Started By
Message
re: Is Alabama really a dynasty??
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:45 am to blackmamba
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:45 am to blackmamba
quote:
My point was that bama only won the SEC title 2 times in 4 years and people are screaming dynasty. 2 out of 4 is hardly a dynasty.
okay, thats cool. But like I asked of the OP previously, what are your qualifactions of a dynasty? is it only conference championships?
3
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:47 am to blackmamba
but 3 out of 4 nattys is
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:49 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
is it only conference championships?
Ya dude. Everyone recognizes the Ohio State dynasty of the 2000s.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:53 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Kansas an hawaii both had better records than LSU. again if it wasnt for style points LSU would not have been there
ETA and Mizzou had an identical record and conference champ
Nope, Missouri was rolled by Oklahoma in the Big XII conference championship....
https://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/missouri/2005-2009_yearly_results.php
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:54 am to Patton
I didn't think a dynasty needed to beg to get into the big game. IMO, yes, you have to win your own conference to be considered a dynasty. 2/4 is not a dynasty. Good run, but not quite there yet.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:55 am to blackmamba
So to recap once again
LSU fans: No
Everyone else: Yes
Interesting
LSU fans: No
Everyone else: Yes
Interesting
Posted on 5/15/13 at 9:59 am to NYCAuburn
quote:Here's my opinion-
My point was that bama only won the SEC title 2 times in 4 years and people are screaming dynasty. 2 out of 4 is hardly a dynasty.
okay, thats cool. But like I asked of the OP previously, what are your qualifactions of a dynasty? is it only conference championships?
a dynasty takes more than 4 years (at least a decade), and should have undisputed conference ownership during the period.
USC during the "threepeat" wasn't a dynasty. Too short.
Bama's run is excellent, but 2 other teams won the SEC with undefeated conference records during the 4 yrs in question.
Florida during the Spurrier years, that's a dynasty. They owned the SEC for a decade. 1 national title, ok; but nobody within the SEC challenged them.
Alabama's currently the best team of a dynastic conference, the SEC. The SEC is the dynasty right now.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:00 am to EvilVodka
quote:
Nope, Missouri was rolled by Oklahoma in the Big XII conference championship....
Sorry, saw kansas's last game was against Mizzou and lost and the venue looked like the championship. Then why not, OK, Hawaii, or the beter record with Kansas as well. again style points pushed LSU in that game
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:00 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
But like I asked of the OP previously, what are your qualifactions of a dynasty? is it only conference championships?
For me, its a mix of everything....
Alabama has:
3 National Championships (out of 3)
2 SEC Championships
1 Heisman winner
1 Undefeated Season
Definitely a mini-dynasty, but they certainly HAVE NOT dominated the SEC in this span, no matter what stats you want to pull up lol
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:02 am to Scoob
quote:
Here's my opinion-
a dynasty takes more than 4 years (at least a decade), and should have undisputed conference ownership during the period.
USC during the "threepeat" wasn't a dynasty. Too short.
Bama's run is excellent, but 2 other teams won the SEC with undefeated conference records during the 4 yrs in question.
Florida during the Spurrier years, that's a dynasty. They owned the SEC for a decade. 1 national title, ok; but nobody within the SEC challenged them.
Alabama's currently the best team of a dynastic conference, the SEC. The SEC is the dynasty right now.
So Alabama had a 20 year dynasty from 1960 to 1980? GOAT! Woot!
Stupid argument is stupid.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:03 am to Scoob
quote:
Florida during the Spurrier years, that's a dynasty. They owned the SEC for a decade. 1 national title, ok; but nobody within the SEC challenged them.
A dynasty within a conference.
quote:
Alabama
A dynasty nationally.
quote:
The SEC is the dynasty right now.
Somebody else better start winning some natty's then, because it's getting close to the point where yall just start riding our coattails. LSU hasn't won a BCS game since 2007, so I'd say they are currently living of the success of everybody in the league who has since then.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:03 am to EvilVodka
quote:
but they certainly HAVE NOT dominated the SEC in this span
Yes they have.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:04 am to TreyAnastasio
quote:
So to recap once again
LSU fans: No
Everyone else: Yes
Interesting
you forgot the Ohio State fans lol
and even some of your own wiser Bama fans
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:04 am to bigpapamac
quote:
Somebody else better start winning some natty's then, because it's getting close to the point where yall just start riding our coattails. LSU hasn't won a BCS game since 2007, so I'd say they are currently living of the success of everybody in the league who has since then.
x 10000000000000000000000000000000
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:04 am to VaBamaMan
Dynasty is an unofficial subjective term and you can make up whatever the hell definition of it you want.
The vast, vast majority of fans in the country and the SEC and the media are of the opinion it's a dynasty, there really isn't any debate what the general consensus opinion is.
But LSU fans are more than welcome to be in a fringe minority and say it isn't, they can make up whatever definition they want.
And if it makes them look ridiculously jealous and petty, so be it.
The vast, vast majority of fans in the country and the SEC and the media are of the opinion it's a dynasty, there really isn't any debate what the general consensus opinion is.
But LSU fans are more than welcome to be in a fringe minority and say it isn't, they can make up whatever definition they want.
And if it makes them look ridiculously jealous and petty, so be it.
This post was edited on 5/15/13 at 10:05 am
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:06 am to Scoob
quote:
They owned the SEC for a decade. 1 national title, ok; but nobody within the SEC challenged them.
Precisely why it wasn't a dynasty. The SEC of the 1990s was NOTHING like it is today in terms of quality of competition.
Bama has been raping its SEC schedule for 5 years now.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:08 am to bigpapamac
quote:
Somebody else better start winning some natty's then, because it's getting close to the point where yall just start riding our coattails. LSU hasn't won a BCS game since 2007, so I'd say they are currently living of the success of everybody in the league who has since then.
LSU won it a whole wopping 6 years ago
Auburn just won it a whole whopping 2 years ago...
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:08 am to EvilVodka
quote:
LSU won it a whole wopping 6 years ago
Seems so long ago...
Oh, and since that time - Bama has lost a grand total of 7 games, and only one SEC team has beaten us by more than 5 points.
Dynasty.
This post was edited on 5/15/13 at 10:11 am
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:09 am to EvilVodka
quote:
For me, its a mix of everything....
quote:
Definitely a mini-dynasty, but they certainly HAVE NOT dominated the SEC in this span, no matter what stats you want to pull up lol
okay, now we are on to something. What teams again do you consider to have been a dynasty and how do they rack up to Bama during the last 5 years?
Like I said previously in the beginning, you are free to use your terms as you see fit, but at least back it up with some criteria and supportive evidence
Posted on 5/15/13 at 10:09 am to TreyAnastasio
quote:
LSU fans: No
Everyone else: Yes
Interesting
But, but LSU won the SEC in 2011..... nevermind the fact that Alabama beat them in the BCS national championship game that same year. And LSU became the only team to ever get shutout in the BCS championship game, compliments of Bama.
Page 20 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News