He needs an SEC war machine to provide the muscle.
Do you hear any coaches saying they want to emulate his offensive scheme? No. Plenty talk generally about a brand of physical football. Few seriously thinks his power running game is schematically superior. Just that they block and cut better than anyone else at the moment.
end of story.
Granted, the academic requirements are different, and Notre Dame's graduation rate, at 97%, is in a class by itself among football powers. However, as one example only, Alabama's latest APR and graduation rates were higher than all but one Pac-12 school's (Stanford's), and equal to or better than all but three to four (depending on which measure) Big 10 programs'.
My point is not that Alabama is an academic powerhouse, but rather that, objectively, the NCAA data indicate no clear inverse correlation at Alabama (or overall) between academics and football success.
Unless Saban fakes their grades.
not sure that explains it all
Great coaches have great methods. It's not formulaic, or something you can copy, it's primarily the force of the man, his drive and his influence on the people around him. That's why these guys can quit and go somewhere else and turn programs around in 1-2 yrs (see Urbie at tOSU).
When Saban leaves Bama, they will collapse back to normalcy.
starting in 2009 and that's when Meyer had his team running at a high level with the Heisman trophy winner. Florida was #1 and Saban beat them 32-13.
The Tide held the ball for nearly 40 minutes and piled up 490 yards against a defense that was ranked No. 1 in the country, allowing less than 10 points and about 233 yards per game.
Suddenly Meyer had issues. The next year Alabama crushed UF 31-6. They were up 24-0.
From a program perspective, Alabama is better now than USC or Florida was. 3 titles in 4 years hasn't been done since Leahy.
What's really impressive to me is that, of the last 7 seasons Saban has coached in college, he was won 4 national titles.
Easy way to needle Huskers.
over-signing, alleged NCAA violations and all the rest. But the fact of the matter was that they were a mess from the end of the Stallings until Saban's second year. In fact, they really weren't consistently good post-Bryant until Saban showed up. Here are their records (I'll note their sanctioned records in parentheses).
1983: 8-4 (Coach: Perkins)
1984: 5-6 (Perkins)
1985: 9-2-1 (Perkins)
1986: 10-3 (Perkins)
1987: 7-5 (Curry)
1988: 9-3 (Curry)
1989: 10-2 (Curry)
1990: 7-5 (Stallings)
1991: 11-1 (Stallings)
1992: 13-0 (Stallings, National Champs)
1993: 9-3-1 (Stallings; NCAA record 1-12 due to use of ineligible player)
1994: 12-1 (Stallings)
1995: 8-3 (Stallings)
1996: 10-3 (Stallings)
1997: 4-7 (DuBose)
1998: 7-5 (DuBose)
1999: 10-3 (DuBose)
2000: 3-8 (DuBose)
2001: 7-5 (Franchione)
2002: 10-3 (Franchione)
2003: 4-9 (Shula)
2004: 6-6 (Shula)
2005: 10-2 (Shula; NCAA record 0-2 due to sanctions)
2006: 6-7 (Shula, Kines: NCAA record 0-7 due to sanctions)
2007: 7-6 (Saban; NCAA record 2-6 due to sanctions)
Alabama was extremely impatient post Bryant, beheading coaches after 9 and 10-win seasons. The worst was getting rid of Stallings, in a Davie-like coup led by Mike DuBose who convinced Alabama trustees that he could do better than Stallings (he couldn't). The vacated games under Stallings weren't alleged to be part of a massive cheating scandal; a star DB of theirs (forget his name) was under contract with an agent. DuBose, however, was a serial cheater, especially when he figured out that it wasn't as easy to coach at a high level as he thought. But in that 25-year span, they had 12 seasons where they lost 4 or more games, and 6 losing seasons even if you forget about the sanctions.
The fact is that when they had their one very good coach in that stretch (Stallings) they managed one national championship. It's only once they got one of the best coaches in college football history that they became the monster they are.
crediting a coach's skill and acumen for a team's excellence.
ND fans tend to attribute an opponent's success to cheating or money or lax academics or lax admissions or junior college or "oversigning" or "roster management."
Saban's a better coach than Kelly. I can deal with that. We can't clone Saban. We already blew our chance to hire him (twice). He won't coach forever, and he's not impervious or immune to bad breaks, transfers, injuries, attrition, or just collapsing of the program's own weight.
We can win a NC with a coach not named Saban. He had a 4 year head start at Alabama over Kelly. Kelly will have a chance to close the gap. If he is to do so, he will have to improve as a coach - and will not be able to lean on any of the excuses proffered so readily by the Kellylovers.
are advantages or played a part in Alabama's success? No one's attributing all of Alabama's success to these things, that's a strawman dodge.
Given that Saban's pursuing them and still adding to these advantages, it's clear he values them.
So the answer isn't "all of the above have zero impact."
If the answer isn't zero and it isn't, what is the impact? That's the question ND has to answer.
Saban didn't add three extra analysts because he thought it was trivial. To completely discount them is non-sensical.
Kelly can certainly win a National Championship, Saban won't win them all, but Kelly cannot, IMO, put together a 3 of 4 year run like Saban's doing even if he coached at Saban's level. Kelly didn't and won't have the opportunity to plug in Terrance Cody in year 3 or Jesse Williams in year 5. Those two players played a critical part in Alabama's defense in all 3 title runs. Their impact wasn't zero.
Saban's built very strong program and is pressing his advantage.
far as I can tell nobody was discussing him prior to you mentioning it.
Watch--in a day or so you'll have a post complaining that people think Stoops could have done a better job in the bowl game preparation and you'll wonder why you have to "defend" Kelly from such attacks.
all angsty about?
To answer your question, Stoops was a "homerun candidate" one of the three advocated for here and by me FTR.
1. Andy argued above that we blew it four years ago by not hiring Saban, which isn't fully accurate if Andy wouldn't have argued we "blew it" if we'd hired Stoops. Which he wouldn't have. Choosing just Saban out of the bunch he advocated for is expedient.
2. If you buy #1 and I think that's pretty well documented, his real argument is that ND "blew it" by not hiring Stoops, Meyer or Saban three years ago.
> Given that we'd likely be in the same or worse position with Stoops (and running pass heavy spread I might add) as Kelly kicked his ass pretty well, notched an undefeated regular season and top 4 finish, #2 doesn't hold up.
So ND didn't blow it unless he changed his criteria, at least not as much as this thread blows.
I think you should have started your own thread on the subject rather than bringing Stoops into it.
on his part given the season we've had.
much less express one.
you should save your intellectual horsepower for important contributions such as: How come Kelly can't recruit an elite QB? There are 20 candidates better than Kelly... or the brilliant small-timey arguments that proved so prophetic.
The world must be careful to not lose or waste such a powerhouse of provocative thought.
Help us help you.
I agree with every word you wrote.
Bama is the preeminent program right now, no doubt. But look at how many mediocre hires Mal Moore made prior to Saban.
Mal's officially only responsible for:
- Dennis Franchione;
- Mike Price;
- Mike Shula; and
- Unsuccessfully pursuing Rich Rodriguez.
So from 1999-2007, Bama was about as bad as any program hiring coaches. But the period extends even before that because Moore wasn't responsible for the DuBose-Stallings coup.
People don't appreciate how hard it is to find the right guy. Bama was pretty fortunate in that regard.
The other advantage Bama has on other programs is they have an army of analysts. People wonder how Saban can mutilate teams when he has 4-5 weeks to prepare? Well, having an analyst staff of 20+ researchers helps (see link below).
There's nothing wrong with that. It just goes to show how far ahead Bama is in the whole process. It's not unfair, it's just venturing in unchartered territory and led by one of the best in the business, a guy that Tide fans are more than fortunate to have.
considered until now. I had always thought that the NCAA had the staffing issue well regulated to make sure the "haves" did not have a monumental advantage over the "have nots".
But like everything else the NCAA controls, they seem to have screwed this up also.
For all of these so called know it alls to basically say that none of this matters is a hoot. It takes one look at Nick Sabans record at MSU and the Dolphins to realize he is not some genius coach who is heads and shoulders above his peers. Nick and the folks at Alabama have pulled out all the stops and use all the tricks to win at all costs. They make and take every advantage and laugh at the gutless NCAA pretend to care about student athletes.
One other guy operates like this but Nick Saban beat his ass so badly he had to fake a medical problem to get the hell out of the SEC. And to the B1G where he could dominate.
We all know who that guy is.
And regarding preparation for bowl games, you might remember Alabama's QB spouting off after the game about the incredible number of hours the Bama coaches spent with the players before the NC game. Funny. I thought the number of hours coaches were allowed to spend with players was limited by rule of the NCAA? Wonder when that investigation will start?
The time McCarron was spending for film review was with "analysts" and not coaches on staff, so it does not technically count as "practice time." It's akin to a ND player spending extra hours lifting/working out with Longo. Because he's technically not on the football staff he isn't bound by the 20 hour limit. Similarly, he has access to the players in the summer when they are of limits to coaches.
It's a bit of a loophole but it's not illegal.
You mean the "NFL-caliber scouts"?
Look, I don't want to get confrontational with you. I wasn't pulling shit out of my ass, nor was I making excuses for our program. I was only pointing out that Alabama has a large number of support staff within its program. They don't have actual coaching responsibilities, nor are they counted against the staff total. Their primary focus is breaking down film and scouting. See page 56 of Bama's media guide linked below for a list of the support staff.
AJ McCarron mentioned one of these guys after the Michigan game:
He also showed that maturity this summer in breaking down film of all 2012 Crimson Tide opponents.
McCarron said he worked with Jeff Norrid, a graduate assistant football analyst. "He helps me a bunch," McCarron said. "He knows everything there is about defense. Through the summer we broke down each opponent, week-by-week, but probably in the past two or two-and-a-half weeks, we've watched a ton of film on Michigan. Then we are up here at least three to fours hours a day, an hour before practice and then after practice.
Similarly, Barrett Jones referenced film study that was prepared for Bama but didn't mention anyone specific by name:
"They're good because they are so simple," Jones said, "but, also, they're simple. We knew if we had certain shifts, they would get into certain formations that we felt like we would have good runs against. We were right -- every play, almost. This is not a flaw in Notre Dame. We watched a lot of film. We had a lot of time to figure out what they did in certain formations."
I am fairly confident, but happy to be proven wrong, no other program in college football has a similar number of "analysts" in their program who have such responsibilities. That's the only point I was trying to make. Bama is on another level when it comes to game preparation, especially in circumstances where they are given substantial amount of lead time to integrate and implement counter strategy for opposing teams' tendencies (i.e. 4-5 weeks).
You don't constantly have to always be a dick about this kind of stuff. Seriously, you don't.
Exactly how many analysts constitute an "army"?
Are you certain that nobody in the ND football office's employ does not perform the same task?
How many people are employed on ND's football office staff?
Avoid hyperbole, and then nobody will throw your bullshit words back in your face.
But Bama has at least 13 guys with some variation of an analyst/intern/assistant type role that are listed as support staff, not among the coaching staff.
According to ND's media guide, roughly 3 such comparisons might be able to claim some comparability to Bama's situation (Ernest Jones, Tim McDonnell, and Dave Peoloquin). But I am pretty sure that Tim and Dave are pretty involved in the recruiting efforts also. So it's hard to say that's even completely comparable.
Most of these schools have pretty informative media guides that at least hint at who is hired in the program and a description of their responsibilities. Looking at most of the major elite programs, most don't have near the number of research/support staff that Bama lists on its roster.
20+ employees who are solely dedicated to breaking down film would seem like a pretty solid number. Does that mean an "army"? I don't know. But it's certainly materially more than you can find with any other program. I think the Texas article originally linked exaggerated Bama's number, though, which is what I based my original comment on. I think it's more like 12-15, still considerably more than other elite programs, however.
they didn't need an army of analysts to prep for ND.
Our offense was vanilla and our defense was vanilla. If our defense had played a bit better we would have been all right there (we were in good position most of the time and just came up short for whatever reason) but I doubt we would have done anything more offensively. We had a shit gameplan there.
Their army didn't really help them much there and I doubt it helps much against teams like LSU that run very vanilla schemes.
But a lot of teams have had "shit gameplans" against Bama when all the marbles have been on the line and Bama has had time to prepare.
I think the latter part of the criteria is especially important. It's interesting you'd reference LSU and the lack of scouting help necessary for vanilla schemes.
I don't know why but people conveniently ignore that LSU got the shit kicked out of them in the 2011 BCS national championship game. It was every bit the ass kicking ND received. 21-0 doesn't even do the game justice. LSU crossed the 50 yard line once and it was with 8 minutes left to play, where the proceeded to turn the ball over.
How is it that LSU could beat Bama in Tuscaloosa a couple months earlier in the season 9-6? Further, how was it that LSU pissed a game down their legs to Bama 21-17 in Death Valley for the 2012 season? Did LSU simply have a lapse in the game that feel between the 2 regular season contests?
LSU rarely has a good game plan. But Bama really only exploited, and rather embarrassed, LSU's plan in the title match up. I don't think that's all that coincidental.
Tell me what you think about the quality of our offensive game plan against Alabama. To do so, you will need to describe exactly what it was.
Because once we were down 14 points, we likely had to abandon any semblance of an effective offensive plan. Whatever it was, it didn't work.
But that's not really my point. Bama could have beaten LSU by more points too in the NCG in 2011.
I understood this thread to be about Alabama's advantages in college football. Having the best coach in the game is one of those advantages, IMHO.
And not only is that guy the best coach but he knows how to implement processes within his program to increase his advantage over the competition. That's all I was trying to point out, which is to say nothing about Notre Dame or its gameplan.
Alabama had an excellent offensive and defensive game plan.
We did not.
We didn't adjust well in the game - 1st half or second half.
Saban is a better coach, was better prepared, and ate Kelly for lunch.
It was no accident that his team was better prepared or that it played better. The extent to which you and SEE and others attribute those realities to "processes" like analyst armies and the like is pathetic.
I agree with those realities. I merely pointed out that having a number of analysts is a byproduct of Saban's superior coaching and organizational skills. Seriously, that's what I've said.
My point wasn't to debate the merits of, or lack thereof, ND's gameplan, which was inferior to Alabama's.
If you must, we had one possession in between the 14-0 route. We threw 3 straight passes. I don't know what that says about the overall gameplan. The third pass was an incompletion to Eifert, and looked controversial from my vantage point (which was likely worse than someone who was watching from home).
it is that Bama had marched down the field and delivered an impressive first punch to our defense and our offense had second and 2 and threw the ball deep twice in a row; controversial call or not, I think that you really should play for the first down there and give your defense a chance to regroup when you're on the biggest stage and you've never been there before.
I think a first down could have helped, but I think we got a first down too.
But regardless, this entire thread had nothing to do with Kelly's offensive gameplan. Similar to you taking exception to SEE above introducing Bob Stoops into the conversation, Andy is guilty of the same behavior.
Brian Kelly and the Notre Dame football program had nothing to do with this thread. This was about "How does Alabama do it?" For whatever reason, Andy felt compelled to bring Brian Kelly into the conversation. It was totally unnecessary and simply another opportunity to take a gratuitous shot at Kelly.
I agree with Andy that ND was outcoached. What more can I say about that? That this subthread even carried on was more a product of Andy wanting to continue to show BK's inferiority when compared to Saban. But nearly every college football coach has that same problem with the Saban comparison.
You would have been able to see my post as a criticism of people like you and not Kelly.
I only offered up a relevant discussion point. It didn't fit your view of the world, so therefore I am a Kelly-fellating sycophant. Trust me I get your schtick.
Of course, my underlying point was ignored the entire time despite that I agreed with your greater issue that Saban is a superior coach. For whatever reason, you had to jump all over one aspect that his coaching superiority also leads to a better organizational process.
It wasn't the point of my post, simply a supporting point about Bama's dominance. But you juxtaposed it differently so that this could be about Kelly apologists versus ....frankly I don't know what....because I agreed that Saban is a superior coach.
tell you what our offensive gameplan was.
Let's not over analyze this, Domer99. Sometimes the most obvious answer is actually the correct answer.
Note: for purposes of this thread I am not arguing for a different gameplan. I am simply saying that it was pretty obvious what our gameplan was long before the game got out of reach.
Alabama played LSU twice in 2011/12. It's not as if LSU had 40 plus points in game one and zero in game two. I don't think they needed an army of analysts to break down the tendencies there (especially for the bowl game) nor do I think they needed that army against ND this year. The quote you provide supports that point.
Does it help? Sure, I suppose so. What also helps is preparing against vanilla schemes.
And I ask this honestly with no agenda or presumed answer in mind.
LSU played Bama pretty evenly in the 2 regular season contests. The NCG in between those 2 match ups wasn't even close. Did Bama need an army of analysts for the NCG? Maybe not, but there seemed to be a distinct advantage or dominance that didn't exist in the other games.
And Saban has a history of embarrassing teams when he's had time to prepare.
While at either LSU or Alabama, Saban has led 6 teams to BCS games. His teams are 5-1 in those games and a perfect 4-0 in "national championship" games. His one loss came when Bama lost the Sugar Bowl to Utah in 2008, which is somewhat understandable as the Tide went from potentially playing in the national championship to facing off against a non-BCS team in the Utes. I could see motivation being a factor in that game.
He just does not lose big games in the post-season when he has time to prepare.
It's because he was a better coach than most of his peers.
Maybe they had time to get guys healthy, maybe the players studied the tape more and/or had the experience of playing them the first time in their head, maybe LSU was distracted by more of Miles' nonsense and/or the qb situation.
I don't know, but saying that these analysts helped more than an average staff would help is giving them far too much credit. In 6 weeks the staff has plenty of time to break down tape and go over tendency and when you factor in that they'd already played and were likely very confident that LSU wasn't going to change much they could likely just rep what they knew would be run.
I do think that 5-7 weeks is too long to wait to play the game, if that matters.
I agree it's not an insurmountable advantage. Anybody can do it. And perhaps it isn't advantageous. IMHO, when you can outsource some of those laborious scouting aspects it frees assistants time to do other things like gameplanning, recruiting, and such.
It's obviously not scientific or dispositive by any means. It just strikes me as influential when the guy has shown such a pattern and propensity for beating teams regularly in the postseason, even teams that Bama might have struggled with during the regular season.
But all this stuff overlaps. If the staff has more time to scout, then the staff probably has more time to request other information and whatnot. If there's a team ready to research, process, analyze, whatever, I can see that being a helpful service.
it very well may be.
However, those advantages I would think will show up more during the regular season when teams and coaches are more pressed for time than they will show up in a post season game when there isn't as much of a time crunch.
I think it's harder to implement material adjustments with a day or 2 on the fly. Most practice schedules are pretty regimented where it can make significant changes to schemes or planning difficult.
As it is I think all the time the team has for practice is Tuesday through Thursday. Friday is largely a walk through.
But if you have a base scheme or competency, you probably don't want to deviate too much from that from week to week. But if you have 3 full weeks of practice to change and overhaul things, that would seem more advantageous fro exploiting another team's weaknesses.
From my perspective, it appears Bama's significant advantages tend come more from Saban (i.e. tactical) than from physical factors (i.e. pure talent). That's not to say Bama doesn't have superior strength or speed, but the types of athletes in Tuscaloosa are pretty similar to those in Gainesville or Baton Rouge or Athens.
So it probably tends to be a bunch of criteria that factor into their success. I just think the additional time allows Saban & Co. to fully digest and implement plans, schemes, tweaks, ect. whereas during a regular game week, it's more subtle adjustments.
when you have a staff of advance scouts that already have things broken down for you.
That's the advantage--this staff allegedly buys them extra time during the week (in season) not necessarily for the bowl games (when there is surplus time).
But I think it's harder to implement adjustments, especially major ones, when you are on a week-to-week basis. I get that it more efficiently preserves time in the regular season. But I don't think that the practice time is sufficient to continually overhaul game planning on a weekly basis. It's enough to exploit some things here or there.
And another thing regarding the regular season and the NCG, Bama's coaches are largely familiar with SEC opponents. There's probably less scouting/film they need during regular season versus an NCG against an unfamiliar opponent.
I am not saying you are wrong. Rather, Bama has been very good at exploiting weaknesses in the postseason, and moreso than they've been able to in the regular season. Is that coaching? Is that scouting? Is that more gameplanning? Does that mean more adjustments? Is it more motivation?
IMHO, it's some variation of all of the above.
In my experience, more time for coaches (instead of watching film and scouting) didn't really mean more adjustments in our gameplan. It might have added a wrinkle or 2 but the process largely stayed pretty consistent with regard to base offenses and defenses.
The only times when gameplanning changed dramatically was when facing an unconventional offense like an option. And then it made the process of getting back on schedule more challenging the following week.
4 weeks lead time is an eternity for game preparation. It's the equivalent of another preseason training camp.
I noticed you focused on Barrett Jones' comment but haven't said anything on the AJ McCarron blurb. There's a few things noteworthy about his comments:
- he was breaking down film in the summer with an analyst on a week-to-week basis. Coaches aren't allowed to have any contact with the players. Having numerous analysts on staff who can do this is an advantage. The only guy I've ever heard of referenced by ND's players as far as football related work during the summer is Longo. And it's either been in a strength & conditioning capacity or 7-on-7. I guess I'd prefer someone other than our S&C coach breaking down 7-on-7.
- Further, McCarron talked about breaking down film on Michigan with Norrid for 2.5 weeks prior to the game. You don't get that opportunity in the regular season. Michigan was the opener so there is ample time for breakdown.
And that's really my point. When Bama has nearly unlimited time to prepare, they've been successful and wildly so. We can debate the merits of how they do it, but I have to think that all of the restricted football staff time that is spent with the analysts isn't hurting the players much.
EDIT: So even if I accept your premise about scouting being more beneficial for the coaches during the regular season (which I am not completely sold on despite acknowledging the time efficiencies to be had), it's hard to ignore the benefits to the players outside of the allowable football practice time. That's a pretty material benefit for the program, one that few other elite programs have implemented...yet.
doesn't break the rules, Alabama is smart to give him whatever resources he needs.
They're playing to win and deserve it.
And I said that Saban's deployment of such processes is a credit to his acumen. He knows how and what it takes to win.
But the point being lost in some of this discussion is that it's not a SEC vs. college football discussion, it's Bama and everybody else. They are in rarefied air right now, moreso than USC was under Carroll, and it's primarily, if not solely, due to Saban.
that I know of (meaning oversigning, hiring non-coaching assistants, nutrition, bringing in leadership coaches, etc.)
Saban's created many of these advantages. If you read his approach, being a good "coach" is important, but he's great at creating the program.
I don't think other Alabama coaches created nor enjoyed the same advantages.
Texas, FSU, USC, and on and on wouldn't be as bad as they've been recently if there was such an advantage.
I don't mind folks pointing out discrepancies in program management and ethos, but the incessant whining about it I see hear and elsewhere is offputting.
Alabama is making their own advantages. The Texas site just penned a long article making the case for Texas to invest to keep up with Alabama.
No need to whine about it. Hell, Saban's doing what he's paid to do, create every advantage for his program. Good for him.
It would be negligent not to understand what he's doing, why he does these things and whether or not ND should invest in like methods.
He's doing something no coach has done in 65 years. It's remarkable. We can 'tee hee' about nutritionists and leadership coaches and make fun, while Saban keeps winning or take notice.
Again, no need to whine kudos to the victor and all that, but anyone who doesn't try to understand nor take heed of lessons learned deserves what they get, including ND.
Obviously Saban sees an advantage in using those schemes or else he wouldn't use them. Shouldn't ND take heed of those lessons?
That change could be implemented during spring ball.
at least on offense. I love their power game and how they play action off of it. See the conversations below this one.
I said from the outset that I think Kelly will need to change his offense and that he'll likely have a "Mack moment." It was the one thing I think Andy got right, though the secondary conversations about fullbacks were less useful and far off the mark.
To the point you're hinting at though, there's a big difference between having more players and more staff and choice of scheme. I don't think those are equal. Extra players are a definitive advantage. Scheme is more subjective and I think less meaningful. I believe it was Meyer who said the focus on style of offense is overblown, that it's about execution.
Offensive style is more the asshole/opinion conversation to me, everyone has an opinion on style including myself, but it's such a gray area.
Saban wears red, I don't think that's something Kelly should imitate.
Posts like this. You stake out a point in your subject line, and then spend the rest of the post either mitigating it or obfuscating it with irrelevancies.
You rail about "secondary conversations", but those are the conversations where the people who have adopted actual, specific philosophical positions use those positions to determine their opinions on related topics. If you think Brian Kelly should use a blocking back in the ground game because you believe he should tailor his offense to be more like Saban's, then that's what you say. It doesn't make it "less useful and far off the mark", it's the natural progression of adult conversation.
conversation dumber than it needs to be and trying to herd everyone into little corrals of thought.
Here's the salient overarching point on Kelly's offense: "Teams have won with the spread at a high level so I can't argue definitively or even strongly that it won't or can't work."
I do have a preference and opinion, but this is the asshole conversation to me. So does everyone else, but I don't think anyone has a clue on this issue. I don't like Kelly's offense, but I have to acknowledge that it's been successful.
When it comes to offensive scheme we're all stumbling around blind. I have an opinion and I'm happy to share it, but I don't think anyone's opinion, including my own, is worth much on this issue which is why I'll argue back against definitive statements like, "Kelly needs to run an Alabama offense." I like Alabama's offense, but I don't think it's necessary.
I have no idea why this causes so much angst.
The fullback conversation was inane because the team cited stopped using the fullback and was very successful. The team was Alabama.
You goddamned moron.
power team, which was implied. Alabama uses two tight ends far more.
You can't understand posts to begin with, so it's inevitable that you aren't able to recall posts with any accuracy or reliability either.
The NCAA is a freaking joke.
Gaming the system is an art form at Bama.
I really do wonder if any team can catch them. More players, more staff and more willingness to push the rules, combine that with the best coaching and they'll be tough to catch. I think Urban is the only guy who can catch him from a program perspective.
"The usual cries of outrage already ring from the rafters, as Saban is taken to task for oversigning and managing a college football program like an NFL team. But is anyone surprised at this point that Alabama manages his roster in this manner?
This far into Saban’s tenure at the Capstone, there is no mystery as to how the Alabama program is run. It is one of the most successful, most lucrative college teams in the nation, and has the ability to pick from among the very best athletes in the country. Any young man with talent and skill has to consider Alabama as a potential place to play college football, and knows that doing so at a high level is an almost guaranteed ticket to riches in the NFL.
Players also know that not everyone makes the cut. The constant bleating of sports media about oversigning doesn’t fall on deaf ears among high school athletes. They know who Saban is, and what he does. These are not the innocent babes some would have us believe."
These are not the innocent babes some would have us believe.
There's not too many positive interpretations that can come from that passage. Either it's suggesting that the players are tacitly complicit with the process because of benefits they receive. Or the other read is that these 17 or 18 year olds are informed of the process and should be smart enough to know that 40 and 50-year old coaches will be operating their system to be the most successful possible, even if that means taking advantage of youngsters' naivete.
It's the same old broken record, Switch Carroll for Saban and USC for Bama and we have the last great dynasty. We don't have to provide the cries of outrage against Bama; the SEC is full of Pat Garretts waiting for Saban to turn his back. Down goes Saban. Down goes Bama. A&M the next dynasty?
No one in the SEC would be willing to shine a light on 'Bama's well-oiled cash-funnelling-to-players machine because they are all doing the same thing themselves.
The SEC has a rich tradition of turning each other in whenever possible. Tennessee would do it in a heartbeat if they had even the slightest hint of improprieties.
What do you think was the source of all those rumors about Auburn a few years ago?
They will rip their throats out given the chance.
I really don't think they are cheating...pushing the absolute limits of what can be done? Sure. But they don't have to cheat.
I believe LSU, Ole Miss, and Auburn cheat their asses off. I think Florida is probably clean...they are too focused on making that last push into the top tier of public U's to deal with that bullshit any more. UGA may or may not be...tough to get a handle on them.
still suck or don't cheat too well.
Kentucky and Missouri, sure; Tennessee is still floundering around looking for the right coach, and Arkansas got "John L. Smith"-ed. Auburn sucked last year but won the NC in 2010. The rest went .500 or better, and the SEC had 6-7 teams ranked in any give week. Where's the sucking majority in the SEC?
You can't blow up Bama's program, because they'll blow you up in return.
see Saban having that problem because there is nothing to turn a blind eye to. It seems he has subscribed to authorized loopholes, and has turned that to his advantage. It is really going to be up to the recruits themselves to be reluctant to signing on to such a cutthroat situation.
watching the scene unfold. SEC member teams can't afford to sit back and watch however.
program, Saban has a significant advantage in almost every area.
I don't think he's going to burn out, because he has hired enough staff to take any excessive burden off of him.
When you lead the country in
> Roster numbers
> Staff numbers
> Leadership coaching
> Coaching acumen
> Physical approach
> Putting players in the NFL
you're going to be consistently successful over time. They'll have setbacks, but they've built a large cushion to absorb those.
They're not going to win every year, but they're going to have a shot every year. Scandal could bring them down, but I really think other schools are going to have to step up to catch them and I doubt they will.
I do like Sumlin @ A&M and think they'll be a power.
Alabama had one plus an intern.
Shouldn't ND have had the advantage?
I believe there were two issues:
1. ND didn't pay our nutritionist and lost her.
2. Bama players have all of their meals regulated vs. 1 for ND.
I might be wrong, but that's my recollection.
What about academics, graduation and preparing a young man for life after football? Even Bama has players that do not make it to NFL riches.
You sign with Bama and all you get is a football tryout. He games the system just enough to keep his APR numbers acceptable.
job is to coach the football team, not to graduate players, but Kelly's job is to graduate players and to have a good football team. The same can be said for the other successful--and many unsuccessful--schools; football first, academics only enough to qualify for football. In fact, many of the other schools penalize players if they take academics too seriously and it affects their football work. In my opinion, this priority difference at different schools makes a big difference in the product each school puts on the field, not the only difference, but a considerable one.
5th years, which allows the staff some leeway to "roster manage".
But one player like Jesse Williams or Terrance Cody can make a significant difference and Alabama has more cracks to get it right and a backstop with JCs.
They've got an advantage and are pressing it. Victor spoils.
And sound like a wuss.
Couple of articles on them
I cannot blame Saban for using oversigning and roster cuts ("Sign and Purge") to maximize the talent on his roster. He’s there to win games.
What I cannot understand is how any university president with an ounce of integrity and/or concern for the education of student-athletes can allow such a practice. One cannot honestly claim to care about the education of athletes while allowing your football program to yank a scholarship from a student-athlete in the midst of his undergraduate education in order to give it to a more promising incoming player. It is an abhorrent practice, and shame on the UA president and/or administration for allowing it.
[Yes, that's my comment, word for word, in the comment section of the article.]
be transferring and then clarified that the player had never actually communicated this to him, but that it was his assumption.
Think the little used player got the message?