I get that national titles are what you play for but these programs are not all equal either. Sure you still have to coach I suppose but isn't being successful with less kind of more desirable? Frank Beamer is a classic case. He doesn't have the titles to his credit, yeah but he also lasted a long time and won conference championships in a tough conference. He always had to go up against the U then Florida State was in yhr mix. Two schools that probably have more talent to their disposal. I mean he lasted a long time and ran a clean program. Its easier when you get the best athletes. Virginia isn't bad football but when you have a lot of the South accessible to you, you have a big advantage.
The Virginia area is LOADED with talent. If you recruited only VA boys, you'd be a top 25 team all day long.
I love Beamer though, truly a class act.
Pete Carroll would be close if they beat Texas. If he stays at USC he might have the most active titles. He also took over a trash program and had to rebuild it. Sure there were scandals at the end with Bush and **** but those teams were dominant.
Are you suggesting a known cheater that escaped any probations by leaving for the pros is one of the greatest?
C'mon man.
I'd put Rockne over Saban easily, Yost and Bryant are a close call, but I think I'd put them both over as well.
I don't care how much the game has changed since Rockne and Yost. I think it actually speaks more to their greatness. You got to consider not just their wins but their innovations.
Rockne and Yost not only won as much as Saban, they actually changed the way people coached the game and even changed the rulebook. Yost first used the forward pass, invented the linebacker position with Germany Schultz and modernized the position of Quarterback to what it is today with the way he utilized Benny Friedman (despite rules which discouraged the usage of the forward pass -- which didn't prevent Michigan from winning with Friedman).
While Yost was doing his thing, Rockne was first using the forward pass regularly with success (also despite the bad rules) and made the option a strategic cornerstone of college football until innovations in defensive coaching around 20 years ago (yes, that recently) made it less effective. Rockne did all this, and won five national titles all by the time he died at the age of 43 (Saban is what? 64?).
ESPN skews the data by only talking about the poll era. But furthermore, what profound change to the game has Saban brought?
I would argue that you don't have to change the game to be considered great. Under that argument Chip Kelly has a much greater claim than Saban. He got a non-football team on the map and created an offense so potent that everyone nowadays seem to be trying to get more like it.
Problem is, he never won the big game.
I appreciate Yost and and Rockne, but they were both coaches during a much less competitive time, during war times (where the best and strongest were off fighting), and played against much more basic styles of play.
Neither had a scholarship limit, neither had to play anywhere near the athletes that we are seeing nowadays (Could you imagine a Reggie Bush back in the 20's?), and while they were the pioneers of the forward pass, coaches now are having to play against the hurry up offense which to me goes to the point of this being the most competitive era the sport has ever seen.
If you were starting a team, and could chose any coach (dead or alive) to start your program, would you still pick those guys over Saban? Maybe so, but I do disagree with you that if you did chose one over Saban, that it would be 'an easy choice'.
Saban is an all time great, but he isn't the GOAT. He wins, but there were coaches before him who won AND did more.
One coach in the voting era has won more national championships. That being Bear Bryant and it took him a lot longer to achieve that.
This was probably his 2nd least talented team while at Alabama. He is a magician.
I believe this was his worst. Best D-line he's had in his college career, but the secondary was/is young and inexperienced, QB had major growing pains, a weak right side of the O-line, and new wide receivers. I think the 09 team was better, as were both with AJ at the helm.
Wouldn't that suggest just being lucky on location?
No. It would suggest that he is just better than everyone at the same thing.
But you said Pete Carroll so...
