Vote for the top three HS Football Dynasties Over The Last 5 Years

[naughty]

Pick your top 10 dynasties over the last 5 years.

[consumerman]

Pick your top three dynasties over the last 5 years.

5 years is NOT a dynasty

there are some states that allow 5 years of eiligibility for 5th year seniors

[naughty]

5 years is NOT a dynasty

there are some states that allow 5 years of eiligibility for 5th year seniors

Well this is going along with the calpreps thread that is running right now.

[pied]

I screwed up, as I think several others did. I voted for eight teams before I got bored. Then I realized it was for the top three. Oops.

I voted for:

DLS
SLC
Hoover
St. X
Pratville
South Panola
Indy
Trinity

If I can only vote for three, give me

SLC
South Panola
Indy

[SLCDad]

5 years is NOT a dynasty

there are some states that allow 5 years of eiligibility for 5th year seniors

Several posters are getting hung up on the word "dynasty". We all know the vote is for the best football team over the last 5 years. Some people call it a dynasty some do not. Who cares?

I voted for SLC, Independence and Colerain. On second thought perhaps I should have voted for StX instead of Colerain due to SOS. Due to the tough Ohio playoff system I thought a team from Ohio deserved to be on the list. SLC is a no-brainer because of what they have done in a very tough football state. Independence has a weaker SOS but they went undefeated for 4 years and have more wins than anybody so they got my vote.

For all-time dynasty my vote goes to DLS but not for the last 5 years since they had 8 non-win games.

[elwood]

Several posters are getting hung up on the word "dynasty". We all know the vote is for the best football team over the last 5 years. Some people call it a dynasty some do not. Who cares?
Yes, to some people language matters. To some, words have meaning. To others, they don't. Consider the source.

[SLCDad]

Yes, to some people language matters. To some, words have meaning. To others, they don't. Consider the source.

In sports the term dynasty is often used for periods even shorter than 5 years.

[pied]

In sports the term dynasty is often used for periods even shorter than 5 years.

Do you have examples of that?

[elwood]

Do you have examples of that?If it is "often" used for that purpose, there must be a dozen examples.

[SLCDad]

Do you have examples of that?

Of course.

Off the top of my head:

The Steelers of the mid to late 70's under Bradshaw QB.
The Cowboys of the early 90's with Aikman, Smith and Irvin.
SLC of 2002-2006.
Midland Lee of the late 1990's in Texas.
Lakeland of 2004-2006 in Florida.
The 49ers of 85-90.
U of Florida basketball 2006-07.
USC football in early-mid 2000's.
Nebraska football in the late 1990's under Osborne.
Rice baseball.
SLC of 1988-1992 in 3A.
Univ of Louisville Basketball in the early 1990s (as said by Dick Vitale at the time).

There are many, many more. I've heard all of the above referred to as dynasties.

[elwood]

You're just not very bright, now are you? :shrug:

[Chicago]

Steelers were six years.

49ers were at least nine (1981-1989) and possibly 14 (1981-1994).

When you have to reach for a Texas 3A team your case might be just a bit weak.

Using the term just because you heard someone else use it is not a great reason. You say a lot of idiotic things. If other people quote you, does that lead to any good? Every once in a while (or more often), someone needs to stand in the way of morons like you.

I am glad Pied and Elwood did.

[SLCDad]

You're just not very bright, now are you? :shrug:

LOL Gee thanks. Is THAT the best you can do?

[Chicago]

Why should he do better?

I don't think it was really a shot. You are what you are.

Should he add the dancing banana or something? Or a couple of big words?

[SLCDad]

Steelers were six years.

49ers were at least nine (1981-1989) and possibly 14 (1981-1994).

When you have to reach for a Texas 3A team your case might be just a bit weak.

Using the term just because you heard someone else use it is not a great reason. You say a lot of idiotic things. If other people quote you, does that lead to any good? Every once in a while (or more often), someone needs to stand in the way of morons like you.

I am glad Pied and Elwood did.

A mornon? Take a long look in the mirror. I suppose you'll have a problem with these links. LOL Give me a break.

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Team-Ever-Cowboys-Dynasty/dp/1401603408

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-4-2001-6434.asp

http://www.mcmillenandwife.com/index_history.html

http://www.fansedge.com/Florida-Gators-2007-NCAA-Basketball-National-Championship-Dynasty-Watch_154601178_PD.html

USC's Pete Carroll builds a modern day football dynasty: http://displacedtrojan.blogspot.com/2006/11/usc-football-game-day-tennis-anyone.html

June 28, 2007
Kendall Rogers
Rivals.com College Baseball Editor

BRENTWOOD, Tenn. - Another college baseball dynasty has officially been created, as Oregon State tops the Rivals.com Top 25 for the second-straight season.

http://www.steinersports.com/ssm/control/category/~pcategory=1001/~browseCats=5009;jsessionid=EDBF4471963393E04E41E8 14739CDBA3.ssm1

http://www.steinersports.com/ssm/control//category/~pcategory=1001/~browseCats=5009/~index=1

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/02/07/dynasty_boston_globe/

http://media.www.themontclarion.org/media/storage/paper374/news/2005/02/10/Sports/Where.Does.The.Patriots.Dynasty.Rank-859313.shtml

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2007/nov/28/how-southlake-abilene-compare/

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/highschool/12/06/1206breazeale.html

http://calpreps.com/National_dynasty_ratings.htm

I could go on and on and on and on. There are HUNDREDS of examples in sports of teams referred to as dynasties with many over periods of only two or three years.

[Chicago]

a) It's nice to see Elwood suckered you into all that effort.

b) I imagine a book called The Dallas Cowboys: The Four Years in The 90s They Were Really Good would have been tougher to sell.

c) I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that you could go on and on and on and on and on.

[Chicago]

And on and on and on and on.

[Chicago]

And on.

[SLCDad]

a) It's nice to see Elwood suckered you into all that effort.

b) I imagine a book called The Dallas Cowboys: The Four Years in The 90s They Were Really Good would have been tougher to sell.

c) I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that you could go on and on and on and on and on.

The "effort" took 5 mins. It was very easy to prove both Chicago and Elwood to be dead wrong. Piece of cake.

[Chicago]

That's 4-1/2 minutes more than I would have taken.

I try to type very, very slowly so you can understand things, but it never seems to work.

[SLCDad]

That's 4-1/2 minutes more than I would have taken.

I try to type very, very slowly so you can understand things, but it never seems to work.

As ususal, that's the best you can do. Sad.

I know "substance" is hard for you, but give it a shot once in a while.

(The last time you posted anything of substance it was a total joke so I understand why you don't try it very often.)

[Chicago]

Who is Joe Carroll?

Maybe you should have taken six minutes.

[SLCDad]

When you have to reach for a Texas 3A team your case might be just a bit weak.

My case is very, very strong.

You don't have one. You never do.

Get that brain in gear.

[SLCDad]

If it is "often" used for that purpose, there must be a dozen examples.

There are hundreds, probably thousands. Didn't you know that?


-

[elwood]

There are hundreds, probably thousands. Didn't you know that?


-
My goodness, you are like a dog with a bone. The suggestion that you are not very bright, was not enough. You are dead set upon proving it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Please do continue...:rolleyes:

[Chicago]

Elwood, I think he's already there. I certainly don't have a doubt.

[SLCDad]

My goodness, you are like a dog with a bone. The suggestion that you are not very bright, was not enough. You are dead set upon proving it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Please do continue...:rolleyes:

Let me get this straight, the guy who is proven wrong (you) is the smart one. Got it.

Let me quote you: "Yes, to some people language matters. To some, words have meaning. To others, they don't. Consider the source."

In this case, Elwoody, you have no clue about language nor the meaning of words.

Elwoody, does Naughts now have your permission to use the word "dynasty" in the tread he started? Please let us know so we can continue. Thanks.

-

[elwood]

Let me get this straight, the guy who is proven wrong (you) is the smart one. Got it.

Let me quote you: "Yes, to some people language matters. To some, words have meaning. To others, they don't. Consider the source."

In this case, Elwoody, you have no clue about language nor the meaning of words.
grrr..... ruff...ruff.... gimme that bone...... grrr....

[Chicago]

How is Elwood going to learn about language looking in the mirror?

[SLCDad]

grrr..... ruff...ruff.... gimme that bone...... grrr....

Hey Elwood, does Naughts have your permission to use the word "dynasty" in his thread? Can the rest of us use the word?

Since you are the self appointed expert on the meaning of words I thought I'd better ask first. You've had several panic attacks when this word as been used in this forum it's only right that we ask your permission first. Thanks!

[Chicago]

While I often disagree with Naughty, I understand what he says (took me a while, but I finally got it), and he doesn't twist his own comments around to try to make it look like he was arguing something else from the beginning.

And if he is wrong, he doesn't claim he was talking about something else, or claim he was just kidding.

Since discussing things with Naughty doesn't involve parsing every Clintonesque word, I don't care what he titles his threads.

[SLCDad]

Since discussing things with Naughty doesn't involve parsing every Clintonesque word, I don't care what he titles his threads.

Thanks for the permission but nobody asked you for it.

Speaking of "parsing every Clintonesque word" it's you and your brother Elwoody who have caused that to happen on this thread.

[Chicago]

There was no permission involved.

I just said I don't care what Naughty titles his threads.

And here we go again. You're like clockwork.

[SLCDad]

There was no permission involved.

I just said I don't care what Naughty titles his threads.

And here we go again. You're like clockwork.

LOL You responded like clockwork, TWICE. LOL (and you weren't even asked)

We also had to suffer your belabored explanation.

funny

[consumerman]

The Dallas Cowboys: The Four Years in The 90s They Were Really Good

and in two of those years (1994, 1995) the Cowboys were 0-3 against the
49ers, including a 38-20 spanking in Dallas when the Niners started a second string QB, the Cowboys never led at any point in any of the 3 games and trailed by at least 14, 21, and 24 in each game

and to add

the 1981 NFC championship game in which the Niners won DESPITE having 6 turnovers (what is the score of those six turnovers arent there)....

was surrounded by a 1981 45-14 Niner win and a 42-17 1983 MNF asskicking

[consumerman]

49ers were at least nine (1981-1989) and possibly 14 (1981-1994).

I believe the 49ers won at least 10 games every year from 1981-1998 (with the exception of the 9 game 1982 strike season), a feat no other team has come remotely close to

[consumerman]

For all-time dynasty my vote goes to DLS but not for the last 5 years since they had 8 non-win games.

of course 5 of those non-wins were the 3 losses and 2 ties in their 8-3-2, 2004 year.

A year which was preceeded by Coach Lad's heart attack, a very tragic death of 2003 star Terrence Kelly 10 days before the season began, a very tough schedule including 2 national top tens in prerseason non-league games, a loss by 3 to a national top three team on a last second FG, the start of the season with less talent than any DLS team in 25 years, BEFORE their top two lineman went down to injury PRIOR to the season starting

Yet DLS recovered from their 2-3-2 start to win their last 6 games and their section. Many believe it was Coach Lad's best COACHING job ever

With that said, there is no way DLS merits top three consideration over the last 5 years, but you can INCLUDE that 2004 season in any slightly longer stretch (say 2000-2007 or 8 years) and DLS is clearly #1 with 4 consensus national championships and a mini-share of a 2007 national championship

[consumerman]

I voted

1. SLC
2. South Panola Batesville
3. tie - Don Bosco, St Xavier (Cin)

I chose St X over Colerain because of ST X 2 state champs cs Colerains 1

[pied]

49ers were at least nine (1981-1989) and possibly 14 (1981-1994).

I believe the 49ers won at least 10 games every year from 1981-1998 (with the exception of the 9 game 1982 strike season), a feat no other team has come remotely close to

from 68-83 the Cowboys won at least 10 games in every season except two including the strike shortened year. Most of that time they only played 14 as opposed to 16 games.

I would say that was remotely close.

I could expand 66-95 and have three non-strike years. The non-ten win seasons were:

66 10-3-1
67 9-5
68 12-2
69 11-2-1
70 10-4
71 11-3
72 10-4
73 10-4
74 8-6
75 10-5
76 11-3
77 12-2
78 12-4
79 11-5
80 12-4
81 12-4
82 6-3(strike year)
83 12-4
84 9-7
85 10-6

[consumerman]

from 68-83 the Cowboys won at least 10 games in every season except two including the strike shortened year. Most of that time they only played 14 as opposed to 16 games.

I would say that was remotely close.

I could expand 66-95 and have three non-strike years. The non-ten win seasons were:

66 10-3-1
67 9-5
68 12-2
69 11-2-1
70 10-4
71 11-3
72 10-4
73 10-4
74 8-6
75 10-5
76 11-3
77 12-2
78 12-4
79 11-5
80 12-4
81 12-4
82 6-3(strike year)
83 12-4
84 9-7
85 10-6


I dont think its close at all

THEIR longest streak was 8 years
(excluding the strike year).. well 5 of those 8 were 16 game seasons

their longest streak during a 14 game season was 6 years

8 years in 16 game seasons OR 6 years in 14 game seasons vs. 17 consecutive years (excluding the strike year)

8 years vs 17 years is close?

NO

[consumerman]

or in a nother measure

17 for 17 vs. 16 for 19

YAWN

[Bordertown]

Dynasty is a relative. There were negative comments above SLC as a dynasty in 3A. They were. Celina is the current 3A dynasty. Pilot Point was a 2A dynasty in Texas. Brownwood was a 4A dynasty in the 60s and 70s.

One of the teams on the list is Steubenville Ohio (66-3). If I recall they are not the highest division in Ohio and I doubt they would have that record playing up with the big boys. But they are a dynasty in Ohio circles.

[elwood]

In today's world of sports superlatives, the term "Dynasty" has been grossly devalued.


The Yankees had multiple Dynasties.
The Packers were a Dynasty (B2B followed by B2B2B)
The Celtics were the definition of Dynasty, as was UCLA.
The Montreal Canadiens were a Dynasty.
Oklahoma Sooners winning 47 were a dynasty


Early 70's Oakland A's are referred to as a Dynasty. I disagree. 3 Titles in a row does not qualify. If it does, then we MUST use a different term for the above teams.

49ers were not a dynasty. Theirs was a period of sustained excellence, but 5 titles over 14 years, interrupted by a team that many consider to be one of the greatest ever ('85 Bears), by a great Giants team, and a great Dallas team doesn't qualify. High level of excellence for a very long time - yes. Great team - yes. 5 titles in 14 years - no way Jose.

80's Lakers & Celtics - not Dynasties. Put 'em together and they are a dynasty, but Lakers won 5 titles interrupted by 3 Celtic titles. Both great teams & combined they defined the decade. Neither a Dynasty.

The Bulls were a Dynasty - 6 titles in 6 MJ years over 8 years. Nobody believes that Houston wins the 2 tweener years if MJ is with the Bulls.

Florida Hoops - 2 years? You can't be serious. John Wooden is still laughing.

USC? No chance. Great team - not a dynasty.

90's Dallas? 3 in 4 years? Well if 3 in a row don't cut it, neither does 3/4. No ticket.

Steelers? Yes Barely. The team that defined the decade. 4 in 6.

Patriots? Assuming they win this year will only be 4 in 7 years. Great friggin team, perhaps best single unit we've ever seen. Dynasty? No. Win this year & next - argument getting much better.

We are all starved to call the next good team a dynasty. Forget it. When you look up dynasty you find Red Auerbach, Vince Lombardi and John Wooden. If these other teams are dynasties, then we need a brand new word for what the real dynasties have done.

[consumerman]

In today's world of sports superlatives, the term "Dynasty" has been grossly devalued.


The Yankees had multiple Dynasties.
The Packers were a Dynasty (B2B followed by B2B2B)
The Celtics were the definition of Dynasty, as was UCLA.
The Montreal Canadiens were a Dynasty.
Oklahoma Sooners winning 47 were a dynasty


Early 70's Oakland A's are referred to as a Dynasty. I disagree. 3 Titles in a row does not qualify. If it does, then we MUST use a different term for the above teams.

49ers were not a dynasty. Theirs was a period of sustained excellence, but 5 titles over 14 years, interrupted by a team that many consider to be one of the greatest ever ('85 Bears), by a great Giants team, and a great Dallas team doesn't qualify. High level of excellence for a very long time - yes. Great team - yes. 5 titles in 14 years - no way Jose.

80's Lakers & Celtics - not Dynasties. Put 'em together and they are a dynasty, but Lakers won 5 titles interrupted by 3 Celtic titles. Both great teams & combined they defined the decade. Neither a Dynasty.

The Bulls were a Dynasty - 6 titles in 6 MJ years over 8 years. Nobody believes that Houston wins the 2 tweener years if MJ is with the Bulls.

Florida Hoops - 2 years? You can't be serious. John Wooden is still laughing.

USC? No chance. Great team - not a dynasty.

90's Dallas? 3 in 4 years? Well if 3 in a row don't cut it, neither does 3/4. No ticket.

Steelers? Yes Barely. The team that defined the decade. 4 in 6.

Patriots? Assuming they win this year will only be 4 in 7 years. Great friggin team, perhaps best single unit we've ever seen. Dynasty? No win this year & next - argument getting much better.

We are all starved to call the next good team a dynasty. Forget it. When you look up dynasty you find Red Auerbach, Vince Lombardi and John Wooden. If these other teams are dynasties, then we need a brand new word for what the real dynasties have done.

excellent post

I will point out that I saw many televised games of the 1985 Bears and they were the most dominant team I ever saw. With that said, lets compare the 1984 49ers and 1985 Bears

both were Super Bowl Champs

both went 18-1

The Bears lost one game by 14 points
The Niners lost one game by three points, the winning TD coming after a desperation 4th and Goal incomplete pass and a very debatable PI call

The Bear defense, playing in the Cold frigid weather for two of their three post season games, gave up 0, 0 and 10 points, giving up 1 TD in three games

The Niner Defense, playing in "normal" weather conditions, gave up 3, 0 and 16 points (One TD was scored by the Giants on an Int return), giving up 1 TD in three games

In the Super Bowl, the Bears beat a mediocre Patriot wild card team, quarterbacked by Tony Eason and gave up 10 points

In the Super Bowl, the Niners beat a 14-2 powerhouse that set a record for pass offense and AFC points scored and was quarterbacked by Dan Marino and gave up 16 points. Heck the 1982 Dolphins with David Woodley almost beat the Redskins in the Super Bowl.

Looking at these comparable items, it is hard to say the Bears were the better team

I dont recognize Celtic or Montreal dynasties as much as say UCLA basketball or Green Bay football or Yankees Baseball because the Canadiens won many of their championships in a 6 team league and the Celts in an 8 team league

[consumerman]

I disagree on your assessment of the 80s Lakers

they won 5 championships

more than the 70s Steelers
and equal to the 60s Packers
several of the Packers championships were years with 1 playoff game in a 12 team league

________________
and semi-related

I was reviewing Don Shulas record

1964 his second year the Colts had the NFL's best record (12-2)
they lost in the playoffs 27-0

1965 they tied Green Bay and had a western divisoon playoff
they lost

1967 they started out 11-0-2 and needed a win over the Rams 10-1-2 to make the playoffs
the lost 34-10

1968 the Colts led the NFL with a 13-1 record and were considered to be much better than the 1966-67 Packer Super Bowl teams
they lost to the Jets

1970 Shula jumps to Miami
The Colts win the Super Bowl

1971
Dolphins tie KC for best AFC record
they lose the Super Bowl 24-3

[consumerman]

Several posters are getting hung up on the word "dynasty". For all-time dynasty my vote goes to DLS .

I like to read Bill James, the baseball author. He was once asked why doesnt he do a book on the greatest baseball teams (single season) of all time. He has done similar books on managers and players.

He said, the book would have to come to the conclusion that the 1927 Yankees were the best team of all time by a good margin. Any book that doesnt come to that conclusion would be ridiculed as foolish, and a new book coming to that conclusion would be just another "me too" book in a long line of them.

Kind of like how many feel about DLS

Once you talk sustained, there really is no one who compares to them, Yes you have schools with 700 victories etc, but in the modern agem and the ultra-modern age, no one really compares with them.

They lost 5 games in 20 years by 1,1,1,2 and 8 points.

Bill James was on to something.

[Chicago]

I have every Abstract from 1982 to 1988.

I was not discrediting SLC for its 3A performance.

I was saying that using evidence of people referring to it as a dynasty is a weak argument when discussing use of the term dynasty.

I am imagine some columnist, somewhere, who writes for a free paper you can get at the supermarket has used the term dynasty to refer to a hopscotch team that has won two matches in a row (not that I know how they score it).

That's not really great evidence.

[pied]

I dont think its close at all

THEIR longest streak was 8 years
(excluding the strike year).. well 5 of those 8 were 16 game seasons

their longest streak during a 14 game season was 6 years

8 years in 16 game seasons OR 6 years in 14 game seasons vs. 17 consecutive years (excluding the strike year)

8 years vs 17 years is close?

NO

From '66-'83, 18 seasons the Cowboys had 10 wins 15/17 times(excluding the strike year) for a winning percentage of 73.26%

From '81-'98, 18 seasons the 49ers had 10 wins 17/17 times excluding the strike year) for a winning percentage of 73.84%.

I may be a homer, but I'd call that close.

For grins, to take it to twenty years, including the better of the 49ers record(99/00 vs. 79/80)the WP would be

49ers 81-00 69.45%
Cowboys 66-85 71.72%

In any case, I think that I can make a case that these two time periods were remotely close. Walsh may have had a better strike record had he not implemented the option.

In addition, I think you can watch the Cowboys on TV this weekend even in SF.

[Chicago]

After UNLV won the 1990 NCAA tournament, and was undefeated in 1991 (during most of the year; obviously they lost at the end), there was a lot of talk about them being the greatest team ever.

Wooden's comment was "a lot of teams have won one in a row."

[SLCDad]

I have every Abstract from 1982 to 1988.

I was not discrediting SLC for its 3A performance.

I was saying that using evidence of people referring to it as a dynasty is a weak argument when discussing use of the term dynasty.

I am imagine some columnist, somewhere, who writes for a free paper you can get at the supermarket has used the term dynasty to refer to a hopscotch team that has won two matches in a row (not that I know how they score it).

That's not really great evidence.

Over a period of about 8 years in the late 1980's and early 1990's SLC won something like 77 regular season games in a row. People were saying it was a national record at the time (don't know if that is true). They won 3 state titles and advanced deep in the playoffs most of those years. They had a couple of seasons when they outscored opponents in the neighborhood of 800-70. It was only 3A, but it was pretty close to total domination. If a dynasty can refer to an 8 year period it would apply in this case.

By the way, the current Euless Trinity head coach, Steve Lineweaver, was the SLC offensive coordinator in those years. Unlike today's spread offense, SLC ran the wishbone and only passed a few times a game. Todd Dodge said that the spread and the wish bone have a lot in common. He said that both offenses get a lot of people involved and force the defense to cover everybody rather than focusing on a few key people.

[pied]

Over a period of about 8 years in the late 1980's and early 1990's SLC won something like 77 regular season games in a row. People were saying it was a national record at the time (don't know if that is true). They won 3 state titles and advanced deep in the playoffs most of those years. They had a couple of seasons when they outscored opponents in the neighborhood of 800-70. It was only 3A, but it was pretty close to total domination. If a dynasty can refer to an 8 year period it would apply in this case.

By the way, the current Euless Trinity head coach, Steve Lineweaver, was the SLC offensive coordinator in those years. Unlike today's spread offense, SLC ran the wishbone and only passed a few times a game. Todd Dodge said that the spread and the wish bone have a lot in common. He said that both offenses get a lot of people involved and force the defense to cover everybody rather than focusing on a few key people.

That was when I was in HS. I remember thinking, who cares?? It's a little 3A school.

Interesting how things and perceptions change over time.

I also think that Ledbetter did not keep individual stats at that time. Team>Me or whatever.

[consumerman]

From '66-'83, 18 seasons the Cowboys had 10 wins 15/17 times(excluding the strike year) for a winning percentage of 73.26%

From '81-'98, 18 seasons the 49ers had 10 wins 17/17 times excluding the strike year) for a winning percentage of 73.84%.

I may be a homer, but I'd call that close.

For grins, to take it to twenty years, including the better of the 49ers record(99/00 vs. 79/80)the WP would be

49ers 81-00 69.45%
Cowboys 66-85 71.72%

In any case, I think that I can make a case that these two time periods were remotely close. Walsh may have had a better strike record had he not implemented the option.

In addition, I think you can watch the Cowboys on TV this weekend even in SF.

umm nice try

I FIRST commented that the 49ers had an unprecedented streak of 10 win seasons

you changed it to winning percentage

sorry

the 49ers UNPRECEDENTED run of 17 (or 15) is not matched by anyone

here is my originaL post:

I believe the 49ers won at least 10 games every year from 1981-1998 (with the exception of the 9 game 1982 strike season), a feat no other team has come remotely close to

I was responding to someone who said the niners were good from like 81 to 89

[pied]

umm nice try

I FIRST commented that the 49ers had an unprecedented streak of 10 win seasons

you changed it to winning percentage

sorry

the 49ers UNPRECEDENTED run of 17 (or 15) is not matched by anyone

You said that no other team has come remotely close.

I disagree.

[consumerman]

In addition, I think you can watch the Cowboys on TV this weekend even in SF.

WHo will be IN SF?????

not me

I might watch the 2 AFC games, the NFC >?

the Packers? or the COwboys? you could pay me money and I would not watch them

But if I am lucky I might get some NFL game dvds I just ordered, lots of great stuff, of course I started with these 4 games:

1981 49ers 45, Cowboys 14
that was one of the infamous games where the Cowboy apologists said "those werent the real Cowboys"

1981-82 playoffs 49ers 38, Giants 24

(already have the Niners NFC championship and Super Bowl)

1983 MNF Niners 42, Cowboys 17, another asskicking although the Niners lost Dwight Clark for the playoffs, probably cost them the Super Bowl that year although it did take the refs hosing them for the Redskins to squeak by

1987 SNF 49ers 38, Browns 24
as I recall all the pregame talk was on the Browns and Bernie Kosar, another asskicking

so yes I may be watching the Cowboys, in two of their more infamous games

thanks for the reminder

[consumerman]

You said that no other team has come remotely close.

I disagree.

8 is remotely close to 17??



really?

[pied]

8 is remotely close to 17??



really?

15/17 and 16/18 is remotely close to 17/17.

[pied]

In addition, I think you can watch the Cowboys on TV this weekend even in SF.

WHo will be IN SF?????

not me

I might watch the 2 AFC games, the NFC >?

the Packers? or the COwboys? you could pay me money and I would not watch them

But if I am lucky I might get some NFL game dvds I just ordered, lots of great stuff, of course I started with these 4 games:

so yes I may be watching the Cowboys, in two of their more infamous games

thanks for the reminder

Watching 20+ year old DVD's. I guess that's what fans do when their team is no good and is not in the playoffs again do. Yippee!! Seems like you must be building quite a DVD collection these days.

[consumerman]

15/17 and 16/18 is remotely close to 17/17.

the consecutive streak of 17 (LIKE I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST) is not remotely duplicated

15 out of 17 is not 17 straight

that is like saying DLS went undefeated 1985-2003, if you leave out 1987, 1989 and 1991

sorry

17 straight

vs 8

notremotely close

[consumerman]

Watching 20+ year old DVD's. I guess that's what fans do when their team is no good and is not in the playoffs again do. Yippee!! Seems like you must be building quite a DVD collection these days.

actually these have LONG been on my want list

other items I CHOOSE to obtain and watch were the original broadcast of the Jets-Colts Super Bowl, the original FULL broadcasts of the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan SHow and similar items

sorry that things that I desired (sorry I didnt have a VCR, let alone a DVD player in 1981) bother you

I guess I should call you and get permission on what clothes to wear and what I can order for dinner

but I see it is ok for you to have to stretch to 1966 to try to get the COwboys close to the 49ers brilliant 17 year run and you gon all the time about Texas (cough) national championship in 1970

BTW the Notre Dame ROUT of Texas in the 1971 Cotton Bowl is also available, maybe I will send you a copy
oh that ND team lost a few weeks earlier to a 6-4 USC team

I will ENJOY watching THE REAL Cowboys lose 45-14 and 42-17

many times

[pied]

the consecutive streak of 17 (LIKE I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST) is not remotely duplicated

15 out of 17 is not 17 straight

that is like saying DLS went undefeated 1985-2003, if you leave out 1987, 1989 and 1991

sorry

17 straight

vs 8

notremotely close

Is it easier/harder to win 10 games out of 14 or 16 tries? Was it really fair that the 49ers got six passes a year w/the Aints/Falcons and Rams?

Enjoy you Bay Area footballless weekend.

To be honest I don't really care very much and have somewhere to be the entire day. One day I'l probably have to resort to filling my weekend with DVD's instead of having the option of watching my team play in the playoffs.

[Chicago]

That could be a little thing I like to call "next weekend."

Although I doubt it.

[pied]

but I see it is ok for you to have to stretch to 1966 to try to get the COwboys close to the 49ers brilliant 17 year run and you gon all the time about Texas (cough) national championship in 1970

BTW the Notre Dame ROUT of Texas in the 1971 Cotton Bowl is also available, maybe I will send you a copy
oh that ND team lost a few weeks earlier to a 6-4 USC team

I will ENJOY watching THE REAL Cowboys lose 45-14 and 42-17

many times


Don't worry about the ND DVD, I still enjoy my recent Rose Bowl video with Texas>the greatest team ever USC. I could probaly send that one to you if you would like. It's in color and everything.

You go on and on about Texas winning the National Title and losing the Bowl game, but never bring up Reggie Bush winning the Heisman in '05 but being VY's little girl a month later. Why is that?

Funny how in 2008 you talk about stretching to '66 while bring up '81 in the same post. Funny.

[consumerman]

Is it easier/harder to win 10 games out of 14 or 16 tries? Was it really fair that the 49ers got six passes a year w/the Aints/Falcons and Rams?

Enjoy you Bay Area footballless weekend.

To be honest I don't really care very much and have somewhere to be the entire day. One day I'l probably have to resort to filling my weekend with DVD's instead of having the option of watching my team play in the playoffs.

Sorry you LOSE this argument

I have done the research MANY TIMES

the 49ers regular season w-l reocrd vs, the NFC Least is better than their overall w-l record

those awesome 3-13 1983 Giants and those awesome 1-15 1989 Cowboys and the ALWAYS GREAT Cardinals were just so tough

yes there are 30 franchises that have played 16 game schedules SINCE 1978

one franchise won 10 or more games SEVENTEEN STRAIGHT (non-strike) years

no other franchise has REMOTELY duplicated that in the THIRTY YEARS of 16 game schedules

and the Niners dont have a free home THX game every year and then a nice 10 day rest going into the crucial Decemeber schedule

and they dont get the benefit of BACK TO BACK #1 draft choices and the sugar of the WORST TRADE ever made in sports history

they won 10 games 17 years running drafting nearly last every year, playing a first place schedule every year, and competing in a jealous league where crybaby losers created salary caps and compensation draft picks for free agent signings in attempt to stop their domination

17 straight

read it and weep

I just ordered ND 24 Texas 11

want a copy

[DLSfanNW]

What is it like to lose in the Super Bowl?

49er fans have no idea what that must feel like.

[consumerman]

Don't worry about the ND DVD, I still enjoy my recent Rose Bowl video with Texas>the greatest team ever USC. I could probaly send that one to you if you would like. It's in color and everything.

You go on and on about Texas winning the National Title and losing the Bowl game, but never bring up Reggie Bush winning the Heisman in '05 but being VY's little girl a month later. Why is that?

Funny how in 2008 you talk about stretching to '66 while bring up '81 in the same post. Funny.

yeah Texas was SO DOMINANT in that 1 point win they trailed by 12 in the 4the Q

wow USC never even showed up

[consumerman]

What is it like to lose in the Super Bowl?

49er fans have no idea what that must feel like.

actually I commend the Cowboys in the 70s

they were the only NFC team worth anything back then

[pied]

yeah Texas was SO DOMINANT in that 1 point win they trailed by 12 in the 4the Q

wow USC never even showed up

No kidding, up 12 w/four minutes left. How did USC blow that lead?

[pied]

What is it like to lose in the Super Bowl?

49er fans have no idea what that must feel like.

The best people to ask now would probably be tOSU fans.

[Chicago]

I asked an OSU fan at work this morning which nickname they like better -- Buckeyes or The Buffalo Bills of College Football?

[consumerman]

I asked an OSU fan at work this morning which nickname they like better -- Buckeyes or The Buffalo Bills of College Football?

those weren't the REAL Buckeyes

[consumerman]

PS

In their national championship LOSS (???!!!???) did Steve Worster fumble six times or seven?

I will let you know when I get the DVD

[consumerman]

Oh I bet Texans as they always do will respond WE FUMBLE BETTER THAN ANY OTHER STATE

[pied]

PS

In their national championship LOSS (???!!!???) did Steve Worster fumble six times or seven?

I will let you know when I get the DVD

Don't know. We fumbled it nine times and lost five of them. You'll have to forgive me for not recalling the deatils, I turned six days old that day.

Appears there was not much going on in the second half that day.

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=734&change_well_id=2

[consumerman]

1981 wins vs NFC East
Dallas Washington NY Giants

Losses none

1982
wins St Louis
losses none

1983
wins ST Louis Dallas
losses Philadelphia

1984
wins Washington Philadelphia NY Giants
losses none

1985
wins Philadelphia Washington Dallas
losses none

1986
wins St Louis
losses NY Giants Washington

1987
wins NY Giants St Louis
losses none

1988
wins NY Giants Washington
losses Phoenix

1989
wins Philadelphia Dallas NY Giants
losses none

1990
wins Washington Dallas NY Giants
losses none

lets take a quick check

wins 23
losses 4
win % 85%

yeah those NFC East teams are so tough

their loss to the Redskins in 1986 they only gained 500 yards
their loss to the Cards in 1988 they only led 23-0 and some questionable calls stopped them from getting a first down to seal the game
their loss to the Giants in 1986 they led 17-0 at half
their loss to Philly in 1983 they had the ball deep in Philly territory when Wendell Tyler in his first game as a Niner fumbled

gosh how did they ever compete with those NFC EAST BEASTS??

LMAO

[consumerman]

wins 23
losses 4
win % 85%

yeah those NFC East teams are so tough

overall win percent 75%

102-33-1

yeah the niners feasted on weak nfc west teams and could not compete with the NFC Least

[pied]

gosh how did they ever compete with those NFC EAST BEASTS??

LMAO

Because they had six byes every year?

[Bennies'01]

I asked an OSU fan at work this morning which nickname they like better -- Buckeyes or The Buffalo Bills of College Football?

Stupid analogy, and you know it. Name for me the year the Bills won the Super Bowl before they went on their string of losses?

[pied]

Stupid analogy, and you know it. Name for me the year the Bills won the Super Bowl before they went on their string of losses?


I don't think it's an analogy as much as it is a joke. As a joke it's kind of funny, hard to deny that.

Kind of like the oldie, What's the difference between tOSU/ou(take your preference) and Cheerios?


























wait for it











































Cheerios know what to do in a Bowl.

[consumerman]

We fumbled

what position did you play?

[pied]

We fumbled

what position did you play?


I think I mentioned I was six days old.

I say we because I am a Texas alumnus. I know it's odd for you to think that people actually go to the schools that they root for.

Weird, huh.

[WoodyHayes]

When I think of a dynasty, I think of the kind of record DLS or SLC had going. That is racking up some wins. But, according to "The Ref" SLC's little run is done. But we can not take away the fact that they did indeed have a dynasty, even if its over now.

[consumerman]

I think I mentioned I was six days old.

I say we because I am a Texas alumnus. I know it's odd for you to think that people actually go to the schools that they root for.

Weird, huh.

I dont ROOT for DLS
I admire them

so all 45,000 people in the stand last year either went to trinity or slc?

[Fightingfor7crusader]

Indy Warren Central has been big time underrated for years, but they weren't nearly as good this year.

[RockinL]

I think I mentioned I was six days old.

I say we because I am a Texas alumnus. I know it's odd for you to think that people actually go to the schools that they root for.

Weird, huh.

HAHA...now that was good.....(and true).

[naughty]

Indy Warren Central has been big time underrated for years, but they weren't nearly as good this year.

Lakeland is still underrated and kind of not respected as tou can see by the poll.



But wow i posed this and just left it alone for awhile and it has done pretty well.

[pied]

I dont ROOT for DLS
I admire them

so all 45,000 people in the stand last year either went to trinity or slc?

Interesting. So when DLS played ECA/Bellvue/Moeller you were a neutral observer?


I would put the number of SLC/Trinity students/alumni in attendance @ 7,500. I guess the rest were simply admirers.

[SLCDad]

When I think of a dynasty, I think of the kind of record DLS or SLC had going. That is racking up some wins. But, according to "The Ref" SLC's little run is done. But we can not take away the fact that they did indeed have a dynasty, even if its over now.

SLC has had two dynasties.

1. All 3A years from 1986-93 they won three state titles going 112-5-1 under coach Bob Ledbetter.

2. All 5A years from 2002-2007 they won four state titles going 90-3 under coaches Todd Dodge and Hal Wasson.

With the players in the pipeline and the program that is in place at Carroll I don't see much changing any time soon.

[SLCDad]

Lakeland is still underrated and kind of not respected as tou can see by the poll.

But wow i posed this and just left it alone for awhile and it has done pretty well.

Thanks for the poll. It was fun.

[SLCDad]

I dont ROOT for DLS

Me neither.

[DLSfanNW]

SLC has had two dynasties.

1. All 3A years from 1986-93 they won three state titles going 112-5-1 under coach Bob Ledbetter.

2. All 5A years from 2002-2007 they won four state titles going 90-3 under coaches Todd Dodge and Hal Wasson.

With the players in the pipeline and the program that is in place at Carroll I don't see much changing any time soon.

Pied said 3a does not count

[Chicago]

1986 to 1993 is eight years.

Maybe you should count that as two dynasties.

[Fightingfor7crusader]

Lakeland is still underrated and kind of not respected as tou can see by the poll.



But wow i posed this and just left it alone for awhile and it has done pretty well.

I personally believe the best Warren Central team since 2000 would beat the best Lakeland team since 2000. In 2003 Warren Central absolutely demolished a very very good Elder team that won state.

[consumerman]

I pulled out an old vhs football highlights tape I assembled from various sources and wanted to transfer some of them to dvd and was amazed that the last 1/2 hour of the two hour tape was a scholastic sports america show broadcast in 1997 and was almost solely about the great Berwick - St Ignatius mathcup in 1997, lots of interviews and pre-game stuff and then tons of game action with commentary, nice piece of video I never realized or forgot I had, BTW St I won 37-6 but I believe the next year Berwick came back and evened the series

in some ways, that great inter state matchup that received lots of publicity (both were multi-year USA Today national champions) was a minor instigating factor between dls and mater dei hooking up in 1998 and beyond

[consumerman]

Me neither.


DLS is doing quite well without your support

[coletrain06]

1. SLC

2. Colerain

3. DLS/St.X

SLC at number 1 is a no brainer.
DLS W/L record is a little decieving. I have a hard time believing they are not one of the top 3 dynasty's.

I chose Colerain over St. X because Colerain has been more consistent than St. X.

Colerain went undefeated in the regular season in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007
St. X went undefeated in the regular season in 2005, 2007
Colerain has been in the playoffs all 5 years.
St. X did not qualify for the playoffs in 2003.
Colerain has just as many playoff wins during that time period, despite not having won 2 state titles.
Colerain's 5 losses during this time were all to a top 25 eventual state champion team. The combined records of the 4 teams that beat Colerain during these 5 years is 59-1.
The combined records of the 7 teams that beat St. X during these 5 years is 76-17

and lastly

I would say that in 2003, and 2006 Colerain was better than St.X by decent margin, and in 2004 Colerain was better than St. X by a large margin.
In 2005 St. X was just slightly better than Colerain; In 2007 St.X was better by a decent margin.

It's close between the two schools, but I don't think St. X is ahead of Colerain during the last 5 years yet. Maybe after next season depending on how the season goes. Honestly its amazing that we have TWO football programs of this caliber within 10-15 minutes of each other.

[SLCDad]

DLS is doing quite well without your support

. . . . and without yours.

[consumerman]

. . . . and without yours.

I am glad you finally admit DLS is doing quite well :cool:

[Chicago]

:banana:

[consumerman]

:banana:

I got him didnt I?

[Chicago]

I'm just waiting for the "I was kidding."

[DLSfanNW]

He told me "You are right" in his last response to me...(about where he said SLC is tied for the most state titles when in fact they are tied for second with a few other teams)

[naughty]

I personally believe the best Warren Central team since 2000 would beat the best Lakeland team since 2000. In 2003 Warren Central absolutely demolished a very very good Elder team that won state.

bashing are we. Well i personally believe that the 2004, and 2005 lakeland squads would walk all over your (usually slow Indiana team). Just so you know in 2004 lakeland held the team it played in states to -rushing yards all game. And in 2005 had the best run of all the teams. So try again. One of your former coaches will tell you all about lakeland. Just ask him about the 78-0 blowout and 54-21 blowouts he had to take. And he will also tell you how lakeland 2nd,3rd, and 4th strings scored on his squad.


And still the dreadnaughts get no respect. But unless you live in florida you really dont have any respect or like of the dreadnaughts. Thats just how it is.

[CrusaderDidz]

someone told me Moeller is playing south panola next year. does anyone know if this is true?

[Bennies'01]

I don't think it's an analogy as much as it is a joke. As a joke it's kind of funny, hard to deny that.

Kind of like the oldie, What's the difference between tOSU/ou(take your preference) and Cheerios?


























wait for it











































Cheerios know what to do in a Bowl.

Well, your jokes would be funnier if they really made sense. Ohio State has more BCS wins than Texas and unlike the Buffalo Bills, they also actually won a championship. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[pied]

Well, your jokes would be funnier if they really made sense. Ohio State has more BCS wins than Texas and unlike the Buffalo Bills, they also actually won a championship. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You must be a hit at parties.

I'd point out that Ohio State has more losses as well, Texas is a perfect 2-0.

[Chicago]

Pied,

The Buffalo Bills won the AFL championship in 1964 and 1965, and OSU won the National Championship in 1968 and 2002, so they each have two titles in the last 44 years.

I think we're in good shape.

[Reggie Dunlap]

1. SLC

2. Colerain

3. DLS/St.X

SLC at number 1 is a no brainer.
DLS W/L record is a little decieving. I have a hard time believing they are not one of the top 3 dynasty's.

I chose Colerain over St. X because Colerain has been more consistent than St. X.

Colerain went undefeated in the regular season in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007
St. X went undefeated in the regular season in 2005, 2007
Colerain has been in the playoffs all 5 years.
St. X did not qualify for the playoffs in 2003.
Colerain has just as many playoff wins during that time period, despite not having won 2 state titles.
Colerain's 5 losses during this time were all to a top 25 eventual state champion team. The combined records of the 4 teams that beat Colerain during these 5 years is 59-1.
The combined records of the 7 teams that beat St. X during these 5 years is 76-17

and lastly

I would say that in 2003, and 2006 Colerain was better than St.X by decent margin, and in 2004 Colerain was better than St. X by a large margin.
In 2005 St. X was just slightly better than Colerain; In 2007 St.X was better by a decent margin.

It's close between the two schools, but I don't think St. X is ahead of Colerain during the last 5 years yet. Maybe after next season depending on how the season goes. Honestly its amazing that we have TWO football programs of this caliber within 10-15 minutes of each other.

Dynasties are made up of championships..............3,4,5, championships and then you may have a dynasty.

Were the Buffalo Bills a dynasy because they had a great record? NO

:hello:

[Fightingfor7crusader]

bashing are we. Well i personally believe that the 2004, and 2005 lakeland squads would walk all over your (usually slow Indiana team).

Warren Central slow?

[pied]

Pied,

The Buffalo Bills won the AFL championship in 1964 and 1965, and OSU won the National Championship in 1968 and 2002, so they each have two titles in the last 44 years.

I think we're in good shape.

Bennies reminds me of a guy that if you started a joke, " A priest, a nun, and a rabbi walk into a bar", he would ask what bar, when and where.

[Ahhhorsepoo]

New England Patriots.. 3 titles in 4 years and people called that a dynasty..
La Lakers 3 titles in 3 years.. also a dynasty..
San Antonio Spurs 3 championships in 5 years in the NBA..
USC Football 2002-2007...
Even App St. winning 3 titles in 3 years in FBS Football some consider that a dynasty..
In D-2 Grand Valley St. 4 National titles in 5 years.. considered a dynasty..
Also in D-2 North Alabama 3 titles in three years '93-'95
In Nascar Jeff Gordon won 3 titles in 4 years in 1995-1998
Michael Schumacher wins 5 driving titles in 5 years.. from 2000-2005
Cincinnati Reds 1972-1976 4 NL West Titles and 2 WS championships with 1 more WS appearance in that time..
Heck for any WNBA fan.. that i still have never met.. Houston Comets 4 WNBA titles in 5 years..
UCONN Womens basketball 4 NCAA titles in 5 years..
NY Islanders of the early 1980's 4 titles in 4 years..


Alot of people call great and dominate 5 year periods dynasties.. please don't bash him because he called them dynasties.. If you argue that is isnt a 5 year thing.. what do we always hear about the Pats a few years ago.. ohh thats right their dynasty.. maybe there has been a change in the usage of that word.. no longer does it just refer to a long time where a pharaoh rules..

[Chicago]

Multiple pharaohs from the same family.

[WoodyHayes]

I can not believe that someone would vote for X but not Lakeland. Lakeland travelled to Ohio and beat them.

[pied]

I can not believe that someone would vote for X but not Lakeland. Lakeland travelled to Ohio and beat them.

Yeah but Lakeland only won three titles...

[elwood]

New England Patriots.. 3 titles in 4 years and people called that a dynasty..
La Lakers 3 titles in 3 years.. also a dynasty..
San Antonio Spurs 3 championships in 5 years in the NBA..
USC Football 2002-2007...
Even App St. winning 3 titles in 3 years in FBS Football some consider that a dynasty..
In D-2 Grand Valley St. 4 National titles in 5 years.. considered a dynasty..
Also in D-2 North Alabama 3 titles in three years '93-'95
In Nascar Jeff Gordon won 3 titles in 4 years in 1995-1998
Michael Schumacher wins 5 driving titles in 5 years.. from 2000-2005
Cincinnati Reds 1972-1976 4 NL West Titles and 2 WS championships with 1 more WS appearance in that time..
Heck for any WNBA fan.. that i still have never met.. Houston Comets 4 WNBA titles in 5 years..
UCONN Womens basketball 4 NCAA titles in 5 years..
NY Islanders of the early 1980's 4 titles in 4 years..


Alot of people call great and dominate 5 year periods dynasties.. please don't bash him because he called them dynasties.. If you argue that is isnt a 5 year thing.. what do we always hear about the Pats a few years ago.. ohh thats right their dynasty.. maybe there has been a change in the usage of that word.. no longer does it just refer to a long time where a pharaoh rules..As was said, the term Dynasty has been greatly devalued. Because many people use ther term that way does not legitimize it.

The root of dynasty is: "A family or group that maintains power for several generations". Properly applied to sports you would get John Wooden's UCLA teams as the perfect example. Wooden being the "family" and the successive generations of Bruins who won championships. People love the superlative and use Dynasty way too often. USC was not a dynasty - gimme a break. Reds 2 WS titles? no way.

Jeff Gordon? I'm a huge NASCAR fan and Gordon fan and have NEVER heard him referred to as a dynasty. Nor Dale Earnhardt. The Petty dynasty is in reference to Richard and his Father's dominance over the sport - successive generations.

Call that a listing of dominant teams, great teams if you want, but do not call them dynasties. As I said earlier, if these are dynasties, then we must invent a whole new word for what the Celtics, Bruins, and Yankees have done because they are in an entirely different class.

[SLCDad]

I can not believe that someone would vote for X but not Lakeland. Lakeland travelled to Ohio and beat them.

The poll is for a 5 year period not for a single game or a single season.

[Chicago]

Come on, Elwood.

Gordon?

That's just wrong.

#3.

So now #29.

[SLCDad]

As was said, the term Dynasty has been greatly devalued. Because many people use ther term that way does not legitimize it.

The root of dynasty is: "A family or group that maintains power for several generations". Properly applied to sports you would get John Wooden's UCLA teams as the perfect example. Wooden being the "family" and the successive generations of Bruins who won championships. People love the superlative and use Dynasty way too often. USC was not a dynasty - gimme a break. Reds 2 WS titles? no way.

Jeff Gordon? I'm a huge NASCAR fan and Gordon fan and have NEVER heard him referred to as a dynasty. Nor Dale Earnhardt. The Petty dynasty is in reference to Richard and his Father's dominance over the sport - successive generations.

Call that a listing of dominant teams, great teams if you want, but do not call them dynasties. As I said earlier, if these are dynasties, then we must invent a whole new word for what the Celtics, Bruins, and Yankees have done because they are in an entirely different class.

Do you realize you are fighting an impossible battle? The use of the term dynasty is very widespread in sports.

[SLCDad]

Come on, Elwood.

Gordon?

That's just wrong.

#3.

So now #29.

Perhaps you may be interested in these:

http://www.lipf.com/product1.aspx?Product_ID=204

http://www.steinersports.com/ssm/control/product/~pcategory=1012/~category=3086/~pid=EARNPHU000009;jsessionid=5E8EEA01D31C8CA7B069 8CDDBC818B9A.ssm3

[Chicago]

If any word was ever used by anyone, anywhere, in any manner, it is now legitimate to use the word in that manner, no matter how wrong the usage was the first time.

Good call.

It's hard for one person to have a dynasty, but you have stupidity cornered.

[naughty]

The poll is for a 5 year period not for a single game or a single season.

ok over 5 years lakeland has 3 state titles. a 53 game winning streak . 2 national titles. what does x have.

2 state titles, no more then 20 wins in a row, and 1 national title. Not down playing X. But you make it seem like lLakeland was a one hit wonder. Lakeland has been doing it for more then just 5 years. Try the last 30 years in Florida football. So again we see again The Dreadnaughts are truly not respected unless you live in Florida. And for the most parts central Florida. People respect Lakeland in Florida, but that dose not mean they like them.

And this is not me bragging. Just simply again stating that no team has been more dominate over the last 5 years in Florida then lakeland,Florida.

[naughty]

Warren Central slow?

If thats all you got then whatever.

[SLCDad]

ESPN Definition of Sports Dynasty:

"In sports, the term dynasty is often used to refer to a team that dominates their sport for a period of time. Such dominance is usually recognized only after a team has won many championships in a given time (3 in 4 years, 5 in 8 years, 7 in 12 years, etc.). The exact requirements for the label is a frequent topic of debate among sports fans."

[consumerman]

The Reds HAVE to be a dynasty in the 70s becasue they won 6 division champiosnhips in 1970 and 1972-3 and 1975-6 and 1979 and 2 world championships

and no one in the 70s comes close

except the Pirates who won 6 division titles
and 2 world championships

and the Yankees who won 3 consecutive pennants (the Reds did not)
and 2 world championships

and the A's who won 5 consecutive division titles (most the Reds won in a row was 2)

and 3 consecutive world championships


ooops

[consumerman]

ESPN Definition of Sports Dynasty:

"In sports, the term dynasty is often used to refer to a team that dominates their sport for a period of time. Such dominance is usually recognized only after a team has won many championships in a given time (3 in 4 years, 5 in 8 years, 7 in 12 years, etc.). The exact requirements for the label is a frequent topic of debate among sports fans."


zactly

[consumerman]

SLC and texas fans

who was the better HIGH SCHOOL receiver

Cantu or Renfro?

[SLCDad]

zactly

There are a couple of your DLS brethren who have no tolerance for anybody who has a different opinion on this subject than their own. They lower themselves to name calling over and over again. They are fine examples of the DLS tradition.

[elwood]

Come on, Elwood.

Gordon?

That's just wrong.

#3.

So now #29.

Absolutely Chicago! Gordon grew up in the shadow of DLS - have to root for him.

[elwood]

Do you realize you are fighting an impossible battle? The use of the term dynasty is very widespread in sports.Fighting NO battle whatsoever. Expressing an old-school opinion. Could care less what the media-fed masses think. A part of the dumbing-down of America.

Example: Win 2 titles - you've got a dynasty (Florida Basketball). Incorrect. You've got a great team.

Goes along with:

Show up for school - get an award.
No winners & losers in youth sports - everybody is a winner - everybody gets a trophy.

Unlike others, I do not use the current sad state of culture & media to justify my position. I am actually capable of establishing a position without running off to google to find some idiot website peddling memorabilia to justify a position.

[elwood]

Perhaps you may be interested in these:

http://www.lipf.com/product1.aspx?Product_ID=204

http://www.steinersports.com/ssm/control/product/~pcategory=1012/~category=3086/~pid=EARNPHU000009;jsessionid=5E8EEA01D31C8CA7B069 8CDDBC818B9A.ssm3Lemme guess. You probably also believe that when you buy your midlife crisis Corvette that the blonde in the red sequined dress comes with the car.

You cannot be serious...

[SLCDad]

Fighting NO battle whatsoever. Expressing an old-school opinion. Could care less what the media-fed masses think. A part of the dumbing-down of America.

Example: Win 2 titles - you've got a dynasty (Florida Basketball). Incorrect. You've got a great team.

Goes along with:

Show up for school - get an award.
No winners & losers in youth sports - everybody is a winner - everybody gets a trophy.

Unlike others, I do not use the current sad state of culture & media to justify my position. I am actually capable of establishing a position without running off to google to find some idiot website peddling memorabilia to justify a position.

Your twisted psuedo logic is laughable in my opinion.

I love how you equate "show up for school - get an award" to calling the Pittsburg Steelers (who dominated the NFL for, what?, six years) a dynasty. Give me a break.

I agree that Florida football is not a dynasty, however, your definition is still dead wrong IMO. What's even more funny (and self righteous on your part) is that you pooh pooh dozens (actually more) of great sports dynasties as not being worthy.

What's even worse, is that when you find someone who has a different point of view you lower yourself to name calling and insults. I suppose it makes you feel better about yourself. Congrats.

[elwood]

Your twisted psuedo logic is laughable in my opinion.

I love how you equate "show up for school - get an award" to calling the Pittsburg Steelers (who dominated the NFL for, what?, six years) a dynasty. Give me a break.

I agree that Florida football is not a dynasty, however, your definition is still dead wrong. What's even more funny (and self righteous on your part) is that you pooh pooh dozens (actually more) of great sports dynasties.
"Brains on aisle 9"

1. Not sure how the Steelers dominated for 6 years when they only won 4 SBs.
2. I called the Steelers a dynasty - barely.
3. Yes, I operate to a higher standard. No surprise there. You call 'em dynasties, I call 'em great teams. What you think is high IQ I think is average. Go figure.

Next.

[consumerman]

There are a couple of your DLS brethren who have no tolerance for anybody who has a different opinion on this subject than their own. They lower themselves to name calling over and over again. They are fine examples of the DLS tradition.

who are they?

[naughty]

Your twisted psuedo logic is laughable in my opinion.

I love how you equate "show up for school - get an award" to calling the Pittsburg Steelers (who dominated the NFL for, what?, six years) a dynasty. Give me a break.

I agree that Florida football is not a dynasty, however, your definition is still dead wrong IMO. What's even more funny (and self righteous on your part) is that you pooh pooh dozens (actually more) of great sports dynasties as not being worthy.

What's even worse, is that when you find someone who has a different point of view you lower yourself to name calling and insults. I suppose it makes you feel better about yourself. Congrats.

did he not say Florida Basketball.

[Chicago]

Just a little something for the delusional beings among us:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=boyd/070615

[pied]

That could be a little thing I like to call "next weekend."

Although I doubt it.

For consumerman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYu68SHWh64

Chicago and anyone else with a sense of humor will laugh as well.

Please note language....

[Chicago]

Nice.

I was dying (not literally, though, although I hate to disappoint the OSU fans on the college football board).

[fish82]

For consumerman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYu68SHWh64

Chicago and anyone else with a sense of humor will laugh as well.

Please note language....

That was the funniest thing I've seen in a LONG time!!!! Gracias!!!

[XavierMenForever]

St. Xavier...a dynasty? X has been at the top of Ohio for 2 of the last 3 years. For 3 of the last 5 years they weren't even the best in Cincinnati. I am very hard-pressed to say St. X is one of the top programs of the past 5 years. If X wins another State Title in the next 2 seasons and this poll comes up again, then X has a strong argument, but with a 7-3 performance (0-3 in league play), I don't think they should get a vote

[naughty]

St. Xavier...a dynasty? X has been at the top of Ohio for 2 of the last 3 years. For 3 of the last 5 years they weren't even the best in Cincinnati. I am very hard-pressed to say St. X is one of the top programs of the past 5 years. If X wins another State Title in the next 2 seasons and this poll comes up again, then X has a strong argument, but with a 7-3 performance (0-3 in league play), I don't think they should get a vote

Guess what ohio website ohio bias.

[ColerainWinsAgain]

Obviously I'm going to be biased toward Ohio, but my top 3 have to be Independence, St. X, and Colerain.

Indy- No matter how weak your state it it's amazing to win that many games in a row, especially after being a Milfordesque program prior to the run.

St. X - 2 State Championships in the best football state in the land, nuff said.

Colerain - Possibly the best team ever to take the field in 2004. 5 losses in a 5 year period, all to eventual state champions in the greatest state for football in the land.

[naughty]

Obviously I'm going to be biased toward Ohio, but my top 3 have to be Independence, St. X, and Colerain.

Indy- No matter how weak your state it it's amazing to win that many games in a row, especially after being a Milfordesque program prior to the run.

St. X - 2 State Championships in the best football state in the land, nuff said.

Colerain - Possibly the best team ever to take the field in 2004. 5 losses in a 5 year period, all to eventual state champions in the greatest state for football in the land.

Indy- win streak nuff said

Carroll- state title after state title. taking down many national ranked teams and putting together a nice winning streak. and 3 national titles.

Lakeland- 3 state titles, 53 straight wins, wins over teams ranked #4, #4, #19 during the streak. 2 national titles and the 2005 national coach of the year. Plus a win over ohio's little darlings st.xavier.


no way not to be mean that colerain and st.x top those three. But again ohio bias played a big part in this poll my friend. Because St.X won two titles(umm guess what about 20 other teams won more then that in this 5 year time period.) Colerain fielded an outstanding team in 2004 does that make them one of the top three dynasties over the last 5 years i think not.

[pied]

Indy- win streak nuff said

Carroll- state title after state title. taking down many national ranked teams and putting together a nice winning streak. and 3 national titles.

Lakeland- 3 state titles, 53 straight wins, wins over teams ranked #4, #4, #19 during the streak. 2 national titles and the 2005 national coach of the year. Plus a win over ohio's little darlings st.xavier.


no way not to be mean that colerain and st.x top those three. But again ohio bias played a big part in this poll my friend. Because St.X won two titles(umm guess what about 20 other teams won more then that in this 5 year time period.) Colerain fielded an outstanding team in 2004 does that make them one of the top three dynasties over the last 5 years i think not.

I put South Panola over Lakeland, but certainly think Lakeland is there.

[consumerman]

Obviously I'm going to be biased toward Ohio, but my top 3 have to be Independence, St. X, and Colerain.

Indy- No matter how weak your state it it's amazing to win that many games in a row, especially after being a Milfordesque program prior to the run.

St. X - 2 State Championships in the best football state in the land, nuff said.

Colerain - Possibly the best team ever to take the field in 2004. 5 losses in a 5 year period, all to eventual state champions in the greatest state for football in the land.


sorry But you will get disagreement on many things from your post

2 championships is 5 years is hardly an earth shattering accomplishment

Ohio being the best football state in the land is up for serious debate, even in years when the GCL did not go winless in the Herbie

Colerain was not even a unanimous choice as the best team in 2004, in fact other teams won in more polls, to elevate them to best ever is quite frankly ridiculous

I believe the 5 year stretch includes 2007 where Independence lost two games including a game against a mediocre Elder team

5 losses in 5 years does not compare too favorably to zero losses in 12 years or 5 losses in 20 years by 1,1,1,2 and 8 points PERIOD

[consumerman]

St. Xavier...a dynasty? X has been at the top of Ohio for 2 of the last 3 years. For 3 of the last 5 years they weren't even the best in Cincinnati. I am very hard-pressed to say St. X is one of the top programs of the past 5 years. If X wins another State Title in the next 2 seasons and this poll comes up again, then X has a strong argument, but with a 7-3 performance (0-3 in league play), I don't think they should get a vote

hallelujah

[fish82]

Colerain was not even a unanimous choice as the best team in 2004, in fact other teams won in more polls, to elevate them to best ever is quite frankly ridiculous

Best ever? Who knows....best I've ever seen in 25+ years? Yep.

[ColerainWinsAgain]

sorry But you will get disagreement on many things from your post

2 championships is 5 years is hardly an earth shattering accomplishment

Ohio being the best football state in the land is up for serious debate, even in years when the GCL did not go winless in the Herbie

Colerain was not even a unanimous choice as the best team in 2004, in fact other teams won in more polls, to elevate them to best ever is quite frankly ridiculous

I believe the 5 year stretch includes 2007 where Independence lost two games including a game against a mediocre Elder team

5 losses in 5 years does not compare too favorably to zero losses in 12 years or 5 losses in 20 years by 1,1,1,2 and 8 points PERIOD

2 Championships in 5 years in D1 in Ohio (Where the teams/state championship ration is 1/119) is as good as it gets, especially with the parity in the state and the amount of teams... How many other states have less than 1% of the teams win a title? I also fail to see where you say they weren't a top team in Cincinnati (The ONLY city to ever have 3 teams ranked in the top 25 at the same time, and it's happened twice) for those years because 4/5 years they were either #1 or 2 with Colerain.

In 2004 Colerain was the best team in the country, I would put my wallet on the fact that they would have beaten anyone that year or any other (And I'm carrying some cash right now too...) Again I'm going to go back to the fact that EVERY game they lost in the last 5 years was to an eventual State Champion (That 1 team out of 119 that won the title) and all but the St X game last year came down to the last play if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, it does include this year when Indy lost 2 games, but it also includes what 60 of their hundred and something straight wins?

[Bennies'01]

You must be a hit at parties.

I'd point out that Ohio State has more losses as well, Texas is a perfect 2-0.

No, the parties I attend don't involve lame/illogical jokes.

Maybe if Texas had a larger sample size of BCS games, they'd have a few more losses. :shrug:

[Bennies'01]

Pied,

The Buffalo Bills won the AFL championship in 1964 and 1965, and OSU won the National Championship in 1968 and 2002, so they each have two titles in the last 44 years.

I think we're in good shape.

Nah, doesn't quite work that way. OSU title came in the same decade, just four seasons prior, to their two consecutive championship game losses. Buffalo's titles came roughly three decades earlier than their four consecutive championship game losses. That's not even to mention the fact that Buffalo's two titles in the 1960s didn't even make them the best team at their particular level of play, considering the fact that there were NFL champions to take in to consideration both of those years. You know the difference, you're just being a hard-headed troll.

[Bennies'01]

Bennies reminds me of a guy that if you started a joke, " A priest, a nun, and a rabbi walk into a bar", he would ask what bar, when and where.

No, actually I would not. I simply called Chicago out on a joke that clearly did not make any sense. I'm shocked that there are two of you who can't think logically about why the situations are not analogous.

[consumerman]

No, actually I would not. I simply called Chicago out on a joke that clearly did not make any sense. I'm shocked that there are two of you who can't think logically about why the situations are not analogous.

what a great word\\

never heard of it before

[pied]

No, the parties I attend don't involve lame/illogical jokes.

Maybe if Texas had a larger sample size of BCS games, they'd have a few more losses. :shrug:

You waited nearly two weeks for that.

I would agree with you now. Two weeks after the loss, it isn't very funny any longer.

[Chicago]

Pied,

Big Ten fans aren't known for their posting speed.

There is no way they can compare with fans of the SEC, Texas, USC, Miami, Florida State, and that crowd.

[Bennies'01]

what a great word\\

never heard of it before

That's the word of the day.

[Bennies'01]

You waited nearly two weeks for that.

I would agree with you now. Two weeks after the loss, it isn't very funny any longer.

No, actually I didn't "wait" two weeks for it. I simply hadn't had time to post a response sooner.

[Bennies'01]

Pied,

Big Ten fans aren't known for their posting speed.

There is no way they can compare with fans of the SEC, Texas, USC, Miami, Florida State, and that crowd.

This may actually be the most humorous comment you've made in a long time. Congratulations.