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

[Count 'Bility]

The entire country spent all of '95 trying to tear Nebraska down.

 

They then spent all of a few weeks trying to prop 'Bama back up after a pair of home losses to get them to wear they are.

[Junior]

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.

 

No, but when you are comparing dynasties, where everyone has multiple national championships... you get down to splitting hairs. Like the fact that they only had one undefeated season, where Nebraska had 3. Or where they probably shouldn't even have been in the title game the one season.

[Landlord]

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.

 

No, but when you are comparing dynasties, where everyone has multiple national championships... you get down to splitting hairs. Like the fact that they only had one undefeated season, where Nebraska had 3. Or where they probably shouldn't even have been in the title game the one season.

 

Except that if they win it next year, they will have 4 to our 3. A difference of an entire national championship is a pretty damn humongous difference.

[Saunders]

We can all make points to justify our stance on this topic, but what it really comes down too is who goes home with a national title, and who doesn't. Huskers took home three in a span. Bama can take four or more.

20 years from now no one will know the little details of the seasons and will only know who was the best during those seasons. If Bama keeps winning they will go down as prolly the best.

Until Saban leaves and the NCAA comes knocking...

[Junior]

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.

 

No, but when you are comparing dynasties, where everyone has multiple national championships... you get down to splitting hairs. Like the fact that they only had one undefeated season, where Nebraska had 3. Or where they probably shouldn't even have been in the title game the one season.

 

Except that if they win it next year, they will have 4 to our 3. A difference of an entire national championship is a pretty damn humongous difference.

 

Depends on if they go undefeated or not. If they have 2 losses, for example, I don't move them up. 1995 Nebraska was still the greatest team of all time. How can you be considered the greatest all time, if you lose games?

[Landlord]

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.

 

No, but when you are comparing dynasties, where everyone has multiple national championships... you get down to splitting hairs. Like the fact that they only had one undefeated season, where Nebraska had 3. Or where they probably shouldn't even have been in the title game the one season.

 

Except that if they win it next year, they will have 4 to our 3. A difference of an entire national championship is a pretty damn humongous difference.

 

Depends on if they go undefeated or not. If they have 2 losses, for example, I don't move them up. 1995 Nebraska was still the greatest team of all time. How can you be considered the greatest all time, if you lose games?

 

 

Nobody is talking about individual teams; the discussion is about the greater dynasty, the greater amount of success over a period of several seasons.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Colorado in the mid-90s had Kordell Stewart, Rashaan Salaam (Heisman Trophy) and Michael Westbrook. They believed it was their turn to assume the helm of the Big 8.

 

I found it immensely satisfying beating those teams.

 

Closest game for the '95 Huskers was a 14 point win over Washington State.

 

That team punted only 30 times all season, including a single punt in the NC game. Dynasties aside, I don't think a single Alabama team was that dominant.

 

I'm also okay with the vintage Sooners in the top spot. The question is dynasties and dominance, not how a 200 pound lineman would fare today.

 

It's really about programs and coaches, which is why John Wooden's UCLA basketball teams come to mind. Nothing quite like that in football.

[Junior]

 

Nobody is talking about individual teams; the discussion is about the greater dynasty, the greater amount of success over a period of several seasons.

 

And included in that period of several seasons is the greatest team of all time. Has to be in the discussion.

[Landlord]

 

Nobody is talking about individual teams; the discussion is about the greater dynasty, the greater amount of success over a period of several seasons.

 

And included in that period of several seasons is the greatest team of all time. Has to be in the discussion.

 

 

The gap between the greatest team of all time and one of the greatest teams of all time (2009 'Bama) is a lot smaller than the gap between "National Championship" and "No National Championship".

[Junior]

 

Nobody is talking about individual teams; the discussion is about the greater dynasty, the greater amount of success over a period of several seasons.

 

And included in that period of several seasons is the greatest team of all time. Has to be in the discussion.

 

 

The gap between the greatest team of all time and one of the greatest teams of all time (2009 'Bama) is a lot smaller than the gap between "National Championship" and "No National Championship".

 

Yea, and we got hosed out of the 1993 Championship. So there's that. 4 undefeated regular seasons to 1.

[StPaulHusker]

 

Nobody is talking about individual teams; the discussion is about the greater dynasty, the greater amount of success over a period of several seasons.

 

And included in that period of several seasons is the greatest team of all time. Has to be in the discussion.

 

 

The gap between the greatest team of all time and one of the greatest teams of all time (2009 'Bama) is a lot smaller than the gap between "National Championship" and "No National Championship".

 

Yea, and we got hosed out of the 1993 Championship. So there's that. 4 undefeated regular seasons to 1.

We still needed to make the kick, right?

[Landlord]

 

Nobody is talking about individual teams; the discussion is about the greater dynasty, the greater amount of success over a period of several seasons.

 

And included in that period of several seasons is the greatest team of all time. Has to be in the discussion.

 

 

The gap between the greatest team of all time and one of the greatest teams of all time (2009 'Bama) is a lot smaller than the gap between "National Championship" and "No National Championship".

 

Yea, and we got hosed out of the 1993 Championship. So there's that. 4 undefeated regular seasons to 1.

 

 

Again. I hear what you're saying. We have accomplished things that Alabama hasn't. And they are legitimate. But if they win a 4th title, I mean just do a simple comparison of the five year stretches:

 

 

 

Nebraska 1993-1997

3 National Championships

1 Lost National Championship

4 Conference Championships

1 Lost Conference Championship (From playing in a championship game)

4 Undefeated Regular Seasons

3 Undefeated Seasons

Wins over (at the time), #20, #16, #24, #13, #16, #2, #3, #8, #7, #10, #2, #5, #10, #2, #17, #14, #3 teams.

Losses to (at the time), #1, #17, unranked teams.

60 wins, 3 losses (95% win percentage)

 

Alabama 2009-2013

 

4 National Championships (0 lost)

3 Conference Championships (Assuming they would win in 2013)

1, possibly two undefeated regular seasons and seasons

Wins over (at the time) #7, #20, #22, #9, #1, #2, #18, #10, #7, #17, #7, #23, #14, #12, #1, #8, #13, #5, #3, #1 teams

Losses to (at the time) #19, #10, #2, #1, #15 teams

63 wins, 5 losses (assuming undefeated season) (93% win percentage)

 

 

 

Not saying it's definitive either way, only saying that when all other things are equal, or even remotely close to equal, an extra championship is a remarkably weighty addition.

[irafreak]

I don't know Landlord. To me the 4 undefeated regular seasons to 1 or 2 and 3 undefeated seasons to 1 or 2 makes it look like Bama may have benefited from some help to get their titles.

 

For me, ESPN's shameless building up of the SEC prior to when they were actually winning titles, taints everything. We never had that advantage. In 2001 people were screaming bloody murder because Nebraska got into the title game as the 3rd best team in their conference. Alabama was the "obvious" choice after being the 3rd best team in their conference. The SEC just benefits from favoritism.

[irafreak]

 

Nobody is talking about individual teams; the discussion is about the greater dynasty, the greater amount of success over a period of several seasons.

 

And included in that period of several seasons is the greatest team of all time. Has to be in the discussion.

 

 

The gap between the greatest team of all time and one of the greatest teams of all time (2009 'Bama) is a lot smaller than the gap between "National Championship" and "No National Championship".

 

Yea, and we got hosed out of the 1993 Championship. So there's that. 4 undefeated regular seasons to 1.

We still needed to make the kick, right?

Wouldn't have been in that position had their not been all that terrible officiating. FSU benefited tremendously from 2 really bad calls. The goal line fumble was a tough one but that phantom pentalty on the punt return for a TD was ridiculous. But there's nothing to say Nebraska would have been as focused and able to overcome all they did the next season had they not lost in such a fashion.

[Guy Chamberlin]

If ESPN and other national pundits talk up the strength of the Big 10, do you think it's favoritism?

 

Well they don't talk up the Big 10 because the Big 10 is down at the moment.

 

The SEC is up at the moment. They've earned it on the field. Their 4th and 5th best teams beat Nebraska the past two bowl games. Their best team dismantled an undefeated Notre Dame. Maybe an Alabama rematch with A&M would have been the better NC game.

 

I know it's hard to accept, but the sports media isn't cheerleading for the SEC, they're reporting the story. The SEC has never NOT been a story in college football. The SEC is good for college football. You can admit that while still rooting for other teams to come in and totally kick the SEC's ass.