This is a stupid debate.
14 consecutive 10-win seasons is a ridiculous achievement in any era. Kudos to both teams for achieving it.
That said, OAM is absolutely right that context matters. Teams get more games every year, and in the era of CCG and the CFP, you can potentially have up to 15 games per year, where much of FSU's run would be a maximum of 12 games. From 1987 until 2000, in those 14 years FSU played 12 games 11 times, and 13 games 3 times. During Alabama's run, they have NEVER played less than 13 games in a single season.
OAM is also right that this is not some definitive answer which tells us whose achievement is more significant. After all, the first half of FSU's was independent, and the second half was the ACC. That's not nearly as difficult SOS as Alabama, who spent all of that time in the SEC SEC SEC SEC!!! I'd also argue that the era where FSU was doing it might have been a little more, let's say loose, with NCAA enforcement of recruiting violations. And Alabama, while I don't think they're paying players, basically ignited the spending arms race not only with facilities, but also with hiring coaches for "non-coaching" analyst roles, having enormous staff for recruiting evaluation, etc etc.
So these are both amazing runs by any team. The context of number of games is important, and shouldn't be discounted if you're trying to compare them. The context of number of games also doesn't automatically give FSU the advantage if you're trying to compare them, because conference and era of football also shouldn't be discounted.
But everyone jumps to conclusions whenever OAM opens his mouth.
