Is Five Titles in 16 Years A Dynasty?

[714562]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The best objective example in sports would be the world famous New York Yankees, which dominated Major League Baseball for several decades several times over. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row.

The most widely accepted sports dynasties are those with the majority of championships over a very long period of time, either consecutively or with interruptions (e.g.,UCLA Bruins men's basketball 7-straight national championships from 1964 to 1975 and 11 national championships during Wooden's reign).

Serious question.

Five titles in 15 years isn't a majority.

Of course, if we exclude the most recent title win (which is obviously outlier), it becomes four titles within 9 years . . . still NOT a majority, but close?

Can you really call the Spurs a dynasty then, with no back to back wins and without the majority of titles during their most consistent run?

Is it enough to say that a period of being consistently good constitutes a dynasty, as opposed to being consistently dominant?

 

[Mensch Fontana]

Nope

 

[42 Monks]

No.

But you should send this thread to ESPN so they can run this discussion by various athletes and talking heads until the draft.

 

[malbaker86]

I could give a dayum about what you want to call it, just call them the NBA champions and 5 time champions

 

[FTBS]

Can't be a true dynasty until they do something without Duncan and co.

 

[Big Mel]

I think when they win next year, yes.

 

[42 Monks]

Can't be a true dynasty until they do something without Duncan and co.

so the bulls can't be called a dynasty because jordan was there the whole time?

 

[THE MACHINE]

Can't be a true dynasty until they do something without Duncan and co.

Dont dynasties usually revolve around a core........low key

 

[CashmereThoughts]

their not a dynasty. but coming back and winning during different time frames is more impressive to me than winning 2-3 in a row. its hard to work to the top

 

[FTBS]

so the bulls can't be called a dynasty because jordan was there the whole time?

Pretty much. Only dynasties in NBA history are the Celtics and the Lakers.

Dont dynasties usually revolve around a core........low key

I see what you did there . If you look at the meaning of the word "dynasty" it references a family ruling throughout generations. No matter how much you dominate one generation that doesn't change the fact that it's indeed one generation. You gotta have a multiple cores over time to be a true dynasty. People throw words around without any consideration for their actual meaning too much.

 

[seemorecizzy]

no three peats and no back to backs
nah

special team/organization though

 

[CrimsonTider]

No fukking way

 

[Jplaya2023]

nba dynasty = 3 straight rings.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Oh it's definitely a dynasty...Pop been turning boys to men since Bel Biv Devoe

And as we see...now he has Another Bad Creation in Kawhi Leonard

 

[Primetime21]

Call it what you want they've been the most consistently dominant basketball team during that time span as evidence by championships in 3 different decades, to me their run over a 16 year period is more impressive than a single 3-peat