Started By
Message
re: The Definition of a Dynasty
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:52 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:52 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
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.
I mean all this makes sense.
So how about this for a definition:
*Minimum of 2 Championships during a specific time period of 4 years or more
*Must have 50% or more of all Championships won during the period
*Must have MORE THAN (not equal) the Championships of any other team in the period
*No other team can have 50% or more of the championships within a shorter time frame of 4 years or more within the period as a whole.
So using this run as an example:
Bama claimed dynasty status in 2011 after winning their 2nd Championship in four seasons.
2008- Florida
2009- Bama
2010- Auburn
2011- Bama- DYNASTY STATUS (2/4)
2012- Bama- DYNASTY STATUS (3/4)
2013- Florida St. (Bama still has dynasty status with 3/5)
2014- Ohio St. (Bama still has dynasty status with 3/6)
2015- Bama- DYNASTY STATUS (4/7)
2016- Clemson (Bama still has dynasty status with 4/8)
2017- Bama- DYNASTY STATUS (5/9)
2018- Clemson ***Bama Dynasty ends**
Bama dynasty ends by virtue of another team (Clemson) having 50% or more of the Championships within a shorter 4-year time frame within the period.
If this works as a definition, it would also mean if Bama won the Title next year, then they still would not have dynasty status. Because Clemson would still have 2/4 during a period within the larger time frame.
Bama would be able to obtain Dynasty status again in 2020 if it wins just 1 more title in either 2019 or 2020 with the caveat that Clemson does NOT win in either of those years.
Seem logical?
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 5:17 pm
1
Posted on 1/9/19 at 4:54 pm to BHMKyle
Yea, I think so.
I also think that in the long run it generally gets looked at in terms of decades or 5-7 year runs. The Saban Dynasty will just be from 2009 to whenever our last title is, in general (unless we dont for a while and win 1 in like 2022).
Either way, we are ONE of the dominant football powers right now, not THE dominant power, and in that situation nobody has a dynasty. JMHO.
I also think that in the long run it generally gets looked at in terms of decades or 5-7 year runs. The Saban Dynasty will just be from 2009 to whenever our last title is, in general (unless we dont for a while and win 1 in like 2022).
Either way, we are ONE of the dominant football powers right now, not THE dominant power, and in that situation nobody has a dynasty. JMHO.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:02 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
But what do you think it takes to be a dynasty in the sport?
Some criteria
Multiple championships
+
Multiple coaches
+
Multiple decades
Alabama football and Kentucky basketball have at least 5 MNC's over at least 5 coaches covering at least 5 decades.
Miami football had the MNC's and the coaches but not the duration
Duke basketball has the MNC's but only 1 coach and limited duration
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:13 pm to BHMKyle
The many times Bama & Clemson have been in playoffs and both have Championships to show for it, its absurd for anyone to deny what both programs have earned. Bama and Clemson are the cream of crop right now, then there's everyone else....
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:15 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
What do you consider the definition of a college football dynasty?
Consider Georgia (the country not the team)
The Bagrationi dynasty went from 813 to 1810 (roughly 1,000 years)
quote:
Dynasty, by its very nature and meaning implies succession that passes from generation to generation.
dy·?nas·?ty | \'di-n?-ste also -?nas-te, especially British 'di-n?-ste\
plural dynasties
Definition of dynasty
1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time
#2 probably applies to sports dynasties as it would be rare to have the same line of descent from a family line. The problem is most who discuss this forget the very meaning of what they are actually discussing. Somebody like Alabama could claim #1 in a loose sense in that Bear Bryant was a player under a MNC coach at Alabama then went on to becoming a MNC at Alabama. Similar to Joe Hall at Kentucky. This could further reinforce these schools as true dynasties while others are pretenders to the throne.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:17 pm to BHMKyle
I’d characterize dynasty as prolonged excellence over a decade that includes no less than three to four NC’s. Bama has been there...Clemson still has work to do but is certainly on a path to get there the next two years.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:20 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Alabama football and Kentucky basketball have at least 5 MNC's over at least 5 coaches covering at least 5 decades.
Yes that's all impressive. And that is why Bama is the best football program of all time.
But you can't tell me that the Bama program I watched from 1995-2007 was still in dynasty mode just because of the success that was had under Bear Bryant and the success that would follow with Saban. At some point a program with multiple losing seasons within a 12-year period is NOT a dynasty no matter how many trophies sit in a case.
By that definition, Notre Dame is a dynasty. At what point do you say they aren't one?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:21 pm to BHMKyle
I think you just have to take the 1st year of winning and then see how it feels - obviously Bama getting to the playoffs / championship game extends it to some degree. Same thing happened to the patriots - intertia is a property of dynasty's IMO.
Dynasty's are like porn, i can't define it but I know it when I see it.
I think that whenever Bama makes it to a point where every single player who stayed for 3 years hasn't won a national championship their true dynasty will be over.
ETA: I don't think 2 is a Dynasty quite yet, but close. Obviously Clemson winning next year would put them at Dynasty status and largely look like Bama is on the way out. But then Bama winning the following year would mean the Dynasty is being maintained.
You can't just say Bama was jumping in and out of Dynasty's - you can't have that kind of stop start thing cause it wouldn't make any sense. That would just be a co-dynasty period where those two teams dominated the sport and traded titles.
Dynasty's are like porn, i can't define it but I know it when I see it.
I think that whenever Bama makes it to a point where every single player who stayed for 3 years hasn't won a national championship their true dynasty will be over.
ETA: I don't think 2 is a Dynasty quite yet, but close. Obviously Clemson winning next year would put them at Dynasty status and largely look like Bama is on the way out. But then Bama winning the following year would mean the Dynasty is being maintained.
You can't just say Bama was jumping in and out of Dynasty's - you can't have that kind of stop start thing cause it wouldn't make any sense. That would just be a co-dynasty period where those two teams dominated the sport and traded titles.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:22 pm to BHMKyle
Yea I think we're talking programs over a time period, not generally whether a program is a blue blood (which is what those definitions sound like).
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:24 pm to BHMKyle
5 of 9 has never been done before, or at least not since the 19th century
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:28 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Okay. I added one more criteria and that is that Dynasty status must be achieved by winning a title, not by virtue of another program dropping off. Here's the example of why:
1944- Army
1945- Army (*Army has dynasty status)
1946- Notre Dame
1947- Notre Dame (Army dynasty status ends)
1948- Michigan
**Technically, by the definition earlier Notre Dame would have achieved dynasty status in 1948 after Army's 2 titles in 4 seasons fell out of the picture.... but I have a hard time rewarding Notre Dame Dynasty status in 1948 while watching their rival, Michigan hoist the trophy.
So with that added, these would be the Dynasties of College Football with the first year listed as the year Dynasty status was implemented
Minnesota- 1941- ended in 1944
Army- 1945- ended in 1946
Notre Dame- 1949- ended in 1952
Oklahoma- 1956- ended in 1959
Alabama- 1964- ended in 1968
Texas- 1970- ended in 1971
Alabama- 1979- ended in 1982
Miami- 1987- ended in 1993
Nebraska- 1995- ended in 2000
USC- 2004- ended in 2007
Florida- 2008- ended in 2009
Alabama- 2011- ended in 2018
If this is the case, Bama's dynasty lasted 7 years.... starting with their victory over LSU in the 2011 NC Game and ending with the loss to Clemson in the 2018 NC Game. That would be the longest dynasty in CFB history, edging out the Miami dynasty which was one year shorter.
1944- Army
1945- Army (*Army has dynasty status)
1946- Notre Dame
1947- Notre Dame (Army dynasty status ends)
1948- Michigan
**Technically, by the definition earlier Notre Dame would have achieved dynasty status in 1948 after Army's 2 titles in 4 seasons fell out of the picture.... but I have a hard time rewarding Notre Dame Dynasty status in 1948 while watching their rival, Michigan hoist the trophy.
So with that added, these would be the Dynasties of College Football with the first year listed as the year Dynasty status was implemented
Minnesota- 1941- ended in 1944
Army- 1945- ended in 1946
Notre Dame- 1949- ended in 1952
Oklahoma- 1956- ended in 1959
Alabama- 1964- ended in 1968
Texas- 1970- ended in 1971
Alabama- 1979- ended in 1982
Miami- 1987- ended in 1993
Nebraska- 1995- ended in 2000
USC- 2004- ended in 2007
Florida- 2008- ended in 2009
Alabama- 2011- ended in 2018
If this is the case, Bama's dynasty lasted 7 years.... starting with their victory over LSU in the 2011 NC Game and ending with the loss to Clemson in the 2018 NC Game. That would be the longest dynasty in CFB history, edging out the Miami dynasty which was one year shorter.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:29 pm to BarnHater
quote:
Another victory over the gumps. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Monday night was a victory for LSU fans but it doesn't actually break the streak.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:33 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
By that definition, Notre Dame is a dynasty.
Ah that is the rub, but it illustrates you should certainly stretch your window far past the 3 to 9 years most talking heads will.
While nobody doubts the Irish from the 1920's to the 1980's (clear dynasty) it is less clear from say 1990 to 2020 (30 years). To answer that look at history and how actual dynasties work. Once firmly established they may wax and wane for intermittent periods between peak power. Egypt was a power for ages but they had some down years during that time. Unlike Minnesota (an early power and the first 3 peat) They held sway from about the 1900's to the 1960's (with peak power between WWI and WWII). Nobody would call them a dynasty now because several generations have passed with no return to power.
Irish were in the BCS a few years ago and the CFP this year. Clearly they have not faded to obscurity but they also have not won. There are very few real dynasties in sports and lots of pretenders to the throne because the media pushes the short term to sell media space.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:45 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
But you can't tell me that the Bama program I watched from 1995-2007 was still in dynasty mode just because of the success that was had under Bear Bryant
Here is a miscommunication as so many today are quick to forget Alabama before Bear Bryant. He did not make the program but rather built on the framework that was already there. If I am getting my physics right matter is neither created or destroyed so should be viewed more in stages of growth, preservation, and decay. Alabama football had potential but Wallace Wade was the first to take that to fruition. Thomas followed and kept it going. Drew preserved it but did not keep it at max power and Whitworth destroyed it.
Looking at it from a Hindu point of view and Kentucky basketball follows a pattern
Creator = Rupp
Preserver = Hall
Destroyer = Sutton
then cycle rerpeats
Creator = Rick
Preserver = Tubby
Destroyer = Billy
then cycle repeats
Creator = Cal
Preserver = ????
Destroyer = ????
Posted on 1/9/19 at 5:53 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
So with that added, these would be the Dynasties of College Football with the first year listed as the year Dynasty status was implemented
Minnesota- 1941- ended in 1944
Army- 1945- ended in 1946
Notre Dame- 1949- ended in 1952
Oklahoma- 1956- ended in 1959
Alabama- 1964- ended in 1968
Texas- 1970- ended in 1971
Alabama- 1979- ended in 1982
Miami- 1987- ended in 1993
Nebraska- 1995- ended in 2000
USC- 2004- ended in 2007
Florida- 2008- ended in 2009
Alabama- 2011- ended in 2018
My issue is your premise of dynasties flowing from place to place over short periods of time instead of duration and singular schools. You are trying to squeeze "dynasty" into a thing it is not, just to allow more to claim it. While dynasties can rule at the same time they do not jump place. Your illustration above would say allow the Romans and Egyptians to rule in place of each other for continuity instead at the same time but possibly overlapping as separate rulers.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 6:01 pm to BHMKyle
2018: Clemson
2017: Alabama
2016: Clemson
2015: Alabama
2014: Ohio State
*five year span*
2007: LSU
2006: Florida
2005: Texas
2004: USC
2003: LSU
*five year span*
Was LSU a dynasty from 2003-2007? No.
Is Alabama currently a dynasty? No. Dynasty’s don’t lose 3 out of 5, and they don’t get plastered by 28 in championships. I’ll hang up and listen.
2017: Alabama
2016: Clemson
2015: Alabama
2014: Ohio State
*five year span*
2007: LSU
2006: Florida
2005: Texas
2004: USC
2003: LSU
*five year span*
Was LSU a dynasty from 2003-2007? No.
Is Alabama currently a dynasty? No. Dynasty’s don’t lose 3 out of 5, and they don’t get plastered by 28 in championships. I’ll hang up and listen.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 6:02 pm to Loserman
quote:
That will not be Trevor Lawrence's last Championship.
I wouldn’t bet against him but you never know. He could get hurt. Coaches could leave. All kind of shite can happen in 2 years.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 6:09 pm to BHMKyle
It could be debated that Georgia is still in the Mark Richt Dynasty - nothing seems to have really changed, except a guy with a bad haircut.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 6:22 pm to BHMKyle
Winning three consecutive NCs would fit it well. Both in Football and Basketball.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 6:25 pm to BHMKyle
At least 3 titles in a 4 year span.
Although only winning 2 titles in 15 years qualifies as a dynasty to some people.
Although only winning 2 titles in 15 years qualifies as a dynasty to some people.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News