The 9 game Bama streak, as we have demonstrated below, was forged during a difficult period in AU football history (4 losing records in 9 years, even with the MSU forfeits thrown in). The two best teams of that period -- 1974 (Shug's 10-2 veer team) and 1979 (Barfield's running back rich/defensive poor 8-3 team) -- played Bama tough and could have interrupted the streak with a play or two in each game. The rest of the games, except 1981, when AU had the lead in the second half before losing 28-17, were not close. The reason is that the 1973 -81 Bama teams were so damned good, particularly relative to AU. The Tide went 95-12-1 during those 9 years, a remarkable 88.4% winning percentage. That is a run that will likely never be duplicated in the SEC again for a myriad of reasons. During that 9 year streak, Alabama never faced an AU with a better record than Alabama had going into the game.
In contrast, Auburn has been very good during the 6 year streak: 58-18, a 76% winning percentage. But it has had only one dominating year. One can argue that Bama was dominating in at least 6, and probably 7, of those 9 years. Auburn has defeated Bam twice during the streak when Bama entered the game with a better record -- once on the road. Strangely, those victories were the most decisive Auburn wins in the streak.
What does this mean (besides BIGJOE'S UNASSAILABLE "BAMA SUCKS")? One thing it means is that Tuberville is succeeding in a far more competitive environment than the one in which Bryant forged his streak. There is not as big a gulf between the haves and the have nots in this series these days. This is reflected in the cumulative records and in the scores of the individual games. Tubs has a smaller margain for error, so in a sense this makes his streak more remarkable than Bear's.
By no means do I mean to diminish the 9 game streak. I lived through it, and it was brutal from the AU perspective on quite a number of fronts. The Bama teams of that era were remarkably good -- basically 3 and 4 deep with "starters" at many positions. It is a much different world today, however. In relative terms, the AU streak is as remarkable, and I would argue more remarkable.
CONTEXT ADDED BY ADMIN:
END OF CONTEXT
The 9 game Bama streak, as we have demonstrated below, was forged during a difficult period in AU football history (4 losing records in 9 years, even with the MSU forfeits thrown in). The two best teams of that period -- 1974 (Shug's 10-2 veer team) and 1979 (Barfield's running back rich/defensive poor 8-3 team) -- played Bama tough and could have interrupted the streak with a play or two in each game. The rest of the games, except 1981, when AU had the lead in the second half before losing 28-17, were not close. The reason is that the 1973 -81 Bama teams were so damned good, particularly relative to AU. The Tide went 95-12-1 during those 9 years, a remarkable 88.4% winning percentage. That is a run that will likely never be duplicated in the SEC again for a myriad of reasons. During that 9 year streak, Alabama never faced an AU with a better record than Alabama had going into the game.
In contrast, Auburn has been very good during the 6 year streak: 58-18, a 76% winning percentage. But it has had only one dominating year. One can argue that Bama was dominating in at least 6, and probably 7, of those 9 years. Auburn has defeated Bam twice during the streak when Bama entered the game with a better record -- once on the road. Strangely, those victories were the most decisive Auburn wins in the streak.
What does this mean (besides BIGJOE'S UNASSAILABLE "BAMA SUCKS")? One thing it means is that Tuberville is succeeding in a far more competitive environment than the one in which Bryant forged his streak. There is not as big a gulf between the haves and the have nots in this series these days. This is reflected in the cumulative records and in the scores of the individual games. Tubs has a smaller margain for error, so in a sense this makes his streak more remarkable than Bear's.
By no means do I mean to diminish the 9 game streak. I lived through it, and it was brutal from the AU perspective on quite a number of fronts. The Bama teams of that era were remarkably good -- basically 3 and 4 deep with "starters" at many positions. It is a much different world today, however. In relative terms, the AU streak is as remarkable, and I would argue more remarkable.
