What's makes a program a legit dynasty?

[treeddeep]

Would you currently consider alabama one? I would. I would also consider USC a dynasty during the Pete Carrol reign. But like usual I sure people would disagree with me.

 

[patdog]

USC only won 1 national title under Carroll and only played for 2. Not a dynasty. There have been very few dynasties in college football, but I would consider Alabma under Saban to be one.

 

[msstate7]

USC won 2 (2003 ap, 2004 bcs) under Carroll. They lost 3rd to texas.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

2003 AP, well hell...works for me.


And their 2004/05 Orange Bowl win was vacated for Cheatin'

 

[57stratdawg]

If you win two titles in three years - that's good enough for me.

Alabama, Florida, and USC all dynasties IMO. Damn shame the early 2000's Miami teams aren't in there. They were as good over that two year span as any team I can remember.

 

[MSUDawg25]

If you win two titles in three years - that's good enough for me.

Alabama, Florida, and USC all dynasties IMO. Damn shame the early 2000's Miami teams aren't in there. They were as good over that two year span as any team I can remember.

I don't disagree, but I would expand that to say two in five years and being in the running the other years. College football is just a totally different animal than professional sports. There are 120+ teams in division 1 football.

90's nebraska should be in there.

 

[starkvegasdawg]

Are we walking about actual on field results or are crootin championships allowed?

 

[121Josey]

I think you've got to judge it over a decade. The U in the 80s, FSU/UF in the 90s, USC in the 00s. But I think it's safe to say that Bama will stay the course over this decade.

 

[patdog]

There's only 1 real national champion in 2003 and it's not USC.