or the BCS to issue a clarifying statement in the near future.
UPDATE^3: Here's one funny bit: assuming that the NCAA rejected Florida State's recent appeal, this decision would mean that nobody won the 2007 UAT-FSU game, and in theory, it wasn't actually played...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Recommended Reading
Holly Anderson, writing at Dr. Saturday, just demolishes Paul Finebaum's latest column rabble-rousing show prep. A sample:
Seriously, read the whole thing.
In a way, Finebaum's long descent into Jerry Springer territory is a shame. There was a time when the guy was the top sports reporter in the South, and one of the best in the country, but over the last decade and a half, he found that it's much easier (and a lot more lucrative) to just endlessly stir the pot for his parochial radio show.
If you can stand to wade through the general insanity and moronic callers (I can't), it can be fun to watch, even given that the most salient feature of Paul's show is his abject contempt for both the Auburn and Alabama fan bases... but, sadly, his success in radio has degraded his column to nothing more than show prep, and outside of one or two good pieces a year, into an excellent birdcage-liner.
He paints by the belligerent numbers so skillfully that you hardly bother to notice that ... there's nothing there. Nothing to such a degree that we honestly wonder what Finebaum's doing putting this much effort into his word count. He could write the headline, "Is Tuberville at the heart of the rumor mill?" followed by an entire column consisting solely of the words, "Probably not," and gin up precisely the same level of traffic and righteous indignation on the Alabama boards.
The more we reread this piece, the more we admire its diabolical simplicity, the craft of it. It's not only a two-page gossip column about nothing of any verifiable substance whatsoever -- it cops straightaway to its vacuousness.
Seriously, read the whole thing.
In a way, Finebaum's long descent into Jerry Springer territory is a shame. There was a time when the guy was the top sports reporter in the South, and one of the best in the country, but over the last decade and a half, he found that it's much easier (and a lot more lucrative) to just endlessly stir the pot for his parochial radio show.
If you can stand to wade through the general insanity and moronic callers (I can't), it can be fun to watch, even given that the most salient feature of Paul's show is his abject contempt for both the Auburn and Alabama fan bases... but, sadly, his success in radio has degraded his column to nothing more than show prep, and outside of one or two good pieces a year, into an excellent birdcage-liner.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
The Big Empty
So, here's Josh Moon's much-hyped "expose" interview with Tony Franklin.
After reading it, the biggest revelation I walked away with was, based on the level of promotion for this nothing sandwich, the Montgomery Advertiser must be utterly desperate to boost its flagging readership. Otherwise, why would any sane editor or publisher go out of their way to flog six pages worth of stuff everybody already knew?
Is there anybody even remotely familiar with Auburn football who didn't know already that the Tommy Tuberville and the Auburn Trustees (to say nothing of Jay Jacobs) didn't like or trust each other? Anybody who didn't know already that Franklin was a terrible fit with Tuberville's underperforming good ol' boy offensive assistants? Anybody who didn't figure that Franklin himself wasn't terribly happy with the way things worked out last season?
In related news, water is wet, and nighttime is dark.
This "story" is the journalistic equivalent of a Chinese food lunch: after finishing it, you wonder whether you actually read anything at all. A pretty pathetic effort all around; Josh Moon is capable of doing good work, but this one is not a feather in his cap.
After reading it, the biggest revelation I walked away with was, based on the level of promotion for this nothing sandwich, the Montgomery Advertiser must be utterly desperate to boost its flagging readership. Otherwise, why would any sane editor or publisher go out of their way to flog six pages worth of stuff everybody already knew?
Is there anybody even remotely familiar with Auburn football who didn't know already that the Tommy Tuberville and the Auburn Trustees (to say nothing of Jay Jacobs) didn't like or trust each other? Anybody who didn't know already that Franklin was a terrible fit with Tuberville's underperforming good ol' boy offensive assistants? Anybody who didn't figure that Franklin himself wasn't terribly happy with the way things worked out last season?
In related news, water is wet, and nighttime is dark.
This "story" is the journalistic equivalent of a Chinese food lunch: after finishing it, you wonder whether you actually read anything at all. A pretty pathetic effort all around; Josh Moon is capable of doing good work, but this one is not a feather in his cap.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Noted In Passing
Kevin Scarbinsky posted a column Wednesday about the "Tiger Prowl" recruiting tour the Auburn assistants have been putting on this week. Unlike apparently everybody else in the sports world, I don't have any particular opinion about coaches riding around in limos; chalk it up to my inveterate anti-recruitnik stance, but I really don't care much one way or the other.
This, however, did catch my eye:
That's a really interesting turn of phrase. Odd, isn't it, how specific it is about somebody in a particular occupation being involved in a very distinct recruiting violation? Now, why would the feature columnist for the state's largest paper make a veiled reference to a booster arranging for a recruit to get the keys to a large, truck-like vehicle?
The line would qualify as one of those obscure things that make you go "Hmm..."--that is, unless you believe Scarbinsky doesn't know the score.
Put that thought to rest: Scarbinsky knows the score, whether he's being allowed by the Bamaham News suits to write explicitly about it or not.
This, however, did catch my eye:
Has an Opelika lawyer offered to lease that white stretch Hummer to an Auburn recruit for little down and less a month?
That's a really interesting turn of phrase. Odd, isn't it, how specific it is about somebody in a particular occupation being involved in a very distinct recruiting violation? Now, why would the feature columnist for the state's largest paper make a veiled reference to a booster arranging for a recruit to get the keys to a large, truck-like vehicle?
The line would qualify as one of those obscure things that make you go "Hmm..."--that is, unless you believe Scarbinsky doesn't know the score.
Put that thought to rest: Scarbinsky knows the score, whether he's being allowed by the Bamaham News suits to write explicitly about it or not.
Exodus: Terence Moore
Jerry Hinnen--who actually still has a job in the newspaper business--on the recently-departed and already un-missed Terence Moore:
What he said. Unlike others in the "Exodus" series, Moore's "work" won't be missed by much of anybody. He was already the least-read columnist in a largely-unread newspaper. Where he goes from here... well, who really cares? Let's just be glad he's gone.
Trust me, Terence Moore: it was never your job to make me think. It was your job to explain why I should think the same way you think. Forgive me, but I think the inability to understand the difference between those two objectives--why the first gets you only halfway to where you need to be, why not risking being right can only result in being wrong--goes a long way towards explaining why neither Terence Moore nor tons of other former sports columnists have their job at all anymore.
What he said. Unlike others in the "Exodus" series, Moore's "work" won't be missed by much of anybody. He was already the least-read columnist in a largely-unread newspaper. Where he goes from here... well, who really cares? Let's just be glad he's gone.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
All Apologies
I didn't make it to A-Day. When I booked a long-weekend vacation to New Orleans several weeks back, it didn't occur to me to check the calendar for the spring game first. So I was in Jackson Square instead of Jordan-Hare last Saturday, and since it will be a cold and lonely day in Hell before I ever give money to a cable company again, I also don't have the scrimmage on my DVR (but anybody who has a copy on DVD, please drop me a line, I'd be happy to reimburse you for the disc and postage).
So, at least for the time being, no A-Day recap at FTB. Sorry about that.
So, at least for the time being, no A-Day recap at FTB. Sorry about that.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Dynasty
The Auburn Men's Swimming Team won its eighth national championship in the past thirteen seasons last weekend. Please note, that's "won," not "claimed." Predictably, and shamefully, the media in Alabama scarcely noticed.
No such disregard here. The team that David Marsh built and Richard Quick has carried on is easily the most successful in state history, and one of the most remarkable dynasties in the history of college sports. Competitive swimming draws from a tiny and ever-diminishing pool of talent (no pun intended), and the ability of Marsh and Quick to recruit and coach to this level of dominance for over a decade is flat-out astonishing.
It's even more surprising when you compare the resources at Auburn compared to AU's competitors in the sport, notably Stanford and Texas, the latter of which is probably the richest state school in the nation. Texas spends in excess of $100 million a year on athletics. Stanford isn't exactly poor, either, with an annual athletic budget in the $75 million range.
And little old Auburn, with a sub-$50 million budget and an athletic department that treats the swim team like a redheaded stepchild, just keeps on knocking them out, year after year. Maybe best of all, they do so in an arena where no sportswriter gets a vote, and where the only contribution of computers is in tallying the points.
That's what a real championship looks like, and Auburn has got them in spades.
No such disregard here. The team that David Marsh built and Richard Quick has carried on is easily the most successful in state history, and one of the most remarkable dynasties in the history of college sports. Competitive swimming draws from a tiny and ever-diminishing pool of talent (no pun intended), and the ability of Marsh and Quick to recruit and coach to this level of dominance for over a decade is flat-out astonishing.
It's even more surprising when you compare the resources at Auburn compared to AU's competitors in the sport, notably Stanford and Texas, the latter of which is probably the richest state school in the nation. Texas spends in excess of $100 million a year on athletics. Stanford isn't exactly poor, either, with an annual athletic budget in the $75 million range.
And little old Auburn, with a sub-$50 million budget and an athletic department that treats the swim team like a redheaded stepchild, just keeps on knocking them out, year after year. Maybe best of all, they do so in an arena where no sportswriter gets a vote, and where the only contribution of computers is in tallying the points.
That's what a real championship looks like, and Auburn has got them in spades.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
Like They Say At Instapundit...
"Heh":
Comedy writer Jerry Perisho, after the University of Alabama football team admitted to NCAA violations involving players and textbooks: "This marks the first time Alabama football players have ever been linked in any way to college textbooks.''
You Gotta Be Kidding Me
File this one in the, "Things Better Left Behind In The 80's" department, but some idiot is actually trying to revive the USFL.
I went to one Birmingham Stallions game. It was against the Jersey team that had Doug Flutie and Herschel Walker on the roster. It remains the single most boring football game I've ever attended--and that includes A-Day games.
I went to one Birmingham Stallions game. It was against the Jersey team that had Doug Flutie and Herschel Walker on the roster. It remains the single most boring football game I've ever attended--and that includes A-Day games.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Preliminary Letter Of Inquiry at Alabama
The mid-2007 "Textbookgate" story at Alabama has been considered old news since five UAT players were suspended for the second half of that season and eventually reinstated just in time for that year's Auburn game. The story broke open again around 11AM today, when Cecil Hurt of the Tuscaloosa News reported online,
Along with Hurt's story, a sidebar has been posted containing pertinent documents, most notably including this Preliminary Letter Of Inquiry (labeled as a "Notice of allegations"; per ESPN, the two names are interchangable in NCAA parlance). The existence of this letter, dated May 8, 2008, has been successfully kept under wraps by UAT until today.
Among other things, the mildly-redacted PLOI charges UAT with Failure To Monitor (page 6), which is basically the second most serious charge in the NCAA rulebook, behind the dreaded Failure Of Institutional Control.
Contrary to everything you've read in the media to date, the NCAA considers this is a major violations case (page 4). According to the letter, UAT has requested and been denied summary disposition (top of page 3).
In short, this story is much more serious than the UAT administration, athletic department, and the media in Alabama have ever let on.
UPDATE: Here's something I missed when first reading over the NCAA letter. From page 6, detailing the first of two allegations, in this case a potential violation of Bylaw 16.11.2.1:
This is possibly the most significant section of the entire PLOI, since it places the violations within the five-year Repeat Offender window. Alabama's last bout of NCAA probation began on February 1, 2002, and lasted through February 1 of 2007. Any violations during calendar 2006 would fall within the repeat offender window. This would make Alabama a three-time repeat offender, as the Albert Means probation was itself a repeat-offender case.
Representatives of the University of Alabama met with the NCAA Committee on Infractions last month to address allegations concerning the textbook violations which sidelined five football players in the 2007 season, The News has learned.
The meeting took place in San Diego on February 20, 2009. The two specific NCAA allegations, which were sent in a letter to UA President Dr. Robert Witt, last May, state that an unspecified number of UA student-athletes obtained impermissible textbooks and supplies beginning in “at least the 2005-06 academic year and continuing through the fall of 2007.” Furthermore, the letter alleges that “the scope and nature of the allegations” demonstrate a "failure to monitor the student-athlete textbook distribution system."
Along with Hurt's story, a sidebar has been posted containing pertinent documents, most notably including this Preliminary Letter Of Inquiry (labeled as a "Notice of allegations"; per ESPN, the two names are interchangable in NCAA parlance). The existence of this letter, dated May 8, 2008, has been successfully kept under wraps by UAT until today.
Among other things, the mildly-redacted PLOI charges UAT with Failure To Monitor (page 6), which is basically the second most serious charge in the NCAA rulebook, behind the dreaded Failure Of Institutional Control.
Contrary to everything you've read in the media to date, the NCAA considers this is a major violations case (page 4). According to the letter, UAT has requested and been denied summary disposition (top of page 3).
In short, this story is much more serious than the UAT administration, athletic department, and the media in Alabama have ever let on.
UPDATE: Here's something I missed when first reading over the NCAA letter. From page 6, detailing the first of two allegations, in this case a potential violation of Bylaw 16.11.2.1:
It is alleged that beginning at least in the 2005-06 academic year and continuing through the fall of 2007, the institution's textbook distribution system allowed [section redacted] different student athletes to obtain impermissible textbooks and supplies, with a total value of [redacted].
This is possibly the most significant section of the entire PLOI, since it places the violations within the five-year Repeat Offender window. Alabama's last bout of NCAA probation began on February 1, 2002, and lasted through February 1 of 2007. Any violations during calendar 2006 would fall within the repeat offender window. This would make Alabama a three-time repeat offender, as the Albert Means probation was itself a repeat-offender case.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Valentine's Day
The middle of February is not exactly a busy time for college football news, but based on my email traffic, I guess I should post a couple of things.
First, if it weren't already pretty obvious, FTB tends to be dormant during the off-season. Believe it or not, I do try to not write here (or elsewhere) if I don't actually have anything to say, and since recruiting just doesn't interest me (having gone to the same high school as Alan Evans and Charlie Dare--two of the biggest flops in recruiting history--pretty much cured me of that malady), I really don't have a whole lot pertinent to note about Auburn or SEC football in general right now. I do plan to go to A-Day in April, and assuming it rises above the standard bore-fest, I'll probably post something about it--but no promises.
Second, a lot of people are apparently curious as to whether I'm still as down on Gene Chizik as I was the day he was hired. The short answer is, ask me again in October, because it won't be until then that anybody has anything approximating a good idea about how the Chizik regime is going to work out.
The longer answer is, we'll see. I am encouraged by the new coaching staff. I like pretty much everybody Chizik has hired, and more importantly, people who know a lot more about X's and O's than I do are very impressed by these assistants. Given the likelihood that with a merely mediocre offense, Auburn would have won at least eight games and played on New Year's Day last year, and the near certainty that the incoming offensive staff is light-years more competent than the one most recently departed, there are reasons for optimism.
As I just noted, I'm about as far from a "recruitnik" as you can get, but I do think Chizik and his staff did as well as could reasonably be expected this year, given that they only had six weeks on the job. Once again, people with more knowledge (and frankly, interest) in the subject than I possess like what they've seen, and that's likely a good thing.
All that understood, the jury is obviously still out until Chizik has several games under his belt as Auburn's head coach. I'm not going to go all sunshine-pumpery here and declare that I was nuts to think hiring a guy with a 10-game losing streak was a bad idea. To be perfectly honest, the reports out of Iowa regarding chaos on the sidelines and poor game planning still scare me to death. As an alumnus and life-long fan, I'm quite happy to be supportive of the team , but the coaches have to earn it, especially a coach who comes in with a less-than-stellar (let's be honest here--really awful) track record.
So, like I said, ask me again in October.
First, if it weren't already pretty obvious, FTB tends to be dormant during the off-season. Believe it or not, I do try to not write here (or elsewhere) if I don't actually have anything to say, and since recruiting just doesn't interest me (having gone to the same high school as Alan Evans and Charlie Dare--two of the biggest flops in recruiting history--pretty much cured me of that malady), I really don't have a whole lot pertinent to note about Auburn or SEC football in general right now. I do plan to go to A-Day in April, and assuming it rises above the standard bore-fest, I'll probably post something about it--but no promises.
Second, a lot of people are apparently curious as to whether I'm still as down on Gene Chizik as I was the day he was hired. The short answer is, ask me again in October, because it won't be until then that anybody has anything approximating a good idea about how the Chizik regime is going to work out.
The longer answer is, we'll see. I am encouraged by the new coaching staff. I like pretty much everybody Chizik has hired, and more importantly, people who know a lot more about X's and O's than I do are very impressed by these assistants. Given the likelihood that with a merely mediocre offense, Auburn would have won at least eight games and played on New Year's Day last year, and the near certainty that the incoming offensive staff is light-years more competent than the one most recently departed, there are reasons for optimism.
As I just noted, I'm about as far from a "recruitnik" as you can get, but I do think Chizik and his staff did as well as could reasonably be expected this year, given that they only had six weeks on the job. Once again, people with more knowledge (and frankly, interest) in the subject than I possess like what they've seen, and that's likely a good thing.
All that understood, the jury is obviously still out until Chizik has several games under his belt as Auburn's head coach. I'm not going to go all sunshine-pumpery here and declare that I was nuts to think hiring a guy with a 10-game losing streak was a bad idea. To be perfectly honest, the reports out of Iowa regarding chaos on the sidelines and poor game planning still scare me to death. As an alumnus and life-long fan, I'm quite happy to be supportive of the team , but the coaches have to earn it, especially a coach who comes in with a less-than-stellar (let's be honest here--really awful) track record.
So, like I said, ask me again in October.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
YAW YAW YAW YAW YAW YAW YAW YAW--CORNDOGS!
He's baaaaack! From the Lafayette, LA Advertiser:
UPDATE: Or not. Via Bruce Feldman:
New Orleans Saints defensive line coach Ed Orgeron is expected to join LSU's staff as its highest paid assistant coach with the title of associate head coach along with recruiting coordinator and defensive line coach.Lester and the Ogre on the same staff? Break out the popcorn.
UPDATE: Or not. Via Bruce Feldman:
Ed Orgeron is headed to Tennessee.Suffice to say, this is a very disappointing turn of events. Ogre at LSU would have been a lot funnier.
The former Ole Miss head coach, who spent the 2008 season as the New Orleans Saints defensive line coach, confirmed via text message this afternoon that he has accepted an offer to be the Volunteers recruiting coordinator, defensive line coach and will have the title of associate head coach.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Please Disregard the Prior Post
All that stuff about "don't panic" and "they sky is not falling" and "Auburn will hire a good coach?" Never mind all that. Dogs and cats are, in fact, living together in the luxury suites of Jordan-Hare Stadium.
Via Rivals.com:
For Auburn's program, he will be the equivalent of Mike DuBose, although hopefully without the cheating.
This is a terrible hire, and a monstrously bad decision on the part of an Athletic Director who shouldn't be put in charge of managing a janitorial staff of two, much less a multi-million dollar athletics program.
I don't say this lightly, but, Fire Jay Jacobs. And while you're at it, fire his buddy Tim Jackson, who inexplicably was invited along for the interviews, despite the fact that Jackson is Auburn's... ticket manager. That makes as much sense as asking a halfwit greenskeeper to sit in on interviews for a corporate CEO.
Via Rivals.com:
Iowa State's Gene Chizik will be the next Auburn coach, Rivals.com has learned. Chizik has been the coach of the Cyclones the last two years, compiling a 5-19 record. Iowa State finished 2-10 (0-8 in the Big 12) in 2008.News that this might happen broke this morning, but I could not bring myself to take it seriously. Gene Chizik is almost certainly the worst candidate interviewed during this utter farce of a coaching search. He is a poor recruiter who has completely failed to date as a head coach. Chizik's own friends in the coaching community openly scoff at the idea of him being a head coach for a major program.
For Auburn's program, he will be the equivalent of Mike DuBose, although hopefully without the cheating.
This is a terrible hire, and a monstrously bad decision on the part of an Athletic Director who shouldn't be put in charge of managing a janitorial staff of two, much less a multi-million dollar athletics program.
I don't say this lightly, but, Fire Jay Jacobs. And while you're at it, fire his buddy Tim Jackson, who inexplicably was invited along for the interviews, despite the fact that Jackson is Auburn's... ticket manager. That makes as much sense as asking a halfwit greenskeeper to sit in on interviews for a corporate CEO.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Pill Of Chillness
Coaching changes are by definition turbulent times, but this is just way over the top:
As little fun as the last three months have been, matters on the Plains are not even remotely as bad as during 1977-80, or 1991-92, or in the even-worse-than-this-year debacle of 1998. The NCAA is not on campus (well, not on our campus). Auburn has won significant football games within the last 13 months. The conditioning program has not collapsed. The Auburn City Jail is not having to rent out apartments on Magnolia Avenue to get a place to put all the arrested football players.
Things. Have Been. Much. Worse.
It's been a week since Tuberville resigned/was fired/what the hell, left. A week is not an indication of biblical disaster. Dogs and cats are not living together in the luxury suites of Jordan-Hare. Everybody obviously wants to see some resolution to the coaching search as soon as possible, but people, we are not on a deadline. There's no bowl to practice for, and no reason to panic just because there hasn't been a press conference on the schedule that you (and I) would have preferred.
This is a crazy situation, but if the 1990's taught Auburn fans anything, it should have been not to get emotionally attached to football coaches. Fact of life, they will come and they will go. If it makes you feel any better (and it should), they actually tend to stay longer at Auburn than in most other stops in this conference.
Now, is Jay Jacobs my idea of the perfect athletic director? Not in the least. Am I thrilled with the way things have gone over the last week-to-a-year? Hell, no. But get a grip, people. The sky is not falling. It's a job search. It's not Armageddon. Take the pill of chillness, and leave the blind coach-idolatry to others. Auburn will have another head coach before long, and if history is any guide, he'll probably be a good one.
If I may close by quoting from Say Anything, "Chill! You must chill!"
Today, Auburn finds itself in its deepest abyss in school history.As Gretzky said to Bo, "No."
As little fun as the last three months have been, matters on the Plains are not even remotely as bad as during 1977-80, or 1991-92, or in the even-worse-than-this-year debacle of 1998. The NCAA is not on campus (well, not on our campus). Auburn has won significant football games within the last 13 months. The conditioning program has not collapsed. The Auburn City Jail is not having to rent out apartments on Magnolia Avenue to get a place to put all the arrested football players.
Things. Have Been. Much. Worse.
It's been a week since Tuberville resigned/was fired/what the hell, left. A week is not an indication of biblical disaster. Dogs and cats are not living together in the luxury suites of Jordan-Hare. Everybody obviously wants to see some resolution to the coaching search as soon as possible, but people, we are not on a deadline. There's no bowl to practice for, and no reason to panic just because there hasn't been a press conference on the schedule that you (and I) would have preferred.
This is a crazy situation, but if the 1990's taught Auburn fans anything, it should have been not to get emotionally attached to football coaches. Fact of life, they will come and they will go. If it makes you feel any better (and it should), they actually tend to stay longer at Auburn than in most other stops in this conference.
Now, is Jay Jacobs my idea of the perfect athletic director? Not in the least. Am I thrilled with the way things have gone over the last week-to-a-year? Hell, no. But get a grip, people. The sky is not falling. It's a job search. It's not Armageddon. Take the pill of chillness, and leave the blind coach-idolatry to others. Auburn will have another head coach before long, and if history is any guide, he'll probably be a good one.
If I may close by quoting from Say Anything, "Chill! You must chill!"
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Morning Update
Obviously, yesterday's rumor about an afternoon press conference did not pan out, and the AU coaching search is apparently still going on. As Jerry noted, it would have been logistically unlikely for anything to happen yesterday anyway, as Jay Jacobs was still in New York City until late in the day. It'd be pretty hard to imagine Auburn announcing a new head coach from a ballroom in Manhattan.
Then again, as improbable ideas go, even the Emperor Highly Unlikely would have had a hard time wrapping his brain around today's wild rumor, namely that Steve Spurrier is in the mix for the Auburn job. My initial take is that Visor Boy on the Plains is kind of fun to talk about, but I really seriously doubt it would happen. Spurrier is in his sixties, doesn't like to recruit, and frankly has looked beaten down over the past three or four years. When he does step down in Columbia, I think it's going to be to play golf, not to take another coaching job.
Then again, as improbable ideas go, even the Emperor Highly Unlikely would have had a hard time wrapping his brain around today's wild rumor, namely that Steve Spurrier is in the mix for the Auburn job. My initial take is that Visor Boy on the Plains is kind of fun to talk about, but I really seriously doubt it would happen. Spurrier is in his sixties, doesn't like to recruit, and frankly has looked beaten down over the past three or four years. When he does step down in Columbia, I think it's going to be to play golf, not to take another coaching job.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Rumor Du Jour
The interwebs are burning up with rumors of an impending announcement at Auburn, reportedly as soon as this afternoon. File it under "I read it on the internet--so it must be true" for the time being, but things might just be taking a Turner--uh, I mean, turn for the better.
On The Search
Here's a quick rundown on where I think we stand with Auburn's coaching search at this particular moment. Things can (and probably will) change without notice:
The current frontrunner for the job is Buffalo's Turner Gill. Gill vaulted up to favorite status after leading the formerly hapless Bulls to an improbable MAC championship in just his third year on the job. I think I'm safe in saying that Gill is the Auburn fan favorite right now. His ascension was strongly aided by Will Muschamp's apparent decision to rely on Texas's promise that he will succeed Mack Brown in Austin--even while reports continue to circulate indicating the defensive wunderkind is still in contention at Auburn.
I would be happy with either Gill or Muschamp. The upsides are obvious; they're both widely respected among their peers, both are energetic and inspiring leaders, both are strong on their respective X's and/or O's, and both are obviously going to be major-program head coaches in the near future. The added plus for Muschamp is his life-long background in SEC football and prior stints at Auburn. In Gill's case you'd have a nationally-known figure who in addition to bringing in a wave of good PR, would arrive without the baggage of one James Sexton, Esq.
On the down side, Muschamp would return to the Plains with Sexton in tow, and given Muschamp's recent employment history, Auburn could look forward to further rounds of "will he bolt?" stories engineered by the uber-agent on a very regular basis. Given the way Muschamp did bolt from Auburn just under a year ago, there's also the question of whether Muschamp could work under current athletic director Jay Jacobs--but that's a problem easily solvable by just hiring a different AD. Jacobs is hardly indispensable. The 37-year-old Muschamp has also never been a head coach, and would bring the additional annoyance of being younger than me.
In Gill's case, the big question is whether one really good year at Buffalo is proof of head coaching genius, or just of a guy who had the ball bounce his way at the right times. The SEC quite obviously isn't the MAC, and Gill would be under pressure to produce at Auburn right now, not a few years down the line. Gill has few if any recruiting contacts in the Southeast, and nobody knows what kind of staff he would bring in as a head coach. Buffalo's defensive team was pretty awful, and questions are already being raised about whether Gill would retain his current defensive coordinator (Jimmy Williams) or bring in a "top gun" to take over the job Paul Rhoades is most likely vacating.
Regarding other names in the news recently, Rodney Garner and Patrick Nix are not serious candidates. They're getting interviews out of courtesy for their status as AU alums in the job market, and to help their future careers. Neither will be the next head coach at Auburn. As noted below, while it's possible that somebody at AU actually was stupid enough to consider Houston Nutt as a candidate, Nutt is not going to get the job, either; the flurry of Nutt-ism late last week was another example of Sexton's patented media manipulation to squeeze more money out of this clients' employers--and yet another reason not to hire another of Sexton's clients.
I don't think Ball State's Brady Hoke is a serious candidate, either, even given ESPN's apparent determination to push Hoke's name into the ring. While I agree with Jerry that Cincinnati's Brian Kelly would be a strong candidate and probably a good hire, I've seen no evidence to date that he's either being considered for or considering the job. One suspects he's holding out for the well-nigh inevitable departure of one Charlie The Hutt from Notre Dame instead.
This leaves us with but two remaining names, those of Florida State's Jimbo Fisher and Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson. Yesterday, Phillip Marshall asked (quite reasonably) what would be wrong with a coach who's already been named as heir-apparent head coach for FSU, an undeniably big-time program. Fisher is obviously well-respected as a coach; Alabama's trustee overlord Cub Bryant was sufficiently concerned about Fisher getting the head job at UAB a couple of years back to torpedo what was considered a done deal. As I've noted in the past, Fisher is a terrific quarterback coach; anybody who could take Stan White and Patrick Nix and win nearly 30 games in three years clearly knows what he's doing.
But despite a series of non-denial denials and being the favorite of at least one Auburn trustee (one who favors a certain primary color that is not red or blue), I suspect Fisher probably isn't going to get the job. For one thing, he'd cost a fortune to get, over $5 million to buy out his FSU contract by some reports. For another, he's also a Sexton client (meaning Auburn would go through Sexton's goat-rope again when Bobby Bowden finally shambles off the field), and finally (and perhaps unfairly), because he has that Bowden stink on him. A decade after Terry Bowden's ignominious departure, much of Auburn wants nothing to do with either Bobby's brood or their disciples, and even given Fisher's obvious fondness for AU, I think that's one strike too many against him.
That leaves us with Johnson, who is apparently (and unsurprisingly) the favorite of former coach Pat Dye. There's a lot to like about Johnson. Like Gill, he's been able to win in places where normally nobody can win. His tenure at Navy and first year at Tech were inspiring to watch, and anybody who could take a bunch of players recruited by Chan Gailey for an entirely different offense and score 45 on Georgia in his first time out can damn well coach.
Thing is, as much fun as Johnson's offense is to watch (especially for those of us who grew up on option football), the general suspicion is that no matter how good you are at running a triple option attack, you're never going to break through with it in the SEC. There's a reason why nobody outside of talent-starved Vanderbilt has even tried a traditional option offense since the mid-80's. As good and accomplished as he is, a Johnson hire would be widely seen as a step back to the past for Auburn, and it's very hard for me to see how Johnson's offense would attract any more playmakers than AU has right now (which is to say, very few). And even given all that, there's no indication that Johnson would actually bolt from Atlanta after just one year.
The current frontrunner for the job is Buffalo's Turner Gill. Gill vaulted up to favorite status after leading the formerly hapless Bulls to an improbable MAC championship in just his third year on the job. I think I'm safe in saying that Gill is the Auburn fan favorite right now. His ascension was strongly aided by Will Muschamp's apparent decision to rely on Texas's promise that he will succeed Mack Brown in Austin--even while reports continue to circulate indicating the defensive wunderkind is still in contention at Auburn.
I would be happy with either Gill or Muschamp. The upsides are obvious; they're both widely respected among their peers, both are energetic and inspiring leaders, both are strong on their respective X's and/or O's, and both are obviously going to be major-program head coaches in the near future. The added plus for Muschamp is his life-long background in SEC football and prior stints at Auburn. In Gill's case you'd have a nationally-known figure who in addition to bringing in a wave of good PR, would arrive without the baggage of one James Sexton, Esq.
On the down side, Muschamp would return to the Plains with Sexton in tow, and given Muschamp's recent employment history, Auburn could look forward to further rounds of "will he bolt?" stories engineered by the uber-agent on a very regular basis. Given the way Muschamp did bolt from Auburn just under a year ago, there's also the question of whether Muschamp could work under current athletic director Jay Jacobs--but that's a problem easily solvable by just hiring a different AD. Jacobs is hardly indispensable. The 37-year-old Muschamp has also never been a head coach, and would bring the additional annoyance of being younger than me.
In Gill's case, the big question is whether one really good year at Buffalo is proof of head coaching genius, or just of a guy who had the ball bounce his way at the right times. The SEC quite obviously isn't the MAC, and Gill would be under pressure to produce at Auburn right now, not a few years down the line. Gill has few if any recruiting contacts in the Southeast, and nobody knows what kind of staff he would bring in as a head coach. Buffalo's defensive team was pretty awful, and questions are already being raised about whether Gill would retain his current defensive coordinator (Jimmy Williams) or bring in a "top gun" to take over the job Paul Rhoades is most likely vacating.
Regarding other names in the news recently, Rodney Garner and Patrick Nix are not serious candidates. They're getting interviews out of courtesy for their status as AU alums in the job market, and to help their future careers. Neither will be the next head coach at Auburn. As noted below, while it's possible that somebody at AU actually was stupid enough to consider Houston Nutt as a candidate, Nutt is not going to get the job, either; the flurry of Nutt-ism late last week was another example of Sexton's patented media manipulation to squeeze more money out of this clients' employers--and yet another reason not to hire another of Sexton's clients.
I don't think Ball State's Brady Hoke is a serious candidate, either, even given ESPN's apparent determination to push Hoke's name into the ring. While I agree with Jerry that Cincinnati's Brian Kelly would be a strong candidate and probably a good hire, I've seen no evidence to date that he's either being considered for or considering the job. One suspects he's holding out for the well-nigh inevitable departure of one Charlie The Hutt from Notre Dame instead.
This leaves us with but two remaining names, those of Florida State's Jimbo Fisher and Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson. Yesterday, Phillip Marshall asked (quite reasonably) what would be wrong with a coach who's already been named as heir-apparent head coach for FSU, an undeniably big-time program. Fisher is obviously well-respected as a coach; Alabama's trustee overlord Cub Bryant was sufficiently concerned about Fisher getting the head job at UAB a couple of years back to torpedo what was considered a done deal. As I've noted in the past, Fisher is a terrific quarterback coach; anybody who could take Stan White and Patrick Nix and win nearly 30 games in three years clearly knows what he's doing.
But despite a series of non-denial denials and being the favorite of at least one Auburn trustee (one who favors a certain primary color that is not red or blue), I suspect Fisher probably isn't going to get the job. For one thing, he'd cost a fortune to get, over $5 million to buy out his FSU contract by some reports. For another, he's also a Sexton client (meaning Auburn would go through Sexton's goat-rope again when Bobby Bowden finally shambles off the field), and finally (and perhaps unfairly), because he has that Bowden stink on him. A decade after Terry Bowden's ignominious departure, much of Auburn wants nothing to do with either Bobby's brood or their disciples, and even given Fisher's obvious fondness for AU, I think that's one strike too many against him.
That leaves us with Johnson, who is apparently (and unsurprisingly) the favorite of former coach Pat Dye. There's a lot to like about Johnson. Like Gill, he's been able to win in places where normally nobody can win. His tenure at Navy and first year at Tech were inspiring to watch, and anybody who could take a bunch of players recruited by Chan Gailey for an entirely different offense and score 45 on Georgia in his first time out can damn well coach.
Thing is, as much fun as Johnson's offense is to watch (especially for those of us who grew up on option football), the general suspicion is that no matter how good you are at running a triple option attack, you're never going to break through with it in the SEC. There's a reason why nobody outside of talent-starved Vanderbilt has even tried a traditional option offense since the mid-80's. As good and accomplished as he is, a Johnson hire would be widely seen as a step back to the past for Auburn, and it's very hard for me to see how Johnson's offense would attract any more playmakers than AU has right now (which is to say, very few). And even given all that, there's no indication that Johnson would actually bolt from Atlanta after just one year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)