SOS calls hurry up proposal "the Saban rule"

[BanditVol]

"So, you want to talk about the 'Saban Rule'?" Spurrier asked Thursday, chuckling. "That's what I call it. (It) looks like it's dead now, hopefully."


"I just told him I was against it," Spurrier said. "It's ridiculous. Let's let everybody keep playing the way they've been playing."

And he said Saban's input had an effect.

"He took it upon himself to go before the rules committee and get it done," Spurrier said. "They tried to change the rules. But I don't think they're gonna get away with it."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/20/college-football-rule-proposal-nick-saban-steve-spurrier/5643397/

You can count on the OBC to say it like it is.   

Also, notice this is interesting:

Three schools that had coaches in the room for at least a portion of the committee's discussion were at the other end of the spectrum. Air Force ranked No. 104, averaging 67.7 plays. Alabama ranked No. 115, averaging 65.9; Arkansas ranked No. 121, averaging 64.7.

[BanditVol]

One other thing....

Redding said Saban's presence was unusual but that it wasn't the first time a coach had asked to address the committee. More routinely, coaches have provided input through letters or by talking with members of the rules committee.

This should lay to rest the BULLshizzle story by bammer fans that the committee "invited" Saban to speak on the rule.     Mr. Saban "invited" himself, apparently.   

[BGHarper]

One other thing....

Redding said Saban's presence was unusual but that it wasn't the first time a coach had asked to address the committee. More routinely, coaches have provided input through letters or by talking with members of the rules committee.

This should lay to rest the BULLshizzle story by bammer fans that the committee "invited" Saban to speak on the rule.     Mr. Saban "invited" himself, apparently.   

What else did Rogers Redding say about allegations being made that Saban was the driving force behind the proposed rule change?

BG

[BanditVol]

What else did Rogers Redding say about allegations being made that Saban was the driving force behind the proposed rule change?

BG

I dunno, but the OBC had plenty to say about it.  Whatever else one might think about Spurrier, he usually calls it like it is.   

[BGHarper]

I dunno, but the OBC had plenty to say about it.  Whatever else one might think about Spurrier, he usually calls it like it is.  

Redding said in an interview with Ivan Maisel on ESPN Radio that the committee's mind was pretty much already made up with a framework of the rule in mind before Saban's presentation. Maisel commented this pretty much blew up the conspiracy theory that Saban was manipulating the committee on the proposed rule change, and Redding added, "it's just not so" regarding Saban, and went on to talk about a person's perception affecting what they believe is reality, obviously meaning if you don't care for Saban and distrust him, you could very well think he's manipulating the committee.

He earlier spoke of how the committee was to a great extent made up of athletic directors and conference commissioners who have been considering the proposal for at least two years. It didn't sound like these administrators would be much persuaded by Nick Saban's stance on the issue.

BG

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=10482610

[BGHarper]

One other thing....

Redding said Saban's presence was unusual but that it wasn't the first time a coach had asked to address the committee. More routinely, coaches have provided input through letters or by talking with members of the rules committee.

This should lay to rest the BULLshizzle story by bammer fans that the committee "invited" Saban to speak on the rule.     Mr. Saban "invited" himself, apparently.   

I've googled the sequence of events leading up to Saban's appearance before the committee, and have come up with nil. With that being the case, I tonight posted this question on the events on BamaOnline's Round Table board because I'm pretty confident that is where I got it. Take a look on that board if you wish for my question, and I believe you can read it and responses without an account. The first person to respond said Finebaum was the source of that info I read and quoted here. He said Finebaum has now admitted it was incorrect, so I will have to admit the same.


BG

[BanditVol]

BG, I was never saying Saban was the sole driving force behind the rule change.  Redding said that was not the case in the article I linked, in fact.  That was never my point.

My point is that if Saban is going to take the time to attend the committee meeting, then its obviously a HUGE DEAL to him.  That, and he has been whining about it for two years now.

What I was mostly reacting to is a friend of mine who always seems to just make shizzle up whenever something reflects poorly on bammer.   When Julio and Ingram got caught going on the fishing trip, he had a story about it (which I don't remember, but I do remember that his story was completey false).  When the textbook scandal happened, my friend went around saying "but they only got $10 for a pad of paper!" (ad naseum and at the top of his lungs) when in reality the average "get" for those athletes was on the order of $200-300 and a few athletes were making a few thousand per semester.   And so forth.

So when my friend told me that Saban was "invited" by the committee and that he was otherwise minding his business, I instantly knew it was bull shizzle soley based on the source.   

That Saban is not the sole source of the rule change I freely admit.  That he is the most highly visible and perhaps most passioinate advocate of it I don't think anyone can deny.  The OBC thinks so anyway.

So in short, this rule change is a big deal to Saban and he went well out of his way to represent it to the committee is my point.  What Redding says about the effect Saban had on the committee is almost beside the point, but no doubt he had an effect.  More important, he has been saying this very publically for two years now and I think he is DEFINITELY someone who is influential.  How could he not be?

Finally...and this is one reason I detest Finebaum (among many lol).  Last year when Saban was saying this stuff, Finebaum's radio show began consisting of a series of leading questions.   For instance, his conversation with Gary Daneilson went something like this..."I know you are a football traditionalist...do you also think the hurry up offense is bad for football as Saban does?"

In short, Finebaum spent entire segements of his show pimping Saban's POV on the hurry up.   Of course, that's exactly what the majority of his listeners want to hear.  The many has zero integrity.   

[BGHarper]

BG, I was never saying Saban was the sole driving force behind the rule change.  Redding said that was not the case in the article I linked, in fact.  That was never my point.

My point is that if Saban is going to take the time to attend the committee meeting, then its obviously a HUGE DEAL to him.  That, and he has been whining about it for two years now.

What I was mostly reacting to is a friend of mine who always seems to just make shizzle up whenever something reflects poorly on bammer.   When Julio and Ingram got caught going on the fishing trip, he had a story about it (which I don't remember, but I do remember that his story was completey false).  When the textbook scandal happened, my friend went around saying "but they only got $10 for a pad of paper!" (ad naseum and at the top of his lungs) when in reality the average "get" for those athletes was on the order of $200-300 and a few athletes were making a few thousand per semester.   And so forth.

So when my friend told me that Saban was "invited" by the committee and that he was otherwise minding his business, I instantly knew it was bull shizzle soley based on the source.  

That Saban is not the sole source of the rule change I freely admit.  That he is the most highly visible and perhaps most passioinate advocate of it I don't think anyone can deny.  The OBC thinks so anyway.

So in short, this rule change is a big deal to Saban and he went well out of his way to represent it to the committee is my point.  What Redding says about the effect Saban had on the committee is almost beside the point, but no doubt he had an effect.  More important, he has been saying this very publically for two years now and I think he is DEFINITELY someone who is influential.  How could he not be?

Finally...and this is one reason I detest Finebaum (among many lol).  Last year when Saban was saying this stuff, Finebaum's radio show began consisting of a series of leading questions.   For instance, his conversation with Gary Daneilson went something like this..."I know you are a football traditionalist...do you also think the hurry up offense is bad for football as Saban does?"

In short, Finebaum spent entire segements of his show pimping Saban's POV on the hurry up.   Of course, that's exactly what the majority of his listeners want to hear.  The many has zero integrity.  

My compliments to you.   As you can see I will admit when I'm wrong (my wife would tell that is MOST of the time ), and I see where you'll even admit something also. You also can debate with some humor, while we both have opposing viewpoints and will both argue them passionately and tirelessly, you seem to be on the same page as I: That is if you really like to debate issues, you better be prepared to say your wrong at times. Arguing a debating point is very easy, but admitting you're wrong is when you often have to put your big boy pants on. Having a sense of humor also helps!


BG