re: Alabama's "Dynasty" is Over

quote:

---

It is arbitrary but let's look at it another way

OSU was ineligible in 2012 and 1 play away from making it last year. That could be 2 less fr Bama and 2 more for OSU. Bama has been in it every year so I see no reason why it is over. You have to win an additional game now against a top 5 team so it makes it that much harder for any team/coach

But the banners fly in Bama not Columbus

---

My God, has there ever been such a mixture of ignorance and arrogance as there is in Columbus Ohio?

If your receiver hadn't made that miraculous catch just before halftime, Alabama likely wins that game and your ONE (as in ONE, SOLO, UNO, ONE fricking TIME) national championship since 2002 would not have happened.

quote:

---

Does the LSU melt ever stop?

---

Have you seen our AD? Our Football hire was so bad, we had the entire SEC fan base feeling sorry for us. There's always something wrong on the Bayou and someone else to blame...

quote:

---

I've seen a lot of folks talk about this and seen some pushback, but there is zero doubt our "dynasty" at a national level is over.

---

That's debatable. It depends on what you define as a "dynasty." For simplicity sake, let's just say that its a minimum of 3 National Title won during a period in which that program won more than 50% of the Championships during that specific period of time.

If that's the definition, then College Football has had 5 dynasties during the polling era:

Notre Dame (1943-1949)- 4 National Titles won during a 7-year period (57%). National Titles came in 1943, 1946, 1947, and 1949.

Alabama (1961-1965)- 3 National Titles won during a 5-year period (60%). National Titles came in 1961, 1964, and 1966.

Miami (1987-1991)- 3 National Titles won during a 5-year period (60%). National Titles came in 1987, 1989, and 1991.

Nebraska (1994-1997)- 3 National Titles won during a 4-year period (75%). National Titles came in 1994, 1995, and 1997.

Alabama (2009-2015)- 4 National Titles won during a 7-year period (57%). National Titles came in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2015.

If this is accepted as a logical definition of a "dynasty," then yes, Alabama's dynasty ended following the 2015 season. Now that the 2016 Title has been lost, Bama has fallen to 4/8 which is right at 50%. However, all it would take is another title next season and that would give Bama 5 Championships in 9 seasons, and then the dynasty would be back on track.

So since its not completely known whether the dynasty is on-going, I'd say its not over yet... just on life support.

quote:

---

For some reason people take that as meaning Alabama will now start going 8-4 every year.

---

I've not seen anyone say that Bama will be going 8-4 next season. I think Bama fans project that sentiment onto their rivals, when no sane person is saying such a thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure most anyone would say that Bama will once again be the favorite to win the SEC next season. That automatically puts Bama in the hunt for the National Title.

So what can be expected of Bama going forward? No one knows for sure. But we can go back and look at what those other programs did during the years that followed their dynasties. In order to get an accurate picture, we'll take those dynasty seasons for each program, plus take the next 2-3 seasons since those would be the "life support" seasons in which the dynasty could have been resuscitated with just one more title. For example, Nebraska's dynasty technically took place from 1994-1997, but the Huskers entered the 1998 season totally expecting it to continue. And even in 1999, a title in that season would have won them their 4th in in 6-years... and even one in 2000 would have made it their 4th in 7-years. So their Dynasty lasted from 1994-1997, but they had 3 "life support" seasons in which it could have been resuscitated with just one more championship.

All other dynasties included just 2 "life support" seasons.

The previous four dynasties saw those teams win a combined 92.3% of their games during their actual Dynasty period. This compares very similarly to Alabama's winning percentage from 2009-2015 of 89.6%.

Those other four dynasties saw their winning percentage drop to 77.2% during their "life support" years. If Bama fails to win the National Title next season, then it will be official that Bama's dynasty ended back in 2015. However, since it wouldn't be known until next year, Bama's 2016 and 2017 seasons would be their "life support" years. Bama's off to a very good start with a 93.3% winning percentage during this one possible "life support" season.

This tells me that the Dynasty may not be over after all. We'll see. If Bama does fail to win the Title next season and the Dynasty officially comes to a close, here is what history says we can expect over the course of the next five seasons (2018-2022):

Those other four dynasties saw their winning percentages drop to just 70.7% in the five seasons following their life support years. This would translate to 9-4 type seasons for Bama in those years if they follow the average historical trend.

So in conclusion, here is what I think:

1. The Dynasty may or may not truly be over. Let's wait until next season.
2. If the dynasty does prove to be over, its not irrational for anyone to believe that 4-loss seasons are on the horizon for Alabama. All of the previous four dynasties saw their winning percentages drop in the five seasons following those "life support" years to between 65% (Nebraska) and 75% (Alabama in the '60s). That's 8-4 or 9-3 right there.

As for talk of "Dynasty", it's an overused term. A true dynasty means one team is the champion every year (or virtually every year) during that period. A real dynasty happened from 2009-2012, where Alabama won 3 out of 4 years.

Winning the national championship every other year in college football is an amazing feat. It is hard as hell, and nobody can sustain that level of success over years and year. But it's not a dynasty.

And for those people on the rant (who are vast and vocal) thinking that not being a dynasty is the same as "in decline" or no longer being good, then there's no discussing it with you. You'll be too busy posting troll threads and claiming "melt!"

Well this is one of the things that makes cfb less enjoyable. The standard for every big program seems to be if you can't win national titles you're a failure. That's ridiculous. It was very disappointing to watch Bama lose the national title game but to get there with a QB who is not able AT THIS TIME to complete a pass on the positive side of the LOS is pretty amazing. This was a hugely successful season but will be viewed as a failure because it doesn't end in a national title. I do miss being able to watch a game and just enjoy it rather than holding your breath every game because any loss may prevent you from winning a national title.

quote:

---

No, it is not. But we are all very, very, very happy you a-holes got to taste the sting of defeat. You assclowns deserved some humble pie, even if it is just a small slice. And SEC fans deserve to see the Gumps fail on the national stage, it is glorious. Gumps problem really is your arrogance of "we only care about national title" (see 2011) makes this season a complete bust. So you don't know how to take it. Set yourself up for failure with this attitude, thus your slice of humble pie weighs a ton to you.

---

I'm just happy that it made you so happy.

I liked this season, it was fun. I'm excited to try and tie Spurrier's 4-SEC Titles in a row record next year and hopefully we luck up in a playoff if we get that shot.

quote:

---

But I do miss the thrill of my team winning the national championship after a long period of struggle. It's just human nature to stop being grateful when we get what we want.

---

Yea - which is why nothing will ever top the 2008 regular season or the 2009 SEC Championship Game (and BCS Title game, even though the SECCG will always be more memorable).

quote:

---

Alabama is still the dominate team in the nation, but the dynasty is over.

---

quote:

---

That's probably the best way to word it.

---

I disagree, I think 'dominant' would have been the best way to word it

And 99% of college programs have never had a dynasty and never will.