- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What is your definition of a dynasty?
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:30 am
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:30 am
Everyone has different definitions, as seen in another thread, that made me want to start this thread.
I think I'm a bit tougher on this and I rarely throw out that term.
For the most part, I think a general start for me, is 3 championships, in a 5-6 year span gets you there.
So, IMO:
Florida Gators football: Not a dynasty. Though close to starting one with a win over Bama.
USC: Not a dynasty. 2 championships, only really played in 1 actual title game. But, they've had a ridiculous run over a long period of time.
Patriots: I give them the dynasty tag. 3 titles in, what, 4 years? Then the 18-0 start to the almost 4th title season.
LSU Baseball: Easily a dynasty, 5 in 10 years.
I think I'm a bit tougher on this and I rarely throw out that term.
For the most part, I think a general start for me, is 3 championships, in a 5-6 year span gets you there.
So, IMO:
Florida Gators football: Not a dynasty. Though close to starting one with a win over Bama.
USC: Not a dynasty. 2 championships, only really played in 1 actual title game. But, they've had a ridiculous run over a long period of time.
Patriots: I give them the dynasty tag. 3 titles in, what, 4 years? Then the 18-0 start to the almost 4th title season.
LSU Baseball: Easily a dynasty, 5 in 10 years.
This post was edited on 12/27/09 at 12:38 am
8
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:31 am to shel311
dynast is when you frick a waitress on a stool
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:35 am to shel311
a bad Kiss Album I used to have.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:38 am to BrightsideTiger412
Doh!!
I'm not gonna lie, I don't get either joke that you 2 made.
I'm not gonna lie, I don't get either joke that you 2 made.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:46 am to shel311
quote:
only really played in 1 actual title game.
correction: 2 actual title games. won 1 vs OU, and the loss to UT.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:50 am to lsu xman
quote:
correction: 2 actual title games. won 1 vs OU, and the loss to UT
Touche.
I was moreso going with the 2 titles won with only playing 1 title game, in those 2 title years.
But, you're technically correct.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:56 am to shel311
quote:
I think I'm a bit tougher on this and I rarely throw out that term.
Doesn't sound like it
quote:
championships, in a 5-6 year span gets you there.
that sounds more like a great team imo.
quote:
USC: Not a dynasty. 2 championships, only really played in 1 actual title game.
They would need to win at least one more title and soon (the next 2 years) and continue to win 11 and finish in the top 4 toqualify, they did fwiw play in back to back BCS CG (04 and 05)
quote:
Florida Gators football: Not a dynasty. Though close to starting one with a win over Bama.
You can't close the book on them yet. If they win the Sugar, they will be 13-1 (same record as 06 and 08) and no worse than #3. They could win another title or 2 and continue to post top 5 finishes the next few years.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:56 am to shel311
I think Florida State was a dynasty even though Bowden won only two championships. 14 consecutive years in the top 5 is an amazing accomplishment. That's sustained dominance for a lengthy period of time.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 12:59 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Doesn't sound like it
Eh. Any time a team wins back to back, or 2 in 3 years, the term gets thrown around all over the place, wayyyy too early.
quote:
You can't close the book on them yet. If they win the Sugar, they will be 13-1 (same record as 06 and 08) and no worse than #3. They could win another title or 2 and continue to post top 5 finishes the next few years
They're definitely still in the mix and there run is nowhere near dead.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:01 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
I think Florida State was a dynasty even though Bowden won only two championships. 14 consecutive years in the top 5 is an amazing accomplishment. That's sustained dominance for a lengthy period of time
That run was SICK!!
But, I just wouldn't call 2 titles in 14 years a dynasty.
The top 4 finishes, amazing. But at some point, you need to rack more titles to be a dynasty, IMO.
Good call though, and as opinions vary on this topic, they are certainly a program worth mentioning.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:16 am to shel311
If you really want to be tougher, I'd say there are only a few real dynasties. I'd say its teams that either win literally every year or maintain excellence over an extended period with different rosters. and win say at least 4, maybe 5 titles depending on the sport.
Some examples: UCLA basketball circa 64-75. The Celtics 57-69. The Yankees circa 47-64 (note since 1927 when they won their first title, they have won 27 of 81 or 1 of every 3 WS
)
Those are the elites of the major sports I follow.
Some others:
81-98 49er's 10 wins in 16 of 17 years (one year they didn't was strike year of 82). 5 SB titles, 5 SB appearances, 9 NFC CG. At least 10 division titles. 15 playoff appearances.
83-92 Miami, Fla. 4 MNC's in 9 seasons. From 86-89 they were literally 2 plays from winning 4 in a row. In 86 and 88 their only loss was to team that won NC on basically the last play and they won it in 87 and 89. The 7 years from 86-92, the won 3 titles. lost 1 game to the team that won the title 3 times (2 of these were in bowls) and finished #3 the other year.
89-98 Bulls: 6 titles in 8 years, 2 other trips to ECF. Lost in 2nd round in years between titles to eventual ECC.
80-91 Lakers: 5 titles, in 8 years. Won WC 9 times in 12 years. Every team they beat in the Finals also won at least 1 NBA title.
86-01 LSU Baseball. 5 titles in 10 years at least 5 other trips to CWS.
Duke Basketball 86-01 and Florida State FB 87-00 have long runs of dominance but may not have enough championships to qualify as a true dynasty.
60 Packers and 70's Steelers also ones to consider.
Some examples: UCLA basketball circa 64-75. The Celtics 57-69. The Yankees circa 47-64 (note since 1927 when they won their first title, they have won 27 of 81 or 1 of every 3 WS
) Those are the elites of the major sports I follow.
Some others:
81-98 49er's 10 wins in 16 of 17 years (one year they didn't was strike year of 82). 5 SB titles, 5 SB appearances, 9 NFC CG. At least 10 division titles. 15 playoff appearances.
83-92 Miami, Fla. 4 MNC's in 9 seasons. From 86-89 they were literally 2 plays from winning 4 in a row. In 86 and 88 their only loss was to team that won NC on basically the last play and they won it in 87 and 89. The 7 years from 86-92, the won 3 titles. lost 1 game to the team that won the title 3 times (2 of these were in bowls) and finished #3 the other year.
89-98 Bulls: 6 titles in 8 years, 2 other trips to ECF. Lost in 2nd round in years between titles to eventual ECC.
80-91 Lakers: 5 titles, in 8 years. Won WC 9 times in 12 years. Every team they beat in the Finals also won at least 1 NBA title.
86-01 LSU Baseball. 5 titles in 10 years at least 5 other trips to CWS.
Duke Basketball 86-01 and Florida State FB 87-00 have long runs of dominance but may not have enough championships to qualify as a true dynasty.
60 Packers and 70's Steelers also ones to consider.
This post was edited on 12/27/09 at 9:01 am
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:21 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
maintain excellence over an extended period with different rosters
Something I haven't considered.
Hmm...
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:34 am to shel311
Im curious as to when a dynasty is considered over... did the Lakers dynasty end in 2002, or did it end in 2004 after they flamed out in the Finals?
What about the Spurs? Did it end after the FInals, the WCF Loss to teh Lakers? Or the 1st round loss to the Mavs.
As for college football I have to consider USC a dynasty... because only due to a flawed system have they not met the championship criteria.
What about the Spurs? Did it end after the FInals, the WCF Loss to teh Lakers? Or the 1st round loss to the Mavs.
As for college football I have to consider USC a dynasty... because only due to a flawed system have they not met the championship criteria.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:38 am to Ghazi
quote:
Im curious as to when a dynasty is considered over
hard to say, you can only really tell over time.
quote:
have to consider USC a dynasty... because only due to a flawed system have they not met the championship criteria.
you may not like the system, but you can not assume championships under a different system. USC might have 4 or 5 NC under a playoff, they might have 0. No way to tell. Its the same system for everyone.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:38 am to H-Town Tiger
Gotta throw in USC baseball back in the day.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:41 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Gotta throw in USC baseball back in the day.
probably, I didn't follow CBB until the 80's so I don't know it enough to comment. UConn and Tennessee women's BB have dynasties as well, but I don't really follow that either.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:44 am to H-Town Tiger
1.4.1 1948 National Championship
1.5.1 1958 National Championship
1.5.2 1961 National Championship
1.5.3 1963 National Championship
1.5.4 1968 National Championship
1.5.5 1970 National Championship
1.5.6 1971 National Championship
1.5.7 1972 National Championship
1.5.8 1973 National Championship
1.5.9 1974 National Championship
1.5.10 1978 National Championship
1.5.1 1958 National Championship
1.5.2 1961 National Championship
1.5.3 1963 National Championship
1.5.4 1968 National Championship
1.5.5 1970 National Championship
1.5.6 1971 National Championship
1.5.7 1972 National Championship
1.5.8 1973 National Championship
1.5.9 1974 National Championship
1.5.10 1978 National Championship
Posted on 12/27/09 at 1:54 am to LSUTANGERINE
from 58-74 that's what 9 titles is 17 seasons, that qualifies.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 2:20 am to H-Town Tiger
Dynasty is the Buffalo Bills.
Posted on 12/27/09 at 3:31 am to Ghazi
quote:
did the Lakers dynasty end in 2002, or did it end in 2004 after they flamed out in the Finals?
Great point. I Meant to list them in my original post, but forgot.
I don't think you can take the Lakers title last year and count it towards the 3peat dynasty. I feel like there were too many down years in between, so this team is starting a new chapter.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News