Locking in the tenth straight 10 win season this weekend

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,893
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I will not say who was the better coach. I will say this is a much better 10 year run than any other 10 year run in the history of Alabama football. And I will say the average competition level is far greater than that of any other era.

Frankly, to do what Alabama and Nick Saban have done over the past 10 years is probably the best run of any program ever in the history of college football.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
Either way. My point is that the percentages are so close you can't say one man was a better coach than the other.



I'm not really sure what you're saying here because you haven't stated which is which. Are these end of year rankings or rankings at the time of the game? CPB was 28-8 vs top ten?

Look, all I'm saying is in the 70's Alabama didn't duck anyone. The polls were heavily jaded in favor of the popular schools like Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, tOSU, etc. It was a completely different system then but no argument is going to convince me that Alabama didn't play a tough schedule year in and year out. I'll concede that the modern schedule allows for more tougher games because of the playoff system, conference championship games, and the annual 1st game against a really serious opponent. Throw those games out and then compare the modern schedule with the Bryant era schedule.
I'm not saying Bama didn't play a tough schedule in the 70s, just that Bama's schedule from 08-now is just far tougher. It can hardly be disputed.

No not saying 28-8 vs top ten, but that 70s was 25-8 vs ranked opponents vs the current run which is 51-13. I.e., almost half of Bama's games during the current run have been against ranked opponents. Saban is 25-8 vs top ten vs 15-6 during 70s. It stands to reason that Bama has faced far more ranked teams now than the 70s since the postseason includes an SECC game and the last 3 seasons a potential 2 game playoff vs a bowl game in the 70s. But that doesn't change the fact that Bama has had to play them. All of those teams are going to be against highly ranked teams. To win a NC since 2014 you have to beat 2 top 4 teams in the postseason as well as SECC game. During the 70s, in the postseason, Bama lost to #3 ND in '73, beat #1 PSU in '78, and beat #6 Ark in '79 to win its 3 NCs during that period. To win its 4 NCs, in the postseason Bama had to beat #1 UF and #2 UTw in 09, #1 LSU in 11, #3 UF and #1 ND in 12, #15 UF, #4 Wash and #2 Clemson in 15. To win its 3 NCs in the 70s Bama had to beat 1 top five team in the postseason, to win the 4 since 09 Bama had to beat 7 top 5 teams, including 5 top 2 teams. What can you say ?

How can you throw the first game and the postseason out ?
 

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,784
14,075
187
16outa17essee
I'm not saying Bama didn't play a tough schedule in the 70s, just that Bama's schedule from 08-now is just far tougher. It can hardly be disputed.

No not saying 28-8 vs top ten, but that 70s was 25-8 vs ranked opponents vs the current run which is 51-13. I.e., almost half of Bama's games during the current run have been against ranked opponents. Saban is 25-8 vs top ten vs 15-6 during 70s. It stands to reason that Bama has faced far more ranked teams now than the 70s since the postseason includes an SECC game and the last 3 seasons a potential 2 game playoff vs a bowl game in the 70s. But that doesn't change the fact that Bama has had to play them. All of those teams are going to be against highly ranked teams. To win a NC since 2014 you have to beat 2 top 4 teams in the postseason as well as SECC game. During the 70s, in the postseason, Bama lost to #3 ND in '73, beat #1 PSU in '78, and beat #6 Ark in '79 to win its 3 NCs during that period. To win its 4 NCs, in the postseason Bama had to beat #1 UF and #2 UTw in 09, #1 LSU in 11, #3 UF and #1 ND in 12, #15 UF, #4 Wash and #2 Clemson in 15. To win its 3 NCs in the 70s Bama had to beat 1 top five team in the postseason, to win the 4 since 09 Bama had to beat 7 top 5 teams, including 5 top 2 teams. What can you say ?

How can you throw the first game and the postseason out ?
Again, I will concede that Alabama plays more tough games now than in the 70's because of the aforementioned playoffs, conference championships, and opening game. I inferred from an earlier post that someone thought this makes Coach Saban's accomplishments more impressive than Coach Bryant's. I my mind, I was seeing the schedule from September through November. I don't see the modern "regular" season as tougher now than then.

I'm not throwing anything out until trying to make a comparison. If you want apples and apples you have to compare the regular season schedules because Bryant didn't play the BCS or Playoff game.

I don't know that Bryant teams would not have fared better in the modern system than in the one we had in the 70's. As a matter of fact, I feel pretty strongly Bryant would have more championships had the playoff system existed then. Off the top of my head '66 and '78 come to mind.

Please remember the bowls didn't count in the final rankings until sometime in the 70's. Those games were approached differently than they were after the polls started including them in the final rankings.

Hey, man, I'm certain of one thing ... you and I are both for CNS destroying Coach Bryant's records. It's just that some of these threads have and undertone of saying Coach Saban is the greatest of all time. It's like comparing Tiger Woods to Jack Nicklaus. The greatest coach will be the one with the most championships when he's finished. From where I stand, Jack is better than Tiger. Coach Saban is on the cusp.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
Again, I will concede that Alabama plays more tough games now than in the 70's because of the aforementioned playoffs, conference championships, and opening game. I inferred from an earlier post that someone thought this makes Coach Saban's accomplishments more impressive than Coach Bryant's. I my mind, I was seeing the schedule from September through November. I don't see the modern "regular" season as tougher now than then.

I'm not throwing anything out until trying to make a comparison. If you want apples and apples you have to compare the regular season schedules because Bryant didn't play the BCS or Playoff game.

I don't know that Bryant teams would not have fared better in the modern system than in the one we had in the 70's. As a matter of fact, I feel pretty strongly Bryant would have more championships had the playoff system existed then. Off the top of my head '66 and '78 come to mind.

Please remember the bowls didn't count in the final rankings until sometime in the 70's. Those games were approached differently than they were after the polls started including them in the final rankings.

Hey, man, I'm certain of one thing ... you and I are both for CNS destroying Coach Bryant's records. It's just that some of these threads have and undertone of saying Coach Saban is the greatest of all time. It's like comparing Tiger Woods to Jack Nicklaus. The greatest coach will be the one with the most championships when he's finished. From where I stand, Jack is better than Tiger. Coach Saban is on the cusp.
The post season was counted in the AP, the most important poll, from 1969 forward, the entire period in question. The AP did not count the postseason until 65 because Bama lost to Texas following the 64 NC season. Then after Bama benefitted from the postseason in 65 they switched back until 69. The UPI or Coaches Poll counted the post season from 74 forward because of Bama's loss to ND following the 73 season.

The point still stands that Bama played a far tougher schedule during the current run. It doesn't matter why. It's also much tougher to win a NC now than in the '70s. I think I understand your motivation - protect Coach Bryant. It is a noble one. I grew up on Coach Bryant, I was 8 when he came "home", just entering the period of really appreciating college football - sometimes literally weeping if they lost. I idolized the Tide. When Coach Bryant passed away, though I had grown up by then, I still felt it emotionally. There are ways in which Coach Saban cannot compare to Coach Bryant from an overall affect on the state and program - at least at this point. But our evaluation of on the field results should not be affected by that. As I stated in another thread, "We want Bama" has almost become an idiom in the English language to mean "we are now ready to challenge the best". And it transcends college football. It's even soccer in foreign countries. This current period is unlike any other in college football history. Not even the NFL with the Packers from the 60s, the Niners from the 80s or NE from 2001-today, has ever elicited such a response. All of this because of Bama's consistently amazing on field play against the best opposition for 10 years. Under current circumstances it is unlikely to ever be repeated, except by Saban's Alabama.

Yes, they were both fabulous periods, but to be honest, IMO, one is greater than the other.
 
Last edited:

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,875
2
57
Ocean Springs, MS
To me, Coach Bryant is the best football coach who ever lived in my lifetime. To the new generation of Tide Fans Coach Saban is the best football coach of the modern era, and the best they'll experience in their life times.
We're both right.
And we're both very lucky that they coached the same team at the same University.
 

tusks_n_raider

Hall of Fame
May 13, 2009
12,128
12,196
187
Mobile, AL
I didn't get to see the '71-'80 run but on paper it looks pretty dang impressive....

10+ Wins 5 years in a row from '71-75, then 10+ Wins 4 years in a row from '77-'80.

We've all told won 10+ games in 37 seasons All-Time!!!...We've had 5 different 10+ win streaks in the 60's, 70's (twice), 90's, and '08-now.

By comparison..... that team over on the plains has only won 10+ games in 13 seasons in history. They've only won 10+ games in successive seasons ONCE.....EVER....hahahahahaha!!!!
 

ptw1961

1st Team
Dec 8, 2011
793
0
0
Have to disagree. Bear had 150 kids on scholarship-Nick works with 85-everyone has the same. What Nick has done is more impressive. And yes- I witnessed the 70's run as well.
CPB won over 100 games back in the decade of the 70's when there was a 11 game regular season and one possible bowl game. Far more impressive then winning 10 game a year today IMO.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
Have to disagree. Bear had 150 kids on scholarship-Nick works with 85-everyone has the same. What Nick has done is more impressive. And yes- I witnessed the 70's run as well.
Yeah, Coach Bryant coached in an era when there were no scholarship limitations, no limits to how much time was allowed practicing (no 20 hour rule). My freshman year at Alabama Coach Bryant signed 6 QBs, 3 wound up in the secondary, 1 played WR, 1 actually played QB and 1 left the team. Other teams had the same guidelines so there was no real advantage. IMO scholarship limitations and other rule changes has leveled the playing field, but we have had an unprecedented run.

Edit: According to Jackie Sherrill the University of Pittsburgh's 1973 freshman class had 76 signees one of whom was Tony Dorsett. It was Johnny Major's first year at Pitt and Sherrill was his assistant.
 
Last edited:

bamacpa

All-American
Jul 19, 2006
4,783
1,073
182
I will also note that all coaches between the 2 legends, even the 4 with varied opinions of their legacy, won 10 games at least once.
 

bamacpa

All-American
Jul 19, 2006
4,783
1,073
182
I grew up during Coach Bryant's tenure. I judged the difficulty of upcoming games by how many QBs I expected to see play. You knew even the toughest games would likely see 2 QBs, and the blowouts would feature 4 or 5.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
Yeah, Coach Bryant coached in an era when there were no scholarship limitations, no limits to how much time was allowed practicing (no 20 hour rule). My freshman year at Alabama Coach Bryant signed 6 QBs, 3 wound up in the secondary, 1 played WR, 1 actually played QB and 1 left the team. Other teams had the same guidelines so there was no real advantage. IMO scholarship limitations and other rule changes has leveled the playing field, but we have had an unprecedented run..
The bolded is completely false. Teams like Alabama and Ohio State used this to great advantage. We signed a ton of players that our competitors needed - players that we knew were not going to see the field for us, but by signing for us they would also never see the field for the other teams. Addition by subtraction from another team. And it was almost impossible to transfer back then, and you only went where your school let you go - if they decided to let you transfer.

Alabama's advantage today is the same - everyone wants to play for Alabama so Alabama gets the best recruits - but only so many can come. No such limits back then. Imagine how loaded Alabama would be today if there were no scholarship limits and if transfers were so completely controlled by the schools?
 

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,784
14,075
187
16outa17essee
The bolded is completely false. Teams like Alabama and Ohio State used this to great advantage. We signed a ton of players that our competitors needed - players that we knew were not going to see the field for us, but by signing for us they would also never see the field for the other teams. Addition by subtraction from another team. And it was almost impossible to transfer back then, and you only went where your school let you go - if they decided to let you transfer.

Alabama's advantage today is the same - everyone wants to play for Alabama so Alabama gets the best recruits - but only so many can come. No such limits back then. Imagine how loaded Alabama would be today if there were no scholarship limits and if transfers were so completely controlled by the schools?
I've heard this several times before but haven't seen any links.

The first scholarship limits came in 1973 which limited the teams to 105. In 1978 scholarships were reduced to 95 then down to 85 in 1992. So from '73 on the field was leveled ... right?

What I can't find is a list of the schools who would have benefited from the unlimited scholarship rule. My guess is that would be Notre Dame, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, UCLA, USC, Michigan, tOSU, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, and LSU because these are the teams that were the perennial powerhouses in those days.

If that is the case and most of these teams still are the powerhouse teams, how is that seen as an advantage? Information on the history of scholarship limits is sketchy or at least I'm not finding it. I'm asking these questions in genuine earnest, not to be argumentative.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
I've heard this several times before but haven't seen any links.

The first scholarship limits came in 1973 which limited the teams to 105. In 1978 scholarships were reduced to 95 then down to 85 in 1992. So from '73 on the field was leveled ... right?

What I can't find is a list of the schools who would have benefited from the unlimited scholarship rule. My guess is that would be Notre Dame, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, UCLA, USC, Michigan, tOSU, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, and LSU because these are the teams that were the perennial powerhouses in those days.

If that is the case and most of these teams still are the powerhouse teams, how is that seen as an advantage? Information on the history of scholarship limits is sketchy or at least I'm not finding it. I'm asking these questions in genuine earnest, not to be argumentative.
What you are asking is similar to asking for proof that tobacco use causes cancer. There is a lot of evidence out there, but it is impossible to prove definitively. At some point, you have to apply common sense. Common sense says that the best players want to play for the best coaches. History shows that they will go to those schools even when faced with very stiff competition for playing time. And common sense says that when all of the best players go to the schools with the best coaches, the other schools have to settle for the rest. I am not sure why you would even ask for proof beyond that.
 

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,784
14,075
187
16outa17essee
What you are asking is similar to asking for proof that tobacco use causes cancer. There is a lot of evidence out there, but it is impossible to prove definitively. At some point, you have to apply common sense. Common sense says that the best players want to play for the best coaches. History shows that they will go to those schools even when faced with very stiff competition for playing time. And common sense says that when all of the best players go to the schools with the best coaches, the other schools have to settle for the rest. I am not sure why you would even ask for proof beyond that.
In the context of this thread I was taking your previous post to mean the no limit scholarships was an advantage Bryant had that Saban did not. You may not have been meaning that at all. I'm not necessarily looking for proof of anything, but if the same teams dominated football before and after Title IX I don't see unlimited scholarships as an obvious advantage for Coach Bryant. So since it was mentioned I went looking further for information and have been unable to find very much. I thought you or someone else might be able to point me in the right direction.

And yeah, in my profession I'm pretty sure tobacco causes cancer. ;)
 

RT27

All-American
Aug 13, 2017
2,301
130
82
Yeah, Coach Bryant coached in an era when there were no scholarship limitations, no limits to how much time was allowed practicing (no 20 hour rule). My freshman year at Alabama Coach Bryant signed 6 QBs, 3 wound up in the secondary, 1 played WR, 1 actually played QB and 1 left the team. Other teams had the same guidelines so there was no real advantage. IMO scholarship limitations and other rule changes has leveled the playing field, but we have had an unprecedented run.




One big adavantage Bear had was his ability to get top recruits to come to him. YES they all had same rules, but Bear got kids not for us to play at a position, but to keep them from playing at other schools. Imagine if nick had room for 5 top QB's, imagine the schools now that cannot get those great QB's. Bear took the pick of the litter and with no imits he took more top players, thus hurting other teams ability to field a full team of top players. His advantage was his name and reputation. As it is now no coach can get 4 or 5 at all positions so that leaves many great players at all positions to go around.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
In the context of this thread I was taking your previous post to mean the no limit scholarships was an advantage Bryant had that Saban did not. You may not have been meaning that at all. I'm not necessarily looking for proof of anything, but if the same teams dominated football before and after Title IX I don't see unlimited scholarships as an obvious advantage for Coach Bryant. So since it was mentioned I went looking further for information and have been unable to find very much. I thought you or someone else might be able to point me in the right direction.

And yeah, in my profession I'm pretty sure tobacco causes cancer. ;)
Having a great coach is the greatest advantage in every era because the best coaches attract the most talent. But the only advantage that having more great players would have offered Bryant over Saban is in covering for injuries. Bryant's teams went 4 deep with great talent. Saban's teams go 2 deep at most positions. But even so, you can only really prepare a 2 deep roster to start at any one time. So, realistically speaking, the advantage was not as great as many might think.

But within the Bryant era, there were fewer really good teams because the talent was condensed onto those teams. You didn't have nearly as many huge upsets back then because most games really pitted men against boys. So a team like Clemson wouldn't have a Syracuse jump up and bite them. That is an everyday occurrence in the limited scholly era. It is astounding that it doesn't happen to Saban's teams. It happens to EVERYONE else.
 

Professor

Scout Team
Sep 3, 2017
192
182
67
Stop this nonsense! I love both Bear and Nick. They were/are both great coaches. Probably two of the top five coaches ever to be in college football. And they are tied together with an unbreakable cord--coaching at the University of Alabama. Can't be compared.

More grist for the mill. The Bear helped build the tradition that makes it possible for Nick to recruit the kind of players he gets. And, let's hope that Nick does the same for coaches who will follow him.

I am thankful for having been around to experience football during both coach's tenure.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
Stop this nonsense! I love both Bear and Nick. They were/are both great coaches. Probably two of the top five coaches ever to be in college football. And they are tied together with an unbreakable cord--coaching at the University of Alabama. Can't be compared.

More grist for the mill. The Bear helped build the tradition that makes it possible for Nick to recruit the kind of players he gets. And, let's hope that Nick does the same for coaches who will follow him.

I am thankful for having been around to experience football during both coach's tenure.
Wade and Thomas built the tradition that allowed Bryant to recruit the way he did.

I wasn't there but I've heard more than a few old-timers mention how, just before Bryant came home, our biggest rivals were reveling in "Bama's Downfall" - saying we would never again be what we once were, that our glory days were over, and that we were living in the past.

I was definitely here just prior to Saban coming to Bama and I personally remember our biggest rivals reveling in "Bama's Downfall" - saying we would never again be what we once were, that our glory days were over, and that we were living in the past.

Coaches Bryant and Saban aren't two of the top five college football coaches ever; they are numbers one and two. The only debate is over who is one and who is two.

The catch is, wherever you fall in that debate, that Bryant's body of work is complete and Saban's is not. If Coach Saban hangs around as long as Bryant did and maintains anything close to his current pace, he'll end up with twice the SEC and National Championships that Bryant had at Bama, in an era where winning both is statistically more difficult.
 

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.