Started By
Message
re: Does anyone deny Alabama is a dynasty?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 8:17 am to Lg
Posted on 1/8/13 at 8:17 am to Lg
quote:
If Alabama had gone undefeated the last two years, then I would feel comfortable with the Dynasty tag. But in all reality, bama was really fortunate to be there these last two years. Dominoes just fell the right way for us
All true, but so what? I mean look, I'm an LSU fan/alum, I can't stand Alabama, but I recognize that winning close games (ag. LSU, ag. UGA) doesn't happen by accident. If you're a horse racing fan, remember Affirmed and Alydar? Both great champions, but Affirmed always came out by a head. The fortunate thing for football fans is that there's "always next year" and as an LSU fan, I'm excited about the recruiting class that the Tigers appear poised to reel in, and I'm looking forward to eliminating the razor thin margin b/w the two programs next year.
2
Posted on 1/8/13 at 8:23 am to TigerJeff
quote:
They are clearly the dominant team in CF, nobody else is close. Dynastic.
For the love of God, make it stop. Yes, they are a very very very good football team. They are lucky to be in the last two NCG. They could have easily lost to us and Georgia this year. No they did not lose and won, hats off to them.
It is very impressive to win the last 3 out of 4 regardless of how you look at it.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 8:44 am to TigerJeff
It's less "winning the close games" (which they did, and you can't take that away no matter how it's rationalized) and more "controlling your destiny to the title game."
I feel confident saying that anybody short of Kentucky or a Mississippi school controls their destiny in the SEC. If any program can go 13-0 in the SEC at this point, they will probably be playing for the title. And when we're talking about an elite program like Alabama, that's true every year.
In other words, the Tide controlled its own destiny from the outset in each of their title runs. In 2009, they went undefeated and never relinquished control, including vanquishing fellow SEC unbeaten Florida in their final test before the championship game. Do it again, or maybe even twice, in a five-year span - and be competitive for the title in the other two years - and you have to be acknowledged as a dynasty. The Tide has the competitive bit; they got knocked out in early November in 2010 and early December in 2008, but they were competing all the way through. But they lost in 2011 and 2012, and needed the following to get back to those games:
* Oklahoma State to lose to Iowa State in 2011
* Stanford to lose to Oregon in 2011
* Texas A&M to lose to Florida in 2012 to even have a shot at the CONFERENCE title
* Oregon to lose to Stanford in 2012
* Kansas State to lose to Baylor in 2012
And again, I take nothing away from Alabama. These breaks happen, and when they got their chance, they capitalized, and won their titles. This is not to say that Alabama doesn't deserve their titles. It's only to say that they needed outside help to get 2/3 of them. When that's the case, I don't think you're in the realm of the mid-90s Nebraska or 50s Oklahoma, those kinds of dynastic runs.
They are close, and their run is among the best, but a dynasty implies unchallenged domination, and Alabama can't claim that. It's not even their fault that they can't, really - there is no such thing as unchallenged domination in the twenty-first century SEC. But without it, they aren't a dynasty in my mind.
ETA: Anyone arguing that Alabama wasn't the best team in 2009, 2011 or 2012 needs to stop
I feel confident saying that anybody short of Kentucky or a Mississippi school controls their destiny in the SEC. If any program can go 13-0 in the SEC at this point, they will probably be playing for the title. And when we're talking about an elite program like Alabama, that's true every year.
In other words, the Tide controlled its own destiny from the outset in each of their title runs. In 2009, they went undefeated and never relinquished control, including vanquishing fellow SEC unbeaten Florida in their final test before the championship game. Do it again, or maybe even twice, in a five-year span - and be competitive for the title in the other two years - and you have to be acknowledged as a dynasty. The Tide has the competitive bit; they got knocked out in early November in 2010 and early December in 2008, but they were competing all the way through. But they lost in 2011 and 2012, and needed the following to get back to those games:
* Oklahoma State to lose to Iowa State in 2011
* Stanford to lose to Oregon in 2011
* Texas A&M to lose to Florida in 2012 to even have a shot at the CONFERENCE title
* Oregon to lose to Stanford in 2012
* Kansas State to lose to Baylor in 2012
And again, I take nothing away from Alabama. These breaks happen, and when they got their chance, they capitalized, and won their titles. This is not to say that Alabama doesn't deserve their titles. It's only to say that they needed outside help to get 2/3 of them. When that's the case, I don't think you're in the realm of the mid-90s Nebraska or 50s Oklahoma, those kinds of dynastic runs.
They are close, and their run is among the best, but a dynasty implies unchallenged domination, and Alabama can't claim that. It's not even their fault that they can't, really - there is no such thing as unchallenged domination in the twenty-first century SEC. But without it, they aren't a dynasty in my mind.
ETA: Anyone arguing that Alabama wasn't the best team in 2009, 2011 or 2012 needs to stop
This post was edited on 1/8/13 at 8:45 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News