For me it's like Wooden - those eras were completely different in athleticism, scholarships, science, rules, etc. Pencilhead Finebaum was saying he's easily surpassed Bryant as this era is a tougher win, more complex in all facets, and there's an actual playoff now days. He cited one title for Bryant was awarded prior to a bowl game versus #2 Notre Dame, which Alabama lost yet the decision from UPI still stood (UPI thereafter changed it's decision to after the bowl games).
One contention I'd make in favor of Bryant is I think the talent was more widespread in those days whereas today it's basically consumed by a handful of schools. Basically, in any given year a school could go 10-0/11-0, there were no conference title games, and if ranked high enough had a shot at a Natty. That said, conferences were locked into bowls which meant the top 2-5 did not always meet on the field. And rankings were subjective to coaches and journalists voting which had extreme bias (bias still exists today IMO). There were worthy schools ranked below 3rd that may have won a bowl game (or playoff) against higher ranked opponents in those days which would have produced different results in some years.
Today, while it's nice for an Oregon or a TCU or a Central Florida to enter a discussion of "what if" but in all honesty those schools would be annihilated in a playoff (Oregon has). 30-60 years ago not so much. Now you have to play in a Power 5 to get a shot. I believe D1A should split to two levels and award two champions. Let's just form four super conferences of 16 and let them compete for a title, and the rest can drop to a second level. I'd prefer conference title games were scrapped but that's a money maker so moot opinion.
