SIAP: Mike Shula To Be NY Giants OC

I think it worked out for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have sort of tried to put myself in Mal’s shoes in that situation to see what his thinking was on the hire.

While there were other candidates interested and more qualified, most of them seemed to be more stop-gap or job hopper candidates being older or with baggage. After all the drama, Coach Moore probably did want to lean toward a Bama-man candidate. He also knew we weren’t going to be good for 3-4 years recovering from the sanctions. So maybe he felt he could hire a Bama-man with good image, good family, ultimate name recognition, a recent positive run as a professional assistant coach in Shula. I agreed with the hire at the time compared to the other candidates mentioned at the time. With the Shula hire, there was time to develop him as a HC, build a brand during the rebuilding years along with facility upgrades, and if this plan worked it could be a long-term positive situation.

But here’s the deal, Shula had to bring something to the table to make that opportunity work - the opportunity of a lifetime. And he didn’t. Simple as that. He had no commitment to a long-term rebuild and no plan for developing a program. His interview was either a complete snow job sale by Shula on his plans or massive failure by Coach Moore in vetting him thoroughly in the interview process. Don’t forget Saban was not available nor even a forethought possibility in the future.

The warning signs were already there after the 2003 season when he elected to retain the majority of the Price staff when he had the opportunity to go get his own guys. Yet he kept Bucket-Step Bob and hired Dave Rader as his OC and refused to make staff changes when strongly needed and suggested after watching our QB get sacked 11 times. Right up until he was fired, Shula had the power to make decisions on improving the program in 2006 - yet he had no plan even after 3 years on the job. Based on his approach, you have to really wonder why Shula accepted the job in the first place. He just wasted the opportunity and its hard to reconcile this with the time he was here as a player and why he would do that especially when it was his alma mater...

The frustration I feel with Shula is a lot like a prized recruit with limitless potential who gets kicked off the team being so disinterested in his opportunities.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm a Mike Shula fan, period. He was an Alabama player who played well and led the team to some memorable wins. He took a chance with his career by becoming the HC when he did and there was a time when he was the toast of college football when Bama was rolling (Blowing out UF and Urban Meyer, win over Spurrier, SI cover). I think he conducted himself with class when he was let go. I will not hold his father's words and actions against Mike, that is all on the elder Shula. Mike doesn't get credit for Don's NFL career, so Mike doesn't take any blame for Don's blathering. As far as nobody wanting the Alabama job when Shula took it, that is a relative statement. More accurate is that nobody of stature wanted it. Sly Croom wanted it, but I'm sure there were hundreds of others who wanted it too, who also didn't have the resume to deserve it. Neither did Shula, so it was a crap shoot hire, regardless.

I am not a Mike shula fan. So good luck to him at the giants. But what happened to Prothro and Brodie Croyle still bothers me. How he conducted himself with the players bothers me (The info that came from insiders on this board). The play Prothro got hurt on was idiotic on so many levels.

Was Shula favored over Croom because of Mal Moore. Remember Croom played and coached at Alabama when Mal was still coaching at Alabama, not so with Shula, so there was a connection with Croom. I thought at the time that hiring Shula would make it easier for Mal to fire Shula. Having to fire the first black SEC head coach from his alma mater would have been a disaster for Moore and certainly would have given the University a public black eye.

GrayTide said:

Was Shula favored over Croom because of Mal Moore. Remember Croom played and coached at Alabama when Mal was still coaching at Alabama, not so with Shula, so there was a connection with Croom. I thought at the time that hiring Shula would make it easier for Mal to fire Shula. Having to fire the first black SEC head coach from his alma mater would have been a disaster for Moore and certainly would have given the University a public black eye.

Click to expand...

In fact, Mal Moore basically said that to friends...he knew how bad we would be and he didn't want Coach Croom to have to deal with that mess. I think that shows a lot of foresight on his part.

GrayTide said:

Was Shula favored over Croom because of Mal Moore. Remember Croom played and coached at Alabama when Mal was still coaching at Alabama, not so with Shula, so there was a connection with Croom. I thought at the time that hiring Shula would make it easier for Mal to fire Shula. Having to fire the first black SEC head coach from his alma mater would have been a disaster for Moore and certainly would have given the University a public black eye.

Click to expand...

You've basically summarized my thoughts from 15 years ago.


When it became clear in the press that there were three candidates and - REALLY - only two, I fell into line with Mike Shula. Williamson, I'm just sitting there remembering what an utter disaster he was at Tampa Bay. Is that fair? Probably not. But that left the white dude and the black dude.


Let's be clear: I don't care what color the Alabama head coach is. I'm all in favor of "the Rooney rule" that has finally showed some positive progress in the NFL. This was the ONE TIME where I said we needed to hire the white dude because of his race - and it had nothing to do with thinking Shula OR Croom was really that much better of a coach than the other.

The bigger issue - for me - is that we were facing the second most crippling sanctions in NCAA history. Hiring the African-American under those circumstances so that we could "feel good" about ourselves and get some "positive press" was simply not worth it. The one point I said even 15 years ago - and one that still plays a big role - is that it isn't the HIRING of the black head coach that is the problem but the necessity of FIRING that same person 4-5 years up the line.

Remember when Notre Dame fired Ty Willingham after the 2004 season? Do you remember what happened?

First of all, I'm sure Ty is a nice, upstanding man - everyone who knew him said that. But everyone got fixated on his record at Notre Dame. In three years, he was 21-15, but the part everyone wanted to ignore was:
a) he lost 7 of his last 13 games, meaning he had been a somewhat respectable 15-8 at one point....
b) he started 8-0 and AFTER that his record was actually a dismal 13-15
c) even in those eight wins, he was so damned lucky that he very easily could have been about 3-5 rather than 8-0

And then what happened?

They replaced him with the white dude and in his third year we got nonsense like this.



And yet Weis continues to receive a free pass as Notre Dame fans blame the problems on Willingham’s recruiting.

Funny, but I don’t recall the Irish faithful blaming Willingham’s struggles in his thrid year on Bob Davie’s recruiting.

It couldn’t be that the first black coach in Notre Dame history was held to a different standard — nah, no way.

Of course, the circumstances were at least somewhat different. Weis took ND to TWO BCS bowls in his first two seasons,
Ty never did. Besides, much of the hanging on to Charlie Weis was due to an ill-advised contract extension they made
as a result of almost beating USC in 2005. They kinda HAD to hope Charlie worked out because they'd made a huge
mistake with that contract, and he was going to get paid anyway. THAT'S why they kept him longer than Willingham.

But, of course, the visual is cut down to simplistic analysis. "Well, the black guy got fired after three years but the white guy
who succeeded him didn't - hence, racism."

And THAT is exactly what would have happened if we'd hired Croom rather than Shula. Once it got to those two, I make no bones
about admitting being more concerned about the long-term PR than the short-term inevitable problems.

Look at what Mark Schlabach said in 2006:
Yes, maybe it was time for Alabama coach Mike Shula to go. There's no way a Crimson Tide coach can survive a 0-4 record against rival Auburn and 2-14 record against Arkansas, Auburn, LSU and Tennessee. But the Crimson Tide once again failed miserably in handling a coaching change, leaving Shula's future open to speculation for more than a week before finally telling the coach and his staff late Sunday night that they were being fired.

Now be honest - do you REALLY think that's what he could have said if the exact same record was next to Sly Croom's name? No, it would have been appeals to circumstances. We'd have kept Croom around 1-2 years longer - and missed Saban completely, who would probably have gone back to LSU after 2007 after another year with Miami when Miles went to Michigan, which is what likely would have occurred.

I've said enough on a tangential subject, so I summarize:

I have NO ill will whatsoever towards Mike Shula - none.
I wish him well with the Giants (or wherever else he coaches)
I don't want him coaching Alabama unless Saban magically decides that Shula could actually help our QB development - I WOULD support that because
Saban has come up money so many other times


But please - save the link for the next time someone comes up with the long-tired myth about what a great guy Shula was for taking a job nobody wanted.
It wasn't true in 2003, it wasn't true in 2006, and it isn't true today.