JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,401
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8071
I Root For: SEC
Location: |
RE: Saban is the GOAT
(01-12-2016 03:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-12-2016 01:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-12-2016 12:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Like it or not, it's true. As most describe it, Bear still leads Saban in national titles "6 to 5". But let's break this down a bit:
1) Saban has 4 consensus titles and 1 shared title. All four of Saban's Alabama national titles are AP/Coaches, while his LSU title is Coaches only. So another way to look at this is that Saban has 4 1/2 national titles.
In contrast, Bear has only 3 consensus titles and 3 shared ones. His 1961, 1964, and 1979 titles are AP/Coaches, but his 1965 and 1978 titles are AP-only and his 1973 title is UPI-only. So viewed this way, Bear also has 4 1/2 national titles.
2) Saban's titles have been earned in a FAR more competitive era. Especially during the 1970s, the SEC was Alabama and the seven Dwarves. This was before Spurrier raised the Florida program to prominence, and schools like LSU, Ole Miss, and Auburn never contended for titles during this time. Georgia had a couple of good teams but in there best year, 1971, Alabama didn't play them. Alabama could cruise through a soft conference schedule and then play one bowl game, usually the Sugar, to claim a title.
In contrast, Saban has had to contend with an SEC that is as powerful as any conference ever has been. And nationally, scholarship limits have created much greater parity. Far more teams are competitive than they used to be.
Overall, gotta give it to Saban.
Quo, you make some generalizations about the 70's that miss the mark. First part of that decade featured unrestricted scholarships. Bear simply stockpiled the best of the rest after he signed the classes he wanted. The same was being done elsewhere like Nebraska, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, etc.
Second, you fail to take into consideration that in the 10 school SEC that only 6 conference games were played on schedules featuring only 10 games.
Alabama seldom to never played Georgia during those years.
The Tide played Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Tennessee and Auburn every year.
Auburn played Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Miss State and Florida every year.
Pity the Volunteers and Auburn. We by far were locked into the toughest conference slate. Alabama had two gimmes on the schedule before they rotated the others. On some years they added the Mildcats to their schedule due to that rotation and had three gimmes. On more than a few years Auburn beat Alabama and still lost the conference by a game to Alabama because of their "annual" games.
The result was that Alabama and Georgia who seldom if ever faced each other had the easiest path to conference titles, and the record proves it.
I don't see how what you say here undermines my points. First, I ,mentioned that Saban faces scholly limits that create more parity, the implication being that in Bear's day the big powers like Bama, Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, etc. could stockpile loads of talent meaning there were fewer top teams to contend with, making things tougher on Saban.
Also, I understand that the SEC had a limited conference schedule in Bear's day, that's why i mentioned the Georgia situation.
Finally, telling me that Alabama had lots of gimmes on their schedule supports my point that they had an easy conference schedule back then. Today, Saban really does have to beat the whole conference, either directly via playing more games, and then in a CCG. A tougher road.
Not sure if i read you correctly, but you seemed to discuss these 1970s factors as if they supported Bear's case.
Quo my point was it wasn't exactly the 7 dwarfs. Auburn, L.S.U., Tennessee, and sometimes Ole Miss were respectable to very good. It was a better game then. The athletes weren't as big as today, but they were in much better condition. Bear's advantages weren't natural either, they were political in nature. The SEC of the 70's was much more like the SWC of the 80's. We in some ways were lucky to emerge as unified as we did.
I didn't disagree with your main points, I just didn't think your supporting arguments reflected the reality of the situation as accurately as they should have.
|
|
