|
Post by therealeman on Aug 21, 2012 12:17:55 GMT -8
Say what you want about all the BCS/SEC glory, but the only real dynasty in college football is still The U. Oklahoma won 47 straight games in the 50s modern era. hence "BCS/SEC."
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 21, 2012 12:36:02 GMT -8
Oklahoma won 47 straight games in the 50s modern era. hence "BCS/SEC." Then you have excluded Miami since all but one of their titles has nothing to do with BCS/SEC. 80s-Miami 90s-Florida State (8 or 9 straight years finishing in the top 5) 00s-10s - SEC
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 21, 2012 14:16:44 GMT -8
I think perhaps I am not making myself clear.
Really, what I'm saying here is that when you compare what Miami was able to do in an eight year span (83-91), win 4 national championships with 3 different head coaches, send a high number players to the NFL and still continue beat the best teams in the country year-in-and-year out, it does not live up to what the SEC has done, despite winning the last six national championships.
The SEC does put quality teams together but in the 14 years that the BCS has run the show, no one SEC team, or any team for that matter, has come close to winning at the caliber and rate that Miami was able to achieve in terms of national championships.
To me, a sports dynasty is defined by a team who continues to win national titles despite the succession of coaches and players, and no SEC team has been able to do that, even with the heaving favoring from the BCS. Nick Saban or Les Miles can win the next four national titles in a row, but that doesn't make it a true dynasty because it's under the same coaching staff. It would certainly make them great coaches, though. On the other hand, I would put money on the idea of Alabama and LSU dropping off significantly if Saban and Miles decided to leave or retire in the near future. We've seen this happen with other SEC teams, most recently Florida. Meyer loses Tebow and the guy leaves football all together and comes back to the B1G a year later. A real *****, if you ask me.
So yeah, Miami hurricanes are the only real dynasty college football has seen even with the SEC hard on.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 21, 2012 14:23:00 GMT -8
but Miami isn't in the bcs era, they are in the pre-bcs era
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 21, 2012 14:33:17 GMT -8
but Miami isn't in the bcs era, they are in the pre-bcs era Hmmm... So you're saying that winning national titles in the way Miami did in the 80s is more difficult to achieve under the BCS and therefore cannot be compared?
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Aug 21, 2012 14:34:55 GMT -8
but Miami isn't in the bcs era, they are in the pre-bcs era Hmmm... So you're saying that winning national titles in the way Miami did in the 80s is more difficult to achieve under the BCS? No, he's saying that you saying Miami is the only real dynasty in the BCS era is asinine because their dynasty wasn't IN the BCS era...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 14:36:45 GMT -8
[quote author=therealeman board=ats thread=24404 post=417426 time=1345588397[Hmmm... So you're saying that winning national titles in the way Miami did in the 80s is more difficult to achieve under the BCS and therefore cannot be compared?[/quote]
or if they were in the SEC
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 21, 2012 14:44:00 GMT -8
Hmmm.. ok.
I never said Miami is only real dynasty in the BCS era, or at least I didn't mean to imply that. I am very aware that the Canes won most of their titles before 1998.
When monty replied with his comment about Oklahoma winning a bunch of games in a row during the 50s, I replied with "the modern era" because I was referring championships won at least within the last 20-25 years because the game has changed so much since then.
It was a misunderstanding and I see now that my "hence BCS/SEC" comment was misplaced and confusing.
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Aug 21, 2012 15:19:36 GMT -8
Hmmm.. ok. I never said Miami is only real dynasty in the BCS era, or at least I didn't mean to imply that. I am very aware that the Canes won most of their titles before 1998. When monty replied with his comment about Oklahoma winning a bunch of games in a row during the 50s, I replied with "the modern era" because I was referring championships won at least within the last 20-25 years because the game has changed so much since then. It was a misunderstanding and I see now that my "hence BCS/SEC" comment was misplaced and confusing. You said exactly that but you've since edited your post...
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Aug 21, 2012 15:34:12 GMT -8
Aresco is not going to accept a deal with ESPN without knowing what NBC is willing to bid. And NBC won't be outbid for the BEast tv package because the Notre Dame deal runs out in a few years and they could be left without any college football. I'm figuring $12.0M per football school and maybe more. OK, but outbid by who? Given the current payout, as I understand it by ESPN to the BE, it will be interesting to see how much they are willing to pony up to keep the BE, as well as how the other sports networks access the value of the new BE. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility that NBC would find itself bidding against itself. Of course it wouldn't mean the BE wouldn't end up with a big payday. As my daddy once told me when I was just a yung'n, and why I retired as early as I could, the world is full of stupid people.
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Aug 21, 2012 15:41:39 GMT -8
The irony...
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 21, 2012 15:42:29 GMT -8
Hmmm.. ok. I never said Miami is only real dynasty in the BCS era, or at least I didn't mean to imply that. I am very aware that the Canes won most of their titles before 1998. When monty replied with his comment about Oklahoma winning a bunch of games in a row during the 50s, I replied with "the modern era" because I was referring championships won at least within the last 20-25 years because the game has changed so much since then. It was a misunderstanding and I see now that my "hence BCS/SEC" comment was misplaced and confusing. You said exactly that but you've since edited your post... haha, I just took the part out that read "even in the BCS era...[with the sec hard on]" because it was obviously making you guys think something else. In that post I was clearly comparing Miami's title wins (pre-bcs) to the sec's "dominance" over the last ten years in a system that clearly favors them o begin with (bcs era). I know what I meant and if it was confusing at first or unclear, then oh well.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 21, 2012 16:04:02 GMT -8
my whole point was that you made a comment that Miami (god I hate Udub, the U all that crap but that's just me) was the only real dynasty, then said the only real bcs/sec and moved the goal posts, but you still were Abel Perezing the kick.
Miami had a great run with a filthy-dirty program (as most of them that make big runs are), but, they aren't the only one that was a dynasty, that was my only point.
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Aug 21, 2012 16:13:33 GMT -8
and what about the term 'TECS? How to do you feel about that?
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 21, 2012 16:20:17 GMT -8
'Tec till I die and I'm already alumni
|
|