Bama: Best program ever?

[Excel]

I did some number crunching to see if my belief "that Bama has faced 'tougher' opponents" is true. Much of that depends on how one chooses to define "tough" but part of that definition might include a team's win percentage.

Combined Opponent Win Percentage

Alabama First Year - 60.12%

Nebraska First Year - 52.17%

Alabama Second Year - 58.82%

Nebraska Second Year - 57.14%

Alabama Third Year - 57.93%

Nebraska Third Year - 50.99%

So, on average, Alabama played opponents with 5.5% more wins? That's what, two or three more wins over a three-year span?

Well the win difference is actually quite large given that teams play more games now than they did nearly twenty years ago. I also didn't count FCS schools because I couldn't easily find records. The CCG also helped Bama out with win totals. So depending on how you want to count it it can definitely change, but then again that's why I did percentages and not total wins.

Anyhow:

Alabama's combined opponents over three years: 286-199, 58.96%

Nebraska's combined opponents over three years: 221-194, 53.25%

I can not stress enough how touchy statistics on a football message board can be. I counted these up myself, in excel, with my own rules of what to count using this site, http://football.stassen.com/records/. My word is by no means golden.

 

[C N Red]

SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN AND VOTE ON THE LAST POLL TOO.
I guarantee not everyone who voted on the first question made a vote for the last question. vote vote vote.

Did we share in 97? yes, but we were also undefeated... which is something that can only be said about one of the recent bama teams. Plus Bama had more than one close game. FOH.

Ya, nice of them to stick it all the way at the bottom where many people can hardly see it.

 

[Nebula]

It's close. They're incredible. However: They didn't go undefeated. (As mentioned above.) And they haven't had a season where they just eviscerated every single opponent they played like that '95 team did.

And lo country succinctly pointed out why the poll is kinda meaningless: Recent events always trump those faded by the passing of time. It's like talking about the best NFL team ever. Someone who was in their 20s during the early sixties will probably say the Lombardi Packers or maybe Unitas and the Colts, same age a decade later and that person is likely claiming the Steelers, jump forward again with the same premise and that person is raving about Rice and Montana's 49rs, then the Cowboys contingent arrives, then the Patriots. Same type of deal here.

 

[Count 'Bility]

There's something to be said for having to win the NC, versus being voted into the title. We all saw how difficult winning conference championships are in the Big12 when you actually have to play for them. If it was decided as the B1G had been in the past, with OSU ineligible we would have been named the B1G Champions and played in the Rose Bowl. But, since we had to win it, we found ourselves on the other side of the country.

Alabama has had to win these games. Not saying we wouldn't have - but the hoopla that today surrounds the conference championships we never played in, and the national championship game we never played in...changes the dynamics. What they've done is very impressive.

We beat the #3 team in their home stadium who still had a shot at the NC as well at the time of the game. We beat creamed the #2 team on the field. We killed the #3 team on the field, all in a system that was no more exact and unbiased as what Bama has to deal with now. Not sure this point says much.

Im just pointing out that it's not like we rolled into our bowl game and beat up on mediocre, 15th ranked Oregons and Washington St's. Nebraska had to earn it just as much. But I'll give you the CCG game point.

 

[knapplc]

And if anyone wants to claim our 1997 title has an asterisk, they can stick it. Go cry to Michigan and the Big Ten/Pac-12 who refused to join the Bowl Alliance like the rest of the country because the Rose Bowl was more precious to them than figuring it out on the field. That's not Nebraska's fault and that's not a knock on our 1997 title. We wanted to play Michigan. It would have been far easier to demolish Brian Griese than Peyton Manning and the team of future NFL stars that filled that Tennessee roster.

I can guarantee you we would have destroyed Michigan by a far greater margin than we killed Tennessee in 1997. There was no way that team was walking off the field without a title for Osborne's final game. It would have been a bloodbath of 1995 proportions if Michigan hadn't ducked out to the Rose Bowl.

 

[Hingle McCringleberry]

if you are talking in the history of college football??pretty tough to argue, they have a lot of natl champiosnhips...if they go 5 champs in 6 years or more, yeah for sure...

what is scary is saban probaby will never retire...and they could put another bunch on the pile...

it was at this point TO retired and its been a rough ride since.

That is a huge point. TO was closing out his career, Saben is, more than likely, right in the middle of his. He could be there 15 years pretty easily, assuming health/family issues dont come up. Either way Bama is doing everything right, it will be interesting to see how the next 5 years or so play out. Either way Bama joined a very elite group last night.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

if you are talking in the history of college football??pretty tough to argue, they have a lot of natl champiosnhips...if they go 5 champs in 6 years or more, yeah for sure...

what is scary is saban probaby will never retire...and they could put another bunch on the pile...

it was at this point TO retired and its been a rough ride since.

That is a huge point. TO was closing out his career, Saben is, more than likely, right in the middle of his. He could be there 15 years pretty easily, assuming health/family issues dont come up. Either way Bama is doing everything right, it will be interesting to see how the next 5 years or so play out. Either way Bama joined a very elite group last night.

I think Saban will go to the NFL when he finds the team he wouldn't mind signing with. Until then, I think he will run a winning program. Its just a shame this was an off year for LSU, otherwise this topic would probably not even be talked about lol. Or if Georgia would have gotten that last TD.

 

[wildman]

There's something to be said for having to win the NC, versus being voted into the title. We all saw how difficult winning conference championships are in the Big12 when you actually have to play for them. If it was decided as the B1G had been in the past, with OSU ineligible we would have been named the B1G Champions and played in the Rose Bowl. But, since we had to win it, we found ourselves on the other side of the country.

Alabama has had to win these games. Not saying we wouldn't have - but the hoopla that today surrounds the conference championships we never played in, and the national championship game we never played in...changes the dynamics. What they've done is very impressive.

You are aware right that the title game is done by the BCS pole. The BCS pole does use the same poles that as you stated voted on our titles. Now I do agree the BCS does use little more than just the poles. But the only advantage the BCS title has over than using the old system is you can not get the 1 and 2 teams playing no matter the conference.

As for never playing in the championship game here are some examples

94 - #1 Nebraska vs. #3 Miami (#2 Penn State had to play in Rose Bowl)

95 - #1 Nebraska vs. #2 Florida

97 - #2 Nebraska vs. #3 Tennesse (#1 Michican had to play in Rose Bowl)

If it wouldn't of been for the Rose Bowl we would of has 1 vs. 2 in all 3 title games. The only thing that the BCS does better than the older version is BIG 10 and now Pac 12 teams are not excluded if they are number 1 or 2 at the end of season.

 

[HUSKER FREAK]

After watching that game last night, I would love to get back to power stop me if you can football. We have the horses coming in I believe to be able to run with power and pass over the top. I know we wouldn't be able to be exactly like Bama obviously. It really did remind me of how dominant we were in those title games in the 90's, and how I as a fan took it for granted. Man we need to right this horse and get back to the Nebraska way and not look back. Those Clownahan years were not even close to the Nebraska way and should be an example of what not to do ever again. Loyalty and tradition of past players and teams are what makes the Huskers.

 

[walksalone]

The 94 & 97 Husker teams would have beaten Penn St and Mich...

 

[wildman]

The 94 & 97 Husker teams would have beaten Penn St and Mich...

I agree thats the only thing Alabama did that we didn't. They played 1 & 2 each year we couldn't due to the Rose Bowl. Otherwise we'd have played 1 & 2 and yet still have 3 titles.

 

[Excel]

I feel more impressed with Alabama's but it could be just because it is the more recent run.

In the three years for each:

Alabama beat more ranked opponents

Nebraska didn't lose at all.

Both teams had impressive performances in Bowl Games in their second and third years but shaky or less dominating wins in their first NC year.

I happen to think Bama's is the better of the two dynasties just because I respect the competition that they have faced more than the teams Nebraska faced. I think that It's much tougher to build a dynasty in a conference like the SEC where four other teams had won National Championships in the past decade or so (Auburn, LSU, Tennessee and Florida) than it is in the Big 8 where the only real consistent competition came from OU and only occasionally from Colorado.

You may respect their competition more, but it's not like they came out unscathed. They lost to that competition. Nebraska went undefeated and nobody can say that Nebraska would've lost to those teams too... you just can't say that.

I can just say that. Manziel and a bunch of young Aggies would demolish the 1994 Nebraska football team if they played today. It wouldn't even be close.

But really you do make a good point. There is something to be said for NU not losing a single game during that period, and while they went undefeated they also, in my opinion, didn't play as good a competition as Alabama has but NU won those games like they should have...by a lot but then again Alabama's points for/against average is damn good too. I guess it comes down to how you want to measure it.

There is not definitive way to determine which had/has the better dynasty. The answer to that question is going to vary from person to person. I'm comfortable just letting them stand how they are, saying that both were amazing sets of teams and sitting back to see how Alabama plays the next few years out.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I feel more impressed with Alabama's but it could be just because it is the more recent run.

In the three years for each:

Alabama beat more ranked opponents

Nebraska didn't lose at all.

Both teams had impressive performances in Bowl Games in their second and third years but shaky or less dominating wins in their first NC year.

I happen to think Bama's is the better of the two dynasties just because I respect the competition that they have faced more than the teams Nebraska faced. I think that It's much tougher to build a dynasty in a conference like the SEC where four other teams had won National Championships in the past decade or so (Auburn, LSU, Tennessee and Florida) than it is in the Big 8 where the only real consistent competition came from OU and only occasionally from Colorado.

You may respect their competition more, but it's not like they came out unscathed. They lost to that competition. Nebraska went undefeated and nobody can say that Nebraska would've lost to those teams too... you just can't say that.

I can just say that. Manziel and a bunch of young Aggies would demolish the 1994 Nebraska football team if they played today. It wouldn't even be close.

yep, they sure would, if they ever got the ball back.

 

[TGHusker]

One more point to all of the above, NU had argueably the all time greatest football team in 1995. None of the current UA teams would hold a candle to them.

 

[junior4949]

It's all subjective, but there are some glaring differences. First, we had our run before the BCS where the #1 and #2 are supposed to play for a NC. I say supposed to because of the 03' season. Second, it's not like in our run we were the only undefeated team. In 94', Penn State was also undefeated which is why a lot of their fans are still butthurt they didn't get a share of the title. In 97', Michigan was also undefeated which is why they did get a share of the title. The most glaring difference though comes from the complete dominance of the SEC where they've won 7 NC's in a row. The Big 8 and Big 12 didn't have this kind of dominance.

All I've heard this past decade is how much more parity there is in college football. If this is true, then it appears Bama's run is more significant than ours was. However, I don't for one minute believe this parity argument. If last's nights game showed one thing, it clearly showed a significant difference in the calibur of players on each team.

Three NC's in a four year period has only happened three times in history since the bowl games. Once was in the 40's. Once was in the 90's. And now, once in the 00's. As far as I'm concerned, each one of them is significant. One could easily find college football fans who'd argue one was greater than the other. It's all subjective.

I'm very skeptical the so called playoff is going to really address some of the problems we currently face in terms of the true NC because of the rule where one has to win their conference. This year, we would have had Bama'; Notre Dame; KState; and Stanford more than likely in the playoffs. Bama would have routed each one of these teams.