In your personal opinion, what constitutes a "Sports Dynasty"?

If you wanted some formula, maybe something like this: if (number of championship appearances)/(number of seasons between the first and last ones being considered) is greater than but not equal to .500, with a minimum of two appearances.

As for just playoff appearances- I'd say the equation stays the same, but the minimum appearances increases the lower you go. Sticking with baseball, if a team makes the ALCS or NLCS at least three times; if they win their division four times; or if they just make the playoffs five times.

Although having mostly the same players during this period makes one team "more" of a dynasty than another, and I'd say having any "time period" being considered cannot have a losing season in it, "except" for football, since they only play 16 games.

I'd say the difficulty of having a dynasty for a specific sport has changed over time; it was a lot easier for the Yankees to have a dynasty back when they only needed to win more games then everybody else in the AL to make the World Series. Since and including 2002, they've had the most wins in the AL seven times, but only made the World Series twice. Between 1992 and 2003, the Braves had the NL's best record nine times, but only made the World Series four times,

Currently, I'd say NFL is easiest, then NBA, then NHL, then MLB.

I would rank the Green Bay Packers as a classic example of a sports dynasty. Many championships since the early day of NFL, then Superbowls and then despite some down years a very strong chance to play in the post season every year. And a strong administration.

Ditto the New Yankees.

Another one was the Montreal Canadians, but clearly this has not been sustained to the current era.

So therefore I couldn't rank the Chicago Bulls or Miami Heat as a dynasty. The closest might be the Celtics and arguably the Lakers, but the Lakers do not have a long history because they were relocated from Minneapolis.

So I think multiple championships, but spread out over a long period of time. But not winning 3 in a row then fading.

If a team wins three or more championship, say within a five year period, that might be considered a dynasty. Examples: the Yankees from 1949 to 1953 won five in a row. The Yankees from the mid 50's to early 60's would fall into that category.

If the Braves from the 90's had won more than one world series, they might have been considered as well. The last "dynasty" would have to be the Yankees from 1996 to 2003. Six pennants and four world series titles.

If the Giants can continue to win they too might be considered.

To me a dynasty is successful for at least five season and up to but not exactly ten seasons. They need a championship such as world champs or super bowl champs. I think most importantly they must be dominant for the span of 5-10 years. I would classify such dominance as having a winning record, being division champs, and making the playoffs. These attributes are not all required verbatim but something close to them should be attained.

For recent examples I would probably consider the Pats a dynasty (as much as I hate to say lol). I think the Colts (with Manning) were close if not there. I guess a superstar is part of the dynasty too now that I think about it. There is always a player associated with every dynasty.

It varies depending on the length of the playoffs and the amount of free agency. In sports with high amount of free agency like football, it is difficult to maintain a dynasty because good players leave every year. The low number of teams and low number of playoff games means it's effectively a crapshoot every year. In basketball, with long playoff series and a long regular season, the better true talent team tends to win because they aren't as susceptible to random variation.

2 championships are good enough for a dynasty in football, although 3 in general within a span of a few years is considered the gold standard. The Yankees 2009 championship was not part of their late '90s, early '00's dynasty, even though the team was contending continuously throughout the decade.

I woudl say chamionships are a must, IMO, at least 3 in a relatively short span with good play between (maybe 3 in 5 years and playoffs the other two years?).

I would say football is the hardest due to the salary cap, then baseball, basketball, hockey

a team who competes in the playoffs for 3+ seasons