Can we put the "SP" back in SPUAT?

[quietfan 233]

First of all, just to be fair, congrats to Bama on getting a much better coach than I thought they could. [Though I still like CTT better!] And had they signed Nick $aban for less money and after fewer outright lies on his part, it would be a home run all the way around for them.

BUT...because of the way it all came down---we're hearing a lot of negatives:

St. Nick's multiple, point blank denials making him look like one of the biggest liars in the history of coaching searches (yeah, yeah, I know about pine boxes, "holding the rope", etc. but CNS took direct denial to a new level) and the Miami press/fans are tearing him a new one;

Money levels that threaten to raise the bar on all college coaching salaries, and reinforce the appearance that football is all that matters in Tuscaloosa;

The Jimbo Fisher/UAB fiasco--which looks even uglier as rumors of Fisher to West Vance rise.

[Not to mention the initial controversy over the way Shula was fired.]

So, my question--I had pretty much laid off the "scandal-plagued" label over the last year or two as Bama seemed to settle down with only a few discipline problems to report. But with all that's happened in the last month, I have to ask:

Is it time for me to put the "Scandal Plagued" back in "SPUAT"?

[AUChizad 0]

First of all, just to be fair, congrats to Bama on getting a much better coach than I thought they could. [Though I still like CTT better!] And had they signed Nick $aban for less money and after fewer outright lies on his part, it would be a home run all the way around for them.

BUT...because of the way it all came down---we're hearing a lot of negatives:

St. Nick's multiple, point blank denials making him look like one of the biggest liars in the history of coaching searches (yeah, yeah, I know about pine boxes, "holding the rope", etc. but CNS took direct denial to a new level) and the Miami press/fans are tearing him a new one;

Money levels that threaten to raise the bar on all college coaching salaries, and reinforce the appearance that football is all that matters in Tuscaloosa;

The Jimbo Fisher/UAB fiasco--which looks even uglier as rumors of Fisher to West Vance rise.

[Not to mention the initial controversy over the way Shula was fired.]

So, my question--I had pretty much laid of the "scandal-plagued" label over the last year or two as Bama seemed to settle down with only a few discipline problems to report. But with all that's happened in the last month, I have to ask:

Is it time for me to put the "Scandal Plagued" back in "SPUAT"?

I prefer $puat. (lower case)

[aerotiger 0]

I never took it off. just cause it was a slow news year for Bammer doesn't mean that they're not up to their old scandals...just means they didn't get caught in that particular year.

[GalensGhost 0]

I never took it off. just cause it was a slow news year for Bammer doesn't mean that they're not up to their old scandals...just means they didn't get caught in that particular year.

$aban Paid University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa?

[eastside 0]

oh, man, i have been trying to figure out what the sp in spuat meant for the longest time, but too chicken to ask!

it makes perfect sense.

thanks, quietfan.

[quietfan 233]

oh, man, i have been trying to figure out what the sp in spuat meant for the longest time, but too chicken to ask!

it makes perfect sense.

thanks, quietfan.

Hey, it took me several months to figure it out when I first discovered AUNations back in '03. I also was too shy to ask..