RBR Reading Room: Bama After Bear
Alabama football found itself on the cusp of a new era in 1983 with the retirement and subsequent passing of Coach Paul W. Bryant. Instead of a period of forward looking optimism, the Crimson Tide faithful found themselves surrounded by uncertainty and disturbing change. And it took almost a full decade to fully recover.
Donald F. Staffo’s book Bama After Bear: Turmoil and Tranquility in Tuscaloosa examines that period of transition the football program and it’s faithful adherents through the painful process to find the next coach capable of leading them to a National Championship. It was a baleful era for Alabama football marked by recriminations and repeated missteps on the part of pretty much everyone involved.
Bama After Bear is not your usual feel good book about Alabama football. It describes an unpleasant time of the program’s history and can be tough going when Staffo decides to unpack the point of view of each and side on a given matter (I didn’t think it was possible to write at such length and passion about Bill Curry).The fact it boasts by far the worst cover art of any book about Bama football doesn’t help matters.
But if we want to keep from making these same errors ever again, Bama After Bear might be one of the most important.
Bryant's death of was much more than the loss of a legendary football coach, it created a crisis for the university that few realized the scope of at the time. Over the preceding quarter century, Coach Bryant had consolidated his control over not just the football program but the entire athletic department. He was a master at keeping arious factions at bay and allowed the football program to prosper unmolested.
With his passing, administrators long kept at the periphery of the largess brought in by the football program scrambled for control while coaches and staff tried to keep the status quo. Former players and boosters also vied for a place at the table. The result, when no single person or group was able to emerge clearly victorious, was institutional anarchy. Its not by accident that this period saw the ascendence of Paul Finebaum.

Ray Perkins confers with quarterback Mike Shula during the 1986 Kickoff Classic at Giants Stadium vs Ohio State.
That the book ends prior to the start of the 1992 National Championship season is actually a strength. To close the book with such a success would have tempered the examination of the problems the Alabama program struggled through in the late 1980s up to and including Coach Stalling’s tenure.
It’s not very difficult to see how the absence of a singular authority in the program during this period opened the door to activities during the 1990s that led to the substantial NCAA sanctions. On several occasions in Bama After Bear, Staffo notes the lack of such investigations concerning the program and the irony in light of developments that happened after the book's publication is not pleasant.
Things started off rough in 1983 with the selection of Ray Perkins who was chock full of confidence or arrogance depending on who you ask. Describing his style during his tenure at the Capstone as "abrasive" would likely be safe to all points of view. His efforts to distance himself from the legacy of Coach Bryant (and his refusal to apologize for any of his actions) led to a culture of conflict that persisted over his three-year tenure.
That was epitomized by the decision to take down the tower on the practice field where Coach Bryant had overseen the creation of his teams for decades. For a fanbase still grieving the legendary coach’s death, such stark erasure of his legacy was simply cruel.
So when Perkins brought the program its first season with a losing record in almost three decades and only improved marginally thereafter, the stage was set for his bolting back to the NFL at the first opportunity.
Bill Curry, of course, was a different problem. By all accounts he was a good man and a good coach who had the misfortune of interviewing amazingly well. But he was an outsider and his efforts to integrate with the fanbase was hobbled from the start. He was forced onto the defensive from the moment he was hired and never found a way to swing the situation to his advantage. Even though he led the team to a 10-win season in 1989 his losses to Auburn and the controversy surrounding his hire made his exit an inevitability.
The arrival of Gene Stallings then, by comparison, seemed a relief from the turmoil of the decade that had preceded him even though the team’s record fell precipitously in his inaugural season. Not only was Coach Stallings's history and personal style amenable to the Crimson Tide fans, it meshed well with the powers-that-be then presiding at the university.
This (and a first-year win over Auburn) bought Stallings time despite an abysmal inaugural campaign. He took that to rebuild the neglected defense (it’s not by accident all the offensive records fell in the years immediately prior to his arrival). The absence of controversy in Tuscaloosa and the advent of the Eric Ramsey pay-to-play scandal at Auburn led to a massive improvement in Crimson Tide recruiting.
Next week: A Damn Good Yankee
0 recs |
19 comments
|
Comments
Hmmm...
an abysmal inaugural campaign
…it certainly felt that way when we were 0-3, but that ‘abysmal’ campaign felt like a success by the time the final seconds ticked off the clock in our win over Auburn.
Thanks for the review. This is one I have not yet read, but I plan to do so now.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Aug 4, 2009 8:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Terrible cover.
And I’d say the biggest problem we had after Bear was that we didn’t get Bowden. We could have had him and we could have continued to win championships. We may not have wanted him in 82 as he was still getting established, but by the time Perkins quit he was clearly, at that time, the best coach in America and we could have had him.
But to me the dumb decisions on coahes at Bama were even worse after Stallings. How could we have made poorer choices than Dubose, Fran, and Shula. I know Fran seemed good at the time, but clearly they didn’t ask him the right questions in the interview.
Hopefully the new AD, whomever he is, will get a proven winner when Saban leaves. We don’t need anymore poor selections and we don’t need to go down the road Auburn and UT are going to be going down with their stupid coach selections.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
by 5026 on Aug 4, 2009 10:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
To be fair...
…it’s not like we had the pick of the litter when we hired Coach Shula, and I’m not sure he wasn’t the best choice at the time. As for Fran, how do you ask, “So, would you describe yourself as a huge coward, or just a little weasel?” However, Dubose, who seems to be a fine person, was the worst hire since Ears.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Aug 4, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
one of the things that reall struck me after reading this book...
…was how much the scenario described reminded me of the tale told by OTS in regards to the horror that led up to and was the dennis franchione saga.
in this respect shula seems a good hire in that witt took control of a situation spiraling out of control and put a coach in place that bought time to sort out mess. (this is not to defend shula on the basis of his record. he was a mediocre coach and produced a mediocre football team) then, when the right coach was right, the university was able to make a move to get him.
to have over-reached once again after the price debacle would have most likely meant another lost decade for the program but that didn’t happen.
by kleph on Aug 4, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why...
….given the state the FSU is currently in and all the criminal shenanigans his players have gotten up to do people still talk about “WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN BOWDEN!”? Not hiring Bobby Bowden was probably the best thing we did post-Bryant.
by Todd on Aug 4, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bowden
was good at the time (80’s.) True he has not run the tightest ship at FSU, but I think he would have done better in this department at Bama. He has had too many thugs at FSU since the school had no tradition they had a hard time attracting guys like Jay Barker. Instead they had to take people others stayed away from. I don’t think that would have happened at Bama and things would never have gotten as much out of hand with Bowden as with Dubose.
Still, Bowden’s biggest problem is that he should have retired years ago. I think in Alabama they still have a manditory retirement age of 70 for all state workers so I think that if Bowden had come in 86, he would have had to retired in about 2002. He might not have broken Bryants record, but he would have a better reputation. Bama would have won a few NC with him as coach.
And Shula may have been the best we could do, but we had to have known he was over his head. I seem to recall (I may be wrong) that Mike Riley was a possible at the time. Not saying he would have done better but he seems like more of a head coach. And you just have to think that some of the head coaches in 1AA, places like App. St, would have jumped at Alabama even a down Alabama.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
by 5026 on Aug 4, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not so much that shula was "the best we could do" than the right choice at the time
i’m pretty sure he was given the job with edict “don’t fuck it up.” and he accomplished that admirably. we got through the next several years with a minimum of off-the-field incidents and NCAA investigators heading into town. moore and witt were then able to conduct a protracted search for the ideal candidate without the ensuing deluge of media coverage that had been the norm at the conclusion of the dubose/franchione/price debacles.
enduring shula as coach was a harsh and brutal medicine i never hope to have to endure again, (jesus it was hard enough watching him cough up late season games as a QB) but it did allow the situation to be prepared for saban to arrive and take over. even the horrid recruiting under shula gave saban a leg up in that he was able to begin from complete scratch and build the team and program exactly how he wanted.
by kleph on Aug 4, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny...
…I mainly remember Shula pulling out late season games as a QB. I do remember his RBs coughing up late season games, though. And as a coach, that medicine tasted like honey next to the Dubose era. He needed to go do what he’s best at, which is what he’s doing now, but Shula volunteered to take over a huge mess, and did it with honor. I just can’t shred him now.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Aug 4, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
most of the blame for those games i will lay at the feet of perkins. shula, to his credit, won a number that the coach did his damndedest to lose for them. and don’t think i’m trying to “shred” the guy. while living through the pre-saban era was viciously painful, i do believe shula was called upon to play a certain role and did it. i’ll always give him credit for that.
by kleph on Aug 4, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This...
enduring shula as coach was a harsh and brutal medicine i never hope to have to endure again (jesus it was hard enough watching him cough up late season games as a QB)
…just sounds particularly harsh to me. He was a good QB, and he did about as well as you could expect of any coach before 2006. It seems everyone likes to attribute our failures during his tenure solely to him, yet forget about the fact that we were under probation all four years.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Aug 4, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
really? care to have him back whenever saban decides to move on?
by kleph on Aug 4, 2009 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I said...
He needed to go do what he’s best at, which is what he’s doing now
I’m not arguing that he’s the second best guy out there. But that doesn’t mean that he was as awful as many people paint him to be, or solely responsible for every loss during his tenure. 2003 was doomed to be a disaster after Fran fled and Price partied. In 2004, we were playing the JV team (bonus points if you can name our starting RB vs. Minnesota in the Music City Bowl). 2005 is still the second-best season of the decade. 2006 sucked, but 2007 indicates that it wasn’t just due to the head man.
Mike Shula needed to go, but he wasn’t nearly the embarrassment that Mike Dubose was, and it just feels wrong to hear him denigrated after the service he paid his alma mater.
Plus, I’m hoping CNS never, ever decides to move on.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Aug 5, 2009 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought Curry's problems . . .
started with high expectations that were built on Perkins’s recruiting classes. In retrospect, I think Perkins’s classes were probably overrated but everyone was talking about long term future success based on the talent Perkins brought in. Curry showed up and everyone expected him to immediately deliver on that promise right away and when he didn’t do it fans started to write him off. (I am no Curry fan — he is a very overrated coach — but he was behind the 8 ball in terms of expectations).
by wey on Aug 4, 2009 3:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
In light of the post-Stallings years, the Curry years don’t look nearly so bad. He had a winning record each of his three years, and the overall record improved each year, too. His teams also beat Penn State, Tennessee, and LSU three years in a row. He had two main problems, though:
1. His teams were flat against weaker teams, which resulted in some embarassing losses (Memphis State, Ole Miss) and numerous other close calls.
2. He couldn’t beat AU in three tries. Of course AU was pretty loaded those years.
Best idea would have been to hire Stallings rather than Perkins in ’83.
by Dignan Redux on Aug 5, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It May Be in the Book
I haven’t read the book so I don’t know how much (if at all) it’s addressed, but the death of Bryant really put Perkins in a tough spot. If the Bear could have served a year or two as athletic director—he didn’t resign that position, just coaching—and let Perkins not wear both hats, things would probably have gone better. Or if Perkins had been willing to let them bring in an AD instead of insisting on wearing both hats…but then no one ever accused him of lacking the control freak gene.
by Watchman on Aug 4, 2009 4:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it did put him in a tough spot...
…and being a complete prick only made it worse.
by kleph on Aug 4, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to tell you......
I have often wondered why it seem that Perkins got a pass from many people when IMO he is the one who got us started downhill in the first place. I did not understand why Coach Bryant wanted him then and I don’t think I ever will. He had the personality of a porcupine and was one of the most arrogant men I’ve ever seen.
So for me, I start the blame of how we spiraled down so fast on Perkins, but we certainly can’t lay it on him. The AD’s that were hired and presidents didn’t do much to help either. It was just a leadership fiasco.
There are 3 kinds of men. The ones who learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. And the rest have to pee on the electric fence to find out for themselves. Will Rogers
by jtCRIMSON on Aug 5, 2009 11:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 






















