Definition of a Dynasty....need VolNation's opinion

#1
Lawrence Wright

Lawrence Wright

Troll Brother #1
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,381
Likes
18,133
#1
I work with an FSU alum, who loves to pound his chest and claim no other team in college football will ever come close to the "dynasty" FSU had in the 90s. Usually I tell him the word "dynasty" doesn't mean what he thinks it means, and we just agree to disagree.

By every comparative measure, regardless of sport, a dynasty usually refers to a team winning multiple championships in a specific time period. Jordan's Chicago Bulls, Bill Russell's Celtics, John Wooden's UCLA teams, Bud Wilkinson's Oklahoma teams, North Carolina womens' soccer, UConn womens hoops and of course Pat Summit and the Lady Vols....THOSE are/were dynasties.

FSU's 14-year run of Top 5 finishes is remarkable in terms of excellence and consistency, but a dynasty it is not. Two national titles in 14 years is nowhere near worthy of that label. The closest we've come to a true dynasty in college football was Miami winning four titles in 9 years from 1983-1991.

What do you guys think? Do you consider FSU's run in the 90s a so-called dynasty?
 
#3
#3
Out of the Florida schools, I can handle FSU winning the best.

A dynasty would need the championships to me. What they accomplished was impressive, though
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
Lawrence Wright said:
I work with an FSU alum, who loves to pound his chest and claim no other team in college football will ever come close to the "dynasty" FSU had in the 90s. Usually I tell him the word "dynasty" doesn't mean what he thinks it means, and we just agree to disagree.

By every comparative measure, regardless of sport, a dynasty usually refers to a team winning multiple championships in a specific time period. Jordan's Chicago Bulls, Bill Russell's Celtics, John Wooden's UCLA teams, Bud Wilkinson's Oklahoma teams, North Carolina womens' soccer, UConn womens hoops and of course Pat Summit and the Lady Vols....THOSE are/were dynasties.

FSU's 14-year run of Top 5 finishes is remarkable in terms of excellence and consistency, but a dynasty it is not. Two national titles in 14 years is nowhere near worthy of that label. The closest we've come to a true dynasty in college football was Miami winning four titles in 9 years from 1983-1991.

What do you guys think? Do you consider FSU's run in the 90s a so-called dynasty?
Click to expand...
A dynasty requires more than two titles.
 
#9
#9
Lawrence Wright said:
I work with an FSU alum, who loves to pound his chest and claim no other team in college football will ever come close to the "dynasty" FSU had in the 90s. Usually I tell him the word "dynasty" doesn't mean what he thinks it means, and we just agree to disagree.

By every comparative measure, regardless of sport, a dynasty usually refers to a team winning multiple championships in a specific time period. Jordan's Chicago Bulls, Bill Russell's Celtics, John Wooden's UCLA teams, Bud Wilkinson's Oklahoma teams, North Carolina womens' soccer, UConn womens hoops and of course Pat Summit and the Lady Vols....THOSE are/were dynasties.

FSU's 14-year run of Top 5 finishes is remarkable in terms of excellence and consistency, but a dynasty it is not. Two national titles in 14 years is nowhere near worthy of that label. The closest we've come to a true dynasty in college football was Miami winning four titles in 9 years from 1983-1991.

What do you guys think? Do you consider FSU's run in the 90s a so-called dynasty?
Click to expand...
I agree with you that what FSU had was not a dynasty. I also agree with your co-worker that nobody will ever accomplish a run of 14 consecutive top 5 finishes again.
 
#10
#10
when it comes to college football, I believe that teams should strive for conference titles. so if anyone can string those together then I'll call it a dynasty. for instance, usc has been a dynasty for the last decade even though they only won two national titles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#11
#11
Wikipedia for what it's worth.

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a Hall of Fame (e.g., National Hockey League), but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans. The most widely-accepted sports dynasties are those with multiple championships over a limited period of time, either consecutively with or without interruption (e.g., UCLA Bruins men's basketball from 1964 to 1975), or non-consecutively (e.g., Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders of the late 1970s and early 1980s). In a few cases, a dominant team without championships might be recognized as a dynasty (e.g., Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s), though this is likely to be disputed.
 
#13
#13
milohimself said:
when it comes to college football, I believe that teams should strive for conference titles. so if anyone can string those together then I'll call it a dynasty. for instance, usc has been a dynasty for the last decade even though they only won two national titles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

They only have one crystal ball.
 
#14
#14
kidbourbon said:
They only have one crystal ball.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. The AP title has long been one of the recognized championships. By the ridiculous standards in place, it would be just as easy to dismiss LSU's share that season.
 
#16
#16
Just because of the nature of college football, dynasties based on national titles are nearly, if not fully, impossible to achieve.

Concerning what's viewed as consensus national titles, the record is five straight, and that was 136 years ago -- Princeton's five in a row, 1869-1874. This is years before any of the current SEC schools were even playing football.

We've only seen two repeats in the last 20 years -- Nebraska and USC.

The last time anybody won three in a row? Army in the 40's, and I highly doubt that will ever be duplicated.

So why not dynasties based on conference championships? Is that not the goal at the onset of every season for a coach? And they all say that bowl seeding is just a plus? Also, there's no ambiguity. You won the most games in your conference/won the championship game. Conference titles are always proven on the field.

Why isn't Florida State from '92-'05 a dynasty? '02-'08 USC? '71-'81 Alabama?
 
#18
#18
Maybe, but they still won seven straight conference titles.

Also, consider this: Mid-majors that cannot qualify for the national title. Say TCU wins the Mountain West outright ten years in a row. Is that not a dynasty simply because they can't play for the national title?
 
#19
#19
milohimself said:
Maybe, but they still won seven straight conference titles.

Also, consider this: Mid-majors that cannot qualify for the national title. Say TCU wins the Mountain West outright ten years in a row. Is that not a dynasty simply because they can't play for the national title?
Click to expand...
That's a good point. The dynasty definition needs to be refined. TCU would be a Mountain West dynasty but not a national football dynasty in my opinion. Based on the broad brush of the term dynasty, I stand by my opinion of the Carroll era.
 
#22
#22
Hurricanes comes the closest. Urbie is trying to build one if he doesn't retire. Bud Wilkinson and Barry Switzer did a good job at Oklahoma.
 
#23
#23
Miami had a mediocre year and some bad losses in between their national titles (same as USC this last decade), and Dennis Erickson was the only one to get more than one.

Bud Wilkinson's success at Oklahoma was longer than 50 years ago, but he did get three national titles, two of which were repeats. Still, IMO his success came in a very different era of college football.

IMO Carroll's run at USC is very similar to Barry Switzer's first seven or eight years at Oklahoma. Still, under the stipulations you guys are giving, that makes his Oklahoma teams no more of a dynasty than USC or LSU or Florida of recent years.

It breaks down similarly for USC of the 60's and 70's, Nebraskas, Notre Dames, etc. of the world. Determining a dynasty by national titles in the modern game is an impossible standard.
 
#24
#24
There's a reason that should be apparent that most Tennessee fans aren't interested in giving USC any props.
 
#25
#25
I'm just calling a spade a spade. I know what the feelings are, but I don't hate USC. I just have no respect for Lane Kiffin, and I can make a distinction between the two.

An argument could be made for Miami as the greatest dynasty in modern college football. I'd tend to agree, but there's no way you could call what USC has done over the last decade any less of a dynasty than any other program in college football, by any standard. Consecutive conference titles, national titles, major bowl wins... It's all there.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top