This is a tendency I will never understand (no disrespect intended toward the OP or anyone) - our "big hurry" to move onto figuring out who is "the next big thing." This happens in the most popular NS subject, and it happens here as well.
Everything has to be viewed in the context of both "near and far history." Let me give a few examples of what I'm talking about both team-wise and individually.
The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups, the NHL/hockey championship. The next closest is Toronto at 13. But viewed in the context of the history of the sport, Montreal's championships aren't nearly so impressive. Prior to 1967 there were only SIX teams in the NHL. It just isn't all that difficult to compile huge numbers against only five other teams. It's no accident that Toronto hasn't won the Cup since the NHL added teams. They won a bunch when 2 of the 6 teams wound up in the finals against each other. They've haven't won jack squat since.
The same can be said of all those Boston Celtics titles of the Bill Russell era. Boston racked up a bunch of titles back when the NBA had between 8 and 12 (and finally 14 teams). The moment the NBA expanded to 17 teams, Boston's perpetual dynasty became much less impressive.
And the NY Yankees of 1921 to 1964 (technically 1923-1962) won the World Series TWENTY times in about 40 years. There were 16 teams, the Yankees were by far the richest of the bunch (meaning they could go buy someone from a poorer team like their major league farm team, the Kansas City Athletics), there was no national baseball draft, no free agency, and the minor leagues were not as organized as they became. It's no accident that the Yankees were in the World Series every single year 1960-64.....and the moment baseball got a common draft (1965) their dynasty imploded. (Yes, there were other causes but the lack of cornering all the talent was a big contributor).
Now....I'm not disparaging ANY of these teams. After all, the dynasty "could" have been, say, the Detroit Red Wings or the Chicago Cubs. But you have to view them in the context of their history and what reality was at the time as well as what it is now. The passing statistics of MOST NFL quarterbacks pre-1978 are not really all that impressive if you compare them to now. In 1967, Joe Namath passed for an AFL record 4,007 yards. The era in which he did this makes this a truly phenomenal accomplishment. They played 14 games, you could hit receivers anywhere on the field, and only three AFL teams - Jets, Chargers, Raiders - topped 3,000 yards passing. Last year, 22 NFL quarterbacks topped 3,000 yards passing - but this doesn't mean that there are 22 QBs in the NFL right now better than 1967 Joe Namath. IN CONTEXT, Namath's 4,007 yards passing is probably more impressive than Dan Marino's 1984 NFL record yardage.
IN CONTEXT, the San Francisco Giants winning 3 World Series in five years (2010-12-14) is more impressive than the Yankees winning five in a row (1949-53).
IN CONTEXT - and this is borderline sacrilege - Bill Belichick is a better NFL coach than Vince Lombardi. He won five titles in an era of much greater parity and only one guy has been there for all the titles. Lombardi's first title was before the AFL even existed, and his dynasty was mostly the same throughout and in a compressed period of time, something more akin to Chuck Noll's Steelers dynasty.
And IN CONTEXT, what Alabama has accomplished in college football is likely the greatest major sports dynasty we've ever had. Coach Bryant won six national championships, but in only ONE of those years (1978) did he actually have to square off against "the other team" in what was basically a "championship game." The titles of 1961, 1964, and 1973 were all determined before any bowl game, the 1965 title was won in a 3 vs 4 matchup, and the 1979 title did NOT feature Alabama vs Ohio State. NONE of this is Bryant's fault nor should it be taken as a criticism of him in any way - it's just the context of the time. Saban has had to square off against a major foe in what amounted to a "winner take all" game for all six of his national championships, the only possible bruise on the resume being that he didn't face USC in 2003 - and that, too, isn't Saban's fault.
And all of that leads me to the discussion of Kirby Smart, which follows in the next post (for easier reading).
