dynasties

[marine]

Ok, bored silly here and trying to think of something clean, unoffensive and still fun that can start a decent thread going with opinions and i came up with this:

Throughout the sports world history teams have emerged and dominated a sport for years at a time. Examples being the Lakers of the 80's, the Bulls of the 90's, the Canadiens way back in the day, the Steelers in the 70's, the 49ers in the 80s... and so on.

All of these teams faltered shortly thereafter and became a bit of a cellar dweller type team.
My question is this:

Who will be the next team to fall into this dreaded hole?
Could it be the Yankees?
or is baseball to unbalanced with their rules to allow this to happen?
football is up in the air right now as there really isnt a overly dominant team worthy of the handle dynasty.
basketball? i dont follow it enuff.
what about college hoops? Uconn went down the shitter this year after being a perennial powerhouse.
hockey?
what about the xfl? LMAO!

my vote goes out to the yanks to be the next big team to go down the crapper with a single flush.

anyone else?

 

[Spud82]

Marine

I'll go with the Lakers. No way Shaq Daddy and Kobe Kid can get along long enough to prolong this dynasty. Mr.Zen Jackson never figured on this. Besides he's too busy getting a divorce and scheming on women
himself. Ah yes, only in LA.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Good question and several excellent points about sports dynasties. My comments follow below:

(1) The NY Yankees are in absolutely no danger of falling out of contention as long as major league baseball continues to allow big market teams to totally dominate the financial structure of the game. Free agents will continue to gravitate to teams like the Yankees that can afford to pay the big contracts and ensure additional incentives via endoresments and mass-media exposure. This is a big reason why baseball is now cited by only 12 percent of the public as their "favorite sport." Fans in smaller markets are at a big competitive disadvantage. This turns off many people. It's almost turned into the Harlem Globtrotters games, where the team of nobodies is there just to serve as a foil for the heroes. Occasionally, a small market team will come out of nowhere, but teams such as New York will be able to replinish its stock of talent year after year, because they have the means to do so. Furthermore, "winning" becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Older free-agents who desperately want a final chance to win a World Series will gravitate to teams like the Yankess, which will give them their greatest chance to acheive success. For this reason, some older free agents sign for less money than they might make on another, lower-profile team.

(2) College sports have similar competitive inequities, although this is not caused as much by money. The inequity is more the result of traditions. Teams like Duke and North Carolina (in basketball) and Notre Dame (in football) will always be competitve because high school kids know that those are the best programs. They will expose kids to good coaching and national television on a regualr basis. This improves the athletes' chances of being drafted or being offered a rich NBA contract down the line.

(3) The NFL is the league where dynasties are the most difficult to maintain. With the draft structure and free agency, it is very difficult to keep a good team intact from year to year. Furthermore, injuries take a greater toll in the NFL (the average NFL career is only about 4 years). Revenue-sharing ensures that ALL teams are able to compete equally. Green Bay has just as good a chance to draft and keep good players as the New York Jets. Furthermore, athletes are just as likely to WANT TO play in small town Green Bay, as in New York. In baseball and basketball, this is not the case. Most baseball and basketball stars want to play in the larger markets.

(4) The NBA and NHL are unlikely to have dynasties in coming years. In the last decade, Edmonton (NHL) and Chicago (NBA) were able to win championships based largely on the greatness of a single player. Since the impact of a single player is greater in the NHL and NBA, having a dominant player who plays for an extended period increases the chances for one team to dominate the league. However, as we are seeing, there are few Michael Jordans or Wayne Gretzkys out there. Even Super Mario for the Penquins is not able to guarantee a Stanley Cup anymore.

My conclusion is that dynasties are more probable in some sports, than others. Dynasties can be expected to continue in baseball, and in college sports. Dynasties are possible, but will be rare in basketball and hockey. Dynasties may be a thing of the past in the NFL.

Other thoughts?

-- Nolan Dalla

 

[cash]

I agree with Nolan's take.
The only dynasty that exists now imo is
tiger woods.

Although not a team sport,golf has had their
share of dynasties and it seems to me Tiger
will dominate for perhaps decades

 

[bigjoe]

Tiger the man!!