What team is a Dynasty?

[Narniaman]

Okay, here's a USC fan (who lives in Oregon) who's been wondering around the Husker board. I just read the treatise under the USC radio topic on why USC is by no means a dynasty -- having gone 22 years without a national championship.

 

Which caused me to wonder. . . . .

 

If USC isn't a football dynasty, Is Nebraska?

 

How about Oklahoma?

 

Texas?

 

Notre Dame?

 

Michigan?

 

And before I leave, my favorite Nebraska radio story. . . . .

 

When I was going to USC in the late 70's, a group of Nebraska boosters had the Nebraska football games broadcast in Los Angeles. I had always liked Nebraska football, going back to the days of Joe Orduna, who I got to know when in Southern California. So I would listen to the games if the Trojans weren't playing.

 

I remember one Saturday in particular -- Nebraska was playing someone like Kansas and was literally beating the soxs off them -- with a score something like 49-0 at halftime.

 

Come halftime, the Nebraska boosters had a pre-recorded message greeting the Kansas fans -- something along the lines of "We Cornhuskers always like to get together with our midwest distant relatives. We are happy that Kansas fans have been able to join us today, and we truly hope you are enjoying the game!

 

Best of luck Saturday, and may everyone stay healthy!!!

[DaveH]

I think every team goes through it's lulls. NU certainly has so I guess you have to figure out what makes up a dynasty.

 

USC certainly had it's hay day way back in the day and is certainly a top team now. There was quite the gap between, but there was quite a game between The Huskers in '71 and '94.

[melscott62]

I think every team goes through it's lulls. NU certainly has so I guess you have to figure out what makes up a dynasty.

 

USC certainly had it's hay day way back in the day and is certainly a top team now. There was quite the gap between, but there was quite a game between The Huskers in '71 and '94.

 

 

I know what you are saying, but its not exactly the same. we were a PAT in 83 from breaking that up. and in between that we were consistently a top 10-15ish team

[bennychico11]

for me, it's hard to consider USC a dynasty. Even though I'm pretty unfamiliar with USC's past, I think they have gotten closer to that status recently in the past few years. Even more reason why I want to knock you guys off Your coach has done some amazing things with that program and as much as I hate USC, you can't ignore the wins and championships they have obtained recently.

 

personally, I think a lot of the so called "dynasties" get that name from beating other storied teams. When Nebraska was making a name for themselves from the 70's to the 90's we were beating other big name teams. Oklahoma and Texas are both top 10 programs of all time. Texas at #3, OU at #9. USC's conference has been week in comparison. It's great to see USC get out of their own conference and play teams like ND and Nebraska...but we have (and have had) Texas/OU games every year. The then Big 8 and the now Big XII used to contain huge powerhouse teams that people were afraid to go up against. I think the changes in offense schemes (running to passing) has recently really hurt our image because we've been slower to adapt while other conferences seemed to have grasped the idea earlier on.

 

From the 70's-90's we basically had a winning record that put us in the top 5 almost every season. And that's what I think people are talking about they mention dynasties. The word "dynasty" is usually used when talking about a teams past. Nebraska was a dynasty...we're trying hard to get back there now. I think if USC ever drops down in the rankings and you start to see them around the 10th or 11th spot in the AP poll more frequently (which will happen, college football is cyclical, IMO)...then you'll start to hear people talking about USC's past and how they once were considered a dynasty.

[bennychico11]

I want to add to that I think recent attention in the media also has hurt the image of a dynasty. To me the media and especially celebrity attention of USC just gets annoying. USC is more of an NFL team where it's teammates are treated more like celebrities themselves than just college students who happen to play football. And being in California doesn't help that. I liked the teams before ESPN and before it was all about the glitz, the glamour and the money

[FriscoTXHusker]

I wouldn't define dynasty by national championships but by outstanding performance over a period of time. For example, if a team finished top 10 for 10 years, to me that would be a dynasty whether or not there was an NC in there. Even if one of the years was worse than top 10 I'd still think they were a dynasty. There also needs to be something in addition to record that defines dynasty, something like a leader or leaders with some connection, e.g., a coach or several coaches with the same basic approach.

 

For example, with respect to the Huskers, I would use "dynasty" in the following ways:

 

The Devaney/Osborn Dynasty.

The TO dynasty

The Husker dynasty

 

The Husker's women's VB is a dynasty or dynasty in the making.

[Narniaman]

It's great to see USC get out of their own conference and play teams like ND and Nebraska...but we have (and have had) Texas/OU games every year.

 

I might make a couple of observations here. . . .

 

First, USC takes second place to no one in the out of conference games they play in the regular season. I will admit that Notre Dame probably plays more D-1 powers across the nation than USC, but Notre Dame doesn't have any conference commitments either.

 

Since I have been following USC football, USC has played, either on a home and home basis or at a neutral site, the following out of conference teams:

 

Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Florida State, Ohio State, Penn State, Syracuse, Minnesota, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Colorado, Colorado State, Texas, Texas Tech, Missouri, BYU, Hawaii, and Virginia Tech -- and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Oh yeah. . . .there is a school from the midwest that USC plays on a home and home basis, and has done every year for the past 70 or so.

 

And, I might add, USC has never played any non-Division 1 schools (at least since there has been Division 1 schools -- there were a few high school opponents about 100 years ago). Michigan now wishes that they had never played a non-Division 1 school too!! (Applachian State was the first for them).

 

Second -- Nebraska hasn't been playing Oklahoma and Texas every year. NU didn't play Texas regularly until the 90's, and even now NU doesn't necessarily play either Oklahoma or Texas every year.

 

Third -- the PAC 10 is a tough conference. In the last 10 years every one of the ten teams has been ranked in the top ten. When was the last time that Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor or Iowa State were in the top ten?

 

Fourth, I might point out that while USC didn't win any national championships in the 80's and 90's, they did win national championships in the 60's (1963 and 1967) and the 70's (74 and 78). And they were in the running for national championships several times in the 80's and 90's, winding up in the top five nationally.

 

And in overall national championships, USC arguably leads the pack with 11.

 

Fifth, USC has had a few players earn post season laurels -- such as Mike Garrett, OJ Simpson, CHarles White, Marcus Allen, Carson Palmer, Matt Leinert, and Reggie Bush all won the Heisman trophy.

 

Sixth, USC has had some success in sending players to the next level -- in fact, more players from USC have played in the Superbowl then any other school.

 

And so my question remains; if USC isn't a football dynasty, who is?

[bennychico11]

okay, I thought your original post was asking a question more of "what makes a team considered a dynasty?" I didn't think this was going to be a thread about "OMG USC is so much better than everyone! Love my team! Look at all we've done!"

 

You're really wanting to get into this? Every school can have a "look at our records/stats" comment made about them. I guess I could go on and mention we have the most winningest program in college football since 1970. I guess I could mention we're also in the top 4 programs with all time victories. I could talk about how we're one of two programs that have 3 titles in 4 years. But we're splitting hairs here when we're talking about dynasties. Just as much as you don't want to call us or Notre Dame or Oklahoma dynasties...I don't want to call USC one.

 

And my comment above isn't saying that you don't play against good teams in your conference...I'm just saying you don't have many teams that have close to the records you do. No team in your conference has nearly the amount of wins or championships you do. In fact, I think Cal is your closest rival in that category? I don't know...I'm not in the mood to go hunting down statistics for every team in your conference.

[FriscoTXHusker]

And so my question remains; if USC isn't a football dynasty, who is?

Uuuh? Nebraska in the 70's through 90's.

[no_name_needed_2001]

Nebraska and Oklahoma were generally top 10 every year from 70-94 or so and they had to play eachother yearly. The game always was a make or break to the season, because the one who won was definitely there at the end competeting for the national championship.

 

So NU had a rival that they played year in and year out who was probably top ten. The rest of the big 8 weren't cupcakes, either. NU doesn't have more than 3 losses in ANY season from 1969-1997

 

I look at Oklahoma and Nebraska both as dynasties...consistent winners. Michigan is good but they only have 1/2 championship since 1950 (1997)

 

Football is virtually irrelevent back in the days where it seems every team counts national championships. Beofre 2003, USC hadn't won a championship since 1972. Thats inconsistency. They have "11" national titles but only 5 relevent ones...again in my opinion.

 

Oklahoma and Nebraska have been winning consistenly

[EbylHusker]

I would say USC is currently in the process of building a dynasty, as I doubt this current string of great football teams will end anytime soon.

[Narniaman]

This discussion has caused me to go look at Nebraska's records over the past 40 years or so.

 

I've noticed an interesting trend. Back in the 60's and 70's most of the out of conference games were against BCS division schools (although, of course, the BCS wasn't around back then).

 

Starting in the 80's, Nebraska started scheduling non-BCS schools -- exclusively at home. I'm talking about Utah, Wyoming, University of Alabama at Birmingham, San Jose State, Utah State, New Mexico State, Pacific, North Texas, Akron, Middle Tennesse State, Central Florida, Troy State, Maine, Northern Illinois, Louisiana Tech, Nichols State, Western Illinois, Rice, Louisiana Tech, McNeese State, Colorado State, and a few others. All at home -- there weren't any trips for the Cornhuskers to Logan, Utah, or Las Cruces, New Mexico, or Denton, Texas. All told, Nebraska brought in 42 lower Division 1 teams for games at home. Not terribly surprisingly, Nebraska won 42 games against this stiff competition.

 

And so a vital part of Nebraska's dynasty was built on strategic game scheduling.

 

Meanwhile, during the same time period USC's exclusive home games against Non BCS opponents consisted of . . . Texas Christian (one game), Utah State (2 games), Memphis State (1 game), San Jose State (3 games), Lousiana Tech (1 game), Fresno State (1 game), and Idaho (one game, two weeks ago). There were a total of 10 home games against non BCS opponents over the course of 35+ years that didn't result in away games.

 

Instead of playing so many non-BCS teams like Nebraska did, USC played games against teams like Notre Dame -- 35 games in 35 years. Nebraska played Notre Dame twice. During this time period USC had home and home games with Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, LSU, South Carolina, and Arkansas. The only non-bowl games Nebraska played against teams from the Southeast Conference were against Auburn and South Carolina.

 

Some have commented that Nebraska faces tough conference opponents in Texas, for instance. During this time period Nebraska played regular season games against Texas a grand total of 5 times. On the other hand, they hosted Utah State 7 times. Nebraska has played Troy State at home more times in the past 35 years than they have played Texas!!!

 

But I guess I am forced to concede that Nebraska, indeed, is a real football dynasty, because their won/loss records during this time were better than USC's.

 

Maybe so.

 

And maybe will Nebraska's ground defense will put the clamps on the Trojans after allowing 200+ rushing yards to Wake Forest, and maybe USC will have problems moving the ball on the blackshirts.

 

But I think I will still believe that USC is ever bit as much of a "dynasty" as the Cornhuskers, and I also still believe that the Trojans will be able to stay on the field with Nebraska, even if the fans are noisy.

[no_name_needed_2001]

But you forget one thing...

 

The big 8 was the best conference out there during that time. No one proclaims tteams from the SEC's schedule are too easy due to the fact they face stiff competition in conference play every year.

 

And with the Texas...no one really claims we played them a whole lot back in the day...we did play them a lot for a NON CONFERENCE team since they weren't in the big eight.

 

Lets look at the "big" teams on the huskers schedule you refused to post

 

Texas, Oregon, UCLA, LSU, Wisconsin, Alabama, Iowa, Penn st., Florida St., Auburn, south carolina... all multiple times...and this is only from 1971-1981 ( I got tired of looking)

 

Nebraska played at least one non conference "BCS" opponent a year, and it was usually a good one.

 

And every team schedules cupcakes...do your ****ing homework

[FriscoTXHusker]

Look dude. If you have to try that hard to convince others they're a dynasty you can safely conclude that they aren't. If you have to try that hard to convince yourself, they definitely aren't. Anyone can pick and choose data and statistics to substantiate their personal beliefs. Problem is that doesn't change the facts. Believe whatever you want to believe about USC being a dynasty. Don't let it hurt your self-esteem if it's not true or nobody else believes it or even cares.

[FriscoTXHusker]

I knew a dynasty, and this ain't no dynasty:

 

1980 USC Trojans 8-2-1 .773

1981 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1982 USC Trojans 8-3 .727

1983 USC Trojans 4-6-1 .409

1984 USC Trojans 9-3 .750

1985 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1986 USC Trojans 7-5 .583

1987 USC Trojans 8-4 .667

1988 USC Trojans 10-2 .833

1989 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1990 USC Trojans 8-4-1 .654

1991 USC Trojans 3-8 .273

1992 USC Trojans 6-5-1 .542

1993 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1994 USC Trojans 8-3-1 .708

1995 USC Trojans 9-2-1 .792

1996 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

1997 USC Trojans 6-5 .545

1998 USC Trojans 8-5 .615

1999 USC Trojans 6-6 .500

2000 USC Trojans 5-7 .417

2001 USC Trojans 6-6 .500