Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:04 pm to Tammany Tom
quote:
Bama has a nice run going. But it sure isn't a dynasty.
In order to be considered a dynasty you must first dominate your competition over a period of time. How can any Bama fan think for one second that they are dominating their competition? You aren't!!!
For you to have dominated your competition then you sure the hell would have more than one conference championship over the last 12 years.
Hell, the SEC West has had 3 different winners the past 3 years, so Bama hasn't even dominated a 6 team division.
Be grateful for your current run, but quit the ridiculous talk of a dynasty.
And yet all of that is irrelevant in the face of two BCS titles in the last three years, not to mention 48 wins over the past four seasons and a Heisman winner to boot!
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:06 pm to tider04
It is relevant......................................it's just not a "Dynasty" 
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:08 pm to CBandits82
I admit I misused the word "dynasty" but this is interesting to me... What is everyone's definition of dynasty in this era in which we live?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:09 pm to RJYH
quote:
As it stands, Alabama lost a close one at home, was clearly #2 behind LSU, and dominated the championship game.
big whoop. LSU won the game of the century/won the division/won the SEC/finished undefeated in regular season/ Bama ties us and gets the Crystal Ball/then smashes it on the floor
Karma is a bitch, see you in Miami?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:12 pm to RandySavage
quote:
1 conference title in 12 years. When does it begin?
Does Alabama's '99 SEC title no longer count?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:13 pm to Crow Pie
quote:
"The Dynasty" has lost to Auburn and LSU 17 times since 2000.
Nice timeline.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:14 pm to Crow Pie
quote:
"The Dynasty" has lost to Auburn and LSU 17 times since 2000.
The beginning of the dynasty began in 2008, not 2000...so those numbers are irrelevant.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:16 pm to CBandits82
quote:
It is relevant......................................it's just not a "Dynasty"
one championship season away from it, like it or not.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:17 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Does Alabama's '99 SEC title no longer count?
1. 2000
2. 2001
3. 2002
4. 2003
5. 2004
6. 2005
7. 2006
8. 2007
9. 2008
10. 2009
11. 2010
12. 2011
Maybe one of these days an Alabama fan will learn how to count...
This post was edited on 7/7/12 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:17 pm to tider04
quote:
And yet all of that is irrelevant in the face of two BCS titles in the last three years, not to mention 48 wins over the past four seasons and a Heisman winner to boot!
The conversation is about a "dynasty". Again, who has Bama dominated over the past 5 years? They sure as hell have not dominated their conference foes. So, how can Bama be considered a dynasty when they aren't dominating anyone?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:18 pm to rednilla
You're bringing the goods today aren't you? You show those bammers.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:18 pm to CBandits82
quote:
Lsu has been right there during Bama's so called " dynasty run", LSU beat Bama in 2010 and 2011. Bama has not been the only dominant team during your "run"
LSU has been stout to be sure, but in the same time frame, Bama has two crystal balls and lsu has none. That's huge.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:18 pm to Hoyt
quote:
I admit I misused the word "dynasty" but this is interesting to me... What is everyone's definition of dynasty in this era in which we live?
That's really the question. It was discussed a bit ago. I think it was generally agreed that the type Coach Bryant had is pretty likely not to come again. If I remember right 3 #1 awards in 5 or 6 years was pretty well received.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:20 pm to Tammany Tom
quote:
The conversation is about a "dynasty". Again, who has Bama dominated over the past 5 years? They sure as hell have not dominated their conference foes. So, how can Bama be considered a dynasty when they aren't dominating anyone?
Bama has won the NATIONAL title two of the last three years. I guess that means we're dominating the nation. That is the ultimate goal of a football season right? To win the NATIONAL title?
This post was edited on 7/7/12 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:21 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
That's really the question. It was discussed a bit ago. I think it was generally agreed that the type Coach Bryant had is pretty likely not to come again. If I remember right 3 #1 awards in 5 or 6 years was pretty well received.
yep.
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:24 pm to tider04
I agree with the 3 title criteria in a 5-6 year period... Bear Bryant was a greatvcoach, but he greatly benefited from the era in which he coached... Especially regarding scholarship limits
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:26 pm to tider04
quote:
LSU has been stout to be sure, but in the same time frame, Bama has two crystal balls and lsu has none. That's huge.
No one is arguing that Bama hasn't accomplished a lot over the last few years. Bama is on a great run!!!!
But, this thread is about one word: Dynasty
A Dynasty is when one team is clearly superior and is clearly dominating their competition over a specific period of time.
That, Bama is not doing.
The SEC has had 4 different Conference and 4 different National Champions over the past 5 years. With this simple fact, how can anyone think that any one team is dominating right now?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:26 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
You're bringing the goods today aren't you? You show those bammers.
Is this really all you can come up with? I make a point that you can't deny, so you derisively compliment me?
Posted on 7/7/12 at 8:27 pm to rednilla
You came here to set bammers straight. You did that didn't you?
Page 6 of 30
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News