Athlon Ranks the AP-Era Dynasties; 1990s Nebraska #2

[knapplc]

I don't move Alabama up very far at all. Only one of their season has been undefeated, and during one of the championship years, they didn't even win their division.

 

 

So you'd take a few extra regular season wins over championships?

 

Okay.

I agree w/ you - but many on here would take the regular season wins - see the Wisconsin versus Nebraska season thread.

 

I think the point of Junior's post was that Alabama's National Championship in one of those years came when they didn't even win their division.

[kchusker_chris]

I don't move Alabama up very far at all. Only one of their season has been undefeated, and during one of the championship years, they didn't even win their division.

 

 

So you'd take a few extra regular season wins over championships?

 

Okay.

I agree w/ you - but many on here would take the regular season wins - see the Wisconsin versus Nebraska season thread.

 

I think the point of Junior's post was that Alabama's National Championship in one of those years came when they didn't even win their division.

If you remove the part where he talked about only one of the seasons being undefeated. i thought he was talking about how we had multiple undefeated seasons, whereas they only had the 1.

[knapplc]

I think people are discounting how dominant that Sooners team of the 50s was. This was post-WWII (but during the Korean War), so it's not like they were playing on some unlevel field. They legitimately had a dominating team.

 

Better than Saban-Era Alabama? That's open for debate. But I'm surprised so many people are willing to give 'Bama the top spot.

 

Out of curiosity for those who voted to put their current dynasty at #1, how close is it for you between them and 50s OU? 'Bama by a wide margin or is it close?

[StPaulHusker]

I put it by a wide margin. As dominant as they were in the 50's, todays LB's are the same size as that Era's OL. The game is just bigger, faster and better today. The competition is far superior today. I would be willing to bet that some of today's worst D-1 teams would mow down one of these 50's teams without problem. Only my opinion, of course.

[Landlord]

I put it by a wide margin. As dominant as they were in the 50's, todays LB's are the same size as that Era's OL. The game is just bigger, faster and better today. The competition is far superior today. I would be willing to bet that some of today's worst D-1 teams would mow down one of these 50's teams without problem. Only my opinion, of course.

 

 

Competition is relative. The competition is far superior with the players bigger, faster and better today than they were in 1995 as well. Not as much, but it's still true. You can't measure the actual teams against each other, only their accomplishments against their relative competition. A #1 ranked team beating a #2 ranked team by three scores in 1950 is just as impressive as a #1 ranked team beating a #2 ranked team by three scores in 2013.

[Count 'Bility]

The Oklahoma team of the 50's, competition or not, simply never lost. 47 straight wins etc.

[HeyBurke]

The way I look at, there was less competition back in the days of the Oklahoma, Alabama, and Notre Dame dynasties. I mean, there were what, five good teams every year? Most of the time those teams didn't even play each other. Nowadays, the best teams have to play each other for the title, along with playing much better competition than back then. That's why I think our run in the 90's is more impressive.

[knapplc]

I put it by a wide margin. As dominant as they were in the 50's, todays LB's are the same size as that Era's OL. The game is just bigger, faster and better today. The competition is far superior today. I would be willing to bet that some of today's worst D-1 teams would mow down one of these 50's teams without problem. Only my opinion, of course.

 

 

Competition is relative. The competition is far superior with the players bigger, faster and better today than they were in 1995 as well. Not as much, but it's still true. You can't measure the actual teams against each other, only their accomplishments against their relative competition. A #1 ranked team beating a #2 ranked team by three scores in 1950 is just as impressive as a #1 ranked team beating a #2 ranked team by three scores in 2013.

 

This is correct. Had those kids on the 1950s Sooners been born 40 years later they'd have had the same training as modern players. Today's players stand on the shoulders of those who went before. That's why, physically, there will be better athletes than Michael Jordan, but there may never be a better player than Michael Jordan.

[Husker from Kansas]

I think that Alabama's 3 out of 4 isn't what Nebraska's was for 2 reasons,

 

1. they haven't been extremely dominate like Nebraska was in terms of margin of victory or the fact that we had 4 undefeated seasons in the 5 year span

 

2. they had to be extremely lucky as far as other teams having issues, like Ohio St being banned from post season play last year, or Oklahoma St. losing to Iowa St. after the plane crash ,

 

What Alabama has done is great, but it is still kind of tarnished in my eyes.

[Count 'Bility]

I think that Alabama's 3 out of 4 isn't what Nebraska's was for 2 reasons,

 

1. they haven't been extremely dominate like Nebraska was in terms of margin of victory or the fact that we had 4 undefeated seasons in the 5 year span

 

2. they had to be extremely lucky as far as other teams having issues, like Ohio St being banned from post season play last year, or Oklahoma St. losing to Iowa St. after the plane crash ,

 

What Alabama has done is great, but it is still kind of tarnished in my eyes.

That's a part of my anti-Bama argument that I fail the recognize that you bring up. Bama's high frequency of reliability on other teams to lose. Nebraska never had to worry about it. We took care of our business on the field.

[HuskerNationNick]

Alabama at #2 for me, with the '90s Huskers at #1. The 60-3 and us winning our divisions says enough. Sure you can say they won vs a tough schedule, but many forget how dominant the Big 8/12 was back then. We were the "SEC".

 

As it has been said before, we played our asses off, and beat everyone in front of us. We didn't get any breaks, or tragedies to other teams to help our course. Its all part of the game, but you can't turn a blind eye to the obvious.

 

If Alabama is to win this year, they will be #1 in many people's eyes, and its quite obvious why, I just wish they had LSU's schedule to see how good they really are. They schedule, just like every other year is a joke, and is set up for success. IIRC, the guy who makes the schedules for the SEC is an Alabama Alumni. They play two "tough games... TAMU and LSU. LSU plays Alabama, Florida, Georgia, TAMU and TCU being their toughest non conference game.

[Landlord]

but many forget how dominant the Big 8/12 was back then. We were the "SEC".

 

 

 

The Big 8 happened to be pretty damn good around that stretch in the 90's, but this statement is an incredibly exaggerated claim. The Big 8 was Nebraska and Oklahoma and everyone else. In the 90's it was Nebraska and everyone else. Colorado, Kansas and Kansas State were all pretty good at the time, but Colorado was the only one that EVER won anything of significance.

[I am I]

What if we took Nebraska from 93-99?

 

We lost 2 games in 98, correct?

Then 1 in 99?

 

Won our conference in 99?

(I'm going off memory, so correct me if I'm wrong)

 

That would make us 85-6 in 7 years right?

 

That's badass and puts us at #1, methinks.

Hell, add in the 2000 season as well. Another 11-2 year. 96-8---am I wrong on those figures?

[Ulty]

What if we took Nebraska from 93-99?

 

We lost 2 games in 98, correct?

Then 1 in 99?

 

Won our conference in 99?

(I'm going off memory, so correct me if I'm wrong)

 

That would make us 85-6 in 7 years right?

 

That's badass and puts us at #1, methinks.

Hell, add in the 2000 season as well. Another 11-2 year. 96-8---am I wrong on those figures?

We were 9-4 in 1998.

[ladyhawke]

I think people are discounting how dominant that Sooners team of the 50s was. This was post-WWII (but during the Korean War), so it's not like they were playing on some unlevel field. They legitimately had a dominating team.

 

Better than Saban-Era Alabama? That's open for debate. But I'm surprised so many people are willing to give 'Bama the top spot.

 

Out of curiosity for those who voted to put their current dynasty at #1, how close is it for you between them and 50s OU? 'Bama by a wide margin or is it close?

The thing that bothers me about Bama is not that they've won but HOW they've won. The way they recruit comes to mind. Just a tad bit shady for my tastes. They're good but I think they'll get knocked off this year too.