How would you define a sports dynasty?

It is open for interpretation.....I personally consider a three-peat OR a period of 4 in 5 years (win two, lose, win two) for the NHL......I also consider it to vary somewhat from sport to sport.

Technically speaking, the word derives from the Chinese dynasties which span hundreds of years so it is a grey area and can be debated.

For what it is worth, the NHL "recognizes" nine dynasties (as poer NHL.com)

http://www.nhl.com/cup/dynasties.html

For me........NHL- 3 in a row or 4 of 5

NBA- 4 in a row

NFL- 4 in a row or 4 of 5

MLB- 3 in a row

My question is how would you define a Dynasty? YOU CANNOT, personal preference...no right answer and no wrong answer.

I will also add that you could even consider teams a dynasty that might have 2 Superbowls, lose one then win one but have a bunch of division/conference championships in a row.......some might even consider the Buffalo Bills a dynasty of a sort with 4 Superbowl losses in a row.

In closing, you will be happy to hear that here in Canada several years back, they had a promotion where they put a flag in every case of beer and the theme was that they were NHL dynasties......so, hanging down in my basement, I have a flag that says "Philadelphia Flyers- Stanley Cup Dynasty-1974-1975."

If my beer box says it's true then it must be true.

Good Q.

Define Dynasty

Wow great question and a lot of good answers!

Well my take on a dynasty is a bit different.While I think championships are a necessary part of determining a dynasty, I think the dominating the competition for several years on end is just as important of a component. Winning the championship is a big deal but I also think dynasty teams should dominate the competition in the regular season and the post season and should do it for a long long time. The Red Wings are a good example, while they didn't win more than 2 cups in a row or 4 in 5 as many are saying, they've essentially dominated the competition and been the team to beat for the past 13 years. That in my mind makes them a dynasty.

Ultimately I guess you can have two different types of dynasties, the types who go on a huge tear and win 3 in a row or 4 in 5 but then fade away or the types who spread their championships out but dominate their sport for a longer period of time. I think both are equally impressive and both are deserving of being called a dynasty.

To me the first cut off is between the organization and the actual roster of players that win the consecutive championships.

I think the term "dynasty" is a flexible one in that it depends upon the longevity of the winning team. In other words, the Gretzky-led Oilers who won four Cups in five seasons qualify as a dynasty. So goes for the Islander and Canadien teams just prior to that.

Now the Red Wings of late challenge my definition in that the organization deserves the term more so than the team of players which has evolved much between 1996 and 2007. Does the Yzerman team stand as a dynasty in its own right and apart from the 2001 and 2007 Cup winners? I don't know.

I really think the problem lies in a persons desire to economize the amount of words they use to label a dynasty. Its easier to say the Canadiens of the 50's were a dynasty. But with the Red Wings its more like "Yeah, they're a dynasty in flux".

Now all teams evolve no doubt and here is another aspect of determining how to apply the term. At what point do we say there is not enough turnover to say a team is much different than any other of its uniform in the same era? What qualifies as enough turnover to qualify a team as distinctive from its brethren?

At this point, it then becomes a personal choice. Its not a hard-and-fast process that has but one definition. But in my book, three in a row is where a team can begin to be called a hands-down dynasty.

Even in my orange-bleeding years I never considered the Flyers a dynasty. Its got to be at least three in a row and as much a continuation of the first roster as possible to make the term applicable.

Different dynasties for different folks.

I believe a dynasty qualifies as any perido in which a team wins multiple championships and are clearly the dominant team (Or co-dominant)

Some argue a dynasty needs to battle adversity

Ex- The Celtcis in the 80s had the 87 playoffs when they beat the up and coming Pistons and pushed the Lakers to 7 despite missing McHale, Walton and Bird being banged up

The Pistons and Lakers who had brief 3 peats don't qualify according to that (I say they do count as do the Spurs)

I define a dynasty as the period of at least three years where a team is simply expected to win the Cup at the beginning of the season. Even after the years that the Habs and Flames won the Cup, the following season, the Oilers were still the clear favourites to win it at the beginning of the season.

In contrast, take the case of the Red Wings of the late '90s (who were not a dynasty). They weren't the favourite at the beginning of the '96-'97 season (their first Cup in this era). So while they were the favourites when the first pucks dropped on the '97-'98 season and '98-'99 season, that was only two years, and in '99-'00 the torch was passed around again.

Of course, as Bob said, it's all personal preference. This is just the way I like to think of it. You have to be considered the clear-cut top team in hockey for essentially three consecutive off-seasons.

For me dynasty requires 3 in a row minimum or 4 in 5. I guess in today's 30 team league I could accept 3 in 4 years.

I guess you need 75% wins over at least a 4 yr period.

I just looked at Bobs link for the NHL.com website. I think they need a new writer. For the 76-79 Habs they list Rick Chartraw and Yvon Lambert as a memorable players. Okay Lambert had a big OT goal against the bruins and big hair, but no mention of the big three of Robinson, Savard and Lapointe. If big hair was the criteria Robinson at least should have made it.

Simple you repeat like the Islanders from 1980 to 1983 or the Edmonton Oilers 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1990 then you call that a dynasty and Its good to have once you win it all.

a true dynasty is 3 championships in a row, nfl never had a true dynasty

A three-peat or four wins in five years. Arguably in the age of free agency a dynsasty may be reduced to three wins in four years.

I think it has to be greater than 50% winning seasons, so I wouldn't count the Spurs as a dynasty, only winning 44.44%. Just a very good, consistent team.