Poll: Alabama's Dynasty v. Nebraska Dynasty

12ROLL12TIDE12

1st Team
Aug 30, 2008
377
0
0
Orlando, FL
I think the conversation around which dynasty is more impressive can not be fully completed at this time... Nebraska's run is locked, but Alabama could technically improve this run next year. The 2013 season is set up to at least equal the success of 2008 and I would not be suprised to see us improve on that record/championships.
 
I think they would have beaten Michigan, but it would have been close. Michigan had a very good defense that year, an ordinary QB in Griese, and a couple of weapons at TB and WR. They were nothing spectacular on offense.

It would have been a great game though.
They would have had to kick away from Woodson to win it though. He was a very special player that year.
 

CrimsonChuck

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 1999
5,639
4
0
51
Philadelphia, PA
Nebraska did it five times, Alabama six, though as you can see, we've had considerably tougher sledding, playing FOUR #1 ranked teams while Nebraska played none:

Nebraska:
'94: #2 Colorado, #3 Miami
'95: #2 Florida
'97: #2 Washington, #3 Tennessee
avg ranking: 2.4

Alabama:
'09: #1 Florida, #2 Texas
'10: #1 LSU, #1 LSU
'12: #3 Georgia, #1 Notre Dame
avg ranking: 1.5
Playing devil's advocate here...you can't fault Nebraska for not playing any #1 ranked teams because when they were ranked #1 themselves throughout most of the time. ;)

Also, you can't fault them for not having consensus national champions because they didn't live in an era of consensus national champions. For example, if the Big 10 had been in the BCS then, the 1997 team would have played Michigan.

The reason that our dynasty is better is because we played in the SEC during the time when the SEC was the toughest conference in the entire history of college football conferences. The Big 8/Big 12 was kinda mediocre. There was maybe one other good team each year...if even that. It was before both Texas and Oklahoma rose back to prominence.
 
Last edited:

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
Nebraska was really good back then, it's fair to call them a dynasty.

Same with Bama these days.

One difference I can't help but notice is that we are seeing the re-emergence of Bama's dynasty, as opposed to what Nebraska has done overall.That kinda brings longevity into the discussion in my opinion, although I understand the comparison is between the two specific runs.

But I've always liked old things, so I'm giving a leg up to Bama's dynasty...it's better in my opinion to polish up an old dynasty than to start off from scratch, if that makes any sense.
 

JIB

Suspended
Nov 2, 2011
1,431
0
0
Sterrett
Michigan was very good that year.

However, Nebraska beat 6 top 25 teams that year plus beat two 10 teams by a combined score of 92-43.

I find it odd that people think Nebraska didn't earn a title. You can argue that it should have been a split, but it would have been a travesty for Nebraska to go 13-0 and not get at least a share of the title that year.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
Michigan was very good that year.

However, Nebraska beat 6 top 25 teams that year plus beat two 10 teams by a combined score of 92-43.

I find it odd that people think Nebraska didn't earn a title. You can argue that it should have been a split, but it would have been a travesty for Nebraska to go 13-0 and not get at least a share of the title that year.
There were few in America who follow college football that believed that Nebraska would have even been able to play Michigan close in a game that year. Michigan's defense was amazing. Too bad we didn't get to see that game played.
 

hoopscoach

New Member
Dec 23, 2012
18
0
0
I think the 1997 team is the weakest of the six teams being compared. They had the Missouri game, but it is also worth noting that the 1997 Washington team that was ranked#2 would go on to lose three more games that season, including a loss to 7-5 Oregon. So it is not like they played the second best team in the nation over the course of the season. Washington was not even the second best team in the Pac 10 that year as they finished behind Washington State and UCLA. Nebraska's best win outside of the Orange bowl were wins over 4 loss teams. Clearly the 1997 team was the weakest of the Nebraska Dynasty. All that said it is tough to argue against the 1994 and 1995 teams because they absolutely drilled everything they faced. Each of the Nebraska teams went undefeated, something only one of the Bama teams did.

However, the weakest Bama team, despite its loss to Texas A&M, was a stronger team than the 1997 Nebraska team (who played a very weak schedule). You are never going to win an agreement over who was the best between Bama 2009, 2011 and Nebraska 1994, 1995. I think what separates Bama in terms of "dynasty" was that there was a change in the core players of the teams in each of the championships. Nebraska's strongest teams were essentially the same team. Players did not leave early for the NFL in the same way because the rookie scale was not in place yet. This means that for Alabama to accomplish the feat in this era is more challenging because of the turnover of players, making Bama the moe impressive Dynasty.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Michigan was very good that year.

However, Nebraska beat 6 top 25 teams that year plus beat two 10 teams by a combined score of 92-43.

I find it odd that people think Nebraska didn't earn a title. You can argue that it should have been a split, but it would have been a travesty for Nebraska to go 13-0 and not get at least a share of the title that year.
The beef a lot of folks have - myself included - is that Michigan went into the bowl games as number one in both polls. That is the only time in history that i know of a team went into the bowls number one, won the game, and dropped. But three years earlier, the voters would not drop Nebraska do Penn St could split the title, citing the precedent that if number one wins the bowl they're still number one.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
Don't know why people think 2012 is the weakest team. I think 2009 is.
Agree - not even close, IMO. 2011 was one of the best college teams in the history of the game. 2012 took a step forward offensively (best in the history of Alabama football), but the defense took a step backwards. Still, the 2012 defense was as good, or better, than the 2009 defense. And that is without taking depth into consideration. With a critical injury almost anywhere the 2009 team would have fallen short. With many critical injuries in 2012, you still won it all.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
The beef a lot of folks have - myself included - is that Michigan went into the bowl games as number one in both polls. That is the only time in history that i know of a team went into the bowls number one, won the game, and dropped. But three years earlier, the voters would not drop Nebraska do Penn St could split the title, citing the precedent that if number one wins the bowl they're still number one.
Yep - it was a gift from his fellow coaches for his announced retirement. Had he not announced his retirement, Nebraska finishes second.
 

hoopscoach

New Member
Dec 23, 2012
18
0
0
2009 Bama: Undefeated, beat 4 top ten teams, 6 top 25 teams, escaped against Tennessee
2012 Bama: One loss, beat 4 top ten teams, 5 top 25 teams, escaped against LSU

In my opinion the one loss at home to a non top-10 A&M and the close call against Georgia makes the 2012 team the weakest of the teams. I also think the 2011 team was the strongest despite their one loss. They absolutely rolled everyone (a weaker schedule than 09 or 12) except LSU the first time, but destroyed them the second time. I rank them 2011, 2012, 2009. However, we are talking degrees of greatness here and this is very debatable stuff. Would not be hard to make a case any which way you want.
 

Rasputin

Suspended
Apr 15, 2008
5,686
1
0
Lets look back and compare the programs in 20 years. I think the best run is still to come for the Tide.
 

hoopscoach

New Member
Dec 23, 2012
18
0
0
Do you think we win it all again next year?
Too many variables. Just look at the last two years. Any one of the following teams win games after our loss and we don't win one or two championships because we are not in the BCS championship: Stanford 2011, Oklahoma State 2011, K-State 2012, Oregon 2012. If this happens there is no dynasty talk, we actually would look a lot like Florida State under Bowden in the late 80's and early 90's. A lot of top 5 finishes and only one championship.
 

RJ YellowHammer

Hall of Fame
Sep 1, 2009
7,117
32
67
Memphis, Tn
I still thank Nebraska for pounding Peyton Manning and UcheaT in the Orange Bowl.
That's what I was going to say.

No matter which dynasty you think he is better, Nebraska has my gratitude for handing Peyton his hat in the title game.

Which Dynasty is/was better? I have no idea. If you could line the two teams up against each other though, the Husker O-lines were dominant, but I don't think a one dimensional team, no matter how good that one dimension is, will have much success against these CNS coached Alabama teams.
 

Matt0424

All-American
Jan 16, 2010
3,909
0
55
Hoover, Al
2012 Alabama would beat 2009 Alabama IMO...

As for 1997... I followed Michigan very closely that year, as a school mate and family friend (Marcus Knight) was a WR on that team. I think they were good, but very over rated. Charles Woods on was s shut down corner, which wouldn't have mattered in a game against Nebraska. Nebraska's oline, plus the rotation of backs, would have worn Michigan down imo.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.