Has Saban Built A Dynasty?

#102
#102
Lawrence Wright said:
I'm sure if Tennessee was in the middle of run like Bama's having, you wouldn't consider it a dynasty either, because you are 100% objective and have no bias whatsoever against Alabama. :yes:
Click to expand...

You are very observant. Tell me something. What was Spurrier's record the first 6 years he was at Florida. How does it compare to Saban's at Alabama's.
 
#105
#105
LibertyVol said:
I did my homework like you suggested. It was 4 titles in six years including four in a row if I have looked at it correctly. Very impressive. Much more impressive than two out of six from Mr. Saban.
Click to expand...

Considering UGA, LSU, South Carolina and yes, Alabama were nowhere near as competitive between 1990-1996 as they are today, I disagree.

3 NCs in 4 years >>>> 4 SEC titles in 6 years

All day, every day.
 
#106
#106
LibertyVol said:
I did my homework like you suggested. It was 4 titles in six years including four in a row if I have looked at it correctly. Very impressive. Much more impressive than two out of six from Mr. Saban.
Click to expand...

Would you rather Have Banners up for NC's or Conference titles?
 
#107
#107
He does a good job of developing the top of the line talent. you don't see many 5 star busts there. He ran Urban Meyer off when the Gators were on the verge of becoming a dynasty IMO. Yea Saban is a role model for little people out there everywhere
 
#108
#108
LibertyVol said:
I did my homework like you suggested. It was 4 titles in six years including four in a row if I have looked at it correctly. Very impressive. Much more impressive than two out of six from Mr. Saban.
Click to expand...

So you consider 4 SEC titles to be more impressive than 3 National titles?
 
#114
#114
bamawriter said:
That wasn't the question. You brought up Spurrier, so would you rather have Spurrier's best four year run or Saban's?
Click to expand...

I would rather have the national titles, of course. I am just thinking that to be a true dynasty you need to have both the BCS titles and the SEC titles to go with it. Which do you think is the harder thing to accomplish. The 4 SEC titles in a row or the 3 BCS titles in 4 years.
 
#115
#115
LibertyVol said:
I would rather have the national titles, of course. I am just thinking that to be a true dynasty you need to have both the BCS titles and the SEC titles to go with it. Which do you think is the harder thing to accomplish. The 4 SEC titles in a row or the 3 BCS titles in 4 years.
Click to expand...

Is that a serious question? If the NCs were easier, Spurrier would have won more than 1 during his four year SEC run.
 
#116
#116
bamawriter said:
Is that a serious question? If the NCs were easier, Spurrier would have won more than 1 during his four year SEC run.
Click to expand...

I can see that, but the BCS was not in place during his run. Under the old system you had the bowl tie ins. I think the BCS has helped the SEC in winnng national titles. It seems that the BCS has taken out some of the subjectivity from the old system and at a minimum matches up the top two teams. Under the old system I am not sure Alabama wins their last two titles. And that is not because they were not the best team, but they might not have been able to prove it by getting the right match up.
 
#118
#118
LibertyVol said:
I can see that, but the BCS was not in place during his run. Under the old system you had the bowl tie ins. I think the BCS has helped the SEC in winnng national titles. It seems that the BCS has taken out some of the subjectivity from the old system and at a minimum matches up the top two teams. Under the old system I am not sure Alabama wins their last two titles. And that is not because they were not the best team, but they might not have been able to prove it by getting the right match up.
Click to expand...

Spurrier's run came during the Bowl Alliance/Coalition days, so there was a system to match #1 and #2. The Rose Bowl simply wasn't involved. Bama would have played the same teams under the old systems as we did with the BCS, since the Pac and Big 10 weren't ranked in the top 2 in any of those three seasons.
 
#119
#119
bamawriter said:
Spurrier's run came during the Bowl Alliance/Coalition days, so there was a system to match #1 and #2. The Rose Bowl simply wasn't involved. Bama would have played the same teams under the old systems as we did with the BCS, since the Pac and Big 10 weren't ranked in the top 2 in any of those three seasons.
Click to expand...

That's right. Would Bama have gotten the rematch with LSU under the old system?

The way things are today, I am not sure winning an SEC title is not harder. You lose the wrong game and your out. With the BCS you can get another chance. However, with the BCS you have to be fortunate if you lose a game because if there are two teams that are undefeated you may not get in.
 
#120
#120
LibertyVol said:
That's right. Would Bama have gotten the rematch with LSU under the old system?
Click to expand...

Yep. There were no computers in that system and Bama beat Okie St in both polls.

The way things are today, I am not sure winning an SEC title is not harder. You lose the wrong game and your out. With the BCS you can get another chance. However, with the BCS you have to be fortunate if you lose a game because if there are two teams that are undefeated you may not get in.
Click to expand...

You have it totally backward. When it comes to winning the SEC, you play four games every year that don't count at all. And you can lose one conference game every year and still control your own destiny as long as that loss came to a cross-division opponent. So a five loss team could get to Atlanta with no help.

You can go undefeated and STILL need help to get to the BCSNCG. See Auburn in '04.
 
#123
#123
LibertyVol said:
I would rather have the national titles, of course. I am just thinking that to be a true dynasty you need to have both the BCS titles and the SEC titles to go with it. Which do you think is the harder thing to accomplish. The 4 SEC titles in a row or the 3 BCS titles in 4 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.

Do you consider the Miami teams between 1983-1991 a dynasty? Just curious...because two of those titles came when the Hurricanes were an indepedent.

Seems to me your argument hinges on Bama not winning the SEC last season, which is beyond weak.
 
#124
#124
I would use the word Dynasty for Bammer right now, and let me say that it is very tough for a VOL fan to say that!!!:yuck::sick: I look forward to a playoff system to see how that might shake things up a bit in the near future?? :salute:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top