- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is LSU football in the 2000s considered a dynasty?
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:24 pm
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:24 pm
We were really good until 2007 and have definitely lost too many games in the past couple of years but looking at the big picture, would LSU football in the 2000s be considered a 'dynasty'?
14
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:25 pm to siliconvalleytiger
Nope because other teams were also pretty successful during that time span...USC and UF. Dynasty IMO is one team on top with little to no other teams enjoying high levels of success.
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:25 pm to siliconvalleytiger
No.
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:28 pm to TigerMeister
Nah. We were a juggernaunt though. I hope we can cane have a great season this year so we can start the decade off right.
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:32 pm to siliconvalleytiger
Nope. There were 0 teams I would consider a dynasty from 2000-2009. You have to be THE single best team for the timespan, imo.
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:35 pm to LSUtoOmaha
No. Great top 5 program. No dynasty.
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:38 pm to siliconvalleytiger
Not a dynasty, but at a similar level as OSU, USC, Texas and OU.
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:42 pm to siliconvalleytiger
I don't give a shite if they are or not. Here are the facts....
2 National Championships during that period. That is all that matters.
2 National Championships during that period. That is all that matters.
Posted on 4/10/10 at 11:49 pm to Raparooot
Dynasty? Hell no. Would have been garnering more consideration for team of the decade though if not for the last two seasons.
Posted on 4/11/10 at 12:10 am to siliconvalleytiger
Dynasty is McDonnell Ark, Henry LSU/ATM, Wooden UCLA, Dedeaux USC, Bertman LSU, Reese Texas, Bear Bama, etc..
I would include Pat or Geno hoops, or the Cali schools volleyball, water polo, etc..but if won due to but a handful or fewer schools actually giving a crap to field contending programs, it doesn't really count.
I would include Pat or Geno hoops, or the Cali schools volleyball, water polo, etc..but if won due to but a handful or fewer schools actually giving a crap to field contending programs, it doesn't really count.
This post was edited on 4/11/10 at 12:46 am
Posted on 4/11/10 at 12:18 am to siliconvalleytiger
Two titles in five years and a few top 5 finishes does not constitute a dynasty. USC is the only team that might lay claim to a legitimate dynasty of the past decade, as much as it pains me to say it, and I really don't consider them a dynasty.
The last college football dynasty was Nebraska in the late 90s.
The last college football dynasty was Nebraska in the late 90s.
This post was edited on 4/11/10 at 12:20 am
Posted on 4/11/10 at 12:21 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Dynasty? Hell no. Would have been garnering more consideration for team of the decade though if not for the last two seasons.
You're probably right there. The last 2 years cost LSU in terms of win %. You finished the decade with a .762 winning percentage. While its the best ten year run in LSU history (as far as I can tell) there have been 10 times that SEC teams have posted a winning % of at least 80 over a ten year period.
This post was edited on 4/11/10 at 12:35 am
Posted on 4/11/10 at 12:22 am to siliconvalleytiger
cant be a dynasty when your starting qb is JJ & JL.
Posted on 4/11/10 at 12:24 am to Lacour
quote:
The last college football dynasty was Nebraska in the late 90s.
It was the mid 90's (outright titles in 94, & 95, and a split with Michigan in 97). FSU had one less title in the 90's, but overall they did better than Nebaska I think, posting a better winning % and 14 STRAIGHT top five finishes from 1987-2001.
Posted on 4/11/10 at 12:32 am to secfan123
yes, FSU is the last true dynasty. 5 years is not really a dynasty, IMO. USC was really close if they could have finished the decade on a higher note. UF since 06 has been pretty damn good. Next few years could have people talking about them few decades to come as a dynasty.
Posted on 4/11/10 at 12:54 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Dynasty? Hell no. Would have been garnering more consideration for team of the decade though if not for the last two seasons.
Or if Saban could have done better than toss up a couple 8 win seasons & the abomination 9 win 2004 team.
This post was edited on 4/11/10 at 12:58 am
Posted on 4/11/10 at 1:09 am to Sammich
quote:
Or if Saban could have done better than toss up a couple 8 win seasons & the abomination 9 win 2004 team.
Sorry he couldn't clean up Dinardo's mess quicker.
Posted on 4/11/10 at 1:17 am to secfan123
quote:
Sorry he couldn't clean up Dinardo's mess quicker.
His 2001 SEC Champs team was made up of almost all DiNardo players.
Posted on 4/11/10 at 1:21 am to Sammich
quote:
His 2001 SEC Champs team was made up of almost all DiNardo players.
yeah and his 2008 alabama team was made up of mostly shula players. Funny how Saban got a butt load more out of them.
Posted on 4/11/10 at 1:27 am to secfan123
quote:
yeah and his 2008 alabama team was made up of mostly shula players
As was his 2009 team. He was On Foxports or ESPN, looking like a Televangelist, because of the Bammer's Statue fetish. He was complaining because he was losing 9 Seniors.
Wait....I thought only Miles played Seniors??
This post was edited on 4/11/10 at 2:14 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News