Crimson Corner: A Response to Alabama's So-Called 'Monopoly' over College Football

On Monday night in Miami, Alabama took home its 18th national title by defeating Ohio State 52-24. The title was the sixth for the Crimson Tide under head coach Nick Saban — all six being won in the last 12 seasons.

After a year filled with adversity due to the COVID-19 pandemic, fans everywhere rejoiced at Alabama once again finishing the season at the top of the college football world.

In a sense, it was a return to normalcy for Alabama fans.

Yet even while the confetti was still falling in Hard Rock Stadium on Monday night, some decided that they couldn't even give the Crimson Tide 24 hours to relish the victory.

The Case

On Tuesday morning, USA Today came out with a story titled 'How to break up Nick Saban's monopoly at Alabama to improve college football'. I encourage you to read it and then come back here, because what I'm about to do here is a point-by-point breakdown of how asinine that headline truly is.

Over the course of the Alabama dynasty, these types of articles have come and gone. It seems that every time that the Crimson Tide has had success since the mid 2010s, there's always a line of reporters eager for clicks that attack one of the most successful runs in the history of college athletics.

Do they bring up unfair advantages when Clemson goes to the College Football Playoff four out of five years in a row, winning two out of three in 2016 and 2018? What about Duke, North Carolina and Kentucky in college basketball and their literal multi-decade stranglehold on college basketball?

Did they talk about changing the rules in the NFL during the New England Patriots' dynasty? I'm pretty sure I remember everyone in the media worshipping the ground that Bill Belichick and Tom Brady walked on.

In the USA Today story, writer Brent Schrotenboer compiles three ways to break up Saban's 'monopoly' on the sport for the greater good of college football: redistribute recruiting talent, expand the College Football Playoff and negotiate a retirement.

Let's break down these points one by one with counterpoints of our own, shall we?

The Argument and Defense

Redistribute Recruiting Talent

Schrotenboer's initial point is that in order to break up Alabama's monopoly, the first thing that could be done is to redistribute recruiting talent. He states the fact that of the top 22 recruits the 2020 college football signing class, Alabama and Clemson each took four of them, leaving 14 for the rest of college football to fight over.

So you're telling me that because Alabama took four of the top 22 recruits, other schools can't do the same? Nobody else has the opportunity to accomplish that? Ok, then.

The author then says that Saban is known for stockpiling players even before they attend high school, citing Alabama linebacker Dylan Moses, who was offered a scholarship by Saban while he was in the eighth grade.

Again, what is Saban and the Crimson Tide program doing here that other programs can't also do? Just because Saban speaks to them earlier does not mean that other coaches and programs couldn't do the same. Is there a rule out there in the NCAA recruiting regulations that says 'Only Saban and representatives from the Alabama football program can contact players before they reach high school'?

Last I checked, there wasn't.

Schrotenboer's proposed solution to this 'issue' is to reduce the number of scholarship athletes on college football rosters from 85 to 75. "This would prevent elite teams from hoarding the best players, spreading the talent around more evenly," he writes.

Quick question: how does this benefit programs outside of the college football elite? Recruiting rules and regulations along with scholarship changes are announced fairly often. Has it ever affected Alabama? No. Why is that? Because Saban and his staff are the best in the business at adapting and overcoming. When new rules are put in place, they analyze and find the best way to take advantage of the new guidelines.

Another question: how does reducing scholarships benefit college athletes? At the end of the day, scholarships are to provide compensation for the hard work that athletes put into their respective programs, correct?

Reducing the number of scholarship athletes on a roster would most likely result in an even harder push for elite recruits from the top programs in the sport. With less roster spots, it would mean that athletes further down in the rankings would miss out on the opportunity to play for high-tier programs.

It doesn't make sense, and it definitely does not benefit the athletes.

Expand the College Football Playoff

This is the easiest point for Schrotenboer to make given that there has already been a push for this by both coaches in the NCAA as well as many fan bases.

How could this potentially break up the monopoly at Alabama? Well, let's read what the author had to say:

"Alabama likely will dominate an added quarterfinal game even more than it did this year’s semifinal and final games," Schrotenboer writes. "But it would increase the jeopardy for the Crimson Tide, forcing it to make an extra sudden-death step to the title."

Ok. So you're telling me that by increasing the playoff to eight teams instead of four, adding a game against a lesser opponent would help to dismantle Alabama's stranglehold on the sport?

Color me unconvinced.

If anything, expanding the playoff would only elevate the pedestal that Alabama currently sits on. In an expanded playoff field, a No. 1-ranked Crimson Tide would have to face the No. 8 team in the first round. After the inevitable dismantling of its opponent, Alabama's reputation as a top program would only increase. In addition to that, the viewpoint of the opposing program would fall.

Doesn't that create even more disparity? Doesn't that go against what 'we' want to happen?

No, expanding the CFP field from four teams to eight would not help. Yes, it would put more programs on the big stage, but more often than not those teams would fall by the wayside and could potentially be put in a worse spot than they already are.

If we were to look at this year's final CFP rankings, an expanded playoff would mean that Alabama would face Cincinnati in the first round. If you think that the Bearcats would somehow be able to overcome the Crimson Tide despite falling to Georgia — an opponent that Alabama tore apart in the regular season — we've got a whole different argument on our hands.

Yeah, a first-round loss to Alabama would make Cincinnati look incredible. I hope you can sense my sarcasm.

Negotiate a Retirement

This third and final point of Schrotenboer is by far his most egregious.

While he is probably correct that a retirement by Saban most likely has the highest probability of dismantling the Crimson Tide's dynasty, hoping for Saban to retire as a means to level the playing field is absolutely asinine.

Just read this point that Schrotenboer makes.

"With his win Monday, Saban earned a $200,000 bonus and is scheduled to make more than $10 million this contract year, according to his contract," Schrotenboer writes. "He already has a statue outside Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa. He’s arguably the best coach ever. What more does this guy want?"

What more could Saban want? Clearly Schrotenboer doesn't know the man. While winning is important to Saban, the man takes pride in developing players. He finds purpose in developing athletes for the next level. He tasks himself with creating tomorrow's leaders both on the field and in the classroom. Yes, football is important, but I urge you to see how often Saban talks about players developing their personal worth.

To him, it's more than just a game.

Negotiating a contract simply to even a playing field is not how things work. How many top-tier programs do you see wanting to shove actively successful coaches out the door? Do we see Clemson fans clamoring for Dabo Swinney to retire so that other teams in the ACC have a fighting chance?

More sarcasm: I'm sure every elite college athletics program in the nation is just chomping at the bit for their highly-successful coach to retire so that it can give other teams hope for their own form of success.

And regarding Saban's wealth from his achievements at Alabama? Look into how much good he and his wife Terry do for the Tuscaloosa community and the state of Alabama.

The Verdict

In a point made in the 'The Case' section of this story, I pointed out that it only seems that when Alabama adds to its success that the critics close in. Nobody brings up the advantages by other programs when they see continuous accomplishment. It's always Alabama.

Why is that? To put it simply, jealousy of success.

For the 129 other FBS football programs out there: do you want to break up the 'Alabama monopoly'? That's fine. The answer to doing it is quite simple:

You beat them.

If you want to break up a dynasty that now spans over a decade, then beat them. If you want Saban to stop recruiting circles around you, then beat them. If you're tired of your team getting snubbed from the playoff, then beat them.

If you're exhausted from the Crimson Tide year after year after year basking in the spotlight and taking away recruits and earning postseason accolades, then the answer isn't too difficult. You beat them.

Oh, is that too much of a task? Is that insurmountable? Throughout the dynasty, teams have beaten Alabama. Heck, the Crimson Tide lost twice during 2019 and missed the CFP for the first time since the playoff's inception. Beating Alabama can be done. However, beating Alabama consistently is what teams find difficult.

And why is that? Is it because of inadequate access to resources? Alabama currently sits as the ninth-wealthiest program in the FBS, with eight other teams ranked higher according to a 247Sports database. The two teams that Alabama beat in the CFP in Notre Dame and Ohio State are both wealthier than Alabama. Both Georgia and Oklahoma also finished in the top 10 of the last regular-season AP poll — below the Crimson Tide — yet are wealthier programs than Alabama.

Is it because of unequal access to recruits? Saban and the Crimson Tide pick from the same pool as everyone else.

You want to beat Alabama and end the dynasty? You have the exact same tools that it does. Just because you fail to utilize them to the same caliber does not mean that the playing field is unevenly tilted against you.

There is no uphill battle. There is no unfair advantage. There is nothing that Saban and Alabama do that any other program in the country can't also do.

Maybe the answer to taking down the Alabama monolith isn't to change the rules. Maybe the answer is to take a long, hard look at what they do that makes them successful. What Saban has built in Tuscaloosa is nothing short of staggering, that much it true. However, he did it by following the same rules that everyone else follows.

Maybe instead of wallowing in self-pity, you should take a page or two out of Alabama's playbook. After all, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Add us as a preferred source on Google