re: So Bama Probably Rolls To NC Number

quote:

---

Yeah this was my point, which is why I said Bryant dominated recruiting in the south. Jesus dude.

---

But the South wasn't really that important to the Tide. They had much larger ambitions each season so, they had to play by the rules of the United States as a whole, not just the South.

Because the Plainsmen, Gators, Chinese Bandits, etc... were non-factors and non-entities in college football didn't mean that Alabama could just accept being as sorry as them.

quote:

---

That's why everyone is saying it's tougher to win now than it was in the 50s and 60s.

---

Yes, and that is why I'm saying it is not harder to win then than it is now.

Sorry competition vs. sorry competition is just as hard to handle as good competition vs. good competition.

The absolute number and quality of opponents is no greater today, accounting for competition, than it was during the old days.

If Alabama played 3 teams that could beat them back then and beat those three teams, how is that any different than Alabama playing 9 teams that could beat them today and beating those 9 teams?

Alabama has the players to beat those 9 teams today, whereas they didn't back then.

But, Alabama did have enough talent to beat the 3 teams they needed to beat back then, just like they have the talent to beat the 9 teams today.

It's all relative.

quote:

---

That's why everyone is saying it's tougher to win now than it was in the 50s and 60s.

---

But, it's not? Why? Because the talent wasn't there back then like it is now.

I really don't know why people can't grasp this?

But winning a widely-recognized title is certainly harder. Not only do you usually have the extra CCGs, you have (had) a guaranteed match-up with either #1 or #2. We could debate whether the rankings were accurate, but there's little doubt that every single BCS championship game involved at least two top 4 teams, and usually the widely-acknowledged top 2. You didn't have that back in the 50s and 60s. For a considerable time, you didn't even have bowl games counted into the equation. Whatever else one might think of the BCS formula, or the current committee playoff system, the odds of the national champion being the best in the country are much improved. Not quite as much so when your 1 team has to go through, say, an 8th ranked team to win the NC. By that standard, reaching the very top is quantifiably harder nowadays.

quote:

---

Because it's a lot easier when you only have to get up for 3 games a year than 9.

---

On average, when they are among the best in the nation, Alabama only has to get up for 2-3 games per year. That was true in 1974 and it's still true in 2014. There are very few teams on our schedule who have the capabilities to beat us even when the team is having an off day.

Which teams did we actually have to get up for in 2011? Arkansas, LSU, and LSU again in the championship game. It's not like we were running through some impenetrable obstacles with the other teams on our schedule.

Everone in the SEC West had the capability to beat us this year.

saban has to deal with more parity on CFB and the SEC in general. Bear didn't even have to play Aubie IN Auburn until the end of his career.

quote:

---

There are very few teams on our schedule who have the capabilities to beat us even when the team is having an off day.

---

I need a dubious raised eyebrow emoticon. "Capable" is a loaded word. Arkansas was "capable" of beating Bama this year. A mediocre UT was "capable" of beating Bama in their undefeated 2009 campaign. TAMU, with no defense to speak of, did beat Bama in 2012. And so forth. The issue isn't whether Bama was the better team -- Bama has clearly been the better team in almost every game over the last six years or so. But other teams are, and have proven to be, capable of upsetting Bama. Thanks to the overall talent level and coaching level in the SEC, Bama has more than 2-3 tough games a season.

Bear was playing both Nebraska and USC in 1977 and 1978 along with his schedule.

Bear Bryant could have easily won 9 or 10 but for the media darling Notre Dame and a few 1 or 2 point bowl losses

1966 and 1977 would have been Bama titles in todays world.

In 1975 he lost to Notre Dame by 2 points in a game we dominated.

In 1950 his Kentucky team beat National Champion Oklahoma 13-7 in the Sugar Bowl and both teams finished 10-1, so that was just the way it was then.

Bear was better by a smidgen.

quote:

---

If you don't think there's more parity when teams go from 130 players to 85, then you just don't get it.

---

Didn't all teams go from the ability to have 135 players to being regulated to just having 85?

You can't always regulate success, no matter how hard some losers wish to try.

Aren't Alabama's players still a shite-ton better, quality wise, thann Duke's? What's the difference between then and now?

When the NCAA starts regulating who will get 5 and 4 star recruits and directs them equally to all colleges, then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.

Until then, all coaches and all teams of all eras have played by the same rules, crooked, straight, or in between and all have lived in the same time and played by the same rules.

Players were slow back then but, guess what, they played other slow players. So, if you can logically reason things out, a coach that wins a lot in any of these eras is just as good as another. Bryant was no better than Rockne because they didn't coach in the same generation. Saban is no better than Bryant because he coaches in another generation.

Coaches are better than others because they win more, do more, achieve more, in their own time.

According to the flawed logic of some SEC Rant geniuses, Bryant and Rockne are actually much worse coaches than Derek Dooley or Tyrone Willingham, simply because Dooley and Willingham coached in more modern times with better players.