Should the current run by the SEC be considered a dynasty? I find this to be a very good question. Should the SEC, as a collective unit, be considered a Dynasty? The link gives many stats that support calling the current SEC run a dynasty. It's a tough question to answer because dynasties are associated with single teams. We deserve the recognition of having done and continuing to do something special that has never occurred before. The SEC has definitely dominated the last 8 years and won 6 championships, both of which are characteristics of a dynasty. Yet, can a conference be called a dynasty.
Nah, I don't think so. I think it's ok to cheer for your conference during bowl season, but I'm starting to think being a fan of a team in the SEC is pretty unfair. It is remarkable that the conference has had such a great run, but the whole dynasty thing is so subjective. I think the only real dynasty I can think of in College Athletics would be UCLA basketball in the 60's and 70's, and LSU Baseball in the 90's. College football is especially tough to gauge because of the mythical national champion. Just my take on that, but back to the unfair part. There is no doubt by anyone, other than idiot blind fans of other conferences, that the SEC is pretty much an NFL scout league. So I guess on one hand you could argue that since the league is so tough, and the SEC keeps winning, maybe there could be a dynasty, but I think that should be reserved for individual teams not leagues.
Interesting term to use...but sure. Why not? SEC clearly dominates college football. Calling it a dynasty is fine with me.
History supports the suggestion this is an ever growing dynasty. The cumulative effect is evident but the diversity is astounding. Now the barn has joined the fray and they were 0 for ever. Given what I would humbly consider my own unique perspective, I knight thee "SEC Dynasty."
:lsup: Did anybody else happen to notice that in the article the Sooners played and lost to two different teams in NC games in 2004? LSU and USC. I think the mistake may have been that USC was declared a bs co-champion, but never played in the title game that LSU won. The bs above was not a spelling mistake. :geauxtige
Nah. Not really sure what it means for a conference to be a dynasty when it's just one team that gets to win the NC. Personally, the term "dynasty" gets thrown around way too often nowadays.
There continues to be a push to make major conference restructuring in the near future. This is in no small part a response to the SEC's football dominance in recent years. When you have to seriously consider making that kind of sea change just to stay competitive---from both a revenue and prestige sense---then I'm definitely tempted to call this a "dynasty" for the conference.
What makes the sec so dominant? I would think that it has to start with the love of the game by the normal southerner. The kids start lil league ball very early and highschool ball is very popular. The kids play for years before even getting to highschool. Most of the sec recruits are from the south, Texas included. I would think kids growing up living football makes them the best in the country. The same can be said of baseball. We in the south enjoy a long mild fall and baseball games during the summer play late into the evening. I guess sports is more of a lifestyle in the south than in some other parts of the country
I guess so, but not really. A dynasty is about one certain team or program. Not a conference. Under those principals, the NFC was a dynasty in the 80s and 90s. With that thought process, on a large enough scale anything is a dynasty. In my example, I just called half of the NFL a dynasty. In college football, how many team have a REALISTIC shot at winning the NC in any given year? Mostly anyone in the SEC, Pac 12, Big 12, Big Ten, and most of the ACC. So, calling the SEC a dynasty is like grouping a couple divisions together in the NFL and calling it a dynasty. True in a leteral sort of way, I guess, but you're really watering down the whole essence of what a true dynasty is. A dynasty to me is excellence with a SINGULAR and COMMON goal. The SEC teams do not "work together" to win championships. Hell, we mostly beat the snot out of each other and prevent each other from winning championships. Does any SEC team ever intentionally help or work with another to win a title? I mean, has that ever even happened? That's probably conspiracy and against the rules of competition and not allowed by the NCAA or NFL or whoever. So I say no. Not really a dynasty.
