quote:
I promise, despite how you may be taking this, I'm not trying to bash your team. I'll try to simplify it since I'm clearly not doing a good job of communicating my thought process.

I am of the opinion that many people consider AU's 2013 to be "flukey" due to A) some extremely rare plays that benefited AU and B) the fact that it is an outlier season from a success standpoint. If AU had the type of consistent success of an Oregon, a Bama, or an OSU then people wouldn't discount the success in 2013 as much. However, since AU hasn't consistently had consecutive successful seasons as of late, those people do not give AU the same benefit of doubt that Oregon, OSU, or Bama might receive in similar situations.

Is it similar to the reason people don't see Bama 2009-2012 as a true dynasty considering the events that led to such an unusual set of opportunities that provided them an opportunity to win? 1) Luck within the context of football games that led to wins in 2009. (UTk, UT) 2) Getting an unprecedented opportunity to avenge a loss to LSU from previously in the year due to ESPN's desire to create a money making product called the CFB 4 team playoff. 3) UGA being UGA and giving Bama another SEC title and a shot at the worst BCS opponent of the BCS era.

I understand what your saying now.