A newspaper reader describes the leadership of the University of Alabama:
For the person that called about Jim Tressel running Ohio State: Who do you think runs the University of Alabama? It’s definitely not any of the presidents or trustees or board members or anyone else like that. His name is Nick Saban. He runs everything at the University of Alabama.
March 14th, 2011 at 8:21AM
That’s pretty thin sourcing. . . .
March 14th, 2011 at 9:51AM
Well, James, when something’s a well-known truth, I think it’s fine to reference the voice of the people.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:52AM
I had a similar thought James: has UD become the blogging equivalent of shock-jock radio?
But then I got a call from Coach Saban, and realized she had been right all along. You see, I had been considering what would be my best use of Spring Break, whether to plan the x-ray methods experiments for the undergraduates or complete the peer reviews of these papers, or finish off the wait-listing of our graduate applications, when the ol’ ball coach rang. “Street,” he said, in that fatherly way of his, “I want you to get in there and get it done. No excuses, now. Get it done!” Always great stuff from Coach. He’s a real leader, let me tell you.
So anyway, while English profs from Private U are off gallivanting about the Emerald Isle (for research purposes, of course!), forsaking their New England second homes or the beach, we here at Football U have our marching orders. No rest for Saban’s minions!
March 14th, 2011 at 11:23AM
Hey, you’re the ones with all the money down there, Shane. My school can’t afford six million dollar coaches.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:34AM
I thought the ghost of Coach Bryant ran Alabama.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:44PM
I know, right? I mean, $6 million. If only Alabama football hadn’t brought in all that filthy lucre ($71,884,525 to be exact).
$6 million. Geez. How many Trachtenberg’s is that?
March 15th, 2011 at 9:37AM
Margaret,
I have no doubt Saban has heavy sway over the athletic department, or even that the admissions people are likely to tread lightly around him. That’s the way of big time college athletics and Alabama is among the biggest. But Bob Knight didn’t run Indiana and Nick Saban doesn’t run Alabama.
March 15th, 2011 at 9:49AM
James: I think what the newspaper reader I’m quoting is getting at is a larger truth than the particularities of some trustees having some responsibility, the president having some prerogatives. Given his money and his status, Saban represents a virtually ungovernable force – not merely at the university, of course, but in the state.
You mention Bob Knight – he was close to this at Indiana as well. The only thing that stopped Bobby Knight was his own vicious temperament… And even then, the university had to work long and hard and screw up its courage to get rid of him.
That mere athletic coaches – at locations called universities – have this kind of power and centrality is outrageous. That realization is what’s behind the reader’s comment.
March 15th, 2011 at 10:11AM
Margaret: In a perfect world, we’d separate big money athletics from institutions of higher learning. But I don’t see any serious demand to move in that direction.
At the major sports factories, the intertwining of the two is complete. That’s even true at very strong academic schools like Berkeley, Duke, and Michigan. The alumni care about sports more than anything else–it’s their only real tie to their school after graduation.
At less-well-known schools, university presidents see sports, and especially football and men’s basketball, as the easiest way to put their institutions on the map. And there’s something to that notion. It’s easier to build a decent basketball team than a world class faculty and a strong academic reputation.
March 15th, 2011 at 11:23AM
James: Well, we’ll have to disagree on every aspect of your latest comment.
Even in a very imperfect world plenty of people want to decouple athletics and seriousness. (At some schools – as you point out – athletics and seriousness can coexist). And even if there’s no serious demand in that direction, that doesn’t at all mean that you don’t – if you have integrity – move in that direction anyway. Since when did universities become such demand-driven institutions that even the filth of big-time university sports is something universities have to tolerate? Knight is a perfect example of how far into the gutter universities have fallen. He brought an ethos totally at odds with the life of the mind, and Indiana let him do it. Every year I follow similar stories of sadistic coaches tolerated and tolerated and given millions in compensation until public disgust becomes so great that they have to be fired. Of course, right after that happens you get the coach’s lawsuit, which drags out forever and costs the university huge sums.
I think you’re wrong about the total intertwining of sports and intellectuality, even at the sports factories. I read constant stories about outraged faculty, students protesting against sports fees going up and up, etc. Here’s an example. Majorities vote against more sports, and the board of trustees doesn’t give a shit – even when they can hear the screams of protesters as they deliberate. And this is in Alabama.
Unless you’re a total sports nut, it’s degrading to be at a sport factory, as your use, and my use, of the derogatory term sports factory suggests. We use the term because we know that the only product of such universities is sports wins. They are not, that is to say, universities. Auburn is a good example.
Which makes me wonder why they get non-profit tax breaks, why their fans’ luxury boxes (And if you think the people in those boxes are primarily alumni, you’re wrong. They’re mainly local business people impressing clients. They are typically not alumni. It’s just like all those messy tailgaters at the University of Georgia. As the university acknowledges, few of these people have any connection to the university.) also get tax breaks, etc. As you probably know, every year people try to remove the NCAA’s tax benefits, as well as tax benefits that accrue to schools that aren’t schools. (The for-profits are going to be the first to see this happen, but as their lobbyists correctly point out, there are plenty of faux non-profit institutions – predominant among them the sports factories – that should see their tax status change as well.)
As for those obscure schools that think sports will put them on the map — With very few exceptions, sports either don’t put them on the map, or they put them on the map for the wrong reasons – criminal recruits, corrupt coaches, student indifference to the team, etc.
I’ve concluded – after years of looking at these sorts of schools and their sports decisions – that they tend to have no rational grounds at all. Just a bunch of dumb guys who can’t think of anything else. Latest fuckups here.
And of course the choice is not between a decent basketball team (my local high school can field one of those) and world class anything. The distinction is between a decent basketball team and a decent college.