Started By
Message
re: College football dynasties
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:34 pm to WG_Dawg
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:34 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Lmao 2 years doesn't make a dynasty. Neither does one, as you've also included.
He is saying the dynasty doesn’t START until the year AFTER you win 3 in a max of 7 years. So he is pretty much saying the dynasty is in the years when dynasties were actually fading/dying/over.
Alabama’s dying/fading dynasty just ended up being really long because they kept winning a NC every 2-3 years AFTER they won the first 3 from 2009-2012 that caused the dynasty to “start” in 2013.
It’s kind of a strange way to look at it.
0
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:36 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
What does that have to do with the 2 years given in op
OP is a liar maybe?
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:41 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Sweet. What does that have to do with the 2 years given in op
For MN he is saying the 3 NCs in 1936, 1940, and 1941 established the dynasty that STARTED in 1942. By 1944 they no longer had 3 in the last 7 years (because 1936 had fallen off) so the dynasty was from 1942-1943 (he made a mistake I think saying 1941-1942 because he said his parameters were the dynasty started the year after the 3 NC).
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:53 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Lmao
2 years doesn't make a dynasty. Neither does one, as you've also included.
Feel free to click on link, genius.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:56 pm to elposter
quote:
I understand you are saying the dynasty doesn’t start until after you win 3 NCs but it just looks weird to say the Bama/Saban dynasty started 2013 after the most dominant part of it (3 in 4 years from 2009-2012).
"The year when people start referring to you as a dynasty" probably should've read. That would have worked better. For example, nobody was calling the Chiefs a dynasty until after the Super Bowl earlier this year.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 6:59 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
Dawgs flexing hard to be considered in top company. News flash - you’ll never be Alabama or in the same conversation.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:12 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
but you're talking about 13 straight seasons without a national championship during that stretch.
Dynasties aren't just about winning national championships every other year. Are you consistently winning your conference? Are you consistently in the conversation at the end of the season? Are you playing for a national championship on the regular? If you are doing that consistently over a long period of time, I'd say that is a dynasty.
On top of winning national championships in 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, and 1979, under Bear Bryant Alabama was also in the conversation for national championships in 1962, 1966, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, and 1980.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:19 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
There's a pretty solid consensus on this board that it takes 3 national championships to equal a dynasty
lol wrong
Posted on 12/16/24 at 7:46 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
I think the era of dynasties in CFB are over.
Sure there will be a handful of teams that are in contention for the title most years, but with the portal/NIL I can't imagine any single program dominating for the better part of a decade like we've seen in the past.
Sure there will be a handful of teams that are in contention for the title most years, but with the portal/NIL I can't imagine any single program dominating for the better part of a decade like we've seen in the past.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:05 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
As much as I hate to say it, nebraska in the mid/late 90’s would have to be considered a dynasty.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 9:09 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Bama was really good a couple of times after 2020... but I think at this point we can call their dynasty as lasting from 2009-2020.
Agree. Bama was not the same Bama from 2021 on. That 2020 team was very physical with an entire OL that went pro. After that it’s hard to find any team that had dominant trench play.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:45 pm to labamafan
no such thing as a dynasty in the poll and BCS eras.
titles are meaningless without a playoff system.
Clemson is currently a dynasty. Has knocked Bama out of the playoffs 3 of the last 9 years or so.
titles are meaningless without a playoff system.
Clemson is currently a dynasty. Has knocked Bama out of the playoffs 3 of the last 9 years or so.
This post was edited on 12/16/24 at 10:48 pm
Posted on 12/17/24 at 2:27 am to RollTide1987
quote:
On top of winning national championships in 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, and 1979, under Bear Bryant Alabama was also in the conversation for national championships in 1962, 1966, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, and 1980.
What you just posted is so much of a bullshite fairy tale, you should have started it with, "Once upon a time."
Alabama doesn't get to use all of its fake, bullshite claimed 'championships' to holler dynasty.
Posted on 12/17/24 at 5:20 am to Blackadder
quote:
What you just posted is so much of a bullshite fairy tale
Is it? In 1962, Alabama was ranked #1 until mid-November and a 7-6 loss to Georgia Tech. That was their only loss of the season. In 1966, Alabama finished undefeated and ranked #3 behind Notre Dame and Michigan State. In 1971, #2 Alabama played #1 Nebraska for all the marbles in the Orange Bowl. In 1972, Alabama was undefeated and #2 going into their last game of the regular season when they were upset by Auburn 17-16. In 1974, Alabama was undefeated going into their bowl game against Notre Dame when they lost it 13-11. In 1975, Alabama won 11 straight games and finished #3 behind Oklahoma and Arizona State. In 1977, Alabama finished #2 behind Notre Dame.
In every single year listed they either played for a national championship or were in the conversation for one at the end of the season. This isn't a fairy tale, it's verifiable historical fact.
Posted on 12/17/24 at 5:27 am to Violent Hip Swivel
I'm convinced that the era of dynasties is over. The transfer portal has created too much parity. Even just going undefeated will be much more rare now.
This post was edited on 12/17/24 at 5:29 am
Posted on 12/17/24 at 6:17 am to RollTide1987
quote:
it's verifiable historical fact.
That half of the championships Alabama claim are fake? You are correct it is a verifiable historical fact.
Posted on 12/17/24 at 6:48 am to Violent Hip Swivel
I know you like to 5hit on UT...but here is an interesting tidbit.
They lost to Vanderbilt on November 13, 1926. Their next loss was to Alabama on October18, 1930. Their next loss after that was October 14, 1933. They lost 1 game between November 1926 and October 1933.
They lost to Vanderbilt on November 13, 1926. Their next loss was to Alabama on October18, 1930. Their next loss after that was October 14, 1933. They lost 1 game between November 1926 and October 1933.
Posted on 12/17/24 at 7:47 am to RollTide1987
quote:
On top of winning national championships in 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, and 1979, under Bear Bryant Alabama was also in the conversation for national championships in 1962, 1966, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, and 1980.
If this was the case, the Atlanta Braves would've been considered a dynasty.
Posted on 12/17/24 at 7:51 am to elposter
quote:
I understand you are saying the dynasty doesn’t start until after you win 3 NCs but it just looks weird to say the Bama/Saban dynasty started 2013 after the most dominant part of it (3 in 4 years from 2009-2012).
Yup, reading this thread and all the people rationalizing their particular definitions of dynasty...it seems like much ado about nothing. Bama fans already had a great run going before 2013 and UGA has had a great going since 2017
Posted on 12/17/24 at 8:10 am to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
Minnesota - 1941-1942
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News