What is a sports dynasty?

[RUHotTrumpetMonkeyLove]

With the Chicago Blackhawks winning their third Stanley Cup in the past 6 years, the term "dynasty" is once again being bandied about. I don't get it. Yes, the Hawks have been very, very good for a prolonged period of time, but am I the only one who thinks this phrase is being applied too loosely these days?

In my opinion, "dynasty" means prolonged domination over the entire league. In order to even be in consideration, consecutive championships have to be involved.

Chicago Blackhawks
2015 - Stanley Cup champs
2014 - Lost in Conference Finals
2013 - Stanley Cup champs
2012 - Lost in first round
2011 - Lost in first round
2010 - Stanley Cup champs
2009 - Lost in Conference Finals

San Francisco Giants
2010 - Won World Series
2011 - Did not make playoffs
2012 - Won World Series
2013 - Did not make playoffs (losing record)
2014- Won World Series

San Antonio Spurs
2003 - Won Championship
2004 - Lost in conference semis
2005 - Won Championship
2006 - Lost in conference semis
2007 - Won Championship

Impressive, yes, but I wouldn't consider any of those sports dynasties.

The New England Patriots are interesting in that they won three of four Super Bowls between 2001 and 2004. No doubt about it, that's dynastic. But let's look at the 10 years since then. They've gone to multiple AFC Championship games and lost two Super Bowls before winning it all this year. Not taking into account that Pete Carroll handed it to them (sorry, couldn't resist) do we lump this Super Bowl in with their previous three because it's been a long period of success for the franchise and call it a 14 year dynasty? I say no.

Jordan's Bulls were a dynasty.
The Yankees from 1996-2000 were a dynasty.
The Islanders in the early 80's followed immediately by the Oilers were both dynasties.

 

[derleider]

Its alot harder than it used to be. More teams for one, more playoff rounds, more constraints on salaries. All conspire to make it almost impossible to really have a dynasty.

its not a coincidence that the Yankees were the last team to have a real old style - multiple championships in a row dynasty. Because baseball has the closest constraints on salary and the least playoff rounds.

I would argue that the main factors are extended dominance over multiple years featuring several championships with largely the same cast (either coaches of players).

But you could also look at something like the 538 all time ELO rankings (which they recently did for the NBA, but I hope they extend to all four major sports.)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/the-complete-history-of-every-nba-team-by-elo/#spurs

Its a little hard to make out because there are so many lines, but occasionally a team jumps up for a number of years to be head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[Bones131]

My personal definition of a true "dynasty" is three championships in succession. But since that won't happen anymore, I'll go with 3 in a 4-year period.

 

[j10oreo]

I would consider the hawks a dynasty and I'm not even a fan of them. Considering the odds and difficulty it is to even get 1, doing it 3 times within a 6 year span I believe warrants the title. There are no written rules though so everyone will have their opinions. I consider the San Fran Giants a dynasty, and their roster from 2014 didn't have much of a resemblance to their 2012 championship roster.

 

[RUJMM78]

Just making it to a championship game is quite a accomplishment because of all the teams involved in the playoffs and the difficulty in keeping players because of free agency.

 

[Southern Gentleman]

Just making it to a championship game is quite a accomplishment because of all the teams involved in the playoffs and the difficulty in keeping players because of free agency.

Iowa in wrestling.
Arkansas in track and field.

 

[WhiteBus]

Great topic. Dan Patrick had Doc Emrick on today. Brought up the great Montreal, Islanders, Edmonton teams where they won so many in a row. But pointed out that with free agency it can't be done anymore. Just said for the most part that the new dynasty are the Devils and Chicago who win multiples in a short period time. The last true dynasty was the late 90s Yankees

 

[e5fdny]

It's alot harder than it used to be.

Thread/

 

[sherrane]

Its alot harder than it used to be. More teams for one, more playoff rounds, more constraints on salaries. All conspire to make it almost impossible to really have a dynasty.

The definition of dynasty has to change because of changes to the sports. Let's examine some dynasties from the OP:

[QUOTE
Jordan's Bulls were a dynasty.
The Yankees from 1996-2000 were a dynasty.
The Islanders in the early 80's followed immediately by the Oilers were both dynasties.
[/QUOTE]

And how do these recent dynasties compare to the Boston Celtics from 1959 -- 1966 when they won 8 consecutive NBA championships? The Montreal Canadiens who won 5 consecutive Stanley Cups from 1956 -- 1960 and 15 Stanley Cups from 1956 -- 1979? The Yankees' 5 WS in a row from 1949 -- 1953 and 16 from 1936 -- 1962? Putting the 4 mentioned in the OP into an earlier era would have made them a good team, but no dynasty. They'd be viewed more like the Cleveland Indians in the 50's than a dynasty (won 88 or more games every year from 1948 -- 1956, but was 1-1 in the World Series during those seasons). The point I'm making is that if you were a sports fan in the 40's and 50's, you'd view those Bulls, Yankees, Islanders, and Oilers similar to the way you view today's Black Hawks.

 

[derleider]

The definition of dynasty has to change because of changes to the sports. Let's examine some dynasties from the OP:

[QUOTE
Jordan's Bulls were a dynasty.
The Yankees from 1996-2000 were a dynasty.
The Islanders in the early 80's followed immediately by the Oilers were both dynasties.

And how do these recent dynasties compare to the Boston Celtics from 1959 -- 1966 when they won 8 consecutive NBA championships? The Montreal Canadiens who won 5 consecutive Stanley Cups from 1956 -- 1960 and 15 Stanley Cups from 1956 -- 1979? The Yankees' 5 WS in a row from 1949 -- 1953 and 16 from 1936 -- 1962? Putting the 4 mentioned in the OP into an earlier era would have made them a good team, but no dynasty. They'd be viewed more like the Cleveland Indians in the 50's than a dynasty (won 88 or more games every year from 1948 -- 1956, but was 1-1 in the World Series during those seasons). The point I'm making is that if you were a sports fan in the 40's and 50's, you'd view those Bulls, Yankees, Islanders, and Oilers similar to the way you view today's Black Hawks.[/QUOTE]
Very good point - especially because it speaks to the fact that - it was easier in the pre-expansion era (basically all of the leagues expanded majorly in the 1960s and 1970s) to dominate. You only had to beat a literal handful of teams and generally win two playoff rounds if that. With no salary cap and no free agency good teams could just hoard the best players for YEARS.

 

[RUfinal4]

how would the Bills making 4 straight Superbowls and the Bobby Cox Braves that seemed to be in the top 2 of the National League for 10 or so years compare.

 

[cRURah]

Please see New York Yankees, Boston Celtics, San Francisco 49'ers, John Wooden's UCLA Bruins, Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls, etc. Those teams were true dynasties in their respective winning years of successive championships.