My theory is that we can have a clean program or a winning program, but not both. How many times do athletes from other schools get away with rape, theft, criminal mischief, and the catch-all "undisclosed team rules"? Other than Aaron Hernandez, Florida had a healthy mix of thuggery versus winning under Meyer. Under Muschamp our best player, Demarcus Robinson, is one "undisclosed team rules violation" away from being dismissed from the program and beginning Auburn's starting QB!
ESPN and the NFL praised Charlie Strong for doing what Muschamp has done: remove players with bad behaviors and increase random drug testing. Strong has so far removed as many players as Muschamp in year 1. Strong increased the number of random drug tests from about 200 a year for the team to about 350. Florida had been running 350 drug tests per year under Meyer, and now runs close to 450 a year under Muschamp. Nobody ever praises Muschamp, at least not on forums.
Everything you say and imply here is right and true--and up til this last few weeks, I would have loyally, proudly subscribed to the idea that we try to have them both, that we could WIN with them both . I think that attitude was at least implied across my posts and threads these last few seasons. But now I'm not so sure. In fact, I'll grant your proposition, and say what most of us feel: If it comes down to it, we gotta "win first".
A "clever skirting of the rules" has always been part of success in the NCAA--they created the circumstances under which that was the TRUE path to Championships, then looked the other way as they saw fit. Two rules: AS LONG AS YOU DO IT "RIGHT", and are part of an "approved group", both of these as defined by an ever-shifting handful of individuals who themselves represent certain covert interests. Conspiracy theory? Call it what you like, but they are there, IT is there, and you will know them by their deeds--by the very reality and events that they have presided over, permitted or punished by manipulation, most of all by the arbitrarily inconsistent application of their rules, and the consequences for violating them.
So: We are back to, "If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying", right? To some extent, I'm afraid so. With one caveat: We can still walk our own road. For now, that means drawing OUR OWN "line" as to what we'll ignore, and what we won't...It's a slippery slide, no doubt about it, but looks like we've got to try--try somehow to win by working around the edges, walk the razor's edge without losing our souls.
