Started By
Message
Is Alabama really a dynasty??
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:39 pm
Alot of media folk seem to think 3 championships is a dynasty, and I've seen the term "mini-dynasty" attached to USC '03-'05 and Miami '00-'02 over the years. But the question on this thread is....is Alabama a dynasty?
IMO, there are only 3 modern dynasties:
FSU (from '87-2000)
Miami (from '83-'94)
Nebraska (from '92-'01)
I think Alabama's run is great and all, but I don't think its got the longevity (yet) to match the above dynasties...I do think Alabama is on the right track to be mixed in with the above teams though. FSU played in 5 title games, winning 2, and stayed in the top 4 for 14 consecutive years!!!! Miami won 4 National Championships, and played in 6. They literally changed the game with speed and swagger. Nebraska won three National Championships, and played in 5 Title games. All three teams dominated their conferences for a lengthy time span and had multiple Heisman winners.
I also think its hard to call USC '02-'08 a dynasty, especially with the taint Reggie Bush left...I think they were a "mini-dynasty" on the verge of being a real one, but the Bush taint set in, and they were also left out of title shots as well in '07 and '08
The further you go back in history, the less credibility you have as well IMO. Sorry, but dynasties back then just are not the same as football today...in that sense, Alabama has done a lot more than something like Notre Dame '41-'49, or the Army Black Knights "dynasty". The level of competition has jumped, and the talent is so much greater, its a different game now.
So what do yall think?
IMO, there are only 3 modern dynasties:
FSU (from '87-2000)
Miami (from '83-'94)
Nebraska (from '92-'01)
I think Alabama's run is great and all, but I don't think its got the longevity (yet) to match the above dynasties...I do think Alabama is on the right track to be mixed in with the above teams though. FSU played in 5 title games, winning 2, and stayed in the top 4 for 14 consecutive years!!!! Miami won 4 National Championships, and played in 6. They literally changed the game with speed and swagger. Nebraska won three National Championships, and played in 5 Title games. All three teams dominated their conferences for a lengthy time span and had multiple Heisman winners.
I also think its hard to call USC '02-'08 a dynasty, especially with the taint Reggie Bush left...I think they were a "mini-dynasty" on the verge of being a real one, but the Bush taint set in, and they were also left out of title shots as well in '07 and '08
The further you go back in history, the less credibility you have as well IMO. Sorry, but dynasties back then just are not the same as football today...in that sense, Alabama has done a lot more than something like Notre Dame '41-'49, or the Army Black Knights "dynasty". The level of competition has jumped, and the talent is so much greater, its a different game now.
So what do yall think?
47
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:40 pm to EvilVodka
3 of last 4... yes
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:41 pm to EvilVodka
Well, they'll be in the mix for atleast another 5 yrs, so I would say yes.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:41 pm to EvilVodka
in.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:41 pm to EvilVodka
It's close right now, and it's probably not over yet.
This is just like the Lebron/Jordan debate. You can never really know until it's had time to develop fully.
If they shite the bed next year and don't do much in the next few years, it's a mini dynasty.
This is just like the Lebron/Jordan debate. You can never really know until it's had time to develop fully.
If they shite the bed next year and don't do much in the next few years, it's a mini dynasty.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:42 pm to EvilVodka
Alabama (1925-2013) is the greatest dynasty in college football history
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:42 pm to Captain Crown
quote:
3 of last 4... yes
Nothing says Dynasty like skipping a year. Hell the Ming Dynasty skipped years all the time.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:43 pm to EvilVodka
Hell no! This "Alabama Dynasty" is nothing more than a mirage, a figment of some people's imagination. Nothing more.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:43 pm to EvilVodka
So what is your definition of a "dynasty"? what are your criteria
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:44 pm to Captain Crown
As much as it sucks....
^^^^^^^^ this....
quote:
3 of last 4...yes
^^^^^^^^ this....
This post was edited on 5/14/13 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:44 pm to therick711
don't hate
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:44 pm to EvilVodka
It's all gonna come down to how each person defines "dynasty".
Some will say it is because they've won 3 titles in 4 years.
Some will say that they need longevity, that another 4-5 years of winning is necessary.
Some will say it is because they've won 3 titles in 4 years.
Some will say that they need longevity, that another 4-5 years of winning is necessary.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:44 pm to EvilVodka
quote:
Is Alabama really a dynasty??
I dunno.
Probably.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:45 pm to 615tider
I'll stick with the traditional definition of a long, sustained, uninterrupted run. 
This post was edited on 5/14/13 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:45 pm to EvilVodka
quote:
Miami (from '83-'94)
Bama ended Miami's in the 92 NC game.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:47 pm to EvilVodka
quote:
FSU played in 5 title games, winning 2,
quote:
Nebraska won three National Championships, and played in 5 Title games
Tell me when the last time Alabama lost a title game was.
And you're forgetting that in '08 they were toe-to-toe with eventual champ Florida and ended up 12-2. In 2010 they were 10-3, with 3 pt and 1 pt losses to LSU and Auburn. All of their losses in '11 and '12 were by less than a TD. All were 5 points or less.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:48 pm to EvilVodka
quote:
FSU (from '87-2000)
Edit: Yes, Alabama is most certainly a dynasty. 3/4.
This post was edited on 5/14/13 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:49 pm to TU Rob
quote:
And you're forgetting that in '08 they were toe-to-toe with eventual champ Florida
A moral victory for a dynasty? Hmm.
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:54 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
It's close right now, and it's probably not over yet.
This is just like the Lebron/Jordan debate. You can never really know until it's had time to develop fully.
If they shite the bed next year and don't do much in the next few years, it's a mini dynasty
I tend to agree with this post...a true non-biased opinion here
Posted on 5/14/13 at 2:58 pm to EvilVodka
quote:
Is Alabama really a dynasty??
No
Page 1 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News