A little overly dramatic, don't you think? No one is saying they are the Big Red Machine position by position but to discount 3 titles in 5 years as anything other than a dynasty is comical.

I'm not discounting 3 titles in 5 years, what I am discounting is the "Need to label them"

 

They have been very good in the post season. Have they been the best MLB team in that same time frame?

 

I look at Dynasty as, again, being dominate.

If Cooper won 3 out of 5 state football titles as the 2 seed or higher, Hellbird would be calling for a dynasty.

If Cooper won 3 out of 5 regional baseball titles as the district runner up, Hellbird would be calling for a dynasty.

The Giants win 3 out of 5 world championships, 1 as a wild card, and they got lucky.

 

This is not a bash. This is a serious analogy and strictly my opinion. Am I wrong?

I think, even though I hate them, the only dynasty in the past 30 years has been the Yankees

New York Yankees from 1996to 2003 (8 postseason appearances including 7 division titles, 6 AL pennants, and 4 World Series championships in 8 years)

 

That is dominating for a team I can't stand but have to hand it to them.

If Cooper won 3 out of 5 state football titles as the 2 seed or higher, Hellbird would be calling for a dynasty.

If Cooper won 3 out of 5 regional baseball titles as the district runner up, Hellbird would be calling for a dynasty.

The Giants win 3 out of 5 world championships, 1 as a wild card, and they got lucky.

 

This is not a bash. This is a serious analogy and strictly my opinion. Am I wrong?

 

 

I know it's not a rant, I know what you are saying but I think too many people including you, feel a need to label something every year. We don't always have to have a dynasty in sports or even talk about it every year.

 

I will give you an idea what I'm talking about.

 

Since 2005 in the NFL alone there have been talks on ESPN etc. wanting to label teams a dynasty and the following teams have all been questioned whether or not they are a dynasty among the talking heads.

1. New England Patriots

2. Pittsburgh Steelers

3. Green Bay Packers

 

I garuntee you if Seatle makes it to the SB this year, before the game is even played they will be talking Dynasty again, and if SF wins the SB this year they will be in the same conversation.

 

To me it's just too easy to toss teams out in the dynasty conversation.

 

Something someone said today on Mike and Mike and I don't agree 100% with it (It was said a dynasty has to have 5 championships in that period of time)

I don't think a dynasty in MLB has to have 5 WS titles in the time frame, but I do think that 5 titles in that time span with a couple WS titles would better define a dynasty. for instance 5 division titles and 3 or 4 NL or AL titles in that time frame would mean a lot more than 2 Wild Card post season entrances etc.

 

Does that make sense? It all goes back to dominating.

It depends if the years they weren't the 1 seed is if they tied for district title to be honest. Cooper has finished 1st in district 3 out of last 4 years including ties yet have no state titles so they ren't close to a dynasty. Now if they won 3 of the 4 years state titles and finished 1st in their district (or at least tied for 1st) then yes it would be a dynasty. The way the tie breakers are in KHSAA is pretty screwed up.

 

Now if they clearly finished 2nd or lower in district and still won the titles in 3 of 4 years, no not a dyansty just a great team.

 

LIAR! haha

LIAR! haha

I'm serious. How can a team be a dynasty if they can't even win their own district?

No. A dynasty isn't full of new players every time.

 

You mean like Pablo Sandoval, Buster Posey, Brandon Crawford, Hunter Pence, Madison Bumgarner, Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, and those guys, right?

I'm serious. How can a team be a dynasty if they can't even win their own district?

 

Because a dynasty is measured by one thing and one thing only, championships. That's the only way you can be a dynasty.

 

If you are looking at the regular season, are the Bills a dynasty between 1990-1994?

Because a dynasty is measured by one thing and one thing only, championships. That's the only way you can be a dynasty.

 

If you are looking at the regular season, are the Bills a dynasty between 1990-1994?

That is how you measure a dynasty. I measure them differently as already stated, I measure them as being the most dominate in that time frame.

 

To be a dynasty you have to be the best of the best. That means you win your division for starters.

That is how you measure a dynasty. I measure them differently as already stated, I measure them as being the most dominate in that time frame.

 

To be a dynasty you have to be the best of the best. That means you win your division for starters.

 

Best of the best means you win a world championship. That's the point and the reason they don't end after 162 games.

That is how you measure a dynasty. I measure them differently as already stated, I measure them as being the most dominate in that time frame.

 

To be a dynasty you have to be the best of the best. That means you win your division for starters.

 

To be a dynasty, you win several championships within a limited amount of time. That's exactly what San Fran has done.

 

The only teams that care about district titles or division titles are those that don't win it all.

To be a dynasty, you win several championships within a limited amount of time. That's exactly what San Fran has done.

 

The only teams that care about district titles or division titles are those that don't win it all.

You have to win it all, but dynasty has to mean something other than nbot being the best team during the season and winning a title by being a wildcard team. Just my opinion. I guess I'm old school where I don't feel you have to hand out the best ever titles every year.

I ask this. Many of the so called Gurus don't even consider the Oakland A's of the 70's a dynasty even though they won 3 consecutive World Series. Even the Reds who only won 2 World Series were considered a dynasty and crowned "The team of the decade" Why is that? It's because of dominating for a long period of time, thats why. If winning championships is all that matters to be labeled a dynasty, then why weren't the A's regarded as a dynasty? Cardinals have 2 World Series titles in 5 years....are they a dynasty? Toronto 2 in back to back years...dynasty?

 

I will leave it at this, my definition has never wavered and has always menat dominated. A dynasty is a team that dominates every year for a period of time and not a 2 year time frame but more of 5 year etc. Giants won 3 WS in 5 years, yet they didn't dominate even their division in that time nor did they make the post season every year in that time frame. Giants had a great run imo. not a dynasty, big difference. Now if Giants win the next 2 World Series in a row to make it 3 consecutive then I'd say they are a dynasty. The body of work up to now, no not so much. They have had a great run, yes...dynasty yet? no.

You have to win it all, but dynasty has to mean something other than nbot being the best team during the season and winning a title by being a wildcard team. Just my opinion. I guess I'm old school where I don't feel you have to hand out the best ever titles every year.

 

Nobody is jumping at the opportunity to label this Giants team. The facts of the matter are that they have won 3 out of the last 5 titles, with many of the same players.

Nobody is jumping at the opportunity to label this Giants team. The facts of the matter are that they have won 3 out of the last 5 titles, with many of the same players.

It's a ESPN phenomenon

It's what they do, every sport every week has to be "The best player ever" or "One of the best teams ever" etc.

 

It's just what they do. I just choose to disagree with the media hype everytime is all.