Not a rhetorical question.
Dye's first season finished 5-6, the same record as the previous season. He followed that with a 9-3 mark, and while one of the nine was the first win over uat in nine years, the three losses were a 41-7 blowout at home, and two SEC games in which fourth-quarter leads were blown (at Florida, and at home to #1 Georgia.)
Season three was an 11-win, SEC championship, should-have-won-the-MNC year.
And that was followed by two very disappointing seasons; both had four losses, both featured upset losses to uat, and both seasons Auburn was VERY highly ranked in the pre-season polls (#1 in 1984, #2 in 1985, though we jumped to #1 after the first game.) And with Bo Jackson leading the way for four years, Auburn still managed to lose 12 games.
It wasn't until 1986 -- Dye's sixth season -- that he managed a second season with double-digit wins... and even then, the two losses were big upsets to fierce rivals, including a blown 17-0 fourth-quarter lead. And it wasn't until 1987 that he won a second SEC title... and even that team suffered a 34-6 loss at home.
So... five seasons, four of which included arguably the best RB in history, yielded one SEC title, one season of 10 or more wins (11), a losing record to uat (and two of the losses were upsets), and two four-loss seasons after spending at least one week at #1 in the polls. A sixth season finally brought another 10-win year, and year seven brought a second SEC title (and the first of three straight.) And he wasn't competing against the uber-dominant SEC of today; in Dye's 12 years at Auburn, the SEC won just one MNC... and that came after he had already resigned.
In the age of the message-board expert, would Dye have lasted long enough to get that second SEC title, or even that second double-digit win season? And if he had NOT, would Auburn be better off now?
(IMO, the answer to the first question is "Not if some fans had gotten their way," and the answer to the second question is "No." Something to think about while you're sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches...)
Dye's first season finished 5-6, the same record as the previous season. He followed that with a 9-3 mark, and while one of the nine was the first win over uat in nine years, the three losses were a 41-7 blowout at home, and two SEC games in which fourth-quarter leads were blown (at Florida, and at home to #1 Georgia.)
Season three was an 11-win, SEC championship, should-have-won-the-MNC year.
And that was followed by two very disappointing seasons; both had four losses, both featured upset losses to uat, and both seasons Auburn was VERY highly ranked in the pre-season polls (#1 in 1984, #2 in 1985, though we jumped to #1 after the first game.) And with Bo Jackson leading the way for four years, Auburn still managed to lose 12 games.
It wasn't until 1986 -- Dye's sixth season -- that he managed a second season with double-digit wins... and even then, the two losses were big upsets to fierce rivals, including a blown 17-0 fourth-quarter lead. And it wasn't until 1987 that he won a second SEC title... and even that team suffered a 34-6 loss at home.
So... five seasons, four of which included arguably the best RB in history, yielded one SEC title, one season of 10 or more wins (11), a losing record to uat (and two of the losses were upsets), and two four-loss seasons after spending at least one week at #1 in the polls. A sixth season finally brought another 10-win year, and year seven brought a second SEC title (and the first of three straight.) And he wasn't competing against the uber-dominant SEC of today; in Dye's 12 years at Auburn, the SEC won just one MNC... and that came after he had already resigned.
In the age of the message-board expert, would Dye have lasted long enough to get that second SEC title, or even that second double-digit win season? And if he had NOT, would Auburn be better off now?
(IMO, the answer to the first question is "Not if some fans had gotten their way," and the answer to the second question is "No." Something to think about while you're sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches...)
