Iām going to have to take a āhard passā on that take, my friend. Bamaās demise canāt come soon enough for me.
I'd say this: Saban and Bama put out a blueprint on how to win and win consistently.
People will always point to the bag stuff, but so many big time programs are handing out bags and Bama continued to win against these teams anyway. And when teams started to make up talent differences with spread offenses, he adjusted and Bama kept winning anyway.
He put out teams with fundamentally solid coaching, taking advantage of the oppositions lack of physical play or borderline having better coached players in all positions. A lot of teams recruited athletic ability, but Saban just was always a step ahead, whether that was schematically or coaching wise. I don't like him, nobody likes the winner, especially when he wins all the time, but its the same with Harbaugh, at some point, you see what's happening and you just realize that that guy is good.
The downside of that was, however, because Bama was starting to pull a gap between them and everyone else, other colleges had to keep up with the same illegal methods to not make this a one-way-train. From 1999-2007, only one team managed to win the national title twice. In 2007, we had the ultimate cluster**** of a season and everyone could've won it. From 2008-2012, Bama won it three times. Parity was lost once he went in.
Is that good for the overall sport? Depends. Consistent winners bring in viewership and Bama brought viewers to the TV. But that happened for the sake of parity.
