SB Nation User Blog: PeteHoliday

Atlanta Freshmen Summer Send-Off Picnic

PeteHoliday — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:48:44 -0000

Atlanta Freshmen Summer Send-Off Picnic

On Sunday (June 28), the Alabama Alumni Association and Booster Club of Atlanta will be hosting a send-off party for the kids who are getting ready to matriculate to our fine University.

There will be Guthrie's chicken fingers and the club will be raffling off a pair of Virginia Tech tickets.

The cost to attend is $10 for members, $15 for non-members -- tickets must be purchased in advance. For more information, or to buy your tickets, check out the Bama in Atlanta website.

A Primer on the NCAA Sanctions

PeteHoliday — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:26:10 -0000

Over the past 24 hours, there has been no shortage of press on the sanctions handed down by the NCAA this week. There has also been no shortage of ill-informed comments from bloggers and "real" journalists alike. Rather than try to confront all of this ignorance where it exists, here's an easy-as-pie list to help you with the more complicated issues that may arise.

The Wins: There is a difference between a "vacated" win and a "forfeited" win. In both cases, the Alabama win will become an asterisked loss. The difference is in the record books of our opponents. Specifically, with a forfeit, the team that had previously had a check mark in the "loss" column, now has a win. With a vacated win, the team that really lost still has a loss, but now Alabama does, too. In this situation, the relevant Alabama wins were vacated, not forfeited. Which is to say: Sorry, Colorado, you didn't win your bowl game in 2007. Also of note, vacating the wins has no effect on Alabama's losses. Those all still stand. [Update: There's some discussion as to whether Alabama's affected wins turn into losses or just disappear entirely, and the NCAA manual is not really clear on that point.]

Repeat Violator Status and Probation: This may be the most common confusion. Probation is not the same as "repeat violator" status is not the same as a post-season ban. Probation is defined in the NCAA Bylaws at section 19.5.2.4. Within that section, the Bylaws define the conditions of a probationary period:

The committee . . . may identify possible conditions that an institution must satisfy during a probationary period. Such conditions shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to focus on the institution's administrative weaknesses detected in the case and shall include, but not be limited to, written reports from the institution pertaining to areas of concern to the committee . . ., in-person reviews of the institution's athletics policies and practices . . ., implementation of educational or deterrent programs, and audits for specific programs or teams.

In other words, probation from the NCAA is a lot like other kinds probation. It's a way for the NCAA to keep an eye on teams who have committed major violations. Violating probation can lead to more sanctions or an extension of the probationary period.

Repeat violator status, the bylaws for which you can find quoted here, comes up when an institution commits a major infraction within five years of the start of another major infraction's penalties. Note two things: the date of the original infraction doesn't matter -- repeat violator status starts with the punishment. Second, repeat violator status is in no way, shape, or form related to probation. If the NCAA instituted a 10 year probationary period, after five years of that had elapsed, further major infractions would not trigger the repeat violator status.

Finally, post-season bans are just a punishment that can be handed down for infractions. They are separate from probation. Alabama being placed on probation for the next three years will not stop the team from appearing in the SEC Championship Game or in a bowl game.

The Repeat Violator Status Enhanced the Punishments: No, it didn't. If you look at the relevant bylaws, you will find that the permitted enhancements afforded by "repeat violator" status are few and severe. The only two that impact the actual teams involved are the so-called "death penalty" and the post-season ban. The other two are purely administrative. A quote from the COI:

"Because of the institution's status as a repeat violator, the Committee on Infractions considered both a ban on postseason competition and the enhanced penalties for repeat violators," the NCAA report said. "The committee decided against those penalties because the violations were spread across several sports and other penalties, such as vacation of records, were more appropriate.

In other words: they considered the repeat violator enhancements, and decided against using them.

Lack of Institutional Control vs. Failure to Monitor: These are two distinct violations, with the former being far more serious than the latter. Alabama was not cited for "Lack of Institutional Control" but for failure to monitor. From the Committee on Infractions report:

[T]he committee strongly considered making a more serious finding of a lack of institutional control, rather than a failure to monitor. However, because the institution ultimately detected the violations and promptly reported them, the committee decided against making the more serious finding of lack of institutional control.

[Note: this section was added after the article was initially published --PH]

Them Cheatin' Bammers Sold Textbooks: No, they didn't. Even the most egregious offenders did little more than borrow books for friends. Alabama operates a "book loan" system for its athletes. What this means is that the athletes take the books for free at the beginning of the semester. At the end of the semester, they are required to either a) return the books or b) pay for the books. So even the athletes who borrowed thousands of dollars in books were not found to have profited in any way from it. To wit, from Mal Moore's statement (emphasis supplied): "No players gained financially or otherwise; no competitive advantage was gained; all of the books were returned."

Also worth noting: the NCAA went through Alabama's athletic department with a fine-toothed comb and found nothing suggestive of any other violations.

OMG, The Whole Athletic Department Was Cheating: No, it wasn't. The NCAA made a clear distinction between intentional and unintentional violators. The intentional violators numbered less than two dozen and spanned only a handful of sports. These are the folks who knew they were getting something they shouldn't. The unintentional violators filled the balance of those found to have received impermissable benefits. The vast majority of the sports contained only these types of violators.

The reason the violations were so widespread was because many of the unintentional violations were caused by Alabama Bookstore staff bundling recommended materials (which are not permitted to be paid-for by the university) with required materials in the players' book orders. The Athletic Department would send over class schedules, the bookstore staff would put the books into bags, and then the players would pick them up. It is likely that the players involved, even if they knew the rule about required/recommended books, had no idea that they had received recommended materials. They trusted the bookstore staff.

I will spare you my rant about the NCAA not allowing schools to pay for materials that the professors recommend.

The Ruling Lacked All Irony: Also false. All you have to do is to think back to that school down the road's Hop On Pop scandal. Isn't it interesting that the organization that is constantly chirping about looking out for what's best for student athletes can find only secondary violations when a school is handing out free grades to athletes, but the moment a player gets an extra textbook they start vacating records and considering post-season bans?

So there you have it: misconceptions and misunderstandings about the penalties and NCAA bylaws cleared up in one easy-to-reference summary.

TET's "Analysis" of Football Playoffs

PeteHoliday — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:31:11 -0000

TET's "Analysis" of Football Playoffs

This post is a perfect illustration of why I can't take the anti-playoff crowd seriously. Check the opening sentence of the third paragraph:

"It's amazing how many fans would want an immediate 64-team football playoff"

Really? Maybe I'm alone on this, but I've never met or heard of anyone thinking a 64 team playoff in college football would be a good idea ever, let alone immediately.

Of course, the rest of WEA's arguments are based on the ridiculous 64-team football playoff idea, which is a terrible one. When Todd and I had our chat about playoffs, this was one of the very issues I complained about: the straw-manning of college football playoffs.

So many playoff haters start with examples of challenges a playoff solution would face, exaggerate them, cherry-pick formats that suit those particular problems most poorly, and then conclude that playoffs wouldn't work.

I haven't yet figured out if this makes them incredibly clever and savvy PR types, or just impossibly dense.

Perspective on the Textbook "Scandal"

PeteHoliday — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:19:12 -0000

I've just finished my second read of the NCAA's Notice of Allegations and the University's 67-page response. Now that our rival fans are all atwitter with anticipation about scholarship reductions, bowl bans, and probation, it's time to take a look at some of the minor details that seem to have been passed over.

Major Violations

A lot of (digital) ink has been spilled about how these are major violations (for proper effect, use your "serious mom" voice). While that word is certainly a loaded one, it really doesn't mean a great deal. The NCAA Bylaws (19.02.2.1-2) define a major violation as anything that's not a secondary violation, and it defines a secondary violation as follows (emphasis supplied):

A secondary violation is a violation that is isolated or inadvertant (sic) in nature, provides or is intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage and does not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit. Multiple secondary violations by a member institution may collectively be considered as a major violation.

Whereas things like extra phone calls can either be major or secondary depending on their perceived benefit, one reading of that rule makes (literally) any "extra benefit" a major violation. As an aside, this is one of the reasons that the NCAA's enforcement history is so nonsensical -- their legislation is rife with subjective qualifiers and there's little in the way of direction as to what "significant" means.

That having been sorted out, let's take a look at what actually happened and what we can expect going forward from the NCAA. (Lots, lots more below the fold)

Failure to Monitor

In addition to the extra textbooks, the NCAA has alleged, and the University subsequently admitted, to a "failure to monitor". The interesting thing about this charge is how easy it is to get. Virtually any major violation is a candidate either for a "failure to monitor" charge or a "lack of institutional control" charge because neither of them require the level of severity that fans tend to assume. In this case, the University hasn't been charged with failing to monitor compliance in general, but failing to monitor a textbook distribution system.

In reading the document, it seems like the only thing the University could have done to properly monitor the system is to actually cross check the actual book purchases with the actual course schedule after the add/drop period has ended. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do, but when you stop to consider how many student athletes there are, it's not a trivial undertaking. Instead the University had devised a system that they believed would be compliant, and a few student athletes found a way around the system and spread that info to others.

As much as I think Mal Moore is a blind squirrel of an A.D. who found his proverbial nut with Saban, I'm not sure all the breathless "Thank God we have Jay Jacobs!" nonsense from the Plains is really all that compelling. Think about it this way, behind door number one, you have a "textbook scandal" but a coach with numerous trips to the SEC Title game and a National Championship on his resume. Behind door number two, you've got a coach with a 5-12 record and a buch of athletes who not only aren't buying extra textbooks, they might not need to buy any at all!

Yeah, y'all can keep Door #2. We're good here.

Required Materials

Almost nothing has been written about the fact that fully half of the reported violations are a direct result of bookstore personnel pre-packaging "recommended" or "optional" materials for the athletes, and not the athletes intentionally violating the book policy.

The basic process for athletes getting their books is something like this: the Athletic Department sends the bookstore a list of athletes. The bookstore pulls their schedules and then puts all of the books for that schedule in a bag. At pick-up time, the athletes show up and are given their bag of books.

Unfortunately, the NCAA has deemed that Universities can only pay for required textbooks, which means optional and "recommended" materials are out of bounds, so when the stressed-out, work-study employee is busy pulling books from the shelves, they were expected to actually look to see if each book was required or not. What was going on, instead, was that those kids were just going to the section where a particular class's books were and dropping one of everything into the bag.

The smallest reported violation, according to the documents, was $0.35 for a test booklet. Talk about a major violation.

Nothing but Textbooks

Every single item purchased outside of the NCAA rules was a legitimate educational item. Not always for the right people, but never anything like clothing, ipods, or computers. Which is to say that, even if these books were going to people who weren't eligible for them, the most they could really do is learn something with them. Thank God the NCAA is protecting us from that.

"But Pete!" you might exclaim, "I bet they took those extra books and sold them for a straight cash profit!"

Don't you worry your pretty little head about that, dear reader. As was stated numerous times in the documents, nobody made a single penny from the system. Because of the University's book loan system, any textbooks which weren't returned had to be paid for by the student athlete who "borrowed" them, which is to say that it would be basically impossible to even break-even on the deal.

Many Programs Affected

While much is being made about the half-dozen football players who were suspended last season for their involvment, this actually spans sports programs and was actually discovered because a bookstore employee noticed a female athlete with a $1,600 text-book bill. Turns out that she was buying for herself and two non-eligible (probably non-scholarship) athletes.

Before anyone gets too excited, it's important to keep in mind that any athlete found to have gotten more than $100 in extra textbooks, was withheld from competition pending a reinstatement petition to the NCAA. All such petitions were granted, which suggests that even (that branch) the NCAA doesn't really think this is a huge deal.

While some might argue that it's worse to have more programs involved, put me on the side of the argument that suggests that this is just more evidence that this was irresponsible kids taking advantage of a hole in the system rather than some special treatment the football team was getting.

What's Going To Happen

While our good friends at Track 'em Tigers have predicted that this will be the event that causes Saban to leave the Capstone (no, sadly, I'm not kidding -- hope springs eternal, I guess), the odds that this amounts to anything significant is slight.

For starters, we're talking about a self-discovered and self-reported violation, the ensuing investigation of which turned up absolutely no other wrong-doing whatsoever, and you can bet that the dozens of interested parties were looking as hard as they could. Further, the violations took place over the course of just three semesters.

Secondly, for better or for worse, the handful of athletes who knew they were breaking the rules didn't realize they were breaking NCAA rules, and you can see their point: what "benefit" did they get from getting a book they either had to return or pay for out of their own pocket? Sure, they skipped to the front of the line and probably got first dibs on hotly contested textbooks, but in the grand scheme of things, is that really a big deal?

This all to say nothing of the athletes who didn't know they were breaking anyone's rules because some over-worked bookstore student employee got a little lazy with their compliance manual reading and gave them more than they were entitled to. Don't forget that this last type of violation comprised half of the dollar value and more than half of the participants.

This is not to say that the athletes who rang up more than $1,500 in book charges weren't doing anything wrong. They very clearly were, and, trivial though the benefits might have been, they were exta benefits. That said, if we're going to try to keep this in context, let's remember that not all extra benefits are created equal, and the NCAA still hasn't moved on the Reggie Bush issue.

I would be truly astounded if this amounted to more than a few years probation (which is not the same thing as a bowl ban) and some minor scholarship reductions. For football, this would probably come as a reduction of the 85-player cap rather than the 25 grant-in-aid maximum per year, just because the sheer number of players brought in over the last two seasons means that next year will probably be a smaller class.

The One Caveat

The one thing that Alabama fans should be weary of, and our rival fans can hope for, is that the NCAA is nothing if not completely absurd when it comes to punishments for violations. The only thing you can really count on them to do is exactly what you think they shouldn't.

Which isn't to say that they never get anything right, but the number of their infractions decisions that have made me scratch my head and wonder what they were thinking is pretty high.

Add to that the fact that there are a number of members of the Committee on Infractions with potential conflicts of interest here (See, e.g., the fact that Miami's Athletic Director is on the committee) and you wind up with a formula for some very confusing rulings.

Conclusion

While I'm sure that what punishment is handed down will span a number of sports, I really don't anticipate anything more than probation and the loss of a handful of scholarships (3-5 in football, would be my guess). I think that, despite the "failure to monitor" charge, the fact that we're talking about textbooks that were either returned or paid for out of pocket is really going to soften the blow here.

If it doesn't, one has to wonder how bringing the hammer down for something like this is going to impact future infractions hearings.

Higgins' Recruiting Allegations

PeteHoliday — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:12:21 -0000

I saw Ron Higgins' column accusing Coach Saban of a recruiting violation today, but didn't have time to sift through the relevant news reports until this evening. When I did, I was a little shocked at how irresponsible the report was.

Capstone Report has already broken it down, but I thought it might be more interesting to see what the paper has to say for it, especially when Ian was able to talk to the HS Coach who basically said that everything was on the up-and-up.

I went to the Commercial Appeal's website and sent the following email to its editor, Chris Peck:

Mr. Peck,
In a column on Sunday (Feb 15) Ron Higgins made some pretty serious allegations about Alabama head football coach Nick Saban.

Column: <LINK>

I have never had a reason to doubt Mr. Higgins' integrity -- journalistic or otherwise -- but his most recent column smacks of rushing to get a story first rather than endeavoring to get it right.

Higgins' column reads as follows: "Judging from the quotes given by Malone to the CA's Jason Smith, there was a face-to-face meeting and a selling job by Saban." That passage contains a link to a February 6th news report by Jason Smith (also of the Commercial Appeal).

There is only one quote of Malone's in that article that could possibly be construed to mean what Mr. Higgins is implying: "And when he started talking to me, I started liking the stuff that he was saying."

Now, assuming for a moment that Malone's quote has the proper context and was intended by him to convey that he had a lengthy personal conversation with Saban, wouldn't a journalist of Higgins' caliber and reputation -- and a paper of the Appeal's stature -- want to get another source or two?

Higgins' appears to have called the SEC -- but nobody from the SEC was present for the alleged conversation. Maybe someone else might have relevant information?

Like, for example, someone affiliated with the University of Alabama? Or maybe even Malone's head coach? With respect to the latter, it appears as though a brief conversation would have led Higgins to do a little more research before running a sensationalist piece, that is, if it didn't moot the whole issue outright. <LINK>

Closing that portion of the story with "This wasn't a bump by the Sabanator. This was full-contact recruiting." makes Higgins look as though he's less interested in truthful reporting and more interested in making waves -- or worse -- trying to further some personal agenda of his and using the Commercial Appeal as his personal megaphone.

I hope that your organization will either provide a more thoroughly researched and sourced update to Higgins' column or just issue an outright retraction of the allegations of recruiting violations that Higgins felt qualified to make after hearing second-hand quotes from a 16 year old kid.

Regards,

Pete Holiday

I'm not expecting a response, although if I do receive one I'll update this post. If any of you would like to add your voices to the request for clarification, you can do so here. Do remember, though, that most people do not walk around with malice guiding their every move -- there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the vast difference between Higgins' report and Ian's, so you might slant more towards the curious side and less towards the jerkish, accusing side, but, hey, I'm not the boss of you.

The Brian Cook Head Aspolsion Watch

PeteHoliday — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:30:48 -0000

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Big Ten fans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." -Brian Cook, Feb 4, 2009

Upon hearing the news that Ole Miss signed 37 recruits, I was conflicted. On one had, surely I can expect that an SEC head coach knows more about his recruiting class than I do. On the other, a very wise man said last year: "Around six guys who are playing for Alabama now or expect to be in the fall are going to be told to get bent by the time fall practice rolls around," and since Ole Miss signed even more this year than we did last year, man, there must be a whole lot of "truly filthy" things going on in Oxford.

That's when I realized: damn. I'm just an idiot Alabama fan who doesn't "get" it. If I really want to see the light, I need to seek out Brian Cook, who will almost certainly have something very insightful to say about this situation.

So I checked FanHouse and, lo, found nothing. Considering the gravity of the offense, and Mr. Cook's fabulous vocabulary, I thought maybe his analysis was too salty for the PG-13 blog, and headed over to MGoBlog where I found... more nothing.

It turns out that Brian is on vacation and has yet to say anything about this very pressing issue of oversiging.

So we plebes are left to ponder... when Brian returns from his vacation, what will his reaction be?

Poll

How will Brian Cook react to news that Ole Miss signed 37 players this winter?

Complete meltdown: A lengthy, profanity-laced diatribe about how terrible the SEC is.

49 votes

Nary a mention! After all, if it's not Nick Saban or Alabama, who really cares?

135 votes

Nothing . . . at least until Rodriguez comes under fire for something from which we all need to be distracted.

47 votes

A well-reasoned post which fairly balances the need for fair dealing with the nuances of academic qualification, injuries, and difficulty in dealing with the whims of hundreds of 18 and 19 year olds.

11 votes

242 votes | Poll has closed

Kentucky HS Coach Charged In Death of Player

PeteHoliday — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:31:36 -0000

(Not Alabama related, but football related... close enough for RBR? Hope so.)

The good doctor brought word this afternoon that a high school football coach in Kentucky was charged with reckless homicide over a heat-related death at practice. I have a feeling this is going to be a much-talked-about story over the coming days for the precedent it will be seen to have set.

One of the big problems that is bound to come up is that very, very few people really have any idea what "reckless homicide" means, but many will assume that they do because they've seen a few episodes of Law & Order. This problem is not helped out by prosecutors inaccurately dumbing it down for the press, like we see in the original article:

The reckless homicide charge means grand jurors didn't find that Stinson's actions were intentional or malicious, said Jefferson County Commonwealth's Attorney Dave Stengel. However, Stengel said, "a reasonable man should have realized something like this could have occurred."

That doesn't quite cover it. So what is "reckless homicide", anyway?

(Note: I am a recent law school graduate studying to take the bar. I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice, just one guy's opinion. Also? This is hideously long, and I apologize in advance for that.)

Reckless Homicide

The first thing to understand is that the definitions of crimes vary -- sometimes only slightly, sometimes wildly -- from state to state. "Reckless homicide", in states that call it that, tend to be relatively uniform, but it's worth looking at the precise statutes anyhow.

First, Reckless Homicide, Ky. Rev. Stat. §507.050(1):

A person is guilty of reckless homicide when, with recklessness he causes the death of another person.

The state has to prove three things: that the defendant (1) caused the death (2) of another (3) with recklessness. The first two elements seem straightforward enough, but the third needs a little more digging. What is recklessness?

"Recklessly" -- A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Ky. Rev. Stat. §501.020(4). There's a lot of legalese in there, but it's easier to look at it in terms of the homicide statute. There, we're talking about recklesness with respect to a result (the other person's death). So the question that will be put to the jury is essentially this one:

Did the defendant fail to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the victim's death would occur? If so, and if the risk were determined to be as severe as is required by the latter part of that definition, then the defendant is guilty.

When you compare that to the description offered by the prosecutor, it's pretty clear that the bar is set a little higher than Mr. Stengel's "a reasonable man should have realized something like this could have occurred" definition. Specifically, the allegation is that a reasonable man should have realized that there was a substantial likelihood that the child's death would occur, not just that it could have occurred.

Just The Facts, Ma'am:

Here's the tricky part. The only way to know whether the situation above fits the definition of "reckless homicide" is to know all of the facts. Unfortunately, we really don't know many facts at all.

The primary source for Hinton's post gives us this gem from the attorney's of the boy's family:

what we have learned about the coaches' conduct at the football practice that led to Max's collapse and death is inexcusable, as was the lack of urgency and the delay in seeking medical treatment after Max collapsed and never regained consciousness

You really have to consider the source and take this with a grain of salt, but clearly the goal is to cast a wide enough net that a juror can find something "inexcusable" in the coach's conduct.

You can bet that the temperature and heat index on the day in question will be ingrained in jurors' heads. They will know about every movement, exercise, drill, and precisely how long the players got to rest in between them. The jury will almost certainly hear about the player's demeanor during practice and, especially, just prior to his collapse. This, however, is only one part of the story.

My guess is that the events leading up to the player's collapse will be the weakest part of the commonwealth's case. First, practicing in 90+ degree heat in Kentucky is not that unusual, yet athletes seldom (percentage wise) require medical attention for it. Even fewer of them actually die. This is a big thing to overcome if the prosecutor is looking to show that there was a "substantial" risk, unless the player was so clearly in terrible, life-threatening condition that any moron would've known to sit him out and call an ambulance.

So, to that end, this case will probably not end up being a referendum on practicing in the heat.

The most damning evidence will likely come from the defendant's actions after the player collapsed. How seriously did he take the collapse? How quickly did he call for medical attention? What sorts of things did the coach do before help arrived to try to better the situation?

Lots of Issues Worth Considering

There are some other issues floating around on the periphery of this little powderkeg that are worth considering.

What was the 15 year-old football player's responsibility in all of this? How much of his discomfort did he express to his coach? It's a sensitive question because, at 15, how well do we really know the limits of our bodies? Could he have known how perilously close he was to death in the minutes before he collapsed? Did he know?

Nevertheless, if we pin the blame on the coach for the initial collapse and there weren't any external signs of impending danger, have we essentially just set a precedent that practicing in hot temperatures is Asking For It? If so, how hot can it be before a coach has to worry about going to jail for continuing on?

If we expect a coach to be able to see things like this coming, what is the player's role in communicating his current status to the coach? If the player isn't responsible for that, how well are we asking our coaches to know their players? How is a coach to tell the difference between "tired and working through it" and "about to collapse from heat exhaustion?"

It's much easier, and cleaner, to criticize the coach's actions or inactions. It also has much weaker consequences. If, instead of blaming the death on the hard practice, we blame it on a failure to respond adequately, the only risk is that a coach might over-react to a kid passing out, throwing up, or giving off other signals which could just as easily signal a tough work-out as a heat stroke. Still, this is a much more palatable compromise for both players, coaches, and parents.

Get To The Point, Nerd

There are a lot of interesting arguments to be made on both sides. We see, year after year, players whose lives come to an end in the heat of a summer practice. Before you take too strong a stance for the coach or for the family, keep in mind that there are a lot of places along the way where a crucial decision could have kept this teenager alive. The real question we're asking here is: at any of those points, should the coach have known that he was dealing with a life-or-death situation?

Of course, the difficulty is that -- at least until the trial gets started -- we'll be trying to have this debate and make that determination in the absence of the vast majority of facts, both for and against the coach.

What sorts of things do we expect our coaches to notice and what do we consider appropriate and adequate responses to those situations?

Whatever your stance, understand that even a guilty verdict would not necessarily spell the end of football as we know it. Criminal cases are highly fact-specific and, at the trial level, carry very, very little value as precedent.

This coach getting convicted, if he does, doesn't really change the rules of the game, and it doesn't mean that the coach of the next player to collapse is going to jail.

A Little Perspective, Please?

PeteHoliday — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:32:15 -0000

ed. - bumped from the fanposts. i'm not entirely in agreement with pete on this one (were i an ap voter i would man up and vote utah #1, both because i think they deserve to call themselves the best after finishing the season unscathed AND because if we really want any change in the bcs there needs to be some split championship flavored reminders that the #1 vs #2 match isn't always going to produce a true mnc), but he makes some good points that are worth reading.

Alright, so coming into the Sugar Bowl, we had a lot of very classy, respectful, and intelligent Utah fans floating around RBR. I think they contributed a lot to the dialog and I have nothing but respect for their team and fanbase. That said, the "Utah for National Champs" rhetoric has strained reality to its breaking point.

Yes, Utah has a good football team. They went undefeated. They beat a former #1 in their bowl game. All of these things are true, but they are far from the whole story. The crowing, kvetching, and email campaigns make a good story, but they're just getting old. I mean, c'mon. You don't pick the BCS title game after the bowls, so a teams performance in a bowl game is totally irrelevant. They could have beaten Alabama by 100 points and you still couldn't convince me that they deserved to be in the title game.

Still, I can't begruge the Utes their celebrations. They had a great season. Great season or not, though, this post at Block U is more than a hair delusional. The first three paragraphs start off on the reasonable side, sticking mainly to objective fact, but then we get to this:

Call these Utes the 21st Century Florida State Seminoles and Miami Hurricanes. Two programs that leaped from obscurity to football dominance in a pretty short time. They rolled through the latter part of the 20th Century, unconventional in their success and disproving every myth along the way. That is exactly what Utah is doing right now. Southern Speed might have conquered pre-game discussion, but it was Utah's speedy defense and offense that was on full display during the game. They confused the Tide, flying around the field surprisingly easily and in the end, Alabama had no answer. All the hype leading up to the Sugar Bowl fizzled and it was Utah that left everyone wondering exactly what they had been missing this entire season.

Come again? "Football dominance?" Did I miss something? Yes, the 2004 and 2008 seasons were excellent ones, but "football dominance"? Really? I don't call 7-5 (2005), 8-5 (2006), or 9-4 (2007) "football dominance" in the MWC. Hell, it's not even dominance in SEC. You're talking about two excellent seasons book-ending three years of decent play in a mediocre conference.

Then there's the game analysis. It's pretty solid, if you limit your watching to the first 10 minutes and ignore the loss of two All-American offensive linemen. What you really saw in the Sugar Bowl was a great team that came out fired-up and ready against a team that just came out.

Many have written that the personnel and motivational issues don't diminish the Utes' victory or accomplishment. This is a nice sentiment, but it just can't be true. You're basically arguing that the logo on the helmet is what determines the quality of the team. We know that's not true. If Utah was as dominating a team as some of their fans are now claiming, the Sugar Bowl would've ended in a blowout. As it stands, the Utes dominated the first quarter, slipped into back-and-forth ball, and were outscored in the last three quarters. This is not what "had no answer" looks like.

That's not a demand for an asterisk or explanatory note in the record books. It's not asking for a do-over. It's not an excuse. At the end of the day, though, you can't use a team's regular-season success to catapult yourself to the top of the heap when the team you beat was a shell of their former selves.

You simply cannot learn as much from watching a team play Sugar Bowl Mode Alabama as you could from watching conference teams against them in the regular season. I'm sorry about that, I really am. I wish that our team had come ready to play, had wanted to have been there, and was at full strength. I don't know that the final outcome would have been any different, as it is obvious that Utah is a good football team, but you can't argue that it wouldn't have been more difficult.

I want to get behind Utah, I really do. I think most (all?) of the fans around these parts have been gracious and hospitable, but the rhetoric coming out of Utah is getting a little out of control.

What they were missing was the birth of a football power and Friday night

Folks, it takes more than three good seasons in 10 years to make a "football power."

It's not the same, but it FEELS the same

PeteHoliday — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:10:47 -0000

I spent the weekend thinking over Friday night's game. Okay, that's a lie. I spent Saturday trying to forget it had ever happened. When I woke up Sunday and still had not forgotten, I spent some time really thinking about it.

My biggest problem with the game -- really the last TWO games -- is the fierce case of cognitive dissonance they created with respect to this season.

Last year, by this point, I was basically numb. The loss to Auburn was worst for the thought of another year of taunting from fans of a school with which even trailer parks don't want to be associated. This year, however, it all came crashing down in the span of a few weeks.

By every objective measure, this season is markedly better than last. Every single aspect of the game has improved by leaps and bounds. We expected improvement and for the first time in a long time, we got far more than we expected. If you had told me, before the season started, that we would go unscathed through the regular season, play Florida close in the title game and go to the Sugar Bowl, I'd have called you a moron.

In my mind I know that this year was better. Much better. In my mind I know that it's not the same, but it feels the same. Hell, it feels worse.

Malzahn Hire is More of the Same

PeteHoliday — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:16:25 -0000

We're less than 24 hours from Auburn's "big" hire, and the shine has already worn off for me -- I don't really buy the hype.

Don't get me wrong. This might be the best hire they could've possibly made given the current circumstances, but that doesn't say much. After all, who's the best dart thrower at St. Michael's School for the Blind?

There are a number of problems with Malzahn that seem to get glossed over, but they're pretty big ones.

First and foremost: when our seniors were playing high school ball, Malzahn was coaching high school ball. He has only three years of collegiate coaching experience, and two of those years were at Tulsa.

Yes, he was part of a 10-win season at Arkansas in 2006, but keep in mind that he had Darren McFadden in the backfield -- a much bigger weapon than any running back currently playing in the SEC.

His two-year stint at Tulsa has been impressive statistically . . . until you take into account the competition. The Golden Hurricane put up a gaudy number of points against almost all of their opponents. The exceptions in 2008 being the defensive powerhouses of Arkansas, East Carolina, and Houston. 2007 was more of the same, really.

Simply put: Malzahn's offenses have run wild when they have vastly superior talent, but folded when faced with even the slightest resistance.The question I have: where on earth is Auburn going to get vastly superior talent? Out of the backyards of Richt, Meyer, and Saban? I don't think so.

Further, I'm still not convinced that his offensive style will really survive more than a season or two in the SEC. The same was said about Meyer, and while Florida has enjoyed a great deal of success, it would be a bit misleading to suggest that the Gators are running the same offense today as Meyer ran at Utah. Similar? Yes, but not the same at all. That's the big difference between a guy with a lot of experience and Malzahn: adaptability. Malzahn has never coached anywhere long enough to need to change anything.

By the time his team suits up for its second season (if it even takes that long), his offense will be a known quantity in the SEC, and the better defensive coaches will have an antidote. That is, unless the barn can amass a pool of talent big enough to neutralize the defensive game plans. See, e.g., Florida: they're not out-scheming teams, they're out-talenting them.

Of course, that's all assuming that Malzahn even gets to his second season.

Will Auburn actually let him run his offense the way he wants to run it? We know that didn't happen for Tony Franklin at Auburn, but the fans are still buying into the "Frankly was the problem" shtick: "Tony Franklin [Malzahn] ain't. This guy is the real deal . . ."

I have some bad news for Mr. Coulter: Franklin was the real deal, too. In fact, Auburn has made firing "real deal" offensive coordinators its calling-card.

Again, I don't know that there was a better hire on the board for Auburn, but this alone is not reason for "optimism". After all: when was the last time you saw a team with a mediocre head coach and some hot-shot assistants tear up a major conference?