Wow, lot of stuff here, and I don't want to retread these paths but a couple of unaddressed things --
First, I've got way too much venom to dump on Ohio State, So Cal and Mich to hate on Bama too much. Second I don't care to get personal or take offense unless that's the mindset of the other guy and I need to defend something or someone I care about. Invincibly ignorant bigots or meanspirited a holes, sure, you crap on, but not most people.
A couple of points --
I think Bishop is downplaying too much the medical scholarship point. Leave Bama out of it. Assuming the numbers are true, if one school has almost half (12) of a conferences total medical schollies (25), that is a striking statistical disparity. That is not just, well, maybe a little high, let's dismiss it, doesn't prove anything, let's move along. You can say it's circumstantial, and it is, by itself, but people go to jail on circumstantial evidence all the time. So perhaps this is one nut of disagreement. Again, leaving Bama out, because I don't hate Bama, but 12 of 25 is more than just a little smoke -- such a school either has lousy medical care or something stinks somewhere.
Second, and this goes back to last night, but also it has come up today, and again, I don't know the numbers or particulars, so this isn't anti-Bama, just a principle we're talking about: I think Bishop and I, at least, strongly disagree about the nature of a scholarship and what it means. This is a second nut of disagreement. I think if you give a guy a scholly, you give him a scholly. You are committing, short of real medical issues or behavior issues (this doesn't include, "sheesh, kid's not as good as I thought two years ago!"), to a four year gig. Bishop, as I understood him last night, seemed to think insufficient performance was a legitimate reason to push a kid out, or at least, that while he may not like it, it’s not against the rules. (Not trying to mis-state it, so would stand correction.) I think this is fuzzy thinking; if you don’t like it, then you agree with me. If you accept it, then you don’t. Saying I don’t like, but it’s legal, so Saban or whoever isn’t culpable really is a dodge. Because the question for me isn’t, is Saban or such a coach breaking NCAA law?; the question is, is Saban or such a coach a sleazy piece of cr@p by doing unethical things that should be counter to the idea of college football.
Also, my problem, and what makes it smell of unethical behavior to me a little is exactly the thing that allows Bishop to say, "well, prove it." These issues are hard to prove. Why aren't there more kids screaming about it? The culture of football, generally, and particularly in the South -- guy doesn't want to appear to complain (btw, I think this is an admirable instinct; I'm not criticizing the disinclination to bitch at all; I admire it) and he certainly doesn't want a maelstrom that would be centered on a notable coach telling him he isn't a very good player. Better to go quietly. So again, I wouldn't put too much weight on the lack of outcry.
By the same token, I am not saying "conspiracy." Sometimes I laugh at all the conspiracies floating out there: you can tell they are conspiracies by the complete lack of evidence establishing them. I am just saying the lack of a smoking gun doesn’t prove he’s clean. Granted, he doesn’t have to prove he’s clean, but again, the issue isn’t whether the NCAA can slam him; it’s whether he can avoid looking like a sleaze, and in such cases, sometimes you do have to put down some evidence that you are clean. We saw this with Te’o.
But in this case, you have bits and pieces of things, and they all should go into the wall of evidence of whether there is wrong doing or not.
Eg --
1. What are the numbers, really? Can the disparity be explained (early draft, graduation) or are they nebulous (medical, quality departures, etc.)?
2. How do the numbers stack up against other programs?
3. What's the standard of proof the NCAA uses to look at these things? I don't know that you can conclude that the lack of NCAA action is tantamount to Bama or any school "doing things by the letter of the law." It depends on how easy it is to get evidence of compliance with the letter of the law. If the details are shrouded in "Well, the coach didn't exactly say I had to leave the team" type statements, that may not be enough for the NCAA to move, but it doesn't mean the fair-minded person has to say, "well, they are complying with the letter of the law." It may just be that the letter of the law is a tough standard to figure out.
Finally, I don't think it is fair to ascribe bad motives to Bishop; he’s defending his team in a hostile arena and he isn’t a foul-mouth or a mean-spirited guy. But nor do I think he can logically assume that, or logically attribute, complaints by Irish fans about unethical behavior to sour grapes. That's as much a possibility, logically, as that Bishop is defending Bama because he feels guilty about the wildly disproportionate number of medical scholarships and the ease with which Saban cuts throats. My point is, there are reasons besides shady motives, why people would be on both sides of this, and without more evidence, neither side can ascribe motives.
