Bubdylan

I listen to him on Cover 3 and the guy just can't get around his emotional biases to save his life. He thinks blue bloods and SEC teams get over valued because of name brand and pre-season bias, and gives no credence to the fact that those teams are actually most talented by roster and generally prove their superority over time by on the field results, especially in the post season.

He also values resumé over everything else that proves a team's prowess, and by resumé basically means only wins and losses no matter how the teams played or whom they played against.

And he is SO whiney. I kinda like him, but whoo boy is he lead around by some whackass feelings. A gambler could make a killing against him just by betting against his top handful of touchy feely "lock" bets.

I think he might be a sanctimonious dork.

But, secretly? I respect it. I hope he pulls it off and keeps Clemson relevant. After all, most coaches are egotists of one brand or other. And Iadmit part of me likes his brand. Godspeed to him.

Reading between the lines, Saban is saying something like this:

Previously, whatever the combo of handshakes, bagmen, access to cars, blah blah, it did not create an environment in which the majority of players said "pay me X dollars and guarantee me playing time or I'm gone."

But now that it's like that, it sucks in 2 ways: harder for the coaches to develop the team they want, and harder FOR THE PLAYER TO DEVELOP INTO WHAT WILL SERVE HIM BEST IN THE LONG RUN.

These players are going to grab top instant dollar, lose motivation, piss their money away, and end up tragic stories of excess. Like any of us would who made these choices at that age.

If you think Saban doesn't actually care about that side of it, and made up this whole sequence of feelings including that conversation with his wife, I don't know what to tell you.

Time will prove him right as these money grab players become broke and down and out by age 22.

You call me on what? Having just 100 posts in 5 years?

Is your point that I have better things to do than troll among the small minded?

Good point. I do.

My innuendo is quite mild.

But the result is the result. Unclench your pearls and offer an adult explanation.

Someone less reactionary than you has suggested too small a sample size. Fine, if that's the case. But ignoring it altogether and then firing off some b.s. virtue signal is tedious.

If it's too small of a sample size, then I'm satisfied with that answer.

I don't know the standard on sample sizes before a little phenomenon like this becomes significant.

100% across 9 QBs seemed like enough to at least say it out loud.

But hey, if 9 outta 9 is still too slim, I can accept that.

I would really like it if it led to nothing banworthy. Maybe that's naive.

Look, part of me hates that I even noticed it. But I did. And so ... is there anything to it?

McElroy: 1 natty.
McArron: 2 natties
Coker: 1 natty
Tua: 1 natty*
Jones: 1 natty

Sims: 0
Hurts: 0*
Young: 0
Milroe: 0

I mean... I'm not suggesting we go all Calvin Candie on this issue ... but ... we gonna ignore it?

Stopping following the sport is certainly in my future.

This is dumb and getting dumber. People keep comparing it to Free Agency, but that comparison doesn't even cover it. Pro ballplayers have to wait for free agency, and then they sign multi-year contracts. Also, pro organizations don't have to invest quite so much in the skill development of a player they have no idea will be on the roster a year later.

This is Free Agency on crack. And the product on the field will show it more and more. Sure, the skill positions will still be fun to watch, but the line play will be arse.

I'm less than five years from tuning out unless I just punish myself with going through the motions.

This is qualitatively different from the deteriorations of the sport we've held our noses and adjusted to before. College football as we know it will be unrecognizable in a decade.

Well, then replace my sample text with whatever proves it was foul play. I was just grabbing an anecdote.