What's your definition of a sports dynasty?

I ask because an AP analysis on the wire says Oregon State qualifies as a college baseball dynasty. Despite having written two recent columns praising the program, I maintain back-to-back championships do not constitute a dynasty. The word gets thrown around a lot in sports, and it's probably rarely applicable, but in this case I'm certain it's misapplied.

USC was a college baseball dynasty in the days before scholarship limits.
LSU was a college baseball dynasty, winning national championships in 1991, 1993, 1996, 1997 and 2000.
Texas is out in front in CWS appearances and consecutive NCAA regional appearances, but its championships are probably too spread out to have ever qualified the Longhorns for dynasty status. The same, perhaps, with Arizona State to some extent.

Oregon State has been to the CWS four times: 1952 (0-for-2), 2005 (0-for-2), 2006 (national champs) and 2007 (champs). This year's team defied almost all logic, barely making it into the NCAA tournament after finishing 10-14 in conference. I love everything about Oregon State (especially the fans and the players) and give big-time props to Pat Casey and his bunch for winning (and winning without a CWS loss this time), but I can't yet use the term dynasty.

Thoughts?

 

Duke.

(bite me, jealous loosers)

 

There's a difference between a dynasty and dominance.

The Reds of the 1970s were dominant, but they weren't a dynasty. Same holds true for the Spurs of today and the Cowboys of the 1990s.

Dynasties should be, at a minimum, three consecutive titles. That would exclude Oregon State (for now).

 

Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend not biting someone in dental crisis.

 

Take your Dook talk here.

 

I don't trust massage boards. I always assume the cops are right around the corner.

No happy endings there.

 

Three straight championships would do it for me, or a large majority of a stretch, like four championships in six years or three in five years.

 

I'm not sure if three in six years counts, but three titles in five or less is a pretty good standard.

Three in six with a couple title game losses would probably do it, too.

And the term gets thrown around WAY too much lately.

 

NOTE: If you're using that analysis, please note it has an error. It says Oregon State lost its first game in Omaha last year (true, an 11-1 loss to Miami) and hasn't lost there since (untrue). North Carolina won the opener in the championship series in 2006.

 

Auburn men's swimming -- five straight titles -- is a dynasty. Stanford women's tennis and UNC women's soccer, which have won about 80 percent of the titles in the past 20 years, are dynasties.

Two titles does not constitute a dynasty. It's just a good run.

 

Two in a row is definitely not a dynasty. I would say the last dynasty in sports was the 1996-01 Yankees. Even though they didn't win it in '01, they came within an out and had won four-of-five before that.
In major college sports, it has been awhile.

 

Using your example, I'd argue LSU winning four in seven (1991, 1993, 1996, 1997) counts, although I wouldn't call baseball a major college sport.