PDA

View Full Version : What are the Standards fir a team to be classified as a "Dynasty"



nysports12
02-08-2011, 07:29 PM
I think the word is given out to freely these days. i think you should have to at least won back to back titles during the teams "Dynasty", and should have at least 3 or more in a 4-6 year span. Thoughts? and what are some of the all time great dynasties

AriGhold
02-08-2011, 07:30 PM
well the giants won a SB and lost a SB within the span of 10 years so i think that's the cut off point

SwaggerJack
02-08-2011, 07:31 PM
Winning a ship for 3 years, or at least making it to the championship game for 3-4 years in a row

nysports12
02-08-2011, 07:33 PM
well the giants won a SB and lost a SB within the span of 10 years so i think that's the cut off point

im doing no giants nut-hugging on this thread lol

rumpsicle
02-08-2011, 07:34 PM
I don't know but I'd say the Giants would be classified as a dynasty right now.

HELIX35
02-08-2011, 07:43 PM
3 within 5 years imo


Back to back is impressive but not dynasty status

CarpeD1em500
02-08-2011, 07:46 PM
http://www.matthesevergreenfarm.com/images/Douglas_Fir.jpg

21Classic
02-08-2011, 07:46 PM
3 within 5 years imo


Back to back is impressive but not dynasty status

sounds about right

3 within 5




or, 2 be honest, if you win one like every 4 years consistently and have like 23 on hand as is

HELIX35
02-08-2011, 07:49 PM
sounds about right

3 within 5




or, 2 be honest, if you win one like every 4 years consistently and have like 23 on hand as is

Agreed

I can see 2 being dynasty level if the team is deep into the playoffs every year. Although people have to be careful about applying dynasty to repeat champs, the late 90's Broncos are a perfect example

brb_ballin
02-08-2011, 08:31 PM
3 within 5 years imo


Back to back is impressive but not dynasty status

was thinking this..

3 in 5 sounds right..

would Pitt have been a dynasty if they won this year?

I dunno if i would say that..

PerfectFormForever
02-08-2011, 08:39 PM
3 within 5 years imo

Back to back is impressive but not dynasty statusExactly. I decided that's what I was gonna say even before coming in the thread, but you got it.

thek1d
02-08-2011, 08:50 PM
was thinking this..

3 in 5 sounds right..

would Pitt have been a dynasty if they won this year?

I dunno if i would say that..

Were the Spurs a dynasty? They won in 03, 05 and 07.

Seems weird to have multiple gaps in championships during a dynasty. I think 3 in 5 PLUS back-to-back is better.

Madsen89
02-08-2011, 08:55 PM
Fir.

PerfectFormForever
02-08-2011, 09:08 PM
Were the Spurs a dynasty? They won in 03, 05 and 07.

Seems weird to have multiple gaps in championships during a dynasty. I think 3 in 5 PLUS back-to-back is better.Yes, the Spurs were a dynasty. The same cast won them all 3 championships, and they were major contenders in the 2 years they didn't win.

J411
02-08-2011, 09:18 PM
Were the Spurs a dynasty? They won in 03, 05 and 07.

Seems weird to have multiple gaps in championships during a dynasty. I think 3 in 5 PLUS back-to-back is better.

I thought the spurs at the time would be a dynasty. I thought they would keep winning titles. But they didn't. I think they are just on the outside looking in.

I agree dynasty is thrown around too much. I don't know if even 3 in five years is enough. I don't know if five years of great play is enough to be a dynasty. I think you need 3-4 titles and have more than five years of really good teams. Maybe six or seven years of great teams, and 3-4 titles. A decade of domination like the lakers in the 80s is even better. When I think of the Lakers in the 80s, bulls of the 90s, Celtics of the 60s, those are dynasties, extended periods of domination. Calling other teams a dynasty almost seems an insult to those teams. And if they can't be in the conversation with those teams, I don't know if you can call them dynasties. Maybe mini dynasties. In addition, I also think that the core of the team needs to be the same.

Bulls in the 90s are a dynasty. 6 Titles, Many other great years mixed in. The core of pippen/jordan stayed the same. Sure there was a break between the two three-peats, but the break didn't last that long, and even during those years the bulls teams were great.

Lakers of the 80s. 5 Titles, played in several more championship games. Magic/kareem/worthy/etc.

Celtics from 57-69 won 11 titles, played in two other championship games. Bill Russell.


When you look at the last decade. I don't know if I see any dynasties. The lakers were dominant during two periods. But in between they were far from dominant, only being a 7th seed one year and getting knocked out of the playoffs in the first round. Plus the players were different. Shaq was the most dominant player during the first run. Kobe during the second. The first run could have easily been a dynasty had the team stayed together. I think shaq/kobe could have won 4 more together, then possibly transitioned easily into life after shaq and kept on winning. But that run ended, and I don't think they made it to dynasty level.

Same for the spurs. They had a great run during the start of the decade. They were a great team, but I don't think they quite made it to dynasty level. Close, but you just can't put them in the same conversation with the bulls of the 90s, lakers of 80s, celtics of the 60s.

SRSmiscerIZsrs
02-08-2011, 11:58 PM
i dont know. ask Tom Brady