Started By
Message
re: The BIG 6 vs The BIG 6 ALL-TIME
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:15 am to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:15 am to SummerOfGeorge
Shula had major disadvantages due to the sanctions. Everybody understood that. He did well considering the circumstances he was brought into. Bama as a program was a dumpster fire, even the foundation had been swept away. Shula was able to come in and stabilize a program in turmoil and lay a foundation that Saban could build on. You think Saban would've risked his career to come to Alabama in 2003 had he need looking for a job? You're delusional if so. Saban only considered Bama in 07 because of the shape Shula left the program in.
The national media at the time thought it unfair to fire Shula when he was and thought he deserved another year. The fanbase however went into a frenzy the second Tuberville held up that thumb to signify 5 straight. It's not unreasonable to believe had Shula beaten Auburn a couple times that the fanbase would be subdued enough that he stays another year.
To ignore the sanctions and surrounding circumstances of Shula's tenure is revisionist history.
The national media at the time thought it unfair to fire Shula when he was and thought he deserved another year. The fanbase however went into a frenzy the second Tuberville held up that thumb to signify 5 straight. It's not unreasonable to believe had Shula beaten Auburn a couple times that the fanbase would be subdued enough that he stays another year.
To ignore the sanctions and surrounding circumstances of Shula's tenure is revisionist history.
3
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:24 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Shula was only fired when he was because he couldn't beat Auburn. Otherwise he gets at least another year and Saban is coaching elsewhere. Bryant was told when he was hired that he was brought in to end the losing to Auburn.
So yes, actually you did. Nothing to be ashamed of. Your burning desire to beat Auburn has clearly payed dividends to your program
Man, the universe you live in has some impressive internet access to talk to ours.
No one ever said anything of the sort to Bryant, and to be honest - we would have been more interested in catching up to Neyland and Tennessee than Auburn.
Ears won a whopping 4 games in 3 seasons. Yes, 3 of his 20+ losses were to Auburn, but that's hardly worth mentioning.
Shula was barely above .500, and his final season was a well below expected 6-6 go.
Alabama demands excellence - not just in games over Auburn. Yes, beating Auburn is important, just like beating LSU is important - you have to do so to win the West and a shot at the SEC title. Sorry though that you have an odd belief that Auburn has any greater importance than that.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:25 am to jchamil
quote:
Kind of odd that Auburn played Alabama annually, but Auburn was not one of Alabama's annual games
He's stating that playing Auburn is no big deal.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:26 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Auburn is a top 15 program all-time, so clearly we didn't fall too far off any cliffs.
Only top 15?
Heh. Scrubs.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:26 am to BowlJackson
quote:
It's not unreasonable to believe had Shula beaten Auburn a couple times that the fanbase would be subdued enough that he stays another year.
The only thing that would have bought him another year was beating Auburn in 2005. He would have finished 10-1 in the regular season and went on to a better bowl. That would be the only thing that could have saved him one more year.
Shula was going to be fired whether he beat Auburn in '06 or not. That loss to Mississippi State pretty much secured it.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:27 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
The funny thing is, Bama fans say pretty much the opposite in regards to Auburn, but when the scenario is changed, its not okay.
To be fair, for a time it did seem that there were coaches who were kept on because they could beat Bama (but not because of Barn fans - I knew my friends who were huge Auburn fans could still get irritated at a coach and want them gone)
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:30 am to BayouTiga
quote:
Hey Gump Fuk
Bragging about arbitrary statistics and it only being a whopping of 3 more wins. Would you take that or the two more national titles Alabama has had since 2000?
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:34 am to skrayper
quote:
To be fair, for a time it did seem that there were coaches who were kept on because they could beat Bama
And you could pretty much state the opposite as well.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:34 am to AU24
Anything before 2000 was so last century.
LSU > everyone this century
LSU > everyone this century
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:35 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Shula had major disadvantages due to the sanctions. Everybody understood that. He did well considering the circumstances he was brought into. Bama as a program was a dumpster fire, even the foundation had been swept away. Shula was able to come in and stabilize a program in turmoil and lay a foundation that Saban could build on. You think Saban would've risked his career to come to Alabama in 2003 had he need looking for a job? You're delusional if so. Saban only considered Bama in 07 because of the shape Shula left the program in.
Nobody is arguing any of those points. I have no ill will towards Shula. He came in, stabilized things, ran a clean program and did the best he could. Our point was he wasn't fired because he lost to Auburn.
quote:
The national media at the time thought it unfair to fire Shula when he was and thought he deserved another year.
They were wrong.
quote:
The fanbase however went into a frenzy the second Tuberville held up that thumb to signify 5 straight. It's not unreasonable to believe had Shula beaten Auburn a couple times that the fanbase would be subdued enough that he stays another year.
The fanbase went into a frenzy when Shula lost to Sly Croom's Mississippi State team at home 2 weeks earlier. They hadn't won an SEC road game in something like 4 years, and they waltzed into Tuscaloosa and beat us (along with the Sly Croom vs Shula thing).
Losing to Auburn again was just icing on the cake. If Shula had beaten State that day, gone 7-5 and then won a bowl game to finish 8-5? He would have gotten another year. The State loss sealed his fate. A win vs Auburn MIGHT have made up for it, but that is very much up for debate. The State loss was the straw that broke the camel's back.
quote:
To ignore the sanctions and surrounding circumstances of Shula's tenure is revisionist history.
Again, nobody is doing that. I don't know what makes you suggest it.
Shula's overall record vs LSU/Auburn/Tennessee plus the miserable, awful home loss to State (in year 4) is what did him in. And rightfully so.
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 10:41 am
Posted on 8/12/16 at 10:44 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Shula had major disadvantages due to the sanctions
And due to the fact that Mike Price was fired and Shula hired him May of 2003. changing entire staffs that close to a season basically made 2003 a wash. 2003 sucking so bad made 2004 recruiting difficult. It was a cumulative effect kind of thing.
quote:
He did well considering the circumstances he was brought into
He did fair to well. He had one 10 win season, one average season, and two losing seasons.
quote:
You think Saban would've risked his career to come to Alabama in 2003 had he need looking for a job?
Yes, b/c Bama in 2003 was coming off a 10 win season, had won the SEC just 4 years prior, was 11 years removed from a national title (think about how far Tennessee, Georgia, etc are from a title now...for that matter, in 2003 Bama was 11 years removed from a natty. LSU today is 9 years removed).
quote:
Saban only considered Bama in 07 because of the shape Shula left the program in.
You're high. Only logical explanation. He came to Bama because of the tradition, support, and ability to recruit to the school. That's it. He didn't come because Shula (coming off a losing season) had left it in such great shape.
quote:
To ignore the sanctions and surrounding circumstances of Shula's tenure is revisionist history.
your entire arguments throughout this thread are revisionist history. you claim Bama wouldn't have had success prior to bryant if they'd have played AU during a 40+ year stretch, yet you ignore the fact that Bama was considerably better than AU during that same stretch. So a team with a sub .600 winning percentage over 40 years is going to beat more often than not a team with a .770+ winning percentage? Nope.
Also, you claim Bryant only came to coach at Bama b/c he was an alum of Bama. You forget that he was from Arkansas originally and chose to come to Bama as a player BECAUSE of the success the team was having during that time. The school already had success and that is what drew him to it as a player. He knew he could re-establish that success, which is what drew him as a coach.
The fact that Bama has been successful and won an SEC title in every decade save the 50's, a national title in every decade save the 50's and 80's, and is the winningest program in conference history is why Saban felt he could have the success he's had (not b/c shula left it in such "good shape").
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:11 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Over that 4 year stretch
0-4 vs Auburn
0-4 vs Georgia Tech
1-3 vs Tennessee
1-3 vs Mississippi State
We fired our coach because we were TERRIBLE against EVERYONE
Sure, that's part of it.
But none of those other teams were your in-state rival who had just brought a National Title Trophy back home to their trophy case. The Alabama-Tennessee rivalry was a big deal at the time, but by the time Bryant came to Tuscaloosa, Alabama was fairly used to regularly losing to Tennessee. From the time the AL-UT rivalry began on an annual basis in 1928 up through 1957, Tennessee led the series over Alabama 15-10-1. So losing to Tennessee was not new.
Losing to Auburn was certainly new. Granted Auburn and Alabama did not play from 1908-1947, but up until the 4-game losing streak to Auburn that occurred between 1954-1957, Alabama had lost to Auburn just one single time going back to 1905.
quote:
Record over that stretch
0-5 vs Auburn
1-4 vs LSU
2-3 vs Tennessee
Again, we sucked over that entire period. Auburn, LSU and Tennessee owned us.
Yes, but again, being 0-5 against your in-state rival was far more disconcerting than a 2-3 record against Tennessee. Especially when you had Tuberville rubbing it in with "Fear the Thumb" crap like he did at the time.
quote:
Shula was fired because it was clear that 2005 was a blip on the radar, we couldn't beat Top 15 level teams, the streak to Auburn/LSU and the loss at home to State.
Again. All losses contribute to a coach being fired. We get that. But allowing an in-state rival to get total control of the state is on a different level. And it causes programs to take drastic measures. That's why Alabama pulled out the check book to pay a coach an unprecedented amount of money at that time to ensure this 5-year trend did not become the new norm.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:16 am to Decker
quote:
The point, I think, is that Auburn won the title without playing a bowl game
Yes, Auburn won the National Title in 1957 while on probation and while not playing in a bowl game. But weren't bowl games considered irrelevant in those days? The National Titles were awarded before the bowl games were even played, so Auburn not playing in a bowl really had no bearing I would think.
It's the same way Alabama gets to claim the 1964 title despite losing their bowl game a team undefeated Arkansas beat during the regular season.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:21 am to BHMKyle
Are you trolling me? You are making the exact same point I made. I said the 1957 title was legitimate.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:34 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
That Auburn fires coaches for not beating Alabama?
I think we both clearly hold that game above all others, but the only coach throughout the entire series on either side that I can think of fired almost universally for not beating the other team was Curry. He is the only one who had pretty good success outside of that game, and it was made pretty clear that wasn't enough. Is there anyone else?
You are right that Curry is probably the only Alabama or Auburn coach fired exclusively for not being able to win an Iron Bowl, but I think you could certainly make a case that a large number of Bama or Auburn coaches were let go sooner with losing Iron Bowls as the #1 major contributing factor.
*Whitworth was fired (1957) upon losing to Auburn the same year Auburn won a National Title
*Curry was fired (1989) upon losing to Auburn the same year Auburn won an SEC Title
*Dye was fired upon losing to Alabama the same year Alabama won a National Title (1992)
*Dubose was fired (2000) upon losing to Auburn the same year Auburn won the SEC West
*Tuberville was fired (2008) upon losing to Auburn the same year Alabama won the SEC West
*Chizik was fired (2012) upon losing to Alabama the same year Alabama won the National Title
Amazing how the other team winning some form of trophy seems to almost always hasten the firing of a coach at both Auburn and Alabama.
After all the success Tommy Tuberville had at Auburn, I don't think 2008 alone would have caused him to be fired. It was the fact that Alabama had just hired Saban and went undefeated in the regular season in 2008 that Tuberville was shown the door so abruptly. Same goes with Chizik in 2012. Auburn was just two seasons removed from a National Title... and obviously still had plenty of talent (see 2013 success), but Auburn could not handle the back-to-back National Titles for Alabama across the state.
More often than not, the major contributing reason for BOTH an Auburn or an Alabama coach being let go is because they let the power shift to the other side of the state. You can argue all day long, but history shows that to be true. It may not be the sole reason (except in the case of Bill Curry), but it does appear to the #1 contributing factor nearly every time.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:36 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Yes, b/c Bama in 2003 was coming off a 10 win season, had won the SEC just 4 years prior, was 11 years removed from a national title (think about how far Tennessee, Georgia, etc are from a title now...for that matter, in 2003 Bama was 11 years removed from a natty. LSU today is 9 years removed).
You very convienently left of the most important facts that would've come into consideration.
In 2003 Bama was just beginning a period of probation that lasted 10 years, until 2012. And in 2003 Bama was enduring the most severe part of the sanctions, including a post season ban and a loss of 21 scholarships.
That 10 win season in 2002 you mentioned? Should've played for an SEC championship but were ineligible due to the post season ban.
Any momentum Bama had at that point was erased, and any recent success basically null and void due to the sanctions.
There's not a chance in hell Saban would've touched Bama at that point. No coach worth a damn would have. Why do you think Franchione was so eager to get out of dodge? Price was barely .500 at Washington State and the only reason y'all could pull him was because WSU is probably the worst P5 school in the country, and Pullman makes Starkville look like Athens.
As for the rest of your post, your reading comprehension is obviously quite lacking.
I clearly stated that Shula left your program in good shape relative (key word there) to the dumpster fire he came into. Shula brought stability, and stability was much better shape than what Shula walked into.
quote:
You forget that he was from Arkansas originally and chose to come to Bama as a player BECAUSE of the success the team was having during that time. The school already had success and that is what drew him to it as a player.
There you go with be lack of reading comprehension again. I literally said EXACTLY that, nearly verbatim.
It was actually a big part of my overall argument. I said that had AU and Bama not gone on hiatus and if Auburn was able to keep Bama from getting to some of those Rose Bowls in the 20's and becoming nationally recognized at the time, that Bryant would've never come to Bama. I believe he said he wanted to play for Bama after listening to them play in the Rose Bowl on the radio. It's entirely possible that had Auburn and Alabama played in that era that Auburn could've knocked off Bama whichever year Bryant was listening on the radio, keeping them from being invited to the Rose Bowl. Had Bryant not listened to those games, he likely wouldn't come to Bama, setting off a chain reaction that would effectively wipe out all of Alabama's post-WW2 success.
Now, that is obviously a big what if, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. There's probably a parallel universe that exists like that.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:42 am to BHMKyle
quote:
But none of those other teams were your in-state rival who had just brought a National Title Trophy back home to their trophy case
We fired a coach who went 0-10. We were awful. Do you seriously think Ears Whitworth was fired specifically because he lost to Auburn? Like, if Ears had won 4 more games vs Auburn and still lost 80% of his games, he would have been retained?
Come on man
quote:
Yes, but again, being 0-5 against your in-state rival was far more disconcerting than a 2-3 record against Tennessee. Especially when you had Tuberville rubbing it in with "Fear the Thumb" crap like he did at the time.
I can tell you with 100% certainty, as a student at Alabama at the time, the Auburn losses were the most stinging, but the overall problem was the total record vs Auburn, Tennessee and LSU. The group record.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:45 am to BHMKyle
quote:
*Whitworth was fired (1957) upon losing to Auburn the same year Auburn won a National Title
Fired for being the worst coach in Alabama history.
quote:
*Curry was fired (1989) upon losing to Auburn the same year Auburn won an SEC Title
Fired because he couldn't beat Auburn.
quote:
*Dye was fired upon losing to Alabama the same year Alabama won a National Title (1992)
Fired because of the combination of NCAA issues along with clearly falling behind (5-6, 5-5-1 his last 2 years)
quote:
*Dubose was fired (2000) upon losing to Auburn the same year Auburn won the SEC West
Fired because he slept with his secretary, brought on future sanctions and went 3-9 in a year we were ranked #3 in the preseason.
quote:
*Tuberville was fired (2008) upon losing to Auburn the same year Alabama won the SEC West
Of all the coaches, this guy clearly was not fired for his record vs Alabama
quote:
*Chizik was fired (2012) upon losing to Alabama the same year Alabama won the National Title
Again, clear
Losing to the other team generally happens when one of the coaches programs is falling apart or isn't performing because the other program is generally pretty good. It's part of the issue, it's almost never THE issue.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:52 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Do you seriously think Ears Whitworth was fired specifically because he lost to Auburn?
Because he lost to Auburn?... No
Because Auburn was polishing their new National Championship Trophy? Yes, I think that probably had a lot to do with it.
quote:
I can tell you with 100% certainty, as a student at Alabama at the time, the Auburn losses were the most stinging, but the overall problem was the total record vs Auburn, Tennessee and LSU. The group record.
Then that is my point. Sure losing to all those other teams played a factor. But as the losses to Auburn were "most stinging" to you, they were to all Alabama fans also. Which is why the 5-game losing streak to Auburn was the #1 contributing factor for Shula being canned and Alabama writing a check for an unprecedented sum of money at that time to get the best coach in the land.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 11:56 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Because Auburn was polishing their new National Championship Trophy? Yes, I think that probably had a lot to do with it.
He went 4-24-2!!!!!!!!!
Kansas would fire a coach for that record after 4 years. If Auburn had gone 0-50 those 4 years and Ears had gone 8-20-2 he would have been fired. Come onnnnnnnn.
quote:
Then that is my point. Sure losing to all those other teams played a factor. But as the losses to Auburn were "most stinging" to you, they were to all Alabama fans also. Which is why the 5-game losing streak to Auburn was the #1 contributing factor for Shula being canned and Alabama writing a check for an unprecedented sum of money at that time to get the best coach in the land.
I don't think it was the #1 factor - I think the overall trajectory of the program was. I think it was the #2 factor (along with his performance overall vs good teams and our other rivals).
quote:
Alabama writing a check for an unprecedented sum of money at that time to get the best coach in the land.
I think that our brass realized we were on the cusp of disappearing forever if we screwed up that hire.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News