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

#27
#27
Yeah when I first saw this thread Miami immediately popped up in my head. That is a definition of a dynasty.
 
#28
#28
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...

USC is not a dynasty. Are they a strong team yes but no dynasty
 
#30
#30
Lawrence Wright said:
Not even close to Miami's run from 1983-91.
Click to expand...

Miami 83 - 91

Records
83: 11-1
84: 8-5
85: 10-2
86: 11-1
87: 12-0
88: 11-1
89: 11-1
90: 10-2
91: 12-0

Total: 96-13 (Winning at 88% rate)
Conference Champs: Independent until 1990, so not relevant
National Champs : 4 - 83 (AP & Coaches), 87 (AP & Coaches), 89 (AP & Coaches), 91 (AP)
Heisman Trophies: 1 - Vinny Testaverde 1986

USC 02 - 09

02: 11-2
03: 12-1
04: 13-0
05: 12-1
06: 11-2
07: 11-2
08: 12-1
09: 9-4

Total: 91-13 (Winning at 87.5% rate)
Conference Champs: 7 straight (02-08)
National Champs: 2 - 03 (AP), 04 (AP & BCS)
Heisman Trophies: 3
- Carson Palmer 2002
- Matt Leinart 2004
- Reggie Bush 2005


While I will agree that the Miami run was better, they were close. Let's not let our sour grapes over Kiffin get in the way of an honest look at what each program was able to accomplish.
 
#31
#31
USC is a PAC-10 powerhouse, no doubt.

FSU and Nebraska were elite programs in the 90s.

Neither team came close to what Miami accomplished.

I just don't see why we should relax the definition of a dynasty for college football just because it's so uncommon now versus 25-50 years ago.

A dynasty is characterized as a team reaching the pinnacle of their sport several times over a short span of time, and in every case I can think of it involves more than two championships. In the case of college football that should only be measured by national championships....not conference championships, bowl victories or Heisman Trophies.

Name one other sport where being labeled a dynasty does not involve winning the ultimate prize. College football shouldn't get a pass because it's so difficult to accomplish.
 
#32
#32
Let's look at it if you hold it to that standard... And I say 50 years because that's my reference point for the start of "modern college football."

By that standard, Bear Bryant's Alabama and Miami are the only dynasties ever.

WHY should other programs be excluded from that? Why are they arbitrarily labeled "power-house programs" and not "dynasties" even though they've got strings of conference titles, multiple national titles, Heisman trophies, and a far-reaching affect on college AND professional football? Doesn't this apply to Pete Carroll's USC, Tom Osborne's Nebraska, Barry Switzer's Oklahoma?
 
#33
#33
Let's look at major bowl games as a factor here (the dates are for the season for which the bowl game was played).

Miami 1983-1994
1983 Orange Bowl - W
1984 Fiesta Bowl - L
1985 Sugar Bowl - L
1986 Fiesta Bowl - L
1987 Orange Bowl - W
1988 Orange Bowl - W
1989 Sugar Bowl - W
1990 Cotton Bowl - W
1991 Orange Bowl - W
1992 Sugar Bowl - L
1993 Fiesta Bowl - L
1994 Orange Bowl - L

That's a .500 record in major bowls from Howard Schnellenberger through Dennis Erickson.

Oklahoma under Barry Switzer (I didn't include his first Fiesta Bowl W because it wasn't a major bowl until around 1980):
1975 Orange Bowl - W
1977 Orange Bowl - L
1978 Orange Bowl - W
1979 Orange Bowl -W
1980 Orange Bowl - W
1983 Fiesta Bowl - L
1984 Orange Bowl - L
1985 Orange Bowl - W
1986 Orange Bowl - W
1987 Orange Bowl - L

So Switzer had three national titles and a better major bowl record at .600.

Nebraska under Tom Osborne in major bowls:
1973 Cotton Bowl - W
1974 Sugar Bowl - W
1978 Orange Bowl - L
1979 Cotton Bowl - L
1981 Orange Bowl - L
1982 Orange Bowl - W
1983 Orange Bowl - L
1984 Sugar Bowl - W
1985 Fiesta Bowl - L
1986 Sugar Bowl - W
1987 Fiesta Bowl - L
1988 Orange Bowl - L
1989 Fiesta Bowl - L
1991 Orange Bowl - L
1992 Orange Bowl - L
1993 Orange Bowl - L
1994 Orange Bowl - W
1995 Fiesta Bowl - W
1996 Orange Bowl - W
1997 Orange Bowl - W

Finished with a .450 major bowl record compared to Miami's .500 and three national titles. Granted Osborne routinely got his @$$ whipped by FSU and Miami for a while. Also consider that Bob Devaney hiring Osborne as offensive coordinator was arguably the single biggest factor of his 1970-71 undefeated national championship squads. So in a sense, you can attribute 5 national titles to Osborne.

Pete Carroll's run has already been examined. I'll just say this for him: Consider the major bowl game record we've been looking at, and while he has two national titles (that's in a shorter time span than we've been looking at here -- whether or not he would have won another is very debatable), he produced three Heisman winners in a very short timespan and has an absolutely staggering record in major bowl games.
 
#34
#34
Lawrence Wright said:
A dynasty is characterized as a team reaching the pinnacle of their sport several times over a short span of time, and in every case I can think of it involves more than two championships. In the case of college football that should only be measured by national championships....not conference championships, bowl victories or Heisman Trophies.

Name one other sport where being labeled a dynasty does not involve winning the ultimate prize. College football shouldn't get a pass because it's so difficult to accomplish.
Click to expand...
The thing that makes college football different is that for most of it's history (and still, to an extent), the national champs have been arbitrarily picked by the media. Champions in every other sport are determined on the field of play. Only in college football can you win every game on your schedule, win a major bowl game and not be named a national champion.

Just like the media and coaches use the eye test to determine who a national champion is, that means that we have to use the eye test to determine what a dynasty is, and that ultimately leaves us without any possible concrete definition. Until a playoff exists, it will be forever debatable.

I personally tend to disregard Heisman trophies, but I absolutely believe that conference titles and major bowl games to be an integral part as media-determined national championships.
 
#35
#35
milohimself said:
Let's look at it if you hold it to that standard... And I say 50 years because that's my reference point for the start of "modern college football."

By that standard, Bear Bryant's Alabama and Miami are the only dynasties ever.

WHY should other programs be excluded from that? Why are they arbitrarily labeled "power-house programs" and not "dynasties" even though they've got strings of conference titles, multiple national titles, Heisman trophies, and a far-reaching affect on college AND professional football? Doesn't this apply to Pete Carroll's USC, Tom Osborne's Nebraska, Barry Switzer's Oklahoma?
Click to expand...

If you go back another decade, then Bud Wilkinson's Oklahoma teams should be on that list too. I'm okay with only 2-3 teams being put on a pedestal that high historically. It's not an every decade accomplishment. A true dynasty is RARE.

As for why other teams should be excluded, they don't measure up to the standard that's been set, and I don't think you should change the standard just because it's an extremely difficult accomplishment.

We won't see a dynasty today like we did 50+ years ago. Miami is the closest we've seen, and I think the label "dynasty" applies in that case. USC's run last decade and Nebraska and FSU's run the decade prior just don't measure up in terms of what every other sports deems worthy of a dynasty.
 
#36
#36
The only hang-up is the lack of a playoff system. If one were in place, I'd totally agree with you.

But it's not, and whereas split national championships were more commonplace before the BCS, it makes the whole situation ridiculous. For instance, how does the national title picture shake out in 2004? Any combination of the two of Auburn/USC/Oklahoma could have been national champs, and it would have been every bit as recognized as a BCS national title.

Again, my only hangup is the fact that true national champs are not really proven on the field in college football.
 
#37
#37
I consider Bud Wilkinson to be closer to classic college football, as his success was in an era in which the college game was still more popular than the pro game.

Still, in the end, if you want to hold up those Miami teams as the gold standard of a dynasty because of national championship numbers, then that's really the only team that qualifies.

Would you agree, then, that Miami is the only dynasty to ever exist in the game as we know it?
 
#38
#38
milohimself said:
I consider Bud Wilkinson to be closer to classic college football, as his success was in an era in which the college game was still more popular than the pro game.

Still, in the end, if you want to hold up those Miami teams as the gold standard of a dynasty because of national championship numbers, then that's really the only team that qualifies.

Would you agree, then, that Miami is the only dynasty to ever exist in the game as we know it?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Over the past 25+ years, the Miami Hurricanes are the only team I would consider worthy of being labeled a college football dynasty.
 
#39
#39
Vince Young single-handedly ended what could have been a historic dynasty of any definition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
TBrown said:
Vince Young single-handedly ended what could have been a historic dynasty of any definition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
That definitely will go down as arguably the greatest single game performance of the decade, and one of the best of all-time.

People forget USC played an outstanding game as well, but it practically seemed like the Patriots couldn't have stopped Vince Young that night.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top