And we will all wait and see how the chosen horse succeeds.
There is a ton of good information in calltheobvious's posts. I appreciate you taking the time to write all that, even if we agree to disagree on a few points.
You did point out that Tubberville went 6-5 at Ole Miss with 50 players on scholarship. I don't understand why folks see that as a sign he did an outstanding job considering the lack of big wins ... Yet, Shula wins 6 games three times in his four years at Alabama and he was playing nearly as shorthanded as Tubberville. I don't know what Alabama's low point was in terms of scholarship players but it was probably in the high 60's. How is Tubberville's winning six games admirable and Shula winning ten games under the same circumstances just shrugged off?
Yes, I think its fair to question a lot of Shula's in-game calls. But its so much easier to call plays and make decisions when you have better personnel than the other guy. I think throughout the majority of Mike's tenure at UA, as far as the SEC goes, Alabama was only better talent wise than maybe Ole Miss, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt. Mike was something like 10-2 against those three.
He was 26-24 overall, I believe but was 1-11 against LSU, Tennessee and Auburn. While that stat alone was a big reason Mike was fired, 31 NFL teams right now are 0-13 against the Patriots. In the end, its all about personnel. The Patriots have it. Mike Shula did not.
Last year, in Mike's final year, not a single UA senior made an All SEC first or second team for the first time in 50 years. (Mike did not recruit that senior class. That was Fran/Price)
Yet, Alabama's talent level is rarely even discussed when Shula's job was analyzed. I think it should be the ENTIRE discussion, yet its not even part and parcel of it.
As far as the Juwan Simpson thing goes .. what exactly did Juwan do to warrant getting booted off the team. In the end, after a trial, he was found guilty of NOTHING. In fact, he was arrested for possession of marijuanna yet he tested negative the very right he was arrested. The gun charges were dismissed because he had every legal right to possess that gun. So in the end, he did nothing but get arrested.
Yet, Mike suspended him for a game anyway. I never understood how that translated to Mike being anti-discipline. Mike Shula kicked eight kids off the team in four years for violating team and school rules and suspended nine kids for a game, even in his last season. How is all that viewed as a lack of discipline?
Saban is regarded as an ultra disciplinarian, yet in his ten months at UA, more players have been arrested under his watch than Shula's did in FOUR YEARS. And how many of Saban's five arrested kids were suspended? None. Yet, Saban is the disciplinarian and Shula is not?
Regardless, its just an opinion. I think Mike Shula is the perfect fit for Duke. Apparently, Duke doesn't feel that way and neither does Shula. That's a shame.
I guess I will pick another horse.(g)
And we will all wait and see how the chosen horse succeeds.
OlympicFan,
You're definitely in my top five most respected posters on this board. Your knowledge of sports history absolutely blows me away sometimes, and that's not a comment I make flippantly. That said, I am genuinely puzzled by your theory on why FSU went to the ACC. IIRC 1992 was their first season in the ACC, and at age 16, I wasn't terribly aware of a lot of the off-the-field stuff; but I've certainly been operating under the assumption that they felt like it was win-win given that they'd be able to dominate in football and ride the conference's coattails in basketball. I'm inferring from your post that you believe that it had something to do with FSU's academic standards. That's more than a little surprising to me, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Please advise.
Cheers
jb
FSU joined the ACC for a variety of reason. Some of the reasons I mention are based on what two close friends who run the booster program told me.The academic statistics come from what I learned as a Harvard alumnus admissions interviewer. First, the SEC had been unwelcome to FSU in the past.That stoked the passions of inferiority. Second, FSU, considered the junior school academically and athletically to Florida, wanted to establish a distinct "brand" from Florida. In the state of Florida, the ACC is recognized as having nationally top ranked schools( Duke #5, Virginia #18, Wake #24, and UNC #25, with Tech a fine engineering school with a median SAT about 1200--math and verbal-- a tad higher than UNC and about 60 points better than FSU--still lower than Duke's 1405, UVA's 1300, and Wake's 1250) and FSU liked the company for academic branding.The SEC offered Vandy(20th) and Florida(a top 10 state school, but trailing considerably in overall national rankings,yet far superior to FSU).Further, FSU needed to join a conference for revenue purposes and knew the SEC was brutal in football. It saw the ACC as a conference it would dominate in football and,perhaps, in baseball. Only fair in basketball, FSU reasoned that ACC glitter would meliorate its basketball recruiting. At FSU, football interest is light years ahead of any other sport; a fortune is spent on sports with generally sub-par Directors' Cup rankings--19th is the highest ranking achieved,I believe.It was ,therefore , critical to the boosters that FSU be master in football in the conference it did join.Entering the ACC has helped improve FSU's academic standing, as the pool of applicants is much better than it was 16 years ago. There is something to be said of FSU's "branding" strategy.
the game even passed his father (West coast offenses, etc.).