I don't want to be too hard on the kid--he's still a teenager, after all--but he does not seem particularly confident in his interactions with reporters. Certainly much less so than Braxton, JT, Cardale, or Dwayne. My biggest concern is how well he handles himself under pressure, and the interviews I've seen haven't filled me with confidence in him.
I'm not sure I fully understand the rest of this thread since your comment was deleted, but I'm glad Jason cleared things up below.
That's not what I'm saying, nor is that what it is written at the link I posted. It is a privately owned company, as opposed to a publicly traded company. That's what is meant by independent business any time you hear that term used.
Is this a serious question?
You're right about 2016*, but I'm not sure about 2017, at least in terms of who was better at the end of the season. Haskins looked considerably better than JT when he came into the Michigan game in '17. I'm not sure we would have won that game if JT hadn't gone down, honestly.
*That said, part of me thinks Burrow might have put at least six points on the board against Clemson.
I'm with you. I'm more willing to give Borland the benefit of the doubt than Werner; Tuf looked like a budding star in 2017, and I buy that he was never fully healthy last season. I remain skeptical of Werner, though. I've never seen the dude in person so maybe it's just my TV, but he just doesn't look the part of an Ohio State linebacker--even in the era of leaner, more athletic LBs like Shazier and Lee. He just looks skinny out there.
Came here to say the same thing. I can't wait.
I'm not denying that that is common practice in the private sector. We are talking about public institutions, though. The hiring process at public universities--particularly for leadership positions--is much more formal and systematic than in other sectors of the economy, because their hiring practices are subject to strict scrutiny and oversight by the state. In my world--which, again, functions much differently than a private corporation or institution of higher ed--saying that you have a job without a formal offer is akin to saying someone you've gone on a couple dates with is your girlfriend/boyfriend.
NCAA rules regarding scholarship offers and university policies around offers of employment are completely different animals. That's a ridiculous comparison. I have actual experience in this area and know what I am talking about, but I also have more important things to do than argue with someone who clearly has neither. You're wrong, and that's okay. Have a good one.
Yes, I would consider a job offer an indication that the candidate was the person's top choice, sometimes. However, there have certainly been instances in which I have extended job offers to my second choice, since the top candidate does not always accept the offer. But again, I do not think ZS was Saban's top candidate and I do not think the offer was extended. Period.
Also, I can't speak for the "average person" but I would absolutely not consider what you just described a job offer. Nor would anyone who works at a public institution in a hiring capacity.
Background checks mandated by public institutions typically take place after offers are extended, you're correct. Reference checks, on the other hand, typically occur prior to the offer being made. Saban has been using the phrase "background check" but what he is describing falls under the reference check/informal info gathering umbrella. I'm speaking as someone who works at a public university and does this pretty regularly.
You're operating under the assumption that ZS was Saban's number one choice for the position, which seems odd considering that hasn't been reported anywhere, as far as I know.
It's funny that we're having this conversation in a thread about information that surfaced via a public records request, because the main reason Saban wouldn't lie about this is because he--unlike ZS--is intelligent enough to know that reporters could very easily find out whether or not a job offer was extended by simply filing a public records request with the state of Alabama. Not sure what you do for a living or if you have ever worked in a hiring capacity for a public institution, but this type of information is extremely well-documented and publicly available if you go through the necessary process to obtain it.
Yes, they do. What are you talking about? Saban confirmed that he interviewed ZS for a job on his staff. He wouldn't interview him if there wasn't a possibility of extending an offer, so why would he admit to the interview taking place but not the offer? Do you think Chip Kelly would deny that he offered Ryan Day the OC job at UCLA? Of course not. It's extremely common for assistant coaches to interview with other programs in the offseason, and they generally don't lie about it. Weird that you think that it's somehow verboten.
It's not a matter of ZS being confident enough to do that, per se; I believe he is dumb enough and duplicitous enough to do that. Read through all the texts--he lied to administration and leadership all the time. He did all kinds of stuff that could/should have put his job in jeopardy. I'm not sure I understand why people think Saban has any incentive to lie here.
As I said below, his comment about the records being released at the beginning of camp being unfair to the players may have been well taken until he expressed frustration that Ryan Stamper--rightfully--told players who supposedly (key word) wanted to wear Menace 2 Society shirts on hotel move-in day that they could not do that. Is ZS really so delusional and self-involved that he doesn't realize how much more bad press that would create for the program than the public records release? (That's a rhetorical question, btw.)
I listened to ZS' latest podcast out of morbid curiosity. I've said it before, but if you buy a single word that comes out of his mouth, you probably haven't spent much time with malignant narcissists and/or alcoholics. I wish I had the patience, time, and energy to transcribe and annotate his comments, because the number of fallacies, self-serving explanations, inconsistencies, and contradictions coming out of his mouth every minute is almost too high to count. My favorite highlights were him asking "Who has the right to read someone else's texts?" when talking about texts that were sent on the work phones of public employees--the answer, Zach, is "the public"--and also him saying that the OSU releasing the records was unfair to the players because it would require them to relive and be asked questions about the scandal for the second year in a row. The second point is dubious on its face but the hilarious part is that he followed it up by bashing Ryan Stamper for not letting players walk into the team hotel in Menace 2 Society t-shirts, as though that wouldn't have created a much bigger issue for those players. What an idiot.
I wonder if you realize that millennials are much older than you think. Like, mid-to-late-20s on the young end of the spectrum, and around 40 on the upper limit.
For some reason I thought that, in addition to the Miss St offer, Day had been offered the Colorado job and turned that one down, as well. Am I completely making that up or was there at least speculation that CU was interested in him?
Not sure what those combinations of words mean.
It's just like the narrative, "they paid this much for a locker room, why don't they compensate the players?"
I don't know what you think the word "narrative" means.
you seem fussy
Yeah, I think we have enough evidence at this point to safely say that the "QB guru" title was given to Harbaugh prematurely. I know he also got a lot out of Kaepernick that one year, but he mostly got that title because of Andrew Luck's performance at Stanford. In retrospect, I suspect Luck's success had more to do with A) his own innate, preternatural talent as a quarterback and B) the fact that his father was an NFL QB, than who he had as a head coach in college. Luck would have been an elite quarterback regardless of where he went to school; Harbaugh's impact was likely negligible.
I would rather miss the playoff.
They also take into account each team's entire body of work, and in OSU's case, that body of work included a blowout loss to a mediocre Purdue team. There's some tension between "who are the best four teams at the end of the season" and "which four teams have the best bodies of work by the end of the season", and the committee considers both. There will almost always be more than four teams with an argument to be included in the playoff, but--for now, anyway--there are only four spots in the playoff bracket. Don't want to be on the outside looking in? Don't lose to Purdue by multiple touchdowns.
Is the committee really biased against the B1G? The B1G champ made the playoff in 2014 and 2015, and in 2016, they selected a B1G team that didn't even win its division, let alone the conference. In 2017, the B1G champ had two losses, so they didn't get in. Last season, ND finally went undefeated and we got our shit kicked in by Purdue, so OSU didn't get in. I see no evidence of a bias here.
Sorry, there's no way the committee would forgive a loss to a non-Power 5 team. Again, Cincinnati--right or wrong--is not perceived by non-Ohioans in the same way as Virginia Tech.
I'm not sure about that. The committee may claim to view each season in a vacuum, but we know they don't, and Clemson has been extremely successful in the playoff and would likely get the benefit of the doubt if they lose a game and still win the conference--unless that loss is to Charlotte or Wofford. Clemson also has a strong non-conference opponent in Texas A&M in week two, and the Aggies are projected to be a top-15 team in most preseason polls. I've seen people on this forum try to downplay OSU's lack of a Power 5 non-conference opponent by arguing that Cincinnati is better than most P5 teams--that may or may not be true, but whether we like it or not, no one outside of the state of Ohio thinks UC is in the same category as A&M. That's just a fact. I also think a lot of us underestimate how the 2016 loss to Clemson damaged the national perception of OSU and its place in the playoff conversation. OSU either has to go undefeated and leave no doubt whatsoever about its playoff resume, or it has to lose to Nebraska (or maybe NW) and then beat that team handily in the B1G championship.