What's everyone's take on Saban

Meyer is exceptionally elite. What he did at Utah tells us that.  He wins, and wins fast and has done it everywhere - even horrid programs like Utah who was nothing until he showed up.  Utah had 4, 8, and 5 wins in the 3 seasons before Urban.  He walked in and went 22-2 in 2 years.

Even at OSU what he is doing is remarkable.  It is one thing to show up and go 10-3, 11-2, 9-4, 12-1.  Guy is something like 50-4 at OSU.

With Meyer and Saban you could have 2 of the top 5 college coaches of all time coaching at the same time - they are up there with the Osborne's and Bryant's on GOAT list

installing his brand of football is absolutely the reaason both schools enjoyed a success rate never before achieved at the particular school. When you consider OSU's former coaches and the fact that depite Fickel's one year stint to keep the program intact, he took over from one of their all-time greats and still took the program to another level.

The above is actually a good argument for Saban. Even having Urban in the league as the measuring stick for the SEC, he was able to supplant Fl as the best team in the SEC. And until we learn otherwise, he has not committed any violations while at Bama and although for some mysterious reason a few posters suggest this minimizes his accomplishments, I don't see how being the best at one of the agreed upon requisites for being a successful HC can be used against him.

There is a team on the w. coast whose roster is very similar to Alabama's in regard to talent level. There won and loss record, however, is not close to Saban's. A certain level of talent is required to not only be successful but absolutely required to become elite. What, for instance, would have been Harbaugh's record if forced to play with the QBs he interited? By his own admission, Jake was the only viable candidate, "by a huge amount," to be successful this year. And Harbaugh maximizing this talent, something some people try to use in their argument against Saban, is key in both men's level of success.

Additionally, the one man some feel - possibly rightfully so - was better at Bama than Saban changed not only the recruiting strategy of his school but that of an entire conference. The Bear had an outstanding record prior to his decision to include great black players, but by so doing, after an embarrasing loss to USC and their talented blacks, removed any doubt about Bama's ability to be among the best on a national level and not just in a conference dominated by white players.  In '66, after ND and MSU played to a tie, they both were rated higher than undefeated Alabama, lead by a pretty good qb from PA named Joe Namath.

Recognizing and being able to bring in the necessary elements to raise the level of play to a completely different level can, in no way I can think of, be considered anything but a further endorsement as to one's abilities. Although some win at a high level with lesser players, when pitted against an equally capable coach that has a distinct advantage in talent as well they will almost always come out on the short end.  MSU vs. Bama is the perfect example.

And although Bo won at a spectacular rate and did so with inarguably great talent, his refusal, by his own admission, to take a few players that would have guaranteed him even greater success would have been counter to his own standards as well as what he believed Michigan represented, in no uncertain terms prevented him from winning at a Switzer like level. Given that Switzer's accomplishments, like Carrol's, are tarnished puts an end to the debate of whether or not he was correct in his rigid standards. 

Unlike those named above, neither Meyer nor Saban has, of yet, been found guilty of recruiting in a like manner so, in effect, they are doing it the right way. The fact that Urban has enjoyed even greater success at the same school as Tressel, a known violator of the rules, at all levels, proves to me it can be done without putting your entire program in jeopardy.