TUSCALOOSA, Ala. - There is a game plan in this trial, I'm sure. I believe the attorneys representing former Alabama assistant coaches Ronnie Cottrell and Ivy Williams know what they're doing. I know when Cottrell spokesman Tommy Gallion walked past the jury Friday, looked out at the gallery and said, "It doesn't matter, we've lost," that was all part of a very clever ruse.

I believe this, because I can't believe Gallion and his co-counsel, DeLaine Mountain, could really be as bad as they've looked so far in trying this case in front of Tuscaloosa Circuit Court Judge Steve Wilson.

There has to be something else here, something going on that is worthy of Gallion's "Matlock" demeanor and Mountain's "Perry Mason" eloquence. There has to be, because otherwise what we've seen after the first week of the Cottrell-Williams trial is:

A parade of witnesses that Gallion and Mountain have brought to the stand who all agree Tom Culpepper said nasty things about Cottrell (including Culpepper himself) but who can't seem to remember Culpepper ever saying much of anything about Williams. For that matter, even Williams' own attorneys seem to forget about him, so caught up as they are in getting people to give details of all the horrible things that were said about Cottrell.

Of those witnesses, the majority have testified, under oath, that while Culpepper said those nasty things about Cottrell, they didn't believe them. In fact, only three people seemed to believe Culpepper: two hard-core regular Internet posters of Alabama fan base web sites and a local radio talk show host (oh, and the NCAA, which makes for a very interesting grouping, don't you think?)

Team Cottrell attorneys were supposed to introduce some witnesses to testify, I suppose, that they would have hired either Cottrell or Williams or both if not for the NCAA Web site error.

However, Cottrell's attorneys apparently forgot to have these witnesses listed properly, so Jacksonville State head football coach Jack Crowe, for one, drove all the way to Tuscaloosa and couldn't take the stand.

Gallion, in particular, doesn't seem to know how to ask a question in court without raising an objection from the other side. Perhaps that's where Gallion is so clever, however, because he tends to provide the answers he's looking for within the body of the questions he asks, almost assuring him of getting the answer he wants. It also allows Gallion to roll his eyes and give this great exasperated look toward the jury as if to say, "Can you believe what I'm having to put up with?" when the other side objects.

I'm sure Gallion does this on purpose, because anyone who has watched a season's worth of "Law & Order" knows how lawyers are supposed to ask questions. In fact, after sitting through three days of testimony, I'd bet even the jurors know how to phrase an acceptable question by now.

Another thing I'm waiting to see is how Gallion handles it when, after hammering home with the jury that the NCAA report on Alabama refers to "assistant coaches A and B," and therefore that incorrect "show cause" order on employees could refer to only Ronnie Cottrell and Ivy Williams, what if the jury finds out the NCAA report actually has references to assistant coaches A, B, and C?

Understand, I'm not being critical of Cottrell and Williams' attorneys. I'm sure they know what they are doing. I'm sure they have some great twist they are ready to introduce at the very end and tie this all up with a classic "a-ha!" moment.

I just hope they get to it before the trial is over.