Talk:Dynasty (sports)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] You have to win championships to be a dynasty!
Someone on here added the Braves under MLB because they won a whole bunch of division titles. Yes, but they only won one championship in that span of time. This means that they were not the most dominant team for that period of time. Especially in major league baseball, a sport with no salary cap in which it's easy to win if you just have money. It woudn't surprise me if the Braves won the division every year from now on unless they get a salary cap. You are a dynasty when you're considered the best for a certain period of time, but you can't be the best without championships. If we want to base a dynasty on division championships, then we'd be adding a lot more teams to this list. I removed the Braves, but I'm just a poor user without a log-in. So, would any higher authorities of Wikipedia like to discuss this?
I also noticed that they were included as a Cryptodynasty (Sports). It's agreeable that they fit the standards for that category.
[edit] Canada at the WJC?
Canada won 5 straight world junior hokcey championships between '93 and '97? COuld that be considered a dynasty? Also, they have won the last 3 in dominant fashion. Here are the stats to prove it.
- Record: 18-0-0
- Goals For: 86
- Goals Against: 20
- Shutouts: 6
- Championships: 3
They also set an unofficial IIHF record by playing 234 minutes and 14 seconds withpout allowing a goal. Plus they've had many players on those 3 teams that are enjoying success at the NHL already such as:
Just something to consider... WallyRankin 08:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Patriots dynasty
Why are the patriots still listed as a dynasty? They haven't been to the last 2 super bowls. Its over - they had one, and now its over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MicroBio Hawk (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
You're a fucking idiot.
Um, I meant they had a DYNASTY, not a SUPER BOWL. I'm quite aware of the number that they've won. I'll rephrase: Why are the patriots still listed as a dynasty? They haven't been to the last 2 super bowls. Its over - they had A DYNASTY, and now its over.
Two things here - first off, it's debatable that their dynasty is over. Plenty of other dynasties have missed 2 straight Super Bowls (1970's Steelers, 1980's 49ers), and the Patriots were very close to making it to the Super Bowl this year. Until there is a significant drop off, you can't yet say that the dynasty is over. Secondly, is this not a list of various dynasties? Why not remove the Packers cuz they're dynasty ended 40 years ago? The Patriots are the dynasty of the 2000's and may still have another Super Bowl victory.
[edit] Winner's cup
"When referenced in regards to "The Cup" a dynasty is when one member successfully wins any 4 events in a row. The winners name and achievement date is then engraved on The Cup. To date (February 2007) no member has yet to achieve a dynasty." Preceding phrase moved hither from the Dynasty article -- just in case its not merely an act of vandalism. Lethiere 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
