The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Wouldn't that little old GOR thing be a bit of an obstacle ?
Why are we discussing Texas in an SEC thread, BTW ?
Spin-off tangent from the Saban rumors, I guess?
Even beyond that, I think an "adrift" Texas is a good thing for the SEC and recruiting in the state. Does a regime change put the Longhorns back on course? Does a regime change cause the school to question what it can do to alter the control of the conference...much of which was done with people who will not have their current jobs in 2014?
Yeah, it is a side-tracked discussion. Maybe the next responder will transition it to a B12 thread or something to do with coaching changes. However, I will tie such to an SEC example of the past. Recall in 2003 when then Auburn President Walker, AD Housel, and major booster Lowder took a previously undisclosed visit to see then Louisville coach, Bobby Petrino about the head fb coaching job at Auburn while Turbeville was actively coaching and had not resigned?
At least in the Texas situation, the discussion was with Saban's agent, which on surface, looks more ethical. Texas had board members in the chase, which points to questions about protocol and the hierarchy of responsibilities in governance.
If a school seeks to talk to a coach of another school under contract, the traditional, and perhaps ethical practice to pursue, is to ask the coach's current employer for permission to speak to him/her about a declared vacancy. It's way more sordid when representatives of a school, direct officials or boosters, converse with an active coach elsewhere and no resignation or firing has occurred at the time.
Some coaches can be blamed also. Many encourage and exploit interest from elsewhere to land new, more lucrative contract extensions from their existing employer.
Saban has benefited from such.
Where boosters have been most disgusting, and it involves a wide-range of power-schools, has been with recruitment and retaining desired athletes. Only a fraction have been caught or exposed. And they are not so rogue as potentially nabbed schools try to suggest in their responses to NCAA inquiries. Somebody from the athletic staff is giving someone else target names. Thus, the cake jobs, new homes, cars, contributions, etc., for recruits and their families.
As to Texas itself, I expect they are comparatively, generally clean when it come to recruits because their supply access is very strong, and Texas has too high of a profile to take certain risks. But certainly, they have the financial power to go after goals and objectives that can be bought. What their problem has indicated though, some operations have not looked controlled, speaking from an unified and most appropriate voice. Everywhere, on or near this level, is immersed with politics; but in Texas, maybe it is just a bit bigger or more intense. Mistakes can be made when the wielding of formidable power under one's control is attempted to be imposed on forces well beyond one control, and full acceptance gets rejected and undesired consequences result.