Started By
Message
re: Is Alabama really a dynasty??
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:34 pm to USMC Gators
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:34 pm to USMC Gators
Above OU, who should not have been there...as usual.
This post was edited on 5/15/13 at 12:35 pm
1
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:45 pm to 615tider
quote:
Not according to everything else you've stated in this thread.
why is that? Let's look at Florida and LSU "potential dynasties"
Florida '06-Present
2 National Championships (out of 2)
2 SEC Championships
1 Heisman Winner
3 13-win seasons, 1 11 win season
Florida has had a few good/mediocre seasons in this run, but if they won the SEC and the NC next season, I think you could start looking at them as possible dynasty material...same way we're discussing Alabama's dynasty on here
LSU '01-Present
2 National Championships (out of 3)
4 SEC Championships
8 10-win seasons or better
If LSU won the SEC and NC next year, you could start talking about them as a possible dynasty...3 NCs and 4 appearances
The difference IMO is the longevity of dominance...if Saban suddenly retired and went into hibernation, Alabama's run would look more like a mini-dynasty, ala Miami and USC last decade. But I don't think anyone on here is thinking that will happen, and like NYCAuburn said, this appears to be a dynasty in motion...
***sidenote: I am in no way saying LSU or Florida will win the NC next year and will probably NEVER be considered a dynasty in their current runs
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:50 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
go back and look at the ranked teams we played and compare them to OK and USC. then tell me.
Sagarins rankings gives a bump to big 12 and pac teams. As a SEC fan, do you really believe those conferences to be better?
Eta and if you go by his rankings AU played more top 20 teams, I believe
none of that should matter though....only in possibly selecting at-large teams for a playoff.
The problem has been, for a long time, the post-season system
There ARE NO arguments keeping Auburn from a playoff
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:51 pm to EvilVodka
Dynasties are about being on top. Conference championships are irrelevant in talking about college football dynasties. If you want to talk about SEC dynasties, then make that the scope and talk about conference titles.
And mentioning the number of Heismans is just inane.
And mentioning the number of Heismans is just inane.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:52 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
Above OU, who should not have been there...as usual.
Oklahoma '04 had a right to play for it too...no one knew before hand they would get thumped the way they did...
BCS the problem, as always
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:55 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
Dynasties are about being on top. Conference championships are irrelevant in talking about college football dynasties. If you want to talk about SEC dynasties, then make that the scope and talk about conference titles.
Except that the college football postseason has been a horrible measuring stick, ask Texas '08, Auburn '04, Oregon '01, Miami '00, and all the split National Champions there ever was....
Seriously, what the freak is a split National Championship? College football invented the term. All other sports have PLAYOFFS, won on the field (or court or diamond)
quote:
And mentioning the number of Heismans is just inane.
not really, they often go hand-in-hand
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:56 pm to EvilVodka
It was a tough call but...in 2003 OU had their highest scoring offense ever, to date (till 2008), and this O scored 14 points. It was a red flag not heeded. And a basis for having little regard for B12 'high powered' offenses.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:56 pm to EvilVodka
OU and Southern Cal were clearly the most deserving two teams for the game. Maybe auburn was better, maybe they would have won...but to say that we know auburn deserved to be there because OU got beaten easily by USC is just lazy thinking. By all legitimate measurable criteria, OU deserved to be there over auburn. The BCS got it right. You can't blame the formula for the performance of the teams in the title game.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:57 pm to Crimson Legend
It's a hell of a mental jump from "the college football national championships are suspect" to "winning the SEC is bigger than being national champions".
Posted on 5/15/13 at 12:58 pm to Crimson Legend
Nothing lazy about it. See post above yours.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:00 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
Plus someone posted Sagarin SOS ratings (fwiw) and AU was slightly higher than OU.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:02 pm to EvilVodka
quote:
Florida has had a few good/mediocre seasons in this run, but if they won the SEC and the NC next season, I think you could start looking at them as possible dynasty material...same way we're discussing Alabama's dynasty on here
No.
Just no.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:03 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
AU was higher AFTER the bowls. Check out strength of schedule, and you can easily see that it was no comparison who should go to the BCS title game given that both were undefeated going into the bowls.
As to the performance the year earlier - I think you're on to something if you're looking for a betting advantage, but it's not quantitative enough as a basis for deciding which team should play in the championship the following year.
As to the performance the year earlier - I think you're on to something if you're looking for a betting advantage, but it's not quantitative enough as a basis for deciding which team should play in the championship the following year.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:04 pm to EvilVodka
quote:
Texas '08,
Lost.
quote:
Auburn '04,
FCS team.
quote:
Oregon '01
Lost.
quote:
Miami '00
Lost.
quote:
not really, they often go hand-in-hand
Individual award =/= team accomplishment
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:05 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
Plus someone posted Sagarin SOS ratings (fwiw) and AU was slightly higher than OU.
Look at the schedule ranking (s).
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:06 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
AU was higher AFTER the bowls.
Didn't catch that, fair enough.
quote:
As to the performance the year earlier - I think you're on to something if you're looking for a betting advantage, but it's not quantitative enough as a basis for deciding which team should play in the championship the following year.
Again fair enough...'high octane' O's that score 14 points, twice, against a good D says a lot. But in 2004, this wasn't really known as much as it is now.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:08 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
I do think you're right, though - the frequency that a "high octane" offense underperforms against a great defense suggests that it's not a coincidence. I think you could consistently take the defensive team in those matchups and beat the spread on a fairly regular basis.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:08 pm to USMC Gators
Well, a 4 team playoff will solve this. I just wonder where it will end (regarding number of invites) once those checks actually start rolling in.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:11 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
I think you could consistently take the defensive team in those matchups
There's a reason a mediocre ISU beat OSU in 2011...no D.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 1:15 pm to Crimson Legend
My question is, why do voters still dick ride Oklahoma when they've lost like 4 national championships, and never live up to the hype.
Page 25 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News