| NEWS It seems Nick Saban hasn't fully let Maurice Smith go

K

Kevin Scarbinsky |

The Alabama coach spoke out against "free agency in the SEC," an obvious reference to the Alabama graduate DB transferring to Georgia last year.

Nick Saban is not the first college football coach to oppose what he calls "free agency" for players. He did it again Tuesday at the SEC spring meeting.

Addressing the graduate transfer subject that will generate more formal discussion among league officials this week, Saban objected as expected.

"I've never been in favor of free agency in our league," he said. "Why should a guy leave your team and go play for somebody else and you have to play against them? I don't think that's fair."

Saban's not the first college football coach to ignore the hypocrisy at the heart of that position.

In his case, put it this way: He didn't want Maurice Smith to go from Alabama to Georgia a year ago, but he has no problem with Dan Werner coming to Alabama from Ole Miss this year.

It's a common disconnect among coaches. Free agency for players = chaos. Free agency for coaches = business.

Smith had to overcome Saban's objections and agree to SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey's stipulations to take his Alabama undergraduate degree to Georgia so he could enroll in graduate school and play his final college football season in Athens.

Saban's initial resistance aside, Alabama didn't have to play against Smith because Georgia wasn't on the schedule and didn't reach the SEC Championship Game.

Hugh Freeze finds himself in a much different position this year. He will have to coach against Werner. Freeze let his offensive coordinator go only to see him join the Alabama staff as an offensive analyst.

Saban's genuine interest in expanding his staff "to promote professional growth" for young coaches doesn't apply in this instance. The veteran Werner knows the passing game in particular, which Alabama is working to improve. He also happens to have inside knowledge of the Ole Miss program, which beat Alabama in 2014 and 2015 and forced the Crimson Tide to climb out of a deep hole last season.

Ole Miss coach said he's not worried about an advantage for Alabama and Nick Saban after the hiring of former Rebels offensive coordinator.

"I think Dan is a heck of a football coach and even more of a quality man. He deserves any opportunity he gets, and I'm really happy for him. I hate that it's in the SEC West, but that tends to happen."

Yes, it does, throughout the conference.

Jeremy Pruitt went from Georgia defensive coordinator in 2015 to Alabama defensive coordinator in 2016. Kevin Steele went from Alabama linebackers coach in 2014 to LSU defensive coordinator in 2015 to Auburn defensive coordinator in 2016.

Lance Thompson went from Alabama to Tennessee back to Alabama to Auburn to South Carolina in just eight years.

Time after time, coaches take their expertise directly from one SEC program to another, and the league survives quite nicely. Let one graduate transfer defensive back pull off a move from Alabama to Georgia, and the most powerful coach in college football is concerned about what's fair.

Fair for whom - the coaches who make millions or the players who don't?

In fairness to Saban, he did make an astute point on the subject Tuesday. He basically warned that if the rules are relaxed on graduate transfers within the SEC, Alabama "would benefit as much as anybody."

He's right, which makes it even harder to understand his objection to players who've earned their degrees earning the right to finish their eligibility at a different school within the conference. The "in" door in Tuscaloosa would almost certainly be busier than the "out" door.


Continue reading...
 
So, Kevin, one more time is choosing to compare a college scholarship with business people at the pinnacle of their success? And this ex-ole miss coach he speaks of was actually fired before we hired him. If college football ever gets a union, Scarbinsky should run for shop steward.
 
In fairness to Saban, he did make an astute point on the subject Tuesday. He basically warned that if the rules are relaxed on graduate transfers within the SEC, Alabama "would benefit as much as anybody."

He's right, which makes it even harder to understand his objection to players who've earned their degrees earning the right to finish their eligibility at a different school within the conference.
Would Saban/Bama benefit? Yes, but only in the sense that many transfers would want to come to Bama. HOWEVER Saban's system is predicated on retention and development (physically and mentally). Saban's system wouldn't be the same if it depended on 1-and-done players.
 
Would Saban/Bama benefit? Yes, but only in the sense that many transfers would want to come to Bama. HOWEVER Saban's system is predicated on retention and development (physically and mentally). Saban's system wouldn't be the same if it depended on 1-and-done players.

Yes... I don't think Nick Saban would turn down a blue chip grad transfer from LSU/Georgia/Florida/etc. In fairness it looks like he starts to acknowledge that point.

Again, NCAA system is just a mess. Adults are perfectly fine with other adults making "the best decision for themselves" but will fight their ass off to keep Maurice Smith from doing the same.

Yearly (in some cases) scholarship's more binding than hundred thousand or multi million dollar contracts. Keep in mind they're signing those scholarships believing they will be playing for a a head coach or position coach who's likely to up and leave when he gets the chance. Craziness
 
Yes... I don't think Nick Saban would turn down a blue chip grad transfer from LSU/Georgia/Florida/etc. In fairness it looks like he starts to acknowledge that point.

Again, NCAA system is just a mess. Adults are perfectly fine with other adults making "the best decision for themselves" but will fight their ass off to keep Maurice Smith from doing the same.

Yearly (in some cases) scholarship's more binding than hundred thousand or multi million dollar contracts. Keep in mind they're signing those scholarships believing they will be playing for a a head coach or position coach who's likely to up and leave when he gets the chance. Craziness

Here is the problem. It's no secret coaches can get hired and fired at any moment, and EVERYONE knows that. These kids need to make the conscious effort to commit to a school, the campus, the city, and the academics more so than the interchangeable parts. The campus, academics, facilities are all "fixed", whereas coaches are "adjustable". Does an AD need to get a player or committed recruit's permission before he fires a coach because a player committed to that coach? Does the AD need to have sit downs with each player and recruit before he hires a guy to make sure they like him enough to not feel wronged in their decision?

This is strictly a situation like others that have come up in this country where someone is going to be unhappy and feel wronged. There is no exact 100% correct answer to make everyone feel happy. You have to adjust the rules to make sure the common good of the kids, sport, and institution are at the forefront and make the educated decision to stand by it.
 
Here is the problem. It's no secret coaches can get hired and fired at any moment, and EVERYONE knows that. These kids need to make the conscious effort to commit to a school, the campus, the city, and the academics more so than the interchangeable parts. The campus, academics, facilities are all "fixed", whereas coaches are "adjustable". Does an AD need to get a player or committed recruit's permission before he fires a coach because a player committed to that coach? Does the AD need to have sit downs with each player and recruit before he hires a guy to make sure they like him enough to not feel wronged in their decision?

This is strictly a situation like others that have come up in this country where someone is going to be unhappy and feel wronged. There is no exact 100% correct answer to make everyone feel happy. You have to adjust the rules to make sure the common good of the kids, sport, and institution are at the forefront and make the educated decision to stand by it.

Good points
 
Yes... I don't think Nick Saban would turn down a blue chip grad transfer from LSU/Georgia/Florida/etc. In fairness it looks like he starts to acknowledge that point.

Again, NCAA system is just a mess. Adults are perfectly fine with other adults making "the best decision for themselves" but will fight their ass off to keep Maurice Smith from doing the same.

Yearly (in some cases) scholarship's more binding than hundred thousand or multi million dollar contracts. Keep in mind they're signing those scholarships believing they will be playing for a a head coach or position coach who's likely to up and leave when he gets the chance. Craziness
Some more thoughts came to me after listening to Saban's full remarks. My psychoanalysis of his disposition sort of revealed his own duplicity, which is understandable of course. He has to look out for his interests. When he said he was against "free agency" in college football, he then reflexively claimed that Bama would benefit the most from it, almost as if to say, "Hey guys, I'm really being objective here." Sure, perhaps some players around the conference who matured and developed into Bama-caliber players would request to transfer to Bama, perhaps for a better chance to win a championship and/or to improve their draft status. But Saban then echoed something I said previously: he said his players differ greatly between ages 18 and 22 ... and football is a developmental sport. But this is relative. They don't have to differ so much to play college football ... but for a dynasty they do. A dynasty by definition requires the ability to stockpile talent and delay player gratification by investing more time in development before playing time. This is precisely what Bama (and other top programs) is best at: offering the best developmental resources to players. Free agency directly undercuts the marketing tactics of big programs to the advantage of smaller programs. Without the offer of playing time, what else do smaller programs have to offer talented recruits? Nothing really. Plus, think in terms of free-market economics. If you reduce trade barriers (i.e. free agency), you get a wider distribution of value and rising living standards among the poor (i.e. greater parity). This means the other great advantage Saban has, his ability to recruit, is attacked. The ability to recruit matters more when you can keep them on the bench. But if players can transfer anywhere for better playing opportunities, then who you sign on signing day matters less. Again, Saban's advantages matter less.

So when you think it through, Saban will never truly support free agency in college. In fact, the lack of free agency in college is probably a key reason he returned to college coaching in the first place. His M.O. as a coach and recruiter will be seriously diminished.
 
Read and listened.

I came way with this. He's voiced his opinion on where this is headed. But, more importantly, and this is the entire message:

"Whatever the rule is, we’ll do it too."

Yes... CNS is masterful at using the media to make his points and opinions on current topics... And almost always finds a way to tilt the perspective of potential recruits in his favor. This could be a slight exception where it may not appear "player friendly", but ultimately as you mentioned, he will do what's best for the win column... which in the long run is "player friendly" to the guys who want to win championships at Alabama.
 
Read and listened.

I came way with this. He's voiced his opinion on where this is headed. But, more importantly, and this is the entire message:

"Whatever the rule is, we’ll do it too."
Well of course. Who doesn't expect him to comply with the rules?

I just enjoy analyzing both his remarks and the dynamics of the game. You can see through Saban's rhetorical smoke screen. He begins by criticizing the rule changes ... even accusing others of envy and trying to use rule changes as leverage against successful programs. But then he tries to portray free agency as benefiting Bama. He, like all dominant actors within any market, is tasked with the difficult responsibility of often being burdened with requests to opine on big issues but needing to strategically do so without revealing "trade secrets" and vulnerabilities. In other words, no dominant firm benefits by openly admitting to how regulatory changes will benefit or harm itself. There's just no positive outcome to being so candid with the general public, the same public to whom you are constantly selling yourself. So instead you put out some disinformation (like Bama will benefit from the proposals) but always come back to the first priority, to emphasize your altruistic concern for all stakeholders while remaining calm, agreeable, and submissive to any changes that are legislated. Inside though, as I think I thoroughly explained, he must loathe the possibility of free agency. I hear him say with increasing regularity these days, "Look, I'm old school ..." That's his diplomatic way of saying, "Damn it, guys, the game is changing more and more from the game I originally loved." Whether it's regulations that limit his ability to develop high school coaches, his ability to be a defensive genius (the HUNH and the 3 yard controversy), or regulations that threaten his passion in recruiting, I just get a feel that his patience keeps getting tested by an envious market.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom