I won't argue that Miami was a waning "dynasty" when we faced them on Jan 1, 1993. And I use the word dynasty in the loosest of terms.
In hindsight, Selma has all the critical points nailed down. The "experts" should have seen it. That Miami was so heavily favored proves that Vegas is not always so smart. Miami could not run the ball to save its life. Toretta was not Dan Marino. Miami's defense was great, but they were soft up the middle. If I recall correctly, Alabama did most of its damage running the ball between the tackles.
It may have been a narrow path to that that blowout score, but that 1992 team was the perfect team for said path. So I think uafan makes some great points as well. Although I don't think either of you are dismissing the other.
Let me clarify something since nuance is one of my many foci.
In 1992, the Miami Hurricanes were WITHOUT QUESTION one of the four best teams in the USA, at least based upon their on field record and, in all honesty, based upon the number of future NFL players they had. We can argue whether they were "really" better than Florida State and Notre Dame would have rounded out a healthy four-team playoff - although we have to acknowledge that had undefeated aTm been in the vote, the Irish (who routed them in the Cotton Bowl) would have probably been the team left out in favor of the overrated Aggies.
Miami's reputation post-Jimmy was inflated, and they rode that inflated rep to two national championships, neither of which required them to face a national championship winner-take-all game. Their 1989 title was exclusively based on "beat Notre Dame head-to-head," and while that's a defensible position, the fact is the Irish played a murderer's row of opponents: ACC champ Virginia, both Rose Bowl teams (Big 10, Pac 10 champs in the Top 10), 8-4 Sparty, Top 20 ranked Pitt and Penn State - and beat every one of them. Miami played Sparty, Pitt, and FSU - losing the latter, though they got spotted by the pollsters because their QB was out - and then routed Notre Dame in the 2nd half when Rocket Ismail got hurt. (Always funny to me how Miami losing their QB was okay in a double-digit loss but the Irish losing the best player in America didn't matter). Miami played a carefully crafted schedule (their usual) without two tough teams in a row and then when Notre Dame knocked off #1 Colorado, Miami got the championship.
And I'm hardly an Irish fan.
Then in 1991 as noted, they did play - by their low standards - a tough schedule, lucked into a win over FSU and ducked Florida in the Sugar Bowl and got rewarded for it.
I agree with uafan4life and yourself that the blowout was in a narrow window - but that's also the game where I derived my "eight plays determine the outcome" concept. If the plays fall 8-0 in your favor, a really good team can blow out another really good team. In this case, I'd argue that at least 7 of the game's most important plays were in Alabama's favor, including the two by Teague plus Palmer's punt return on the first possession that brought the crowd into the game.
To reiterate: Miami WAS a good team, but the pundits only knew Miami from their Florida State win and other national games over the previous few years. And their knowledge of Alabama was looking at the Louisiana Tech score and saying, "They needed a punt return to beat those guys?" They paid no attention until late and their points of reference in November were us blowing the 20-3 lead on the road to Miss State, going in tied at halftime to Auburn scoreless, and needing Langham's Pick Six to beat Florida.
Pundits are easily dazzled by high powered offenses on big name teams.
They don't seem to understand much otherwise.
