| FTBL anybody listening to Finebaum?

[Guest]

I have a question for you guys? Where did Finebaum mash me play football at? Since we know he didn't play ball the why does anyone care? He's a scrub wanta be peroid. Plus the fact he went to University of Tennessee, don't hold much water with me either. Just an thought guys.

 

[Guest]

gator, I usually agree with you, or at least come close to agreement on most things. But, I was told by someone on that '92 team that Stallings did as he was supposed to. He reported to his AD, Hootie Ingram. Hootie told CGS not to worry about it, he would handle it, and Hootie did nothing.

 

[imported_RollTideRandy]

In my opinion, you are completely wrong. No, take away the 'in my opinion' part.

Stallings' arrogance and his desire to help a player reverse a terrible situation by silence and deceit created a situation that resulted in UA losing much of her honor and prestige. (I can get into the details later if you wish, but Stallings' KNEW that Langham had violated NCAA rules and acted overtly to hide that fact from the NCAA.)

Not to mention his refusal to change his 1950's mindset about how the game of football should be played set our recruiting back decades. Bob Bockrath's fault was not in forcing Stallings out (actually, Stallings gross public insubordination following the Miss State game should have resulted in Stallings' being fired on the spot and in the locker room post game), but in listening to the 'educated opinions' of the UA fan base to hire Mike Dubose. I find it confusing that many ridicule Bockrath for hiring Dubose when any other hire at that time would have likely resulted in near-riots but give our current AD a free pass for a SERIES of far more fatal and flawed hires (when judged either pre- or post-hire).

Wow dude. I have to say, I don’t think I have ever seen anyone take this stance on Coach Stallings’ tenure before. I respect your position and you certainly made me think. I am now even questioning my own position on the subject.

 

[Guest]

Stallings is, and always will be, the man. To me anyway.

Every time I hear him speak, it just makes me think that's how the Bear used to talk and speak. And he gives me the impression to be Bearish in the way he took care of things as well.

Maybe I'm completely wrong though...

In my opinion, you are completely wrong. No, take away the 'in my opinion' part.

Stallings' arrogance and his desire to help a player reverse a terrible situation by silence and deceit created a situation that resulted in UA losing much of her honor and prestige. (I can get into the details later if you wish, but Stallings' KNEW that Langham had violated NCAA rules and acted overtly to hide that fact from the NCAA.)

Not to mention his refusal to change his 1950's mindset about how the game of football should be played set our recruiting back decades. Bob Bockrath's fault was not in forcing Stallings out (actually, Stallings gross public insubordination following the Miss State game should have resulted in Stallings' being fired on the spot and in the locker room post game), but in listening to the 'educated opinions' of the UA fan base to hire Mike Dubose. I find it confusing that many ridicule Bockrath for hiring Dubose when any other hire at that time would have likely resulted in near-riots but give our current AD a free pass for a SERIES of far more fatal and flawed hires (when judged either pre- or post-hire).

It is hard to imagine a more flawed hire than DuBose, whose only expeprience in a leadership position as a coach was a moderately good season as a defensive coordinator. While he was not directly responsible for the subsequent disaster, he bears the responsibility of being the man in charge, who if he did not know what had gone on surely should have known. Keeping him in place when we should have seen the character flaws as evidenced by the marital infidelity and fired him earlier was definitely a major error.

Blaming Gene Stallings for the Antonio Langham situation is IMO clear error. Stallings did err in accepting Antonio Langham's statement that he had not done anything at face value but that was not what brought down the NCAA's wrath. Hootie Ingram took over the school's response to the NCAA on the matter and clearly had enough in hand for the school to have suspended Langham for the opener in 93 and appealed to the NCAA for his reinstatement, which likely would have been granted. Instead he chose, for whatever reasons, to try to use his "connections" with the NCAA as a former member of the enforcement committee to work through this. The ultimate effect of Ingram's actions was to turn what amounted to a parking ticket into a felony.

Criticize his offensive style if you will, but the man was a winner. He was definitely old school, believing that you won with defense, the kicking game and runnung the football, but that style still wins.

Bockrath was a huge mistake.

 

[alagator]

I have a question for you guys? Where did Finebaum mash me play football at? Since we know he didn't play ball the why does anyone care? He's a scrub wanta be peroid. Plus the fact he went to University of Tennessee, don't hold much water with me either. Just an thought guys.

What difference does it matter whether or not Finebaum ever played college football? Or where he went to college.

If it was a requirement that only people who played college football could have an opinion on the performance of college teams, then you might inform the owners of this very website that they need to do a better job of vetting their members and start purging the roles immediately - perhaps you might even be included in the purging. And beyond that, if anyone wants to state an opinion on the performance of any college coaches then such comments must be limited to only those who at one time were employed as a college coach - as all others would be disqualified under your apparent standard.

One need not have held a job to be competent to judge the performance of someone else. I have never been President of the United States or a United States Senator or a Governor of Florida, but I think I have enough cognitive reasoning ability to judge whether or not the men/women who hold those jobs are effective or not. Now, I may not have the requisite skills to actually do the job better, but that should not disqualify me from being able to form and hold an opinion about their performance. Same for a college football player, coach, or team.

 

[bamarama007]

Stallings is, and always will be, the man. To me anyway.

Every time I hear him speak, it just makes me think that's how the Bear used to talk and speak. And he gives me the impression to be Bearish in the way he took care of things as well.

Maybe I'm completely wrong though...

In my opinion, you are completely wrong. No, take away the 'in my opinion' part.

Stallings' arrogance and his desire to help a player reverse a terrible situation by silence and deceit created a situation that resulted in UA losing much of her honor and prestige. (I can get into the details later if you wish, but Stallings' KNEW that Langham had violated NCAA rules and acted overtly to hide that fact from the NCAA.)

Not to mention his refusal to change his 1950's mindset about how the game of football should be played set our recruiting back decades. Bob Bockrath's fault was not in forcing Stallings out (actually, Stallings gross public insubordination following the Miss State game should have resulted in Stallings' being fired on the spot and in the locker room post game), but in listening to the 'educated opinions' of the UA fan base to hire Mike Dubose. I find it confusing that many ridicule Bockrath for hiring Dubose when any other hire at that time would have likely resulted in near-riots but give our current AD a free pass for a SERIES of far more fatal and flawed hires (when judged either pre- or post-hire).

You should be on finebaum

 

[alagator]

gator, I usually agree with you, or at least come close to agreement on most things. But, I was told by someone on that '92 team that Stallings did as he was supposed to. He reported to his AD, Hootie Ingram. Hootie told CGS not to worry about it, he would handle it, and Hootie did nothing.

Not the complete series of events.

I have posted this here long ago, but here is a Reader's Digest version of the chain...

~An agent runner approached the family of Langham in early December back in Town Creek (after the SECC game) and gave a few hundred dollars to a family member to be given to Langham directly as a 'Christmas Gift' (otherwise known as a 'hook');

~Langham signed the document with the agent runner in New Orleans the night of the Sugar Bowl (and 'the document' was not written on a napkin as mythology would have you believe);

~Langham almost immediately changed his mind and wanted to return to UA for his Senior season, he talked the matter over with his family and they all agreed if that was his wish then that is what he should do;

~The family member who received the 'Christmas Gift' informed the agent (actually the runner) of Langham's wish and some subtle presser was applied to Langham that such was not in his best interest - at which time Langham became very scared;

~When back in Tuscaloosa, Langham went to see Stallings and told him what happened in Town Creek and New Orleans and that he (Langham) did not want to declare for the NFL;

~Stallings told Langham that he (Stallings) would call some of his contacts in the NFL offices and see what he could do to squash the agent agreement;

~Stallings was told by his NFL friends in both the NFL and NFLPA (the player's union) that they had never received any agreement or notice that Langham had an agent representing him before the NFL;

~With that information, Stallings remained mute and did not directly inform Ingram in a timely manner;

~(Opinion here) Stallings did not notify Ingram of the problem because he feared Ingram would do what the NCAA required and declare Langham ineligible until the matter was fully investigated. The fear was that Langham, knowing what he had done and the very real probability he would be permanently declared ineligible for having signed with an agent would have gone ahead and declared for the draft. Stallings did not want that to happen because it was clear this was not Langham's true desire.

~Ingram did not become aware of the situation until he was contacted by the AGENT, who was upset that Langham did not file the papers making himself eligible for the NFL draft before the filing deadline;

~Ingram then confronted both Stallings and Langham about the situation and that is when the 'napkin' myth was hatched;

~Ingram and Stallings thought the issue was dead when the agent stopped calling and writing, neither informed the NCAA;

~Early in the Fall, the agent recontacted Langham thinking Langham would hire him for the next NFL draft, Langham told the agent to get lost;

~The agent then resumed contacting Ingram and Stallings and neither man would get involved, thinking they had buried the issue back in the Spring;

~The agent made the situation public;

~Ingram then made a show about conducting a 'full-and-complete investigation' into the matter;

~This 'investigation' consisted of both Ingram and Stallings formulating a knowingly false and incomplete story and having Langham sign this story as being what he did and did not tell Stallings back in January;

~The two 'adult and responsible' men told Langham that this 'story' would protect him and his eligibility for the upcoming SECC game versus Florida and any bowl game - when the two men KNEW it would do nothing of the kind but WOULD give them political cover when the facts - real or contrived - became known;

Ingram and Stallings threw Langham under the bus in an effort to protect their jobs and reputation (Stallings and Ingram) and the reputation of UA (Ingram).

You might remember that I have long held a negative opinion about Stallings. The series of events from above are why.

 

[bamarama007]

Very interesting interpretation of these events..Were you involved directly?

 

[Guest]

Ingram was aware of the situation well before the first game of the 1993 season. As AD it was his responsibility, not Stallings, to advise the NCAA os the situation, or at least to advise the administration of U of A. Ingram's inaction at that point was what precipitated the coming catastrophe. As the top man in the athletic department it was his decision to "stonewall", not CGS. And when the agent began his black mail campaign it was Ingram's decision to try to sweep it all under the rug, not CGS. Even at these later dates the hammer would not have been swung so viciously had the AD done something before the media was given the information.

 

[bamarama007]

Ingram was aware of the situation well before the first game of the 1993 season. As AD it was his responsibility, not Stallings, to advise the NCAA os the situation, or at least to advise the administration of U of A. Ingram's inaction at that point was what precipitated the coming catastrophe. As the top man in the athletic department it was his decision to "stonewall", not CGS. And when the agent began his black mail campaign it was Ingram's decision to try to sweep it all under the rug, not CGS. Even at these later dates the hammer would not have been swung so viciously had the AD done something before the media was given the information.

Amen!

 

[alagator]

Very interesting interpretation of these events..Were you involved directly?

Not an 'interpretation' at all.

Well, not true. I very clearly denoted the one bullet point where I was interjecting opinion versus the reporting of an event.

Not personally involved, but very, very, very close to two people who were. One I have known for over 35 years and the other I met in 1996 (a few years after the actual Langham affair). Neither knows the other. One knows some things the other does not (and vice versa) - but that is not surprising given their roles in the events, but on the things they share common knowledge they have never conflicted each other. Both of my friends spoke directly with multiple parties mentioned in my telling during the infamous 1993 year.

In all honesty, you can believe me or not. I am very comfortable with what I know and my conclusions based on that information. I remember fondly the championship from the 1992 season, but the lasting damage Stallings (and Ingram) did to the reputation of our program trumps that one year.

 

[reger60]

I'm THIS close to starting a huricane Katrina thread.

 

[Bamaman37]

I'm THIS close to starting a huricane Katrina thread.

:shock:

 

[alagator]

Ingram was aware of the situation well before the first game of the 1993 season. As AD it was his responsibility, not Stallings, to advise the NCAA os the situation, or at least to advise the administration of U of A. Ingram's inaction at that point was what precipitated the coming catastrophe. As the top man in the athletic department it was his decision to "stonewall", not CGS. And when the agent began his black mail campaign it was Ingram's decision to try to sweep it all under the rug, not CGS. Even at these later dates the hammer would not have been swung so viciously had the AD done something before the media was given the information.

100% correct and I would not in any way argue otherwise. But that addresses ONLY the issues for when the agent began his blackmail efforts.

But Stallings DID NOT inform Ingram immediately in January what Langham had done - and Stallings in fact proceeded to do his own little investigation with his NFL contacts. Only when Stallings learned the NFL had nothing in the form of a declaration of draft eligibility nor an agent agreement involving Langham, Stallings purposefully failed to inform Ingram in a timely manner. The why Stallings refused to properly inform his superior is open for debate, and I have given my opinion.

Do not read anything I have said as some effort to absolve Ingram of his share of the ultimate embarrassment. I will add, that I am equally angered to have recently learned that UA has bestowed some honor on Ingram for his long and valued service to UA from his tenure as our AD. Is there no shame in our leadership that we just cannot differentiate between 'doing a job' and 'doing a job with honor and distinguishment?'

 

[bamarama007]

this has come along way from Bob and finebaum thread to Coach Stallings and Hootie, but, finebaum is talking about Bob

 

[Guest]

Ingram was aware of the situation well before the first game of the 1993 season. As AD it was his responsibility, not Stallings, to advise the NCAA os the situation, or at least to advise the administration of U of A. Ingram's inaction at that point was what precipitated the coming catastrophe. As the top man in the athletic department it was his decision to "stonewall", not CGS. And when the agent began his black mail campaign it was Ingram's decision to try to sweep it all under the rug, not CGS. Even at these later dates the hammer would not have been swung so viciously had the AD done something before the media was given the information.

100% correct and I would not in any way argue otherwise. But that addresses ONLY the issues for when the agent began his blackmail efforts.

But Stallings DID NOT inform Ingram immediately in January what Langham had done - and Stallings in fact proceeded to do his own little investigation with his NFL contacts. Only when Stallings learned the NFL had nothing in the form of a declaration of draft eligibility nor an agent agreement involving Langham, Stallings purposefully failed to inform Ingram in a timely manner. The why Stallings refused to properly inform his superior is open for debate, and I have given my opinion.

Do not read anything I have said as some effort to absolve Ingram of his share of the ultimate embarrassment. I will add, that I am equally angered to have recently learned that UA has bestowed some honor on Ingram for his long and valued service to UA from his tenure as our AD. Is there no shame in our leadership that we just cannot differentiate between 'doing a job' and 'doing a job with honor and distinguishment?'

I guess our biggest disagreement is on the issue of what is "timely" reporting. I would consider us to have reported the incident timely had we done so before the first game of the 1993 season, as up until that point we would not have gained a competitive advantage by playing a potentially ineligible player. Although CGS did not immediately tell Ingram what he knew, Ingram became aware of the issue during the summer of 1993, with plenty of time to inform the NCAA of the issue, and suspend Langham from playing until his eligibility was resolved. In that time period it was common to suspend a player for one game and then reinstate him. IMO that is all that would have happened had Ingram had the gumption to have done it. That he did not do so until events outran the cover up really gave the school I love a black eye.

Our ADs from Ingram forward have done us a great disservices. I am not a Mal Moore basher, and he was never held to be culpable personally, but I believe that the later mess with the NCAA was viewed as worse than it was because MM was a close friend of (even a house guest) of Logan Young. Were I on the infractions committee hearing that case I would have been greatly influenced by the fact of this association. It gave the impression of the chief culprit being in bed with our AD. I do think that on the whole MM's tenure as AD has had more good than bad, but I believe that it is now time for him to ride off gracefully into the sunset. My choice as our next AD, for what its worth, would be Ozzie Newsome.

 

[BamaPride]

Not personally involved, but very, very, very close to two people who were. One I have known for over 35 years and the other I met in 1996 (a few years after the actual Langham affair). Neither knows the other. One knows some things the other does not (and vice versa) - but that is not surprising given their roles in the events, but on the things they share common knowledge they have never conflicted each other. Both of my friends spoke directly with multiple parties mentioned in my telling during the infamous 1993 year.

Both were involved but neither knew the other? :?:

 

[bamarama007]

Soooooooo you are saying you knew people from Hooties side and Coach Stallings side

 

[kudzu]

Gene Stallings will forever be one of the greatest coaches that patrolled our side lines.
That's my opinion and you can take it or leave it.
I don't care what anyone says. He did great things and brought back a winning tradition to a program that was in dire need of a winner. I will not throw him under the bus as some people seem to enjoy doing.
Say what you will,but no one really knows the truth but Coach and Hootie. Stallings was always a man of good character and priciples. He proved it and lived it. Until he says different that's what I believe. He deserves that much respect, at least from me anyway, but no one can deny that he was a winner. Regardless of the stories I will always have fond memories of Bama games that Coach Stallings was a part of. They will always be close to my heart.
I love me some Bebes. Roll Tide Forever Coach Stallings.

 

[bamarama007]

Couldn't have said it like you did Kudzu but I agree! Well spoken!