Started By
Message
re: Is two Football Championships in a row, considered a Dynasty?
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:14 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:14 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
I think we all know it when we see it. To me it's ships plus consistency. This isn't a dig at lsu but if lsu had been more consistent then they could be in the conversation. They have the titles just needed to be there (playoffs,bcs) more often.
1
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:14 pm to lsufball19
If it hadn't been for 2nd and 26, we'd be talking about the start of a dynasty if the Dawgs were to win tonight. This is their 3rd appearance in the CFP Championship game in 6 years
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:17 pm to Rtowntiger
quote:
3 over a period of 5.
Nah. I think 3 over 10 years is a dynasty
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:17 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
it hadn't been for 2nd and 26, we'd be talking about the start of a dynasty if the Dawgs were to win tonight. This is their 3rd appearance in the CFP Championship game in 6 years
Not to mention 2012, if yall had won that you would have easily beaten ND.
But that may have changed you hiring Smart.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:18 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
If it hadn't been for 2nd and 26, we'd be talking about the start of a dynasty if the Dawgs were to win tonight.
Let's pretend 2 and 26 was an incompletion. Alabama very easily could have picked up enough yards on 3rd down and then kicked a FG to go to a second overtime. It's not as if that one play would have been game over if not completed.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:18 pm to Aguga
quote:
. Next year you will be Beckered
Nope, gonna be Gunnar'd.
He's gonna win the job in camp IMO. Kid is a gotdamn STUD.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:18 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
What would Georgia have to do to be considered the next Dynasty, on par with other Dynasties from past generations?
In the BCS/CFP era, I would say 2 in a row is pretty close. In said era, you have 1/2 matched up and now 1-4. Not like the old AP/UPI era (pre BCS) when the 4 major bowls decided the National title (Rose, Sugar, Cotton and Orange; starting in 86 the Fiesta got into the mix somewhat). In that set up 1 with conference tie in to bowls, you often did not get the consensus 1 and 2 matched together.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:19 pm to lsufball19
Fair point, but I think they were around midfield IIRC.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:21 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
1BIGTigerFan
If it is Bama has had several.....
I'd say what Alabama did from 09-20 was more "dynasty" regarding championships, but I really don't think any team can compare with what Saban has accomplished at Alabama... I mean 27 losses? With 6 of those in year one with the team?
None of this means Georgia hasn't played VERY well under Kirby, and honestly under Richt as well. 2017 remains probably the most exciting cfp championship game, and the 2012 SECCG as well.
If so many people want to talk about any other fans living in the past, they should never speak of a dynasty. You can't have o e without a past.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:22 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
I think they were around midfield
Ball was on the 41.
41-26= first down at the 15 yard line, after placing the ball on the 25 to start.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:25 pm to JKChesterton
quote:
In that set up 1 with conference tie in to bowls, you often did not get the consensus 1 and 2 matched together.
In fairness, that was only true when a Big 10 or Pac 10 team was one of those two teams because the Rose Bowl refused to be part of the Bowl Alliance or Bowl Coalition. The remaining big bowls and conferences had an agreement to pit the #1 and #2 team against one another.
1992: #1 Miami faced #2 Alabama
1993: #1 FSU faced #2 Nebraska
1994: #1 Nebraska faced #3 Miami (#2 was Penn St, they won the Rose Bowl))
1995: #1 Nebraska faced #2 Florida
1996: #1 FSU faced #3 Florida (#2 was Arizona St, they lost the Rose Bowl)
1997: #2 Nebraska faced #3 Tennessee (#1 was Michigan, they won the Rose Bowl)
This post was edited on 1/9/23 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:27 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
Fair point, but I think they were around midfield IIRC.
They were at the 41 after a sack for a big loss on 1st down. UGA would have probably played deep on 3rd, and Saban probably would have tried to get a ~15 yard completion for a 40-45 yard FG attempt.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:27 pm to paperwasp
Thanks.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:28 pm to Landmass
quote:
Why do we spend so much time trying to define silly definition-deficient terms like football dynasties?
This is a college football forum, and you have to talk about something.
Question is, if you're so opposed to the conversation, why are you in this thread?
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:29 pm to paperwasp
quote:
Going backwards from there, a case could be made for USC in the early 2000s
A team with no Natty's in the 2000s was a dynasty? May I ask why?
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:30 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
Gunnar'd
I don't think Beck stays if GS wins the battle. I could see him at UF or elsewhere. Not that GA would care... it's Kirby's job to put the best product possible on the field.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:36 pm to Toroballistic
quote:
A team with no Natty's in the 2000s was a dynasty? May I ask why?
That's revisionist, they won them on the field doing things that are 100% legal today. They still have one on the "official" books. 2003 is still technically there from the AP.
I always wondered why they called that a dynasty other than it being a media creation. They were certainly great for a 5-6 year stretch. Maybe it was the three title games in such a short time?
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:38 pm to Toroballistic
quote:
A team with no Natty's in the 2000s was a dynasty? May I ask why?
Even if you give them credit for a split in 2003 and a unanimous title in 2004, the rest of their run is losing the BCS title game in 2005, good finishes without a shot at the national title in 06-08, and then nothing from 09 forward. So they had an impressive 6 year run but to call what they did a dynasty? Eh. Had they beaten Texas in 2005, maybe.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:39 pm to RolltidePA
quote:
I always wondered why they called that a dynasty other than it being a media creation. They were certainly great for a 5-6 year stretch. Maybe it was the three title games in such a short time?
I'd probably consider three straight national titles a dynasty TBH. The media really wanted that 2005 title to happen. Not sure if y'all remember, but every week they compared USC 2005 to a different all-time great team and discussed if USC was better than them. It was nauseating and so satisfying watching Texas beat them
This post was edited on 1/9/23 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 1/9/23 at 12:40 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
This didn't take long.
I mean, he ain't wrong
Saban created the only true current dynasty in collage Football.
Thankfully it will soon be over
Page 2 of 4
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News