Started By
Message
re: Has Alabama ever been this dominant?
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:19 pm to TailbackU
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:19 pm to TailbackU
I do not think they would have had 3 of their recent NCs under the old system. Before the BCS, if you loss a game you were behind the eight ball. LSU would have played someone else in the Sugar Bowl in 2011. 2012 loss in November would have caused ND to play OK St in the Orange. Clemson would have played in the Orange Bowl last year and Bama in the Sugar.
1
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:21 pm to TailbackU
No. Not like this. They've had dominant eras but never a time where there was such a difference between their program and everyone else.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:22 pm to Irons Puppet
Saban will go down as the greatest college coach ever. What he is doing in this era of modern college football and the level of competition is unprecedented.
Very rarely do they not show up prepared to play.
Very rarely do they not show up prepared to play.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:23 pm to TailbackU
I think this is "peak" football.
There are more resources put into football all over the country.
Alabama spends the most. They get their money's worth as far as results.
I'm not talking about paying players or even coaches salaries. They invest in off field resources way more than anyone else. At some point, it points to a real commitment to winning.
That being said, I do think Saban is special and the money spent will not equal success unless you have full focus and a leader who does not tolerate nonsense.
Auburn could spend 500 times as much money, but as long as jay Jacobs is "in charge" it would be a waste of money like most government programs. Somehow we are paying Rhett Lashlee 400K to say "yeah, single wing spin series should exploit these D1 athletes." Or "you are right coach JJ can run a keeper for 3 anytime, good idea." Or "ok, 5 QBs ought to really help us move the ball consistently."
I think the best we can do is recruit dual threat QBs and maybe catch a Cam or Nick every 3 to 5 years.
It is what it is. It's Saban's world and we all wish he was wearing our polo shirts. Bama had good timing. The rest of us settled.
Bama probably has a list of matched marrow and organ donors for Saban. He may live to be 120 or perhaps forever.
There are more resources put into football all over the country.
Alabama spends the most. They get their money's worth as far as results.
I'm not talking about paying players or even coaches salaries. They invest in off field resources way more than anyone else. At some point, it points to a real commitment to winning.
That being said, I do think Saban is special and the money spent will not equal success unless you have full focus and a leader who does not tolerate nonsense.
Auburn could spend 500 times as much money, but as long as jay Jacobs is "in charge" it would be a waste of money like most government programs. Somehow we are paying Rhett Lashlee 400K to say "yeah, single wing spin series should exploit these D1 athletes." Or "you are right coach JJ can run a keeper for 3 anytime, good idea." Or "ok, 5 QBs ought to really help us move the ball consistently."
I think the best we can do is recruit dual threat QBs and maybe catch a Cam or Nick every 3 to 5 years.
It is what it is. It's Saban's world and we all wish he was wearing our polo shirts. Bama had good timing. The rest of us settled.
Bama probably has a list of matched marrow and organ donors for Saban. He may live to be 120 or perhaps forever.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:24 pm to nc14
quote:
Trust me, it never gets boring.
I get that, and I'm sure I'd feel the same way if it was at my alma mater. But I'm not sure it's good for college football in general. It will be interesting to see if it becomes like college basketball in the mid 60's through the mid 70's with UCLA. The sport waned in interest.
But I gotta handed to them. Whatever way they're doing it, they're doing it.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:29 pm to TailbackU
The best damn consistent one loss team I've ever seen.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:30 pm to BradPitt
Why do people think the 70's were a less treacherous time?
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:30 pm to Marco Esquandolas
It's on par with any. It's gonna be tough to top 8 conference titles in the 70's. Also had 103 wins in the 70s playing 11 regular season games. Bryants win percentage in 70s is also higher than sabans decade. Of course Saban is in his first decade while Bryant had established himself. It's a push I say.
All I know is being 48, Bama football has pretty much been kick arse since I've been watching it which started in 72.
All I know is being 48, Bama football has pretty much been kick arse since I've been watching it which started in 72.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:32 pm to John Gotti
AJ was not elite?
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:35 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Why do people think the 70's were a less treacherous time?
In the 70s:
Teams had more scholarships.
Paying players was much easier.
There was less competition in all of college football.
Bama plays in maybe the toughest division/conference in CFB ever.
Every team didn't have resources so it was easier to recruit.
This post was edited on 9/6/16 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:36 pm to TailbackU
You might get shite for this thread considering the Bear Bryant years happened, but right before Alabama hit their stride CFB as a whole was considered one of the sports with the most parity of any popular sport.
You had one dynastic power in USC, but they weren't winning it all every year, and got upset pretty often.
What Alabama has done is honestly baffling. How Nick Saban took over in 2007 and convinced people to buy into what he was doing, even after a rocky start, and just dominate in this fashion is crazy.
The guy isn't an infallible coach, and he's had a few game day mishaps (very few, but a few), but he just does something nobody else is doing, and I don't know what that is. Everyone wants to play for him, and many great coaches want to coach for him.
I will enjoy his retirement. Even if they hire an elite coach, I have to believe it's a step down from what I've seen from them since 2008. They've just been something I would never have believed could happen outside of a video game.
You had one dynastic power in USC, but they weren't winning it all every year, and got upset pretty often.
What Alabama has done is honestly baffling. How Nick Saban took over in 2007 and convinced people to buy into what he was doing, even after a rocky start, and just dominate in this fashion is crazy.
The guy isn't an infallible coach, and he's had a few game day mishaps (very few, but a few), but he just does something nobody else is doing, and I don't know what that is. Everyone wants to play for him, and many great coaches want to coach for him.
I will enjoy his retirement. Even if they hire an elite coach, I have to believe it's a step down from what I've seen from them since 2008. They've just been something I would never have believed could happen outside of a video game.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:37 pm to Ross
quote:
Ross
I'm sending you the bill from my urologist's office, because this erection won't go away.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:37 pm to Ross
Hast to be , so many more really good teams now than then . Schools limits, kids leaving early for the draft... Yes again .
This post was edited on 9/6/16 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:37 pm to TouchdownTony
quote:
It's gonna be tough to top 8 conference titles in the 70's. Also had 103 wins in the 70s playing 11 regular season games.
But how tough was the competition in the conference then? How many team legitimately had a chance to win the conference then?
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:42 pm to TailbackU
We won the conference championship every year in the 70's except 1970.
I think what Saban has done is actually better. He is the best coach in the history of college football in my opinion and we are lucky he is at Alabama. Like all good things it will end and someone else will be the big dog in the SEC but it is fun while we have it.
I think what Saban has done is actually better. He is the best coach in the history of college football in my opinion and we are lucky he is at Alabama. Like all good things it will end and someone else will be the big dog in the SEC but it is fun while we have it.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:42 pm to TouchdownTony
quote:
It's gonna be tough to top 8 conference titles in the 70's
The SEC is a much better conference now, despite all the losses on the opening weekend, which is why it begs the question. There were some wretched teams in the conference in the 70's, and Bama pretty much waltzed through without much of a challenge. Occasionally someone would pop up with a good team, UT in the early 70's, Auburn 72, UGA 76, etc. but generally speaking, Bama"s competition was largely national in scope with ND, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC. Winning the SEC was a given. Even if didn't win it, fair and square, the Bear would add that Vandy game to stack the deck against the rest of the conference with the SEC's approval so it didn't really matter. (See 1972)
This post was edited on 9/6/16 at 8:47 pm
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:43 pm to Sebastian
I know I am lucky as a Bama fan. Twice in my lifetime Bama has had the best most consistent coach in college football. Football seems to be the sport where coaching influences the winner the most. If I were forced to choose a Dynasty I would say this one. If I were forced to pick a coach between Saban and Bear in today's football I would take Saban. Not an easy decision.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:44 pm to TailbackU
You're also asking a group of people who talk about sitting daddy's lap during said game in 1999. Hardly experts on football before 2002. 
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:47 pm to boogiewoogie1978
Not buying it...everything is relative....everyone operated under the same rules etc. disgaree there was less competition .....the other members in the SEC weren't very good but I would argue the national landscape was tougher.
Posted on 9/6/16 at 8:47 pm to TailbackU
Given the dynamics and structure of college football today, yes.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News