News Article: Which Dynasty Is More Impressive - Alabama Or Nebraska?

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Alabama's clinching of it's third national championship in four years has given rise to a question among those who follow college football closely - which dynasty is better, the current Alabama version or the Nebraska Cornhuskers of the mid-1990s? (Overlooked in this discussion are the Notre Dame teams of the 1940s, primarily because those titles owed more to timing - namely, the end of WWII - than anything else). The question is not so much which team would beat the other as it is which is the more impressive feat. And a look at the data suggests that the current Alabama version is at least a little bit better than the Nebraska run. That is not to take away from what was (and still is) a phenomenal accomplishment. Winning consecutive national championships is an extremely rare occurence. Starting in 1936 when the AP poll began, the only teams to win consecutive titles are:

Minnesota, 1940-1941
Notre Dame, 1946-1947
Oklahoma, 1955-1956
Alabama, 1964-1965
Nebraska, 1970-1971
Oklahoma, 1974-1975
Alabama, 1978-1979
Nebraska, 1994-1995
Alabama, 2011-2012

Note some familiar names there? Nine times teams have won consecutive national titles and of those nine, five of them were by either Alabama or Nebraska. So this is a discussion of elite football to say the least. But let's examine each case closer and answer the question, "Which dynasty is more impressive - the current Alabama version or the 1990s Nebraska team?"

Now I hasten to add an important caveat: Alabama can render this entire discussion meaningless if they become the first team to ever three-peat in 2013. Nebraska's 1998 follow-up team lost four games. Even with a major drop-off in 2013, Alabama is not going to lose four contests. Whether they can repeat remains to be seen, and the odds are strongly against it. Nevertheless, let's evaluate each team's prospective case by considering their strongest points.

THE CASE FOR NEBRASKA

Nebraska won three national championships in four years and came within one play of a fourth in five years. The Big Red finished all three of those seasons unbeaten and won 26 games in a row. They beat Miami on the Hurricanes own field to clinch the first title, and in their other clinching bowl games routed the SEC champions by scores of 62-24 and 42-17. Alabama needed luck to get into each of the last two BCS title games while Nebraska did not even need the forward pass. Experts generally agree that the 1995 Cornhuskers team was one of the - if not THE - greatest one-year team in history. On top of that, this bunch crushed Nick Saban by 40 points in consecutive seasons (1995-1996). Alabama did not even win its division in 2011 and needed a rematch to take it all. On top of that, in both 1995 and 1997, Nebraska mauled essentially the same teams that won the title the following year.

THE CASE FOR ALABAMA

Alabama won three national championships during the most difficult time to win the SEC. In addition, the Tide led the Florida Gators entering the fourth quarter in 2008, a win that would have enabled them to play Oklahoma for the national championship. The SEC at this time is the most competitive league in the history of college football, with all 12 teams plus Texas A/M having won bowl games as members of the SEC in just the past four years. While Alabama's overall record contains more losses, it was also achieved against a much tougher schedule than Nebraska faced. Unlike Nebraska, the Tide knocked off unbeaten foes in all three national championship match-ups, including LSU in what was essentially a Tigers home game in New Orleans. On top of that, Nebraska ended two of those three years without even having to play unbeaten and worthy foes simply because of the Bowl Alliance. Perhaps Penn State or Michigan knocks off the Cornhuskers if they actually play. Furthermore, the Tide has knocked off defending national champions in 2008, 2009, and 2011 and knocked off the following year's champion in 2009 on the road.

A CLOSER LOOK

It must be acknowledged that both teams have strong cases. Let me dispense, however, with one of the flawed arguments presented for both teams: there really is no such thing as a "defending" national champion in college football. Players leave every year for the NFL or for other reasons (injury). This is not the reserve clause days of baseball when a player stayed with the same team for twenty years. To show just how flawed the argument is simply compare the 2009 Auburn squad with the Cam Newton-led bunch of 2010. Or note that the 1997 Tennessee team was quarterbacked by Peyton Manning while the 1998 team that won it all was led by Tee Martin. Even Alabama's 2009 win over Florida ignores the fact that Percy Harvin was gone so it was not the same team. Once again, this is not to criticize either team but to note that fans are fond of invoking flawed arguments in favor of their team.

Let's examine each of the points a little closer.

1) It is true that Nebraska was unbeaten in all three of their championship seasons in the 1990s.

This may be the strongest argument in favor of Nebraska being the more impressive accomplishment. The case for Nebraska is incredibly free of ambiguity: the Cornhuskers completed three unbeaten seasons in four years while Alabama lost once in two of their title runs. But there are a number of problems with this claim in isolation. Unbeaten seasons CAN be the product of careful scheduling, weak conferences, luck, or any combination of the three. The strength of the unbeaten argument hinges upon whether one is going to consider strength of schedule. The Nebraska partisan who does not consider strength of schedule needs to provide a coherent argument as to why Nebraska's 50-2 record is materially any better than Boise State's 50-3 record from 2008-2011. The immediate objection and rightly so would be that Boise State's schedule (.494) was not in the same solar system as Nebraska's (.534). This objection would be valid yet then Nebraska partisans must deal with the fact that their schedule is closer to the ease of Boise State (.042) than it is to the difficulty level of Alabama (.048). Keep in mind that the winning percentage of Alabama opponents does not include the 11-3 record of Georgia Southern (2011) or the 6-5 record of Georgia State.

To give you an idea of how much more difficult Alabama's schedule was, Nebraska would have to play opponents with a combined record of 68-0 to equal Alabama's schedule difficulty. Or to put it in more concrete terms, Nebraska would have to beat FIVE 13-0 squads plus a 3-0 FBS team.

The point is that Nebraska did have three unbeaten seasons in four years while Alabama did not. But Alabama's schedule was also indisputably more difficult than Nebraska's. It’s not even a contest.

Nebraska partisans who simply shout “undefeated” as if that is the clinching argument need to be consistent. Thus, Marshall was a better team in 1999 than one-loss Nebraska. The number of examples that could be cited here is immense.
This mars a number of the pro-Nebraska analyses. It is often pointed out that Nebraska scored more points per game than Alabama, but that is to be expected when one plays an easier schedule. Let's not even discuss the fact that Alabama benches it's starters once up by 30 points while Nebraska had a nasty habit of running scores up beyond necessity.

2) Nebraska is not even considered the Team of the Decade

Nebraska won three national championships in four years. But when discussions of the dominant teams of the decade are held, the Cornhuskers find themselves behind the Florida State Seminoles of Bobby Bowden despite the Noles winning "only" two national titles. This is probably because Florida State went 4-0 against Nebraska in bowl games between 1988-1994, winning two blowouts and two close games (the 27-14 Orange Bowl in 1993 was never in doubt despite a cosmetically close score). The Noles also played for the title in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Because of the head-to-head, Florida State's two titles tend to be viewed as superior to Nebraska's three. It was a great four-year run, but keep in mind Nebraska had some terrible years by their standards in 1991, 1992, and 1998.

Alabama, on the other hand, is not yet the Team of the Decade but only because the first title was technically won in the last decade. But nobody suggests that Alabama has been unable to "slay the dragon." They've beaten Florida with Tim Tebow to clinch a shot for one title and exacted revenge on LSU in 2011 to win another. And they've also ended long Crimson agony at the hands of Texas (0-7-1) and Notre Dame (1-5) in national title games. In short, the Tide has gained revenge on their nemeses; the Cornhuskers did beat an overmatched Miami in the Orange Bowl in a comeback but never beat Florida State.


3) The Big Eight Conference was a sick joke.

Nebraska's first two titles in the 1990s were won while competing in the Big Eight Conference, a grouping of teams that has more commonly been referred to as the Big Two (Nebraska and Oklahoma) and the Little Six. Despite media treating it as a big deal, it was never much more than a two-team conference. Proof of this can be found in Nebraska's record against FIVE of the other six teams (Colorado excepted) during Tom Osborne's tenure as coach. During the 1980s, Nebraska was UNBEATEN against the other Little Five teams. Osborne's record against Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, K-State, and Oklahoma State was 115-7-1. He didn't lose a game to any of these five teams between 1979 and 1992. That's because the conference as a whole was not very good.

Further proof of the Grand Canyon of distance between the haves and have nots of the Big Eight occurred on October 15, 1994. Starting QB Tommie Frazier had been sidelined for the rest of the season with a blood clot in his leg. Backup QB Brook Berringer suffered a collapsed lung. Third-string QB Matt Turman came off the bench and helped the Cornhuskers beat 9-3 Kansas State by a score of 17-6. This would be similar to a situation in 2012 if AJ McCarron and Blake Sims both went down to injury against LSU, a three-loss team. Not even the most partisan Tide fan believes Alabama would beat LSU in that circumstance because the SEC is that much tougher than the old Big Eight. Until their great run, Nebraska constantly had problems with non-conference foes. Consider this: starting in 1981 (an arbitrary date but one where Nebraska was in contention for the national title against Clemson) and continuing until 1993, Nebraska lost 27 games. Nineteen of those losses were against out-of-conference foes. In fact, Nebraska lost to an out-of-conference foe every year from 1977-1993. Alabama, by contrast, has not lost an out-of-conference game since the 2009 Sugar Bowl (the Tide has a 39-8 out-of-conference record in the last decade).

4) Consensus national champions

Nebraska's accomplishments during the mid-1990s are phenomenal. But if the unbeaten season is to be looked at in a non-contextual way then so should another problematic aspect of the Nebraska dynasty: the simple fact they didn't play the best available opponent and win their titles outright. Their 1994 title is particularly open to scrutiny. Nebraska opened the 1994 season at number four (Florida was on top) and Penn State at number eight. Each team rose in the poll methodically. Then on the week of October 15, 1994, Florida lost to Auburn while Penn State beat number five Michigan at the Big House, 31-24. Penn State leapfrogged to number one and validated that ranking with a 63-14 shredding of Ohio State. But in that era of two poll champions, Penn State immediately dropped to number two in the coaches poll. The following week Penn State beat Indiana, 35-29, and dropped in the AP poll. Why? The pollsters were impressed with Nebraska's 24-7 rout of previously unbeaten Colorado in a game that felt more like 44-7. Penn State was punished for not pulverizing Indiana. But there were two problems with the rationale: 1) Indiana was a 6-5 team but the score was artificially close as the Hoosiers scored fifteen points in the final two minutes against the Penn State third-string defense; 2) the Nittany Lions had fallen the previous week in the coaches poll despite pasting Ohio State, 63-14, while Nebraska was drilling 3-8-1 Missouri by "only" five TDs. In short, Penn State wound up on the outside looking in through no fault of their own. They were obligated to the Rose Bowl and in a strange turn of events wound up playing Oregon. This was not the Chip Kelly-era Oregon but a Cinderella team that had not been to the Rose Bowl since 1958. And Nebraska got the good fortune of playing a Miami team with a major name but not as impressive as during their title runs.

In short, who knows who would have won a Penn State-Nebraska match-up? Nobody. We will never know. But given the two poll circumstance and unavailability of the teams to play each other then at the very worst the teams should have split the championship just as happened in 1990 and 1991. And just as controversial was Nebraska's 1997 title where something that has never happened in the entire history of college football occurred: a team ranked number one in both polls and undefeated wins their bowl game yet somehow drops out of the top spot. Word had reached the voters that Tom Osborne was stepping down. Whatever the motivation, Osborne was giving a parting gift at Michigan's expense. Nebraska won the 1997 national championship without ever even having to play the ranked number one to get it. (Note that I have yet to mention Nebraska winning the Missouri game in 1997 on an illegal kick).

I make mention of this because Nebraska fans want to argue that Alabama somehow benefited unfairly in two of their three title seasons (2011 and 2012). But under the old system, Alabama would still have played in both title games. Furthermore, at least Alabama lined up and knocked off number one in two head-to-head football games that were not even close. When the Tide walked off the field after their last game there were murmurs of how great the team ranked all-time; when Nebraska walked off the field the Cornhuskers ran straight to microphones and insisted they could be Michigan IF they played. The simple fact of the matter is this: controversy dogged Alabama prior to the game and they proved they belonged by dismantling two highly regarded foes, Notre Dame and LSU. Controversy still dogs Nebraska fifteen years later.


5) The Strength of the Southeastern Conference

Amazingly enough, both sides use this argument. Nebraska points to their 62-24 shellacking of Steve Spurrier's Florida Gators, the 1995 SEC champions, and say this proves that Nebraska could have handled the SEC. Well, maybe they could have in 1995. But the SEC of 1995 was light years from today's talented bunch that has walked off with seven national titles in a row, most of them by embarrassing blowouts. The SEC of 1995 - in particular that year - was top heavy. EVERY team in the conference lost AT LEAST three conference games with two exceptions, Florida and Tennessee. The Vols lost to Florida but beat everybody else while the Gators were obviously undefeated when they faced off against Nebraska. But consider some other important facts: 1) Alabama was on probation and ineligible. To make things worse, two of the Tide's three losses were direct results of incompetent officiating that would have resulted in wins under today's review rules; 2) Auburn was just recovering from probation; 3) Arkansas won the Western Division despite three conference losses; 4) the conference was 2-3 in bowl games and one of the two wins could just as easily have been a loss (Vols over Ohio State). Put quite simply, the SEC of 1995 was not the same conference that had the top three teams in a poll in late November 2011.

Yet to hear the Nebraska argument, they were SEC killers. After all, in both 1995 and 1997 they capped their year with routs of SEC foes, Florida and Tennessee. The argument is actually stronger for 1997, when the SEC was tougher top to bottom (7-4 MSU sat home wondering why Shreveport didn't call).

6) The Home Bowl Dilemma

Nebraska partisans also like to point out that they beat Miami on the Hurricanes home field in the 1995 Orange Bowl and that Alabama has no similar win

I will concede that some of the preceding arguments have elements of subjectivity. However, there are three arguments that push this seemingly close discussion well into Alabama's column as the greater dynasty. And these make it not even close.

1) Rebuilding Versus Maintaining

Tom Osborne began as Nebraska coach in 1973. He won his first national title in 1994 and added two more titles in the next three years before riding off to become a Congressman. When the Nebraska machine got going full-speed it was quite incredible. But it took him 21 years to build his dynasty. Nick Saban, on the other hand, took over a program decimated by the second harshest sentence ever proffered by the NCAA for alleged violations. Although Alabama's scholarship level had been restored by the time of his hiring, he had to rebuild the program from virtual scratch. In his second year, he got within a quarter of a national title showdown with Oklahoma. In his third year, he won the big trophy and his star running back ran off with the Heisman. Saban's team was winning titles before the structure was completely restored. And he did it against the most competitive conference in the history of college football. Consider this: Nick Saban has more national titles in the last nine seasons than Tom Osborne got in his entire career.

2) Off Week Scheduling

Critics of Alabama's current run like to point out that the Tide has lost five games during that run. None of them ever bother to point out that only one team in the last four years has beaten Alabama without the luxury of an additional week to rest and prep: the Texas A&M Aggies led by Johnny Manziel. The other four losses were at the hands of teams that got an extra week: South Carolina, LSU, and Auburn in 2010, and LSU in 2011. This points to another flaw in analysis: not only is Alabama's schedule much tougher than Nebraska's was but the Tide has also faced an incredible number of opponents with off weeks. This has the effect of making their wins more impressive because they occurred against rested competition. So how do the two teams compare in off week scheduling?

It must be remembered that Nebraska played when a 13-game season was usually the absolute maximum. This would slightly lower the possibilities for foes with off weeks. But let's now consider how they compare. This analysis will not include season opening games or bowl games. Nebraska played six opponents during their run who had two weeks to prepare, and the Cornhuskers went 6-0 against those foes. This is softened, however, by the fact that prior to THREE of those six games, Nebraska was ALSO off. Hence, it was not a team with two weeks playing a team coming off a game. Those numbers no doubt raised the blood pressure of most Tide fans who will point out that they played SEVEN foes in nine weeks who had additional weeks to prepare. In other words, Alabama played more teams with off weeks in the 2010 season than Nebraska did in four years. It is no accident that three of the Tide's five losses came during that rigorous campaign. But how has the Tide done against foes with off weeks? Quite incredible. In sixteen games against opponents coming off bye weeks, Alabama is 12-4 in the last four years. If one likewise excludes weeks where Alabama was also off, the record is an even more impressive 12-2. An argument could be made that without off weeks the Tide is - literally - impossible to beat. As noted earlier, the only team to do so in the last four years is A&M. And even that game presents analytical problems because Alabama was coming off an emotional win on the road and still had two shots to win the game in the final two minutes, failing to convert a first and goal that would have won and jumping offsides to snuff out the last possible rally.

3) Auburn's 2010 National Championship

Unquestionably the most painful two moments of Alabama's great run have come at the hands of the rival 160 miles east. The Auburn Tigers' sensational comeback from a 24-0 deficit on their way to a national title was a bitter pill some Tide fans still refuse to swallow. But in that championship lies yet another reason for why Alabama's run is better than Nebraska's: the championship not won by the dynasty was in this case won by a team in the same small state. A state of less than four million people, Alabama and Auburn are often competing over the same prized recruits. While the state of Nebraska during the 1990s had about 1.5 million people, the Cornhuskers did not have to share those players with anybody. If you were a Nebraska native, you were going to play for Tom Osborne unless he didn't want you. But because of the long-term mediocrity of the Big Eight, Osborne could name whatever players he wanted in virtually the entire area west of the Mississippi and east of the Pacific Time Zone. The late Brook Berringer, who led Nebraska down the stretch in 1994, was from Goodland, Kansas. Had he come along perhaps five years later, Nebraska would not have had the hold on Berringer that they did by virtue of their prior success. He might have wound up at Kansas, K-State, or perhaps Oklahoma. Osborne had a virtual monopoly on any great player from Kansas to the Canadian border. Nick Saban, by contrast, has to share at least some of the best players in Alabama with Auburn. And it is not as though Alabama is a large state of unlimited football potential as Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida.

SUMMARY

It is difficult, of course, to write such an article without sounding as though I am diminishing the accomplishments of a great Nebraska team. By no means should this be considered the case. Nebraska’s accomplishment is great - but Alabama's is greater.
 

tide96

All-SEC
Oct 4, 2005
1,616
32
72
46
If Alabama does an Auburn and falls off of a cliff, there is probably a case for Nebraska's being better, but I don't think we are done yet.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
Lot to digest Bill, well done, but regardless whether it is NU or Alabama, the best college football team in my lifetime, IMO, was the 1971 NU team that destroyed Alabama in the Orange Bowl 38-6.
 

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,511
6,521
187
UA
I enjoyed your analysis although I felt like you went pretty far to rationalize some of Alabama's stats/losses without looking similarly at Nebraska. :)

I do think our current run is better though due to the competition we have faced and the #1 vs #2 NC games. And it will be put to rest this season when we win #16 ;)
 

deliveryman35

Hall of Fame
Jul 26, 2003
12,998
1,194
287
55
Gadsden, AL
Lot to digest Bill, well done, but regardless whether it is NU or Alabama, the best college football team in my lifetime, IMO, was the 1971 NU team that destroyed Alabama in the Orange Bowl 38-6.
I agree. I think even Coach Bryant said at the time that team was the best that HE had ever seen.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
As far as rationalization I simply stand by the point - Nebraska did not play the schedule Alabama did, period. I can see why that statement would be made about the aTm loss, which I feared. But fine - we lost.

Times we were shut out: 0

9-21-96
Arizona State 19
Nebraska 0
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,893
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Most fans will probably point to the losses as rationalization that this dynasty isn't that great compared to Nebraska, or even the Miami run from 1983-1991, or the Florida State run of top 4 finishes (if you would like to define those as dynasties). But I agree with you that strength of schedule matters and that it is no contest between the two. Alabama has played a far tougher schedule than Nebraska ever did. You mentioned Nebraska/Oklahoma being the only competition in the Big 8. Oklahoma had actually dropped off a great deal during Nebraska's 4 year run. As you referred to, Colorado was truly Nebraska's only competition in the Big 8 during those years.

I've gone back and forth on this, but I believe had Nebraska and Michigan played after the 1997 season, Michigan would have won. I don't for a second believe that Charles Woodson should have won the Heisman over Peyton Manning that year, but he along with the rest of that Michigan defense was fantastic. Nebraska had dropped off a bit that year and was very beatable (as the Missouri game attested to).

I'm not sure about 1994, had Nebraska faced Penn State. It certainly would have been a great game.
 

BigBama76

Suspended
Oct 26, 2011
1,002
0
0
Atlanta, GA
Lot to digest Bill, well done, but regardless whether it is NU or Alabama, the best college football team in my lifetime, IMO, was the 1971 NU team that destroyed Alabama in the Orange Bowl 38-6.
That was a good Nebraska team. Johnny Rodgers was unstoppable. However, we played rather poorly with some unforced errors and were only that year away from two 6-5 seasons.

The whole reason Coach Bryant went with the wishbone was because he didn't think we had the talent to win consistently with any other offensive scheme.
 

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,977
393
102
Cumming, GA
Lot to digest Bill, well done, but regardless whether it is NU or Alabama, the best college football team in my lifetime, IMO, was the 1971 NU team that destroyed Alabama in the Orange Bowl 38-6.
And not far behind was 1971 Oklahoma which lost to NU 31-35. The 31 points scored by OU was 30% of the 104 points scored on NU in '71.
 

257WBY

Suspended
Aug 20, 2011
2,077
1
0
What gives it to Alabama is the domination of good opponents in the title game. It's almost like watching a Tyson fight. Over in the first round.
 

TideMan09

Hall of Fame
Jan 17, 2009
12,187
1,156
187
Anniston, Alabama
The sheer quickness of Coach Saban's rise among the college footballs Dynasty ranks..Is what sets it apart from the others & is what makes it the most impressive of all Dynasty's(including Coach Bryant)..And what's the most impressive trait of this Dynasty..Is it's only growing stronger each year "The Process" is in place at Bama & shows no signs of slowing down..And too the rest of college football dismay..Coach Saban has another 5-10yrs(or more) in the tank if he chooses to stay that long before retiring..
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,734
9,918
187
I remember watching that Penn State-Indiana game where Indiana scored a bunch of points against Penn State's third team defense. The announcers said people would see the score and vote Penn State down.
 

BamaJama17

Hall of Fame
Sep 17, 2006
16,365
8
47
34
Hoover, AL
As far as rationalization I simply stand by the point - Nebraska did not play the schedule Alabama did, period. I can see why that statement would be made about the aTm loss, which I feared. But fine - we lost.

Times we were shut out: 0

9-21-96
Arizona State 19
Nebraska 0
Just to add some trivia....that ASU team had Jake Plummer as their QB and the late Pat Tillman as an OLB. They finished 11-1 losing 20-17 (and a share of the NC) to Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. The year before Nebraske beat them 77-28.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Just to add some trivia....that ASU team had Jake Plummer as their QB and the late Pat Tillman as an OLB. They finished 11-1 losing 20-17 (and a share of the NC) to Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. The year before Nebraske beat them 77-28.
Yeah I know. Of course, our 5 losses were by a total of 29 points - so were there two.
 

TideFan in AU

Hall of Fame
It should be noted that if we don't beat Florida in 2009 or LSU in 2011, those two teams would have gone down in history as those two school's greatest seasons ever. That's not even debatable. Florida would have had it's first undefeated season and a back to back NC, and LSU would have had it's first 14-0 season, and would have probably been recognized as the most dominant SEC NC team ever based on beating 9 ranked teams and 3 teams that finished in the top 5 in the BCS' final standings (us, Oregon, and Arky).
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
As TideMan said, what is so impressive about Alabama's run is how quickly CNS got us to that point. In his second year we are playing for the SECC, that is super impressive. We then win 3 of the next 4NCs. Bill should check and see how many teams have won 3 NCs in 6 consecutive seasons. 61, 64, and 65 would be a good start.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.