Do you consider the Spurs a dynasty?

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
My standard rule of thumb for a dynasty is winning three championships in a row. In basketball, where quite a few teams have done exactly that and more, the Spurs 3 titles in 5 seasons and 4 titles in 9 seasons seems to come up a bit short.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think the Pats are a dynasty?

[Eagles]

I hate these arguments because its basically about semantics.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My standard rule of thumb for a dynasty is winning three championships in a row. In basketball, where quite a few teams have done exactly that and more, the Spurs 3 titles in 5 seasons and 4 titles in 9 seasons seems to come up a bit short.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think the Pats are a dynasty?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a rule of thumb. There's flexibility.

Football is different. No team has ever won three Super Bowls in a row. The Packers did win NFL Championships from '65-67 and regular season championships from '29-'31 (no championship game). But, that's it.

So, an NFL team winning three Super Bowls in four years (like the Patriots or Cowboys) or four Super Bowls in six years (like the Steelers) would be an NFL dynasty for me.

But, the NBA has seen these runs.

Mineapolis Lakers: '49-'50 and '52-'54
Boston Celtics: '57, '59-'66, and '68-'69
Chicago Bulls: '91-'93 and '96-'98
Los Angelas Lakers: '00-'02

That last Lakers dynasty comes in the middle of the potential Spurs dynasty. Can you really have one dynasty in the middle of another?

[capone0]

Don't a lot of people consider the 1979-1988 Lakers a dynasty under Magic? 5 Titles in 10 seasons. The Celtics also had a mini dynasty mixed in with 3 titles in 7 years.

NFL You have:

70s-Steelers
80s-9ers
90s-Cowboys
00s-Pats

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't a lot of people consider the 1979-1988 Lakers a dynasty under Magic? 5 Titles in 10 seasons. The Celtics also had a mini dynasty mixed in with 3 titles in 7 years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people do. But, I don't. The Lakers and Celtics were evenly matched teams. Neither was dominant and you need to be dominant to get the Dynasty dynasty tag.

The 49ers don't count either. They did win back to back Super Bowls in '89 and '90. Both their other championships were in '82, '85, and '95. That's too widely spaced.

Winning many championships shouldn't automatically earn the dynasty tag. I think you need to win them in a short span of time and clearly be the dominant team during that span.

Also, not being labeled a dynasty certainly doesn't take away from the incredible accomplishments of teams like the Spurs, 49ers, or Lakers.