What's your definition of a sports dynasty?

I don't think you can place teams neatly into the dynasty/not dynasty categories based on measurable criteria. However many titles in however many years does not mean a team is a dynasty. It's a completely subjective label. My general definition of a dynasty is complete dominance of your sport over an extended period of time. In my opinion, if there is a large argument, then there is no dynasty. Teams like the Celtics for example are pretty much universally recognized as a dynasty because it was clear that for a long period of time the Celtics dominated the NBA. Today too many teams are referred to as dynasties probably because the general public wants to believe that what they're watching is history and their teams are better than teams of the past.

 

John Wooden's UCLA team or the Celtics.

 

Among the major pro and college sports, these are the top two, no question.

After that, the debate gets going pretty good. The 1947-62 Yankees? The Packers of the 60s? The Habs? The Showtime Lakers? What about modern-day USC football?

 

Most recent dynasties...

NFL - 1960s Packers
NBA - Jordan's Bulls
MLB - I guess you could argue the A's or Reds in the 1970s, but you'd probably have to go back to the 50s and 60s Yankee teams.
NHL - Gretzky's Oilers
College football - Nebraska in the 1990s came pretty damn close, but you'd probably have to go back to the old-time Oklahoma teams.
College hoops - UCLA (men), Tennessee (women)

 

70s Steelers
90s Yankees

 

I agree with micropolitan guy's last post, but I think it's worth pointing out that Oregon State won two national championships before the NCAA's mandated universal starting date for college baseball seasons, which doesn't kick in until 2008. The Beavers didn't need it to win, and they played a high percentage of their first 30 games on the road -- par for the course for the northern schools.

 

I don't think colleges can be defined as dynasties because of the turnover of talent. Professional dynasties are defined by the same core group of players with a period of sustained success. Steelers, 49ers, A's of the 1970s, Lakers, Spurs etc.

Is Florida football or basketball a dynasty?

 

Florida football? On what basis?

 

That's my point - the Gators repeated in hoops, football won one national title. Does it make that much of a difference?

 

Obviously, we are both a bit biased...but I don't know how you leave the Steelers of the 70s off a list of dynasties.

Again, I ask if it fits the definition of a dynasty better if it is the same core of players all the way through or completely different groups. To me, it is having the same core. Otherwise, you are dealing with different teams, even if it is the same franchise or college.

 

In a lighter mood, I would say someone who has won the World Heavyweight title 20 times in his career, with a big wink face or smiley attached (see Ric Flair).

But not now.

 

JD,

Perhaps I misstated what I meant, not the universal starting date, but a limit as to how many weeks a team could practice/play in an academic year (23? 25? something like that). It lessened the amount of organized practice time for the warm-weather schools and did create an unofficial official starting date because every team had to save a certain amount of weeks for the regular season and thus was forced to limit fall/January practices.

You want a true college dynasty, try Mt. Union FB, Kenyon in swimming, and Williams College in just about everything it does. Damn jock schools.