John H Armstrong

Nick Saban: Coach of the Year

A lot of college fans do not like Nick Saban, especially if he coaches against the team you love. Some feel that he ran out on LSU for the NFL and all the money that came with it. (When he took the Alabama job LSU fans went into a frenzy, for a very good reason. They know, deep inside, the ability Saban has to beat them.) Others see him as a four-year hire and then he's gone. "Liar, liar, pants on fire . . . "

Michigan State, where Saban coached before LSU, would take him back in a heartbeat. He is the only coach at MSU since the famed Duffy Daugherty to beat Ohio State, Michigan and Notre Dame all in the same season. And when LSU was in the dumps, losing year-in and year-out, Saban breathed life into the program and won a national title in four years. But when he went to the Miami Dolphins many fans blasted him for that choice. After only two years in the pros Saban, and his wife, longed to be back in a college town and in the college scene. The job that wanted him, indeed that hunted him down day-and-night for well over two months, was at Alabama. The Athletic Director, Mal Moore, knew he had to get a proven winner. No more experiments with "potentially great" coaches would do for the storied tradition that had drawn the ire of ESPN and many other fans around the nation that routinely made fun of the Tide. So after a long private back-and-forth through an agent Bama had their man signed in early January, 2007.

Saban had to face a huge problem at Alabama. The expectations were immense. But he welcomed that. He inherited a team that was not disciplined and last year 15 different players had various problems with the law and the university. They struggled to play as a team but the coach put his mark on them in the final game, a win over Colorado in the fairly unimpressive Independence Bowl. By the spring of this year Saban had his own team and with the number one recruiting class in the nation in 2008 he had some fresh talent as well.

 What followed is nothing short of amazing. From unranked in the pre-season (most said they would be lucky to win 8 games) them quickly moved to No. 2 and then to No. 1 for most of the season. The Tide went 12-0. They lost to a better Florida team in the SEC Championship but they played very well. Now they face Utah, a pesky bunch who could win, on Friday night in the Sugar Bowl. A win would make this a magical "rebuilding" season, a year to remember. The players know this all too well. Better things are on the horizon, or so it seems right now.

For all of this Nick Saban was voted the AP Coach of the Year last week. The honor was deserved if you know what he had to do and how far he went with the team he had when he got to Tuscaloosa. Ever the driven perfectionist Saban is the definition of a true winner. He is not liked by everyone but he doesn't seem to care that much. His demeanor is all business and lip-readers can tell when they see a Bama game that he is pretty tough. But he is respected by his players and committed to them as young men. If he reaches the goal, a national championship at Alabama, he will become the first coach to ever do it at two different schools.

I have a sticker on my door that says: S--The Coach. I also have a shirt my sister-in-law gave me that has on the front "Sabanation." On the back it has an outline of the state of Alabama and says, "First the state, and then the nation!" This year Alabama took back the state, thrashing Auburn 36-0. Next stop: A national title game. It will not be this year but it will likely be sooner than some expected. Never count Saban out. This man can recruit and he can coach, like him or not. 

Vision Statements and Local Churches

Almost every church that I speak at these days has a "vision statement" or something like it that is called a "mission statement." These statements are often the result of good work done by people who wrote them after spending considerable time and thinking in creating a carefully written short sentence or two. It appears to me that there are several reasons why churches write such statements. Sometimes it might be purely because of trends and/or expectations. I can recall, in the 1970s, when no one wrote such statements. Churches just did what they did and there was no serious discussion about why or how. Things were pretty simple back then. We had a flock, a pastor or two (if the church was quite large) and we conducted the various services and rituals of the Christian faith weekly and seasonally. Our community saw the church as an integral part of life in the town or city. We did not have to do a lot to keep people happy and involved. I came along, as a teen, in the early 1960s when the idea of an actual youth minister was first taking hold on people's imaginations. It seems that following World War II parents wanted "more" for their kids. The church was an important place where they wanted them to get this more. Keep them out of trouble, teach them the Bible and help them move from adolescence to adulthood as morally pure as possible.

Following the decade of the 1960s this all began to change. By the time I became a pastor in 1971 the expectations were generally increasing. There were still only a few mega-churches but the pressure to keep people happy and their kids involved was growing. Then by the 1980s it all changed rather powerfully. I felt that there was continuous pressure on me to "keep up" with the churches around me. If we lost members that was a sure sign that someone else was likely getting them. Somewhere along the line our churches began to realize that real mission was not about "transfer growth." I first heard this term from C. Peter Wagner, who was my professor at the time. I became a church planter and my passion for evangelism was deep and  genuine. But I still did not think in terms of a mission statement. I just knew Matthew 28:18-20 was the mandate that Christ gave to his people.

Now we have church boards and strategy groups that will spend months on writing new mission statements. I note this because I preached at Community Fellowship Church (CFC), a non-denominational congregation located only about two miles from my home, on December 28th. CFC began in the 1990s when a group of people left a larger church in Wheaton. Some of the issue, at that time, was about philosophy of mission and worship, as has often been the case since the late 1980s. CFC met in Carol Stream, in the local high school, for many years. Finally the congregation built a facility a few years ago in nearby West Chicago. The second pastor in CFC's history also happens to be a very good friend,  David McDowell. David pastored College Church in Northampton, Massachusetts, for well over twenty years before coming to CFC. He is serving what will likely be his final full-time pastoral ministry since he is a few years older than me. He is still very fresh, filled with great vision and a true pastor. He is a real leader and his work will clearly benefit CFC in the years ahead. He has a "missional" mindset so this is why I felt inclined to preach on this subject on the last Sunday of 2008. My text was from John 20:21 on the church as the "sent people." This truth is clearly rooted in the doctrine of the incarnation. I challenged CFC to enter 2009 with a strong vision of their mission as a community of people, not just as a collection of individuals.

To my pleasant surprise CFC had a "vision statement" printed on the bottom of their bulletin. It says: "As a church, we desire to imitate Christ, to tell His story, and to relationally engage our neighbor for the glory of God." I began my sermon by explaining what this statement meant in the light of my text. I then stressed the last part of it, i.e., "to relationally engage our neighbor for the glory of God." My stress was on how "we" (as a community" are meant to be the "sent people" of God just as the Father had sent his son into the world. We are sent as a people, not simply as individuals.

This emphasis is really at the heart of what I mean by the term "missional church" theology. A missional church sees itself as the "sent people of God" and not simply as a program or an institution. If CFC, and a multitude of other congregations, were to understand and practice this kind of theology in 2009 we would begin to see some major changes in how we do church in America. I pray that this is what will happen. ACT 3 exists to help this happen by stretching the vision of leaders and congregations to embrace this incarnational theology of mission.

Slumdog Millionaire

Director Danny Boyle (photo at right) had produced a number of successful films in the past but in this new film, Slumdog Millionaire, he has certainly produced one of the truly best films of 2008. Slumdog Millionaire is truly a beautiful and dazzling film. The actors and actresses are all Indian but 90% of the film is in English with some subscripts for a few hindi portions.

Slumdog Millionaire powerfully deals with subjects like racism, jealousy, child exploitation and brutal conditions in the worst slums of the world and yet it manages to wonderfully entertain you. The end result is a fantastic love story. And Slumdog Millionaire could even help Hollywood learn a thing or two about how to tell a really great love story without all the sexual material placed at the center of the story. In typical Indian fashion the last scene has the two lovers beginning a kiss right when the story ends, thus leaving the physical passion to your imagination, a technique lost on modern filmmakers on the whole.

Based on a popular novel written by Vikas Swarup the movie portrays the story of an Indian teenager named Jamal Malik. Malik is on the verge of becoming a big-winner on the Hindi version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Jamal undertakes this amazing effort to win, as the viewer discovers toward the end of the film, more for the sake of finding his sweetheart Latika, than for the importance of the money itself. This premise makes the film a moving love story and a serious drama. The film even employs an appropriate use of humor now and then. What else can you ask for in a major motion picture?

A "slumdog" is the term for an orphan who survives in the slums of Mumbai, one if India's great cities. Having been to Mumbai twice in the 1980s I can assure you that the story of Jamal, and the context in which he becomes orphaned and raises himself along with his brother, is all too true.

In the story Jamal is within one question of winning 20 million rupees but the show breaks for the night. Jamal is taken by authorities who are intent on breaking him through torture in order to prove that there is no ordinary way he could be answering the questions put to him without help or a form of cheating. The answers to how he solves each question on the program are then unfolded to the viewer by means of "flashbacks" which take you back to Jamal's childhood and the story of his growing up in the slums. Soon you learn that Jamal coped with many problems, including gangs, slave traders and various elements of the underworld that threatened him at every turn. You also learn of how Jamal's brother took a tragically different direction with his life. But the one constant for Jamal is his love for Latika, whom he is determined to find after he has lost her. (Latika and Jamal met in the slums and helped to protect each other as they were growing up.)

Jamal returns, after a long and brutal night of questions, to answer the final question before 60 million viewers in an all or nothing challenge. At the very heart of the story is the question of how anyone comes to know anything about life or love? Jamal becomes, quite appropriately, a true underdog hero that anyone can root for in the very best sense. There is something quite refreshing about this "old" theme that is missing from most modern Hollywood films.

Rotten Tomatoes gives Slumdog Millionaire a 94% rating. This only proves that some professional critics, who often have no clue it seems for what makes for a great movie, agree that this is a truly great movie with a happy ending. Maybe that offends one or two of the cynics but it is how I read the reviewers oft times. Slumdog tugged at my heart in a powerful way. It moved me so deeply that I confess I shed a tear of joy as the credits rolled across the big screen. I promise you that you will like it. The film is rated R for violence and some language. I believe that it is appropriate for teens who see it with serious adults. It is two hours in length and I give it four stars our of four.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

This big budget film is a remake of a 1951 original that has long been considered a sci-fi classic. Klaatu comes to earth, as an alien, to ostensibly save us from ourselves. In the 1951 version we are on the brink of war while in the 2008 one we are in danger of environmental catastrophe. In the original version Klaatu, while in human form, takes on the name "The Carpenter," thus demonstrating amazing parallels with Jesus, the incarnate messiah. In fact, in the 1951 version the alien experiences a death and resurrection for the sake of earth. In the remake he is not "The Carpenter" but there are elements that cause the discerning viewer to see that the "Christ figure" is still present in the film.  Director Scott Derrickson, himself a Christian, maintains that he wanted to alter the story a bit but not at all remove this aspect. The truth is here but the modern viewer may be challenged to see it as clearly, given the culture-wide ignorance of the story of incarnation among younger viewers in particular.

Derrickson informed Christianity Today that he took great care in "updating this and preserving the Christ allegory." I think he did but I am still not a huge fan of The Day the Earth Stood Still. The film gets a weak review from the professionals and lead actor Keanu Reeves is anything but scintillating in the lead role. I would give it one and a half stars, maybe two. Seeing this film was not a complete waste of time but there wasn't a sense of seeing something big or important when I left the theater. Decent entertainment but definitely a film you can afford to miss, especially given all the hype and major marketing. The film is 110 minutes and rated PG-13 for violence.

Do We Have to Offend Unbelievers to Share the Good News?

I often make the point on this blog that evangelism can be seriously carried out, albeit in personal and very direct ways, without making non-Christians angry or hostile because of the way we share our faith. There is a an offense to the gospel, I am well aware. But often the offense is more in our approach than in our message. A recent You Tube post by cable television's Penn Jillette demonstrates this point very well. Watch this five minute video and you will see how Penn Jillette describes his encounter with a “good” Christian who personally gave him a New Testament as a point of direct witness. You will also see how much this unbeliever actually respects Christians who sincerely want to convert him.

Penn Jillette (b. 1955) is an illusionist, comedian, writer and juggler. He has appeared in several movies, often makes wild allusions to sexual pleasure a part of his programming, and has had a feature on NBC-TV at one point in the past.

Jillette presently has a featured show, Penn & Teller: Bullshit, that appears on Showtime. Jillette, and his partner, Raymond Joseph Teller, analyze cultural phenomena, debunk myths and criticize people and aspects of society that he and his partner call "bullshit," thus the name of their program. Jillette is a libertarian who praises Ayn Rand's writings and is an avowed atheist. All of this only makes this video all the more instructive to us as Christians. 

 

Our 38th Anniversary

Today Anita and I celebrate our 38th anniversary. I have no great secrets to share about how to have a great marriage. I am sure that God blessed me with a great wife. I am also sure that I have made my share of mistakes in this marriage. Perhaps my greatest regret is that I have not been nearly as patient as I wish I had been much of the time. "Why," I very often ask, "do I allow my greatest weakness to show the most often to the one I love the most?" With almost everyone else I am very patient but the "little" day-to-day things that pressure a couple will sometimes prompt me to be less than patient with my bride. I am reminded that love, by definition, "is patient." I have more work to do I assure you.

When Anita and I met, in May of 1970, we fell in love almost immediately. I was the interim youth pastor at Wheaton Bible Church, and looking forward to my senior year in college. Anita came along on the summer camp for the high school kids and served as a cabin counselor. (She already had a serious boyfriend and I did not know it.) Anita has just finished college and was going to teach 8th grade that fall. By summer we were engaged and then moved the wedding up from the summer of 1971, after my May graduation, to December of 1970. It was a cold, snowy, winter wedding. And finding a place to hold a rehearsal dinner on December 25th was not easy at all. (What were we thinking? We sure had good friends to share that time with us and give up their Christmas!)

Our honeymoon was a short trip to Chicago and then we came right back home and I soon went back to school and Anita went back to work. For the next several years Anita worked and I went on to do graduate work at Wheaton. By 1972 I had already began a full-time pastoral role as a church planter while I was also doing graduate work at the same time. I could not have done so much, especially so soon in my young life, without the help of my dear wife.

We had our trials in adjusting to one another after our glorious wedding. But we never remotely considered that there was any other way for us to go but to love one another, work out whatever problems we faced, and trust God to help us grow and change. He did and I am still amazed that this beautiful woman I fell in love with in 1970 still loves me. I know I love her more than ever. Today is truly a happy day for us.

The Incarnation

The incarnation is as mysterious to believers as any doctrine of the faith. I have often wondered why we do not admit this more often. My guess is that we are too comfortable with this truth because of the trappings of Christmas and the culture in which we live.

People often talk about the mystery of good and evil, or divine sovereignty and human freedom. Admittedly these are difficult truths and even divide Christians among themselves. But no truth is more mysterious, so far as I am concerned, than this: The second person of the Godhead, the eternal logos, took upon himself human flesh (a human nature in every sense of the word) and thus God became man. Now I know that without the death and resurrection of Jesus there is no salvation but there could be no death and resurrection unless there were first an incarnation. Further, the Scripture clearly treats the incarnation as a much more central to our redemption than many of us do.

I looked up a few quotations in John Calvin today to see what he said about the advent of Christ and the incarnation. Here are a few choice Calvin comments:

"It is impossible to express in human language adequate to the subject the glory with which Christ beautified his church by his advent."

"As often as God appeared under the form of man, an obscure glimpse was afforded of the mystery which was at length manifested in the person of Christ."

"We assert such a connection and union of the divinity and the humanity, that each nature retrains its properties entire, and yet both together constitute the one Christ."

Jesus of Nazareth is the divine logos, thus clearly God. He was with God from before all time says the Fourth Gospel thus the one born Jesus of Nazareth did not have his beginning in his birth at Bethlehem. He is the eternal son of God, without beginning. There never was a time when he was not and thus when the Son of God did not exist as the Son of God. But he became flesh, that is the man Christ Jesus did not exist before the incarnation. Thus he is both God and man, doing what is perfectly appropriate for both natures in one person. The two natures are in union without confusion.

The Orthodox Church has emphasized that by the incarnation the human nature of mankind is "energized" by the incarnation of Christ. By this they teach that the incarnation redeems humanity through the divine energy of the Son of God. He "deifies" human nature in a properly and carefully understood sense.

Perhaps a deeper and richer understanding of the wonder of this truth would make this day more meaningful to multitudes. I would have to believe this is true based on what I've witnessed over the course of my own life on this earth.

Australia

Baz Luhrmann's Australia has received both positive and negative reviews from the professionals, and almost in equal measure. I have to confess that I enjoyed both the story and the cinematography of this very big production.

Brett McCracken, a Christianity Today film reviewer, says this film is one "of great ambition and artistic audacity." The title itself reveals his point. The intentions of Luhrmann were never to make a definitive film about the county/continent, but rather to provide an big, grand extravaganza of a movie that takes you back to the big films that Hollywood produced twenty or thirty years ago. This, I would guess, may be the reason why so many modern reviewers simply do not like the film.

The story is set in the late 1930 and early 1940s as World War II begins to touch the northern coast of Australia. The viewer is taken into a part of the Japanese war effort that is not generally known in America. The impact this war had on far away Australia is quite remarkable really.

The story begins with the appearance of Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman). She comes from England to check in on her husband, who she soon learns has been murdered. His ranch is now under the threat of seizure by a rival cattle rancher who immediately proves to be a dark figure in the unfolding story. Lady Ashley enlists the help of a cattle driver named Drover (Hugh Jackman) who she initially does not care for at all. In order for Lady Ashley to keep Faraway Downs, her husband's ranch in northern Australia, she must get 1,500 cattle to market for a wartime beef sale. While the story is beginning to unfold Lady Ashley also forges a deep bond with a "half-caste" (half aboriginal, half white) orphan boy named Nullah (Brandon Walters). The boy, in an interesting production choice and twist that I much enjoyed, is also the film's narrator.

During this period in Australia's history aboriginal peoples were treated much the way blacks were treated in South Africa. And some of this treatment was promoted by the white church. (The church doesn't fare well in Australia!) This part of the story will reveal the pain of racism to you in a new context, or at least a new one for most viewers. Whites controlled the economy and the property, aboriginals worked for the whites and were second-class in every way, and half-caste children, like Nullah, were treated the worst of all. (Obviously, such half-caste children reveal one of the moral problems of the time, but who was applying moral principles when this kind of racism worked so well?)

All of this makes Australia what Brett McCracken rightly calls a "self-conscious examination of race." It is this thread that deeply impacted me on an emotional and personal level. At times the story became all too predictable, and the film like its Hollywood predecessors, is quite long. But the combination of aboriginal culture clashing with the world of the West is intriguing and moving. All of this reveals something of the true story of Australia, a culture of real conflicts and rejected and displaced people. The clergy are not generally portrayed positively in this film, with one exception in the case of a good priest, but one gets the feeling that this is presented about as it probably should be given the times and the story itself.

Liberation becomes a big emphasis in Australia and thus takes the viewer into another one of the film's big themes: dreams. It is more than interesting that Judy Garland's theme song, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" becomes an iconic song in this movie, positioned as it is in the same time period as huge epic film, The Wizard of Oz (1939). Lady Ashley tells Nullah the story of The Wizard of Oz and this provides one of the more touching human moments in the film. You seen realize that Nullah is truly the heart and soul of the story, which provides a great surprise and joy. But Lady Ashley is a force to be reckoned with. Drover works well in the overall story but only in a secondary way. As child actors go Brandon Walters (Nullah) is a true show stopper.

Australia has caused many critics to see it as a big, overdone and sappy movie. I do not agree. I think the combination of racial themes, with the outbreak of World War II, and the fully expected love story between Drover and Lady Ashley, all make this a big film with a lot of heart. And the ending is both moving and satisfying. Australia is not a four-star film but I would gladly give it three-stars. It is not the best film story of the year, nor is it truly great art at all, but it is a big movie that works quite nicely and has the feel of beauty, love, hope and amazement.

Australia is rated PG-13, mostly for violence (war scenes, bombings, stampede tramplings and a spearing) and a brief sex scene that is generally tasteful and in which there is no nudity. The language is not horrible with the single instance of an f-bomb. I think teens, generally speaking, would get a positive and useful message from Australia but I would not take young children to see it at all.

The Joy of Giving

Christmas reminds us that the giving of gifts is always appropriate given the truth that God is the greatest giver of gifts, including the greatest gift of all, his one and only (unique, or only begotten) Son. But we are reminded each year that much of the gift giving that we do is about ourselves and those that we feel an obligation to bless at this time of the year. This all has a serious down side to it I am sure. But I do not intend to protest the whole season because it has been abused. There is too much moaning and protesting about this, at least for my tastes. (I have not been led to take a vow of poverty but I do believe in living within my means and in giving to the poor, both based on clear biblical principles.) I do give Christmas gifts to my loved ones, with moderation, and I thoroughly enjoy it. My family also gives to me and I enjoy receiving their gifts. But there is more to the season than this "exchange" of presents within the family.

I was reminded of all this Monday. My daughter asked me to help her unload a car load of food at our Lutheran Church of the Master food pantry near our home. Stacy and her husband Jason own a local martial arts academy and asked for food gifts to distribute to the poor this Christmas. Their students responded with great generosity thus I took a little break from my writing Monday morning and helped out in the delivery of this great load of gifts. I am glad that I did. It was bitterly cold, about 4 degrees above zero at the time, and people were already lining up in the early morning for Christmas groceries. As we made many trips into the building with food I had the opportunity to then see people taking food we had just dropped off out to their cars or to people who were waiting for them. Some of the very gifts that we left were going out almost as fast as we took them in. We got to see the "turn-around" process happening right before our very eyes. It was encouraging and, admittedly, quite satisfying.

While you enjoy your own family and share gifts with one another this Christmas do not forget the poor. Their need is greater now than in recent years. You cannot solve every problem. You cannot even change your community on your own. But you can make a real difference. Try giving and thus invest some of your great abundance in the poor. Do it personally. You will be glad you did I promise you. 

What Was Auburn Thinking When They Hired a Football Coach?

I am just not sure what a number of these BCS college football athletic directors were thinking since the regular season ended only a few weeks ago. Seven major programs have fired their head coach and chosen a replacement.  The seven schools are Mississippi State, Auburn, Tennessee, Clemson, Washington, Kansas State and Syracuse.

Do you see any pattern here? Three of the seven are from the SEC. When Alabama hired Nick Saban, right after New Year’s Day (2007), I made three predictions to my buddies. One, Phil Fulmer would be gone from Tennessee in two years. I got that one right on the button. The second prediction was that Tommy Tuberville (photo at right) would be gone at Auburn inside of four years. I missed it. He was gone in only two. The third was that Alabama would play in the BCS national championship game within five years. I almost got that in two years as well, with Alabama ranked No. 1 and leading Florida in the fourth quarter of the SEC title game. Now this is not a boast, I assure you. I am not that good at picking games and predicting such things. But this much I did know—the SEC was about to change with Saban back in the league. And it did change, just faster than I thought. All things being equal I sincerely believe that you will see the Crimson Tide and the Gators playing regularly for a the title in the next five years. This only increases the pressure on the other powers in this great football league. Thus we have seen the removal of three good coaches in the SEC (if you include Sylvester Croom at Mississippi State), two of whom were hugely successful at traditional football powers Tennessee and Auburn.

But what gives with the hires these AD's made over the last few weeks? One of the best hires may actually have been at Mississippi State where Florida’s offensive coordinator Dan Mullen was "a certifiable coup" according to one college football analyst. The problem here will be what it always has been at State: recruiting.The most highly sought players in the state will still, very likely, go to Alabama or Ole Miss.

What truly amazes me is that the seven (white) men hired for those prestigious jobs had a combined head-coaching record in 2008 of 7-15. I can only ask: “What is going on here?” Here’s the 2008 record for these seven hires: 2-10 for Gene Chizik at Iowa State, 4-2 for interim Clemson coach Dabo Swinney and 1-3 with the Oakland Raiders for Lane Kiffin.

One of the seven coached an entire season as a head coach at the BCS level and he had the worst record of all. One was an interim head coach for six games and the other coached for four games in the NFL. And none of the four other coaches hired were even head coaches in 2008.

I have serious doubts about the Lane Kiffin (photo at left) pick at Tennessee but the most questionable hire of all just has to be Gene Chizik at Auburn. Chizik had a 5-19 record at Iowa State over the last two seasons but Auburn hired him anyway and pronounced him the answer to cross-state rival Alabama and Nick Saban. You have to be kidding. Many of my best friends are die-hard War Eagle fans. Most of them are sick, so far as I can tell. I would be. This is worse than Alabama hiring Mike Shula and he did have one really good year in his four seasons at Alabama.

Pat Forde, who writes on college football for ESPN, says:

Chizik needs to begin every morning by reciting the Lou Gehrig speech: ‘Today-today-today, I consider myself-myself-myself, the luckiest man on the face of the Earth-Earth-Earth.’ The fact that he somehow parlayed a 5-19 record at Iowa State into a job at one of the better programs in the country is astounding—and reflects the glorious dysfunction that is Auburn athletics. Understand this: Auburn could have kept Tommy Tuberville and his 85-40 record (Resignation? Right.) but went with a guy who opened his tenure in Ames with losses to Kent State and Northern Iowa.

Auburn could have gone after Leach, who knows something about winning in a brutal division, but instead hired a guy who went 2-10 in league play in the softer Big 12 North. Auburn could have landed the red-hot Gill, whose Buffalo team has won six of its past seven games, but instead embraced a guy on a 10-game losing streak. Maybe Chizik (photo at right)  will be the next Bill Parcells—he went 3-8 in his first year as a head coach, at the Air Force Academy in 1978—before turning out all right. But until that happens, this has the makings of the worst hire in SEC history.

So what were they thinking on the Plains when they let the proven winner, Tuberville, go and hired a proven loser with two years experience as a head coach? Something really fishy is happening here and I would not be a happy camper if I was an Auburn man. I would love to hear from you Auburn fans what you think happened, I really would. But since I am not an Auburn fan I have to think that the future in this rivalry looks pretty bright for the Tide. But then this whole world of BCS football can be turned upside down in one season. If you don’t believe that then go talk to Tommy Tuberville who was 7-2 versus their most hated rival and then went 5-7 this season and lost 36-0 to Alabama and got hammered a few days later. Tuberville was clearly Auburn's most successful coach since the late Shug Jordan. This decision just made no sense at all.