Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
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

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

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

4) what is the record between Bama and Florida in the SECCG. Was one of the 4 to get it right out of 20.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
Sorry if this answer sucks, but I honestly don't care if it makes people forget about teams of the past. I really couldn't care any less - I'm just enjoying being here for this one.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
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?"
Let me add this - in both cases (Bama and NEP) they're dominating at a time when the rules are such that this sort of domination is far more difficult than it was before. If anything, someone who studies the history of the game should note that these dynasties are more impressive than they appear on the surface.

So again, no don't care about those other dynasties. RTR
 
Last edited:

PA Tide Fan

All-American
Dec 11, 2014
4,442
3,058
187
Lancaster, PA
So the question is whether a person prefers parity to a dynasty. Personally I'd rather see a dynasty. Obviously it's fun to watch if my team is the dynasty but even if it's a team that I don't like it then becomes fun to watch the team finally get beat. Parity leads to mediocre teams. I'd much rather watch a few great teams play than a bunch of mediocre teams.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Let me add this - in both cases (Bama and NYP) they're dominating at a time when the rules are such that this sort of domination is far more difficult than it was before. If anything, someone who studies the history of the game should note that these dynasties are more impressive than they appear on the surface.

So again, no don't care about those other dynasties. RTR
Oh don't get me wrong I really don't care what others say about it, I'm more in the " bow down to your overlords and accept your place at our feet unless you have what it takes to do something about it " type stance because I really love watching both dynasties dominating (Especially Alabama RTR). My question is more geared towards "is ours (Bama) and Belichicks/ Brady's runs so dominating that they are making other runs irrelevant and forgotten?" Because I'm finding a lot of people who are in shock that these other runs even happened. I mean I'm not complaining, actually far from it since I'm a Bama and Belichick/ Brady fan seeing championships and racking up points at trivia, but I just think it's odd that what I thought was often perceived as common knowledge about Miami Hurricanes, 49ers, and the 70's Steelers is now being met with "huh?" And " did that actually happen?" responses.

But to be clear on where I stand .... " Hail to the kings" "RTR" and "Do your job"
 
Last edited:

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
My question is more geared towards "is ours (Bama) and Belichicks/ Brady's runs so dominating that they are making other runs irrelevant and forgotten?"
I sure hope so - Miami of the 80's and Nebraska of the 90's are weak dynasties compared to what Saban has done at Bama.

I'd love it if people relegated those 'dynasties' to secondary because the current dynasty is so much more impressive - it is.

As for the NFL, I honestly don't care either way, but I think the Pats run is more impressive than any other, so I also don't care if people forget about 'the steel curtain' from 40 years ago. Yawn.
 

trenda

Hall of Fame
May 17, 2000
6,496
213
187
55
Hendersonville, TN USA
It's always going to be like this when there's a team/program that has a successful run.

From Minnesota in the 30s to ND and Army in the 40s to the Sooners in the 50s to Bama/ND/Michigan State in the 60s to Bama in the 70s to Miami in the 80s and so forth. Same can be said for the NFL.

There are always going to be teams/programs that have great runs. Always have been, always will. In 20-30 years, there will be teams that eclipse the accomplishments of what today's powerhouse teams are doing. Doesn't diminish anything. Just gives us all something to debate and argue about.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,596
2,241
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
It's always going to be like this when there's a team/program that has a successful run.

From Minnesota in the 30s to ND and Army in the 40s to the Sooners in the 50s to Bama/ND/Michigan State in the 60s to Bama in the 70s to Miami in the 80s and so forth. Same can be said for the NFL.

There are always going to be teams/programs that have great runs. Always have been, always will. In 20-30 years, there will be teams that eclipse the accomplishments of what today's powerhouse teams are doing. Doesn't diminish anything. Just gives us all something to debate and argue about.
And the barn will still be "young" and still awaiting the next sCam to rise above mediocrity.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
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.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,896
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I think this says more about the people taking part in these competitions.

Something about the way we process information today.. we are far too prone to pay attention to only what's happening in the moment. And I mean truly in the moment as in what happened 5 seconds ago has become ancient history.

No, I don't think the Alabama/Patriots dynasties are bad for the game in the manner that you've presented the question. I think people have become far too prone to live in the moment. To put it bluntly, we've dumbed ourselves down.

Anyone serious about sports trivia ought to know that Alabama's first Heisman winner did not occur until Mark Ingram in 2009, and that Notre Dame and USC have had several Heisman winners, so there is no way Alabama would lead the list among that group.
 

bamamc1

Hall of Fame
Oct 24, 2011
5,401
3,898
187
Haleyville, AL
Belichick is the greatest talent evaluator in the history of the game up until this point and I think CNS learned a lot of that from him.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
I forgot to answer the question. First, I would miss at least half 'cause I don't watch Pro Ball. I do not think great, historic runs hurt the game. It give other teams/coaches something to compare and shoot for ...... and most records are broken every couple of generations.
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,734
9,918
187
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
 

CrimsonProf

Hall of Fame
Dec 30, 2006
5,716
69
67
Birmingham, Alabama
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.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
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?
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,500
46,843
187
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.
 

BamaDMD

Hall of Fame
Sep 10, 2007
5,446
834
137
Rainsville Al
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.
 

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.