re: How does Bama's current run compare to other dynasties in their prime?

quote:

---

I actually think Miami had two separate dynasties. I'd like to see their rankings during the 90's to early 2000s

---

You can certainly make that argument.

In that case, Miami from 1983-1994 would be "Dynasty #1" and Miami 2000-2003 would be "Dynasty #2. The problem is that second set of years only includes 1 National Title (but two #2 finishes) so it would not be a dynasty by my definition.

While there was a definite break in dominance, its not like Miami completely fell off the map for very long.

1994: #6 finish
1995: #20 finish (start of the drop-off)
1996: #14 finish
1997: Unranked
1998: #20 finish
1999: #15 finish
2000: #2 finish (back to dominance)

So from 1996-1999, there were 5 years of relative struggle. Still, the fact that Miami finished in the Top 20 in 4 of their 5 "down years" sandwiched between 2 sets of absolute dominance... I don't think Miami was ever "down" enough to say the dynasty totally ended. There was certainly some rebuilding that went on in the middle, but it was never so bad for long enough to say it totally ended, IMO.