Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 38
  1. #14

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    As long as my team is the one with the dynasty, I'm fine with it.

    As a general rule I don't have a strong opinion on the issue one way or the other.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. Advertisement
  3. #15
    BamaNation Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    5,080

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    I'm fine with this, as well, though I can see how a casual fan or observer wouldn't car for it.

    With all that in mind, ultimately, this is the fault of all the other teams for throwing up all over themselves. Even if Bama goes 7-1/8-0 in the SEC each year, as we've done 8 of the last 9 years, there's no reason we couldn't have three or so additional teams going 6-2/7-1 each year. That's ultimately the problem - once we've beaten LSU, it feels like this thing has been decided.

    Same thing in the NFL - no one since the Dungy/Manning squads in Indianapolis felt like a legit contender, and even they only got over that hump one time.

  4. #16
    BamaNation Hall of Fame GrayTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Greenbow, Alabama
    Posts
    12,573

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    I'll skip the NFL for obvious reasons. I think a team considered a dynasty is neither good or bad for college football. I think we could all agree that it is impossible to compare players, teams and coaches across the eras of college football. I will say that a team considered a dynasty in its day was one because it was dominant against the teams of that era and played within the rules and environment of that time such as: freshmen could not play, unlimited scholarships, the absence of black athletes at nearly all Divsion 1 schools. Contrast that to now, the black athlete pretty much dominates the college game, reduction to the 85 scholarship limit, and freshmen are no longer prohibited from playing. Changes in physical conditioning and diet also play a role in player development.

    Dynasties do eventually end. When CNS retires does Alabama follow the history of recent dynasties like Nebraska, USC and Miami?
    "My momma always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on." Forrest Gump

    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

    "A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but never preserved except in memory LLAP" Leonard Nimoy

  5. #17

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    And just think, if they had become the Birmingham Patriots, as was the strong (as in "odiferous") possibility in the late 60s...

  6. #18
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Bazza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Smyrna Beach, Florida
    Posts
    14,027

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?


  7. #19
    BamaNation Hall of Fame B1GTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,636

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    Nothing being done at Alabama or NE comes close to what the Yankees did in MLB for decades and MLB wasn't hurt at all. Their dominance occurred during MLB's best years.

  8. #20
    BamaNation All-American BamaDMD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rainsville Al
    Posts
    4,323

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redwood Forrest View Post
    No matter how you slice it -- it is not fair. For example, I remember the college game playing 10 games a year with only eight bowls. Now it is 12 games + 40 bowls and playoffs. So ..... coaches have much greater changes to pad the wins now and players can break records with 3, 4 or 5 more games each year. Also, freshmen can play now.

    1960 with 3 year career = max games 33.
    2016 with 4 year career = max games 56.

    Even counting a 3 year career today and not the championship game gives 39 games, six more than 1960 to bread records.
    Its a double edge sword. Individual stats get padded but to me its harder for the teams to do what those earlier teams did. For example, the teams of the 60's played 10 games as you stated, think how hard by the end of the season to stay healthy and tired the teams of today have it. To me THAT's harder than then.

  9. #21
    BamaNation Hall of Fame selmaborntidefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    15,652

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    Quote Originally Posted by 81usaf92 View Post
    I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but things have came up in news. And it's the offseason.

    So I'm apart of some trivia teams and I've noticed some questions in which my team is one of the few to get it right in which I felt it was common knowledge questions. Here are some

    1) who are the 4 qbs with 3+ super bowl rings. My team was 1 of 17 teams to get it right
    Bradshaw, Montana, Brady, Aikman

    Quote Originally Posted by 81usaf92 View Post
    2) rank these teams in order from most to least of Heisman winners. USC, ND, Stanford, Alabama. My team was the only one to get it right Many put Bama at #1
    I'm not 100% sure. I'd think Notre Dame leads and are you counting Bush at USC or not?

    I'll say: Notre Dame/USC/Alabama/Stanford

    Quote Originally Posted by 81usaf92 View Post
    3) name the team that had the only run which had 4 SB wins in 6 years. 20% got it right while the most put Pats and Cowboys
    the Steel Curtain of the 1970s

    Quote Originally Posted by 81usaf92 View Post
    4) what is the record between Bama and Florida in the SECCG. Was one of the 4 to get it right out of 20.
    We won: 1992, 1999, 2009, 2015, 2016
    They won: 1993, 1994, 1996, 2008

    Quote Originally Posted by 81usaf92 View Post
    There are plenty more, but these were some I thought were very big headscratchers. The age range is 21-70 of these contestants with the median around 35-45 range.
    Right about the time..... never mind

    Quote Originally Posted by 81usaf92 View Post
    There have been plenty of articles in the last 3 years come out from Espn, Fox, and others suggesting these runs are bad for football. So I thought this might be a fun topic.

    So here is the question," are these runs making runs like Steelers 70's, 49ers 80's, Cowboys 90's, Miami's 80's, and the 90's Nebraska runs more forgotten due to the dominance of the current runs by Bama and the Patriots?"

    Fwiw I think not, but I'm finding less folks rembering the dominance of those others I listed. And I find it odd because I was only alive for the Cowboys and Husker runs but still knew a lot about the others.
    Not to sound insulting but part of the reason for the fading memory is that folks old enough to recall the 1960s Packers are either dead, dementia'ed, or de-interested. And that number moves each year.

    I think another issue is that people my age (47) who are not fans of particular dynasties - 80s Miami, 90s Nebraska - note that these were accidents of history to a large degree. You're well aware of my beef with Miami, but for the unfamiliar, I'll re-state it. While Miami was without a doubt a VERY good team and certainly a team you had to deal with, they were a fraud of a dynasty for the most part.

    Let me speak bluntly - they weren't very good against GOOD teams away from home.

    1983 - I know it's an unpopular opinion but Auburn should have been the national champion. But let's set that aside and ignore it. In today's world, Miami is out of sight and mind because Nebraska plays Texas and the winner is the champion. You can't blame Miami, but this was 1977 Notre Dame all over again.

    1986 - they went unbeaten and I admit they looked like the best team in the country. But Penn State beat them despite getting outgained by almost 300 yards, getting only 162 yards total offense, and only eight first downs. Vinny T was a choker.

    1987 - I have no problem with this year, they were the best team in the country and deserved it. That's one.

    1988 - They might have been the best team this year, too, but they lost a classic in South Bend. Showing what a putz he actually was, Jimmy Johnson whined before the 1 Notre Dame vs 3 West Virginia Fiesta Bowl battle of the unbeatens that if WVA won then Miami should be the national champion. (He did this same crap in 1985......and then got blown out in the Sugar Bowl by Tennessee).

    1989 - every year in college football history that a team beat number one head to head and had basically the same record, they became number one. In 1978, Alabama beat Penn State and became number one despite losing head to head with the other competitor, USC. But in 1989, the "rules" were set aside and when Notre Dame beat number one Colorado, Miami became number one on the basis of "they beat the Irish head to head." Fair enough, but that argument wasn't used in 1978 or 1993 or any other time I can think of.

    Throw in the fact the referees gave Miami some much needed help against an overmatched Alabama team coached by a mediocrity, and they did not deserve this one, either.

    1990 - made the mistake of scheduling good teams on the road and lost twice.

    1991 - Miami and Washington both go unbeaten on the regular season. They can't play each other. Miami ducks Florida in the Sugar Bowl (given what happened to the Canes in 1985 and 1992, I think I know why) and opts for Nebraska's inflated rep in the Orange Bowl, their home. They actually lose 1/2 the title because of this disgusting act of cowardice. And let's face it, Miami was ranked number one because: a) they were in the East where most of the media is and Washington is in the FAR West; b) most of the press didn't watch the Huskies play; c) the recent history of Miami being ranked highly; and d) Miami beat #1 Florida State in the game of the year on a missed field goal.

    Of course, Florida had an easier time with FSU than Miami did, too, in Spurrier's first SEC title year. Don't think Miami didn't notice that, either.

    A group of cowards as far as I'm concerned in 1991.

    And then George Teague ripped the dynasty right out of Lamar Thomas' hands, and it's been dead forever save for that three-year run in 2000s.

    I have no regard for that team of that era and regard them as little more than accidents of history. Go look at their bowl record during that time outside of their home field. A loss to UCLA in the Fiesta, a ref-aided win in 1989 in the Sugar, blowout losses to underdog Alabama and Tennessee in the Sugar, and a shutout in the Fiesta Bowl in 1993.

    Quite frankly, they were 1-4 outside the Orange Bowl post-season games 1985-1993. They should have been 0-5 and now you know why they ducked Florida.


    Nebraska is a little more accomplished, which is good for them since they'll never again see a national title game without watching it on TV. But the problem with Nebraska's dynasty is something else - it's really nothing more than 2-3 stellar recruiting classes in a row. Then remember:

    1) they didn't play Penn State in 1994, though it wasn't their fault. Penn St had the misfortune of playing Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Had they thumped a 6-win USC or UCLA back then it would have been more regarded than if they'd beaten an undefeated Oregon team. The East Coast press assumed the Ducks had to be second rate. But that was a high powered offense at PSU.

    2) best team in the country in 1995. But any clowns who wish to argue that was the best team of all-time on the basis of the irrelevant stat of "nobody was even close," I pointed out that since 1991 (I didn't go back any further) only something like six teams that won national titles played easier schedules than 1995 Nebraska did. I'm sorry, but if you don't actually beat a decent team, you're not the best team ever.

    3) in 1997, they got voted another share of a title based on the reputation.

    The problem for them is that the game has evolved into something those guys cannot possibly even recognize now. Colorado won the title in 1990 with what essentially a wishbone attack (a variant of it). But the game changed and brought in passing quarterbacks on an unusual scale with Matt Leinart, a fact Bill Walsh noted when he said the OU blowout at the hands of USC would change the college game forever.

    Nebraska was a running team and probably the only reason folks remember Tommie Frazier is that run against Florida, which was a clinic on poor tackling as much as anything. For Pete's sake, Nebraska won a game in 1994 with Frazier AND backup Brook Berringer out - because the competition wasn't that good.

    Nebraska had a four-year run. Miami a manufactured decade.

    We're on the tenth year.

    1960s Alabama
    1970s Alabama
    1980s Miami
    1987-2002 FSU
    Current Alabama

    Those are actual dynasties of varying degrees.
    The first rule of Tidefans interactions - Selma does not use Google; Google uses Selma

  10. #22
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,400

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    Every dynasty has an and a shelf life to it just with the passage of time. Plus i think that we are in a better stage with the playoff for dynasties to be tested by the best teams every year. But I think sports in general are more watchable when there is a king of the hill. Just look at boxing now without a one true champion. The mediocrity there has severely diminished interest in the sport. Same with golf and Nascar now.

    Parity in college football level out if more coaches would just sell in recruiting what coach sells and actually commit to it. Which if you will match the intensity and precision to which we coach/train you with the same level of effort we will make you good and you will have shot at professional football and stop talking thereafter, then you would see the elite players more apt consider other programs. But good players want to play with other good players. The recruits believe Saban supremely in this.

    Other than Meyer who do we know is selling this in recruiting and following through on it?

    The Patriots simply have an absolute unwavering commitment to their way of doing things and they simply go find the players to do it whether they are marquee or non-marquee.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

  11. #23
    BamaNation Hall of Fame TideMan09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Anniston, Alabama
    Posts
    11,283

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    Only thing it hurts is our rivals fanhood as Bama dominates college football..

  12. #24

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    Quote Originally Posted by TideMan09 View Post
    Only thing it hurts is our rivals fanhood as Bama dominates college football..
    Good - I despise fair weather fans regardless as to who they claim to be fans of.
    To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.

  13. #25
    BamaNation All-American gtowntide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Memphis,TN.
    Posts
    2,654

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    People who say Alabama is ruining it for everyone else really chaps my rear end! I remember Nebraska's run in the 90's and I really had a lot of respect for Coach Osbourne and what his teams accomplished. There is not a coach in the business that will outwork Coach Saban. He is also great at recognizing and developing talent and his system absolutely works.

  14. #26
    BamaNation All-SEC Mke4Bama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Montgomery(via Good Hope))
    Posts
    1,088

    Re: Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

    Either lead, follow or get out of the way

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

TideFansStore.com: Get YOUR gear!