Can USC or Washington string together dynasties after huge 2016 seasons?

[AlaskaGuy]

Can USC or Washington football string together dynasties after huge 2016 seasons?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

I'd say USC has a big edge. They are located in the center of possibly the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country, they have the history and they play in a weak division. They're holding all the cards atm other than in the HC dept.

 

[Chewbaccer]

No. Unless you mean an Oklahoma type dynasty where you win the conference every year, but don't get any farther than that.

 

[socaljim242]

It's a stupid article. Both teams had good seasons but pump the breaks on dynasty talk. Washington is a season removed from losing 12 times in a row to Oregon and a whole bunch of times to Stanford. UScs been in neutral since Pete left. Even a similar year as last year doesn't mean anything yet.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Washington has an outstanding coach and momentum, dynasty is a big word but always competing for a pac 12/CFP spot seems like a solid bet.

 

[outofyourmind]

Can you actually have 2 dynasty's going at the same time in the same conference.

 

[7Samurai13]

Can you actually have 2 dynasty's going at the same time in the same conference.

Can you be called a dynasty without actually winning a national title?

Or can you call it a dynasty after one good year?

 

[Olyduck]

No. Unless you mean an Oklahoma type dynasty where you win the conference every year, but don't get any farther than that.

isn't that kind of like the USC Dynasty under Pete?

also since the drop to 10 teams they only won it 3 of 6 years one of which was a tie

 

[outofyourmind]

Can you be called a dynasty without actually winning a national title?

Or can you call it a dynasty after one good year?

No
and
No

 

[Rolltide94]

Can you be called a dynasty without actually winning a national title?

Or can you call it a dynasty after one good year?

Well, since the guy referred to the Oregon and Stanford dynasties of the 2010's I think there is a good chance that his definition of dynasty involves a slightly less taxing criteria than most of us might use.

 

[7Samurai13]

Well, since the guy referred to the Oregon and Stanford dynasties of the 2010's I think there is a good chance that his definition of dynasty involves a slightly less taxing criteria than most of us might use.

Shit then Michigan State had a dynasty!!!! WOOT WOOT!!!!

 

[mcnabb7542]

Like the writer says "he's a Pac 12 homer" so let's just leave it at that....

 

[mcnabb7542]

It's a stupid article. Both teams had good seasons but pump the breaks on dynasty talk. Washington is a season removed from losing 12 times in a row to Oregon and a whole bunch of times to Stanford. UScs been in neutral since Pete left. Even a similar year as last year doesn't mean anything yet.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Can you actually have 2 dynasty's going at the same time in the same conference.

OU and UT were neck and neck at it for awhile there. Same with Michigan and Ohio St. back in the day.

 

[DHoey]

Can you actually have 2 dynasty's going at the same time in the same conference.

Can you be called a dynasty without actually winning a national title?

Or can you call it a dynasty after one good year?

No, no and no.

The question wasn't whether they have a dynasty, it was if Washington or USC could begin one.

The obvious answer is yes, they could. But to talk about it know would be a giant waste of time.

 

[lilchi721]

Potato Salad

 

[Hitman Hart]

What defines a dynasty in CFB? Feel like the definition should be different than what it is in professional sports.

Feel like at least 2 NC's is a must, with consistent Top 5-10 finishes in the national polls over a decent period of time.

 

[TheDayMan]

Thread gets an A+ in the giant stock pic of helmets category, and a D- in the content category.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Thread gets an A+ in the giant stock pic of helmets category, and a D- in the content category.

D- was when you used Washington in one of your post in the political forum and forced me to defend you.

 

[TheDayMan]

D- was when you used Washington in one of your post in the political forum and forced me to defend you.

Firstly, relax, I gave credit where it was due, you really excel at the posting obnoxious and unneccisary pictures thing. Secondly, you never defended me, no should you, it's bad enough that you pretend to be a UW fan, I'd prefer to not be associated with you as much as possible.