Talk:Dynasty (sports)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] You have to win championshipS to be a dynasty! - usc edition

clearly, usc's performance in the early 2000's is not dynastic. one bcs championship does not equate a sports dynasty, nor do heisman trophies. if so, texas, oklahoma, and tennessee, ohio state, florida state, miami, and florida should be included as dynasties, also. LSU should be named a dynasty before usc, since LSU's is the only football team with 2 bcs national championships.216.136.104.2 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

unless someone has an argument, usc's early 2000's team will be removed from the page in one week from this post.YOUareTIGERBAIT (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have to win championshipS to be a dynasty!

Someone on here added the Braves under MLB because they won a whole bunch of division titles. Yes, but they only won one championship in that span of time. This means that they were not the most dominant team for that period of time. Especially in major league baseball, a sport with no salary cap in which it's easy to win if you just have money. It woudn't surprise me if the Braves won the division every year from now on unless they get a salary cap. You are a dynasty when you're considered the best for a certain period of time, but you can't be the best without championships. If we want to base a dynasty on division championships, then we'd be adding a lot more teams to this list. I removed the Braves, but I'm just a poor user without a log-in. So, would any higher authorities of Wikipedia like to discuss this?

I also noticed that they were included as a Cryptodynasty (Sports). It's agreeable that they fit the standards for that category.

The 1990s Atlanta Braves only one world championship in 1995. On the other hand, they won 14 straight division titles. Hmm... maybe we should consider them an intradivisional dynasty. Hey, this article called the Buffalo Bills an intraconference dynasty, why not the same for the Braves? Just pointing out a point! Bigbrainkt (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canada at the WJC?

Canada won 5 straight world junior hokcey championships between '93 and '97? COuld that be considered a dynasty? Also, they have won the last 3 in dominant fashion. Here are the stats to prove it.

  • Record: 18-0-0
  • Goals For: 86
  • Goals Against: 20
  • Shutouts: 6
  • Championships: 3

They also set an unofficial IIHF record by playing 234 minutes and 14 seconds withpout allowing a goal. Plus they've had many players on those 3 teams that are enjoying success at the NHL already such as:

Just something to consider... WallyRankin 08:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriots dynasty

Why are the patriots still listed as a dynasty? They haven't been to the last 2 super bowls. Its over - they had one, and now its over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MicroBio Hawk (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

You're a fucking idiot.

Um, I meant they had a DYNASTY, not a SUPER BOWL. I'm quite aware of the number that they've won. I'll rephrase: Why are the patriots still listed as a dynasty? They haven't been to the last 2 super bowls. Its over - they had A DYNASTY, and now its over.

Two things here - first off, it's debatable that their dynasty is over. Plenty of other dynasties have missed 2 straight Super Bowls (1970's Steelers, 1980's 49ers), and the Patriots were very close to making it to the Super Bowl this year. Until there is a significant drop off, you can't yet say that the dynasty is over. Secondly, is this not a list of various dynasties? Why not remove the Packers cuz they're dynasty ended 40 years ago? The Patriots are the dynasty of the 2000's and may still have another Super Bowl victory.


Football dynasties do not lose superbowls during their decade of dynasty. None of the other football dynasties, the steelers, 49ers or cowboys lost a superbowl during their reign. I won't do it myself right now, but if no one responds in the next month I'm taking them off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.145.198 (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Winner's cup

"When referenced in regards to "The Cup" a dynasty is when one member successfully wins any 4 events in a row. The winners name and achievement date is then engraved on The Cup. To date (February 2007) no member has yet to achieve a dynasty." Preceding phrase moved hither from the Dynasty article -- just in case its not merely an act of vandalism. Lethiere 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Jose Earthquakes/Houston Dynamo Dynasty?

Does 3 championships in 6 years really qualify as a dynasty? Clearly it establishes the San Jose/Houston team as an outstanding club, but is 6 years too long for 3 cups to make a dynasty?


"MLS Commissioner Don Garber has said that the Earthquakes' name, colors, logo, wordmark, history and competitive records would not be transferred." This was found on the Wikipedia page for the San Jose Earthquakes and, if true, would seem to imply that San Jose and Houston are considered two different teams entirely and so no connection could be drawn between the two championships of the Earthquakes and the one championship of Dynamo. If MLS intends to reinstate the San Jose club (as they have indicated), then all credit for the previous two championships would be given to the reinstated club and not to Houston Dynamo. Therefore, no dynasty could be claimed. If there is no objection I feel the San Jose/Houston dynasty should be removed from the article.


-- I agree. San Jose has officially been reinstated to MLS starting 2008. Houston is by that definition a new team and have only won one championship. Therefore, San Jose has two MLS Cups and the Dynamo has One. Neither are dynasties. AUburnTiger 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

In order for this article not to run afoul of Wikipedia's prohibition of original research and synthesis, it seems that each team/club listed as a dynasty should include a citation, not just for their championships, but showing that they have been called a dynasty elsewhere. Cmadler 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations seem unnecessary here, as most people would consider it common knowledge. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Citations are never unnecessary in Wikipedia. Read the policies. Cmadler 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa wrestling

Iowa wrestling won nine successive NCAA titles from 1978 to 1986. Does anyone else think this deserves mention on this list? Keep in mind that this streak would be one of the longest on the list. 12.214.89.153 21:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides Iowa's nine titles from '78 to '86, they also won 20 titles in 26 years from '75 to '00. They are consistently ranked highly as one of the greatest college dynasties of all time, ahead of some of the college football dynasties listed here. Iowa13 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma State is college wrestling. Iowa should not be mentioned ahead of them. Oklahoma State has won 32 titles in the sport and has produced more individual champions in the sport than any other school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma State Wrestling

The Oklahoma State University wrestling program is among the most storied programs in all of college athletics. OSU's 34 team titles are the most ever collected by a school in one sport. The Cowboys have also produced 132 individual national champions, including the sport's first-ever four-time champion, Pat Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.18 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other wrestling teams

There are other wrestling teams that I would throw into the mix as well, such as Oklahoma State and Minnesota. Also I saw mention of some high school teams on this page. If that is the case you should include Granby High School of Norfolk, Va. and Great Bridge High School in Chesapeake, Va.

[edit] You have to win consecutive championships to be a dynasty!

See also #You have to win championships to be a dynasty!

Anyone agree? --Howard the Duck 11:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, and this means the spurs should be readded to the list of disputed dynasties. And the Braves should a;so stay at disputed dynasty since since some in the media will argue they are one. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
dynasty: "A series..." the Spurs championships aren't a series. --Howard the Duck 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, then you have to count out the '80s Celtics because they never repeated.

According to the teams on this list, the spurs MUST be considered a dynasty. If you want to make the definition more strict (win half the chanpionships in 10 years). Then the list would look very different.

Spurs must go on or the list needs to be eddited. You can't have it both ways.

Spurs already considered a dynasty by most media outlets and most NBA viewers, even though they don't watch the Spurs. They are listed as a Dynasty on NBA.com.

Well, the 80s Celtics are repeat East champs, the Spurs can't even repeat as West champs. --Howard the Duck 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's because the '80s Celtics faced much less stiff competition compared to that which is present in the modern Western Conference. C'mon Howard, your Mavs love is shining right through (I saw what your "Go Mavs!" post on the Mavericks page. Don't let blind love fool you.
But the fact is the Spurs can't even win back-to-back WCF titles. Even the Lakers made a three-peat despite the West's superiority over the East. --Howard the Duck 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was wether back to back Championships, not Conference titles, is a requirement for dynasty status. Multiple conference titles indicates that one is a conference dynasty. But in terms of league dynasties, conference titles mean nothing, as evidenced by the Mavericks last year (WTF was up with Cuban not trying to raise conference banner at the Spurs game last year? As if the Spurs were going to get jealous over a conference title?). Anyhow, by your very definition of "back to back championships", '80s Celtics != dynasty. The Spurs are already being labeled a dynasty by the vast majority of the media. I predict that over time, this opinion will win out, just as the '80s Celtics have been granted dynasty status. It doesn't matter anyways. It's just a game, guys.
The main difference with the Celts was that they've won at least consecutive EC titles. Something S.A. can't do on the West, no matter how "competitive" the West is. It's that simple. There also some dissent among sportswriters and fans whether the Spurs are a dynasty. And if a team is a dynasty, it must be great; and the epitome for greatness is by winning a championship at least consecutively. --Howard the Duck 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Circular reasoning, my friend. You claimed, "You have to win consecutive championships to be a dynasty!" Exactly your words. The Celts never had consecutive championships. Again, conference titles != league titles. Please keep that in mind. As I stated before, consecutive conference titles == conference dynasty. By your very definition of "consecutive championships," the Celts are not a dynasty. I cannot comprehend how to make this any clearer to you.


- FWIW, you mentioned that a dynasty is a series of championships, and that the Spurs don't count as a series. Apparently, logical reasoning may not be your strong suit as a series, according to wikipedia, is "a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence)." That last part is key. It can be a sequence, which again as related by wikipedia, can be a relationship of odd number years. 2003, 2005, 2007. The Spurs have been perennial championship contenders. Every playoff series that has featured them versus another equally powerful team has been considered the "true NBA finals." It is not as if they have been lottery teams in between their championship years. They have shown continued dominance and greatness. In reference to the few who dissent among sportswriters and fans, as I have mentioned, it is my belief that the vast majority of people have accepted the Spurs as a dynasty. I suspect that time will wear down any resistance. You see, the key to collective opinion is inertia. Had the Spurs never won another championship in the TD era, the inertia would have remained steadfastly in the "non-dynasty" camp. There were a few rumblings as to wether the team was achieving dynasty status in 2005, but the vast majority of opinion at that time was "no." As it is, however, with their fourth championship in nine years, the inertia is most definitely in the "dynasty" camp. The cover of Sports Illustrated listed the Spurs as a "Quiet Dynasty." The Associated Press has bestowed upon them dynasty status. Several writers from ESPN have given them such status. Those are three huge media outlets, among others. I am sorry, but the inertia is solidly in the dynasty camp. Again, I must stress my belief that given time, the few remaining will give up their resistance or be brushed off.
LBJ wore tees at the end of the ECF bearing the word "Champions"; probably TD wore a similar shirt, too. Again, dynasty connotes greatness, and if you're great, you should at least win a championship consecutively, no matter how great the opposition is. As long as sportswriters agree, without significant dissension, that the Spurs are a dynasty, they can not be a dynasty. Out article has 3 cites saying the Spurs aren't a dynasty. Perhaps unless those 3 writers change their minds, with corresponding citations, then the Spurs can move in to the main sections of this article. Until then, as long as some sportswriters dissent the Spurs are a dynasty, they should stay at "Dynasties in question." --Howard the Duck 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Did someone from the Spurs organization steal Howard the Duck's girlfriend? When the most important sports magazine in the U.S. calls you a dynasty, you are a dynasty. I would like to see a reputable source that declares that you need to win consecutive championships to be a dynasty.67.169.199.143 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)VWolf
Come on now, no ad hominems. I may not have an Eva Longoria for a girlfriend *lol*.
With that said, as long as these SI, MSNBC (check out the subtitle) and ESPN writers don't change their minds, they can't be consensus dynasties.
(Also, after checkout out Talk:Dallas Mavericks, I haven't said a word about "Go Mavs". I did say "Go Sens" though. --Howard the Duck 14:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? You did not say a word about "Go Mavs"? Then what is this that I see on the Section named NBA Finals 2006 under the Dallas Mavericks talk page: <Quote> Perhaps the schedule can be replaced with game recaps? GO MAVS!!! hehehehe --Howard the Duck 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) </Quote>
So what has this to do with dynasties? Mind you, I abhor the Lakers more than the Spurs. I do not even hate the Spurs, I'm just, let's say, "indifferent." So anyone can come up with a cite that the Spurs are a consensus dynasty? --Howard the Duck 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hey, hey... Listen, I am only replying to what you posted. You claimed that you never said those words, and here I have proof that you did. It goes directly to your credibility. Also, knowing that you are a Mavs fan helps us to understand that this fact may affect your perspective. Anyhow, as far as contributions to this talk, yes I listed those three references from those contesting the Spurs dynasty that you so gleefully threw back at VWolf. Amongst the long laundry list of authors who claim that Spurs ARE a dynasty, I had to put some effort to find these three articles. I was too lazy to list all those who do consider the Spurs a dynasty. Perhaps, I should just list them now. By and large, the consensus in the media HAS begun to form that the Spurs are a dynasty. As has been mentioned several times already, there are only a few writers and fans that believe that Spurs are not a dynasty, which psychological momentum should take care of over time. As far as ad hominem attacks go, I would like to add one of my own in saying that it is indeed a sad state of affairs that a person as biased as you can have so much influence on a reference website as important as wikipedia.
  • "there are only a few writers and fans that believe that Spurs are not a dynasty..."[citation needed]
Also, NBA fans are most likely to question the Spurs inclusion, and some NBA fans aren't Spurs fans. There'll be a credibility problem if an Eredivisie fan (which is most likely, doesn't even know what the NBA is) starts editing the NBA section. And I fail to see consensus in the media, maybe since I'm not an American and do not read that much NBA-related content. But I'd say this: those who are claiming the Spurs are a dynasty are either Spurs fans or basketball purists. --Howard the Duck 12:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, I wish I could find the exact link to that ESPN Sportsnation poll. I will update the author citation lists as soon as I can get some time. As far as fans go, I wish I could find the original Sportsnation poll, but this will have to suffice. The best google search I could come up with was this Yahoo Answers page discussing the same Sportsnation poll that I was talking about. It cites the poll saying 62% of the people polled across the 50 states, ranked the Spurs as a dynasty. Of the 50 states, 49 had a majority for Spurs as a dynasty. I cannot believe that there exists such a large group of Spurs fans outside of South Texas to influence the informal poll in such a way. I could have sworn that I had posted the link to the poll earlier somewhere. Oh well, here is the yahoo discussion: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070617192632AAYLB0E (amateurish talk, I know, but the statistics from the poll are accurate).
ESPN Sportsnation? If the FEC sanctioned that, it can be better, lol. --Howard the Duck 10:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's very difficult to get a gauge of how the American public feels about this issue otherwise. Give me a break. I even mentioned that it was an informal poll. There is no way in hell that someone is sponsoring an actual scientific survey on this issue. And since the poll can break down which states a particular vote is coming from, it at least helps to eliminate the possibility of local fan bias. Relax, Howard, this is not such an important issue. The definition of sports dynasties is already very loose. I doubt that this discussion on this wiki page will end this debate. After all, wouldn't that ruin the fun of getting wasted in a pub on Friday nights discussing the issue with friends? :)
Compromise: place the Spurs both at the NBA and dynasties in question. I dunno why the 2000-02 Lakers are in the "dynasties in question" section, anyway. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I don't know why the Lakers are down there either.


[edit] New Jersey Devils and Detroit Red Wings of 1990s and 2000s

I dont know if either one is a dynasty. The Devils are in question but the Wings won 2 straight but not 3 in 4 years. The 2002 team was pretty different from the 1997 and 1998 teams.

[edit] Miami Dolphins of the early 1970's as a Dynasty in question

Super winners of 1972, 73..Division Championships 71-74...just a thought


--Winning 2 Championships in a row is not a dynasty. 3 in a row is a dynasty. 3 out of 4 years is a dynasty in some cases. Case and point, the New England Patriots are not a dynasty. They won 3 of 4, however in the year they didn't win they didn't even make the playoffs, so that can't be dynasty. 4 of 5 is a dynasty even if no playoffs in the off year. I would also consider 5 of 7 and 5 of 8 to be dynasties just because it is done over several years. The Spurs won 3 in 8 years, no way is that a dynasty. Even though they made the playoffs every other year they still did not win enough times to be considered a dynasty. Dynasty is a special word in sports and shouldn't be just thrown around to any team that wins a couple championships. My dynasties of the last 20 years in the 3 major sports would be Lakers (2000-2002) they won 3 in a row. Yankees (1996-2000) won 4 of 5, Cowboys (1993-1996) won 3 of 4 and made NFC title game in the off year. Lakers (1985-1988) won 3 of 4 and made West Finals in off year.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.105.110 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Why not consider the '70s Miami Dolphins as a dynasty? They were the first team ever to make 3 Super Bowls in a row. They repeated as Super Bowl champions in '72 and '73. PERFECT SEASON 17-0 IN 1972!!! HELLO!!! I can't believe there's so much negative talk about this. Hey, even though they only won 2 championships in that span and that the '70s were dominated by the Steelers, the Fins should qualify as a dynasty... at least a dynasty in question. Reason is because that is so far the only success this franchise has had in their history. Bigbrainkt (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over the Spurs

Do we REALLY need 11 sources cited over whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty or not? We should have one or two of each, as an example, and no more. I'm going to change it. Don't get me wrong, I think the debate is good, but this amount of references is unnecessary for a minor debate such as this. One side says yes, one says no, we get the point. We don't need it re-iterated 11 times. (Remember "A Few Good Men?") littlebum2002 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1999-06 Oakland Athletics

I believe that the 1999-2006 Oakland Athletics could be considered a dynasty. Eight consecutive winning seasons. Twenty consecutive wins in 2002, an American League record. Four Western Division titles. American League Championship Series in 2006. They did everything but make the World Series. 24.4.131.142 01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1999-present San Jose Sharks

The Sharks have been doing very well since 1999, having had eight consecutive losing seasons prior. Seven winning seasons in eight years, excluding the cancelled season. They were the Pacific Division champions in 2001-02 and 2003-04, making the Western Conference Finals for the first time in franchise history in 2003-04. 24.4.131.142 03:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Sox

Ok, because the Sox have won 2 titles this decade does not make them a dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)