» Dynasty? Not really. Here’s why. landonhowell.com

Dynasty? Not really. Here’s why.
Jan 12 2010

I know that I shouldn’t be surprised by this (see here and here) but my goodness… a little cart before the horse, SI?

In my opinion, a ‘dynasty’ would involve 9 or 10-straight winning seasons, in-conference domination, and blow-out wins over mid-major programs.

Let’s take a look at the past decade by cherry-picking a few stats, shall we?

    Regular Season Games
    - Lost at home to sub-mid-major UL-Monore
    - Lost at home to mid-major Central Florida
    - Lost at home (shutout, 21-0) to mid-major Southern Miss
    - Lost at home to UCLA, two years straight (ULCA’s final records: 6-6 & 7-4)
    - Lost 6-straight years to Auburn (overall, 3-7 vs. Auburn)
    - Lost to LSU 7 times
    - Lost to Tennessee 5 times
    - .500 record vs. Florida
    Bowl Games
    - Lost to Minnesota
    - Lost to Oklahoma State
    - Lost to Michigan
    - Lost to mid-major Utah by 14
    - Defeated Iowa State by 1 point
    - Defeated Colorado by 6 points (Colorado’s final record: 6-7)
    Season Records
    - 6 seasons with a winning record
    - 3 losing seasons
    - 1 season at .500
    Titles
    - 3 SEC Championships
    - 1 BCS Championship*

While the 3 SEC Championships and 1 BCS Championship are quite impressive, Florida had 4 SEC Championships and 2 BCS Championships in that same 10-year span.

Call me when you’ve got 16-consecutive winning seasons; we’ll talk ‘global domination’ then.

*Please don’t try to turn this into a different number… it’s really getting annoying.

tags: # alabama, #college football, #football, #sports



4 comments

  1. Russellmania said:

    As the biggest Tide fan on here (or at least the one with the most seniority), I’ll admit that it is a little early to call us a “Dynasty”. I heard an interview with Austin Murphy yesterday, and I believe that the headline (selected by the editors, and not the author) was meant to be looking PROSEPCTIVELY