Started By
Message
The Definition of a Dynasty
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:19 pm
What do you consider the definition of a college football dynasty?
I listened to the bammers on the WJOX morning show debate whether Clemson had a dynasty yet or not. They thought they might be on the verge but thought 2 Championships in 3 seasons wasn't quite enough to be a dynasty.
Somehow they were all in agreement that Bama still had a dynasty with their 2 championships in 6 years.... not sure how they square that.
But what do you think it takes to be a dynasty in the sport?
I listened to the bammers on the WJOX morning show debate whether Clemson had a dynasty yet or not. They thought they might be on the verge but thought 2 Championships in 3 seasons wasn't quite enough to be a dynasty.
Somehow they were all in agreement that Bama still had a dynasty with their 2 championships in 6 years.... not sure how they square that.
But what do you think it takes to be a dynasty in the sport?
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 4:21 pm
20
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:19 pm to BHMKyle
I came into this thread expecting stats considering the author and now am sad
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:20 pm to BHMKyle
Winning 8 in a row against the supposed 2nd best SEC team on record
That would be pretty good
That would be pretty good
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:20 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
But what do you think it takes to be a dynasty in the sport?
Bama is a dynasty no question. If Dabo isn't there quite yet, he will be soon.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:21 pm to TheSandman
quote:
I came into this thread expecting stats considering the author and now am sad
Ha. Well if we can assign a standard to what makes a dynasty I would be happy to provide the numbers.
The only issue is there seems to be varying definitions.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:22 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
2 championships in 6 years
Or 2 in 4
Or 4 in 8
Or 5 in 10
With that said it's become pretty clear winning more than 1 and half of all in a time period basically means people will call you a dynasty. Don't really know why.
Personally I think of it as a team/program dominating the sport with multiple titles. Alabama was doing that but Monday night Clemsom moved into the co-chair. So, I dont know if that means co-dynasties or no dynasties or what. The phrase seems pretty stupid and built for hot take artists to me.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:23 pm to BHMKyle
We didn't crown our 90's baseball dynasty until #4...so.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:23 pm to BHMKyle
I think the last dynasty we had was LSU back in the 2000s.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:24 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
With that said it's become pretty clear winning more than 1 and half of all in a time period basically means people will call you a dynasty.
I can go with that. Can there be two dynasties going on simultaneously? Right now both Bama and Clemson can claim dynasty status with that definition.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:25 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
They thought they might be on the verge but thought 2 Championships in 3 seasons wasn't quite enough to be a dynasty.
quote:
2 championships in 6 years
Odd that you chose a timeframe for Clemson’s last two but didn’t do that for Alabama. Clemson has 2 in 3, Alabama has 2 in 4. Alabama also has 5 in 10, which is unprecedented. Florida won 2 in 3 and that wasn’t a dynasty. Clemson is well on their way. They are clearly a top 2 program in college football. Alabama hasn’t been there for a while now. I realize this is just a troll thread, and you can call Clemson a dynasty if you want I reckon, but whether Alabama is in the midst of one or not isn’t really up for debate
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:26 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Can there be two dynasties going on simultaneously? Right now both Bama and Clemson can claim dynasty status with that definition.
I wouldnt have said so but some have pointed to Lakers/Celtics in the 80's.
Personally I'd say no, Dynasties are 1 team clearly with most of the success in a sport for a 5-10 year period.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:26 pm to 19
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:28 pm to Box Geauxrilla
Another victory over the gumps. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:30 pm to SummerOfGeorge
More thoughts to ponder....
If Bama goes 14-0 next season and then loses in the National Title Game, does that mean the Bama dynasty is over?
A loss next season would give Bama this many Championships out of the below years:
0/2
1/3
1/4
2/5
2/6
2/7
3/8
4/9
4/10
5/11
...falling below half in any possible time period. Is the dynasty over despite 5/11 and what would be two consecutive #2 finishes?
If Bama goes 14-0 next season and then loses in the National Title Game, does that mean the Bama dynasty is over?
A loss next season would give Bama this many Championships out of the below years:
0/2
1/3
1/4
2/5
2/6
2/7
3/8
4/9
4/10
5/11
...falling below half in any possible time period. Is the dynasty over despite 5/11 and what would be two consecutive #2 finishes?
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:30 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
What do you consider the definition of a college football dynasty? I listened to the bammers on the WJOX morning show debate whether Clemson had a dynasty yet or not. They thought they might be on the verge but thought 2 Championships in 3 seasons wasn't quite enough to be a dynasty.
The bammer callers are wrong. (No surprise there)
Clemson has the exact same record as Alabama over the last 4 years.
Clemson will win at least 1 Championship over the next 3 years. That will not be Trevor Lawrence's last Championship.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:31 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Subjective topic, but clearly this is a team or individual that dominates their sport or league for an extended length of time.
Clemson does not have a dynasty. Alabama has/had a dynasty (NOTE: Bama has the potential to extend their dynasty).
But IMHO Neither (Alabama or Clemson) can be a dynasty while the other one lives. Two teams are a rivalry, not a dynasty.
Clemson does not have a dynasty. Alabama has/had a dynasty (NOTE: Bama has the potential to extend their dynasty).
But IMHO Neither (Alabama or Clemson) can be a dynasty while the other one lives. Two teams are a rivalry, not a dynasty.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:31 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
If Bama goes 14-0 next season and then loses in the National Title Game, does that mean the Bama dynasty is over?
I'd say it already is, so yea.
And I dont say that in a "we're done now" way, I just think that definition is for a very specific total domination of the sport. We had one from 2009-2012 and with a win Monday would have had one from 2015-2018, but we didn't.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:34 pm to BHMKyle
Bama will be a dynasty until Saban retires, and depending on who is hired after, it could be extended. Losing a title game doesn't end a dynasty.
The last time Bama lost a title game, they came right back the next season and won it all again.
The last time Bama lost a title game, they came right back the next season and won it all again.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:36 pm to BHMKyle
By definition, dynasty involves succession. So, a true sports dynasty should win championships with successive leaders. You could make the case that LSU was close to a dynasty with Saban and Miles. We will have to wait on Saban's successor to see if Alabama is actually a dynasty.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:40 pm to BHMKyle
I really think of a few stretches that count:
Alabama last decade, Miami late 80s, Nebraska mid 90s, USC mid 2000s, Oklahoma in the 50s, and Bear Bryant in the 70s.
Clemson is current on the level of early 2000's Miami. Not quite dynasty, but damn good.
Alabama last decade, Miami late 80s, Nebraska mid 90s, USC mid 2000s, Oklahoma in the 50s, and Bear Bryant in the 70s.
Clemson is current on the level of early 2000's Miami. Not quite dynasty, but damn good.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News