Dynasty?

[Guest goodhelmet]

Once again, I think the main problem I have with your definition of dynasty is the lack of longevity in a team's dominance.

 

To me, a dynasty is simply a consistantly dominant team.

 

For how long? 3 out of 4 years? 3 out of five years? Is three the magic minimum all of a sudden?

 

How many World Series have the Yankees won?

 

How many titles have the Celtic and Lakers won? Over how many years? Hell, add the 90s Bulls to that list.

 

Do the mini-me dynasties of those 70's Angels, 90s Braves even compare?

 

If you say yes, then we have to invent a New term for the true dynasties... maybe "Mega-dynasty"?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

For how long? 3 out of 4 years? 3 out of five years? Is three the magic minimum all of a sudden?

 

Three isn't the magic minimum, but teams are rarely good for three years, and completely worthless otherwise.

 

How many World Series have the Yankees won?

 

How many titles have the Celtic and Lakers won? Over how many years? Hell, add the 90s Bulls to that list.

 

Over what span of time? If overall, then we are just getting into the issue of what is the best FRANCHISE, historically. You can not group all the Yankees into one dynasty. The 50s Yankees and the 90s Yankees had 25 different players, different managers, a different GM, and different ownership. The only similarity is that they share the same name. Now, if we can not group the 90s Yankees along with the 50s Yankees, are they now, not a dynasty? When Buster Olney wrote "Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty," I didn't hear many people speak up and say, "that team was not a dynasty."

 

Do the mini-me dynasties of those 70's Angels, 90s Braves even compare?

 

If you're using the highest possible definition of a dynasty, of course not. But if you compare those teams to, for example, the 90s Yankees, the results become more favorable.

 

If you say yes, then we have to invent a New term for the true dynasties... maybe "Mega-dynasty"?

 

You simply say this dynasty was better than that dynasty. The Yankee dominance from 1949-64 was entirely unique in MLB. Outside of those teams, there's nothing else in baseball to compare them to. And I can't see labeling that team as baseball's greatest when no individual team of that group would rank in the Yankees' top 3.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Pats are not a dynasty if the term is used properly. If you want to call them the "salary cap dynasty" or the "millenium powerhouse" or some other bullshit term, go right ahead. Only years later will we be able to reflect and judge if the Pats are truly a sports dynasty.

 

The Pats have already matched Dallas, are one away from Pittsburgh, and two away from the greatest NFL team in history, the Lombardi Packers.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Dynasty was some stupid primetime soap opera from the 80s with Joan Collins. Now close this bloody thread.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm reminded of the days when Heather Locklear was a total fox, bro.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I just remember Melrose Place.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The foofy 80's hair was a better look on her.

[The Czech Republic 0]

When I was little, I didn't understand why everyone got so upset with sleeping with each other. I just figured it was a sleepover.

[Guest Vitamin X]

See, I accidentally rented a sex ed video when I was like 5 or so, so I was pretty aware of it, but not of the social implications. This of course prematurely ended my "giggle when hearing/talking about sex" period everyone goes through after they learn of it.

[Vern Gagne 0]

My favorite episode is when Blake accidentally killed his sons male lover.