Defining "Dynasty": Who Makes The Cut?

Matt Chaprales by Scribe Written on February 19, 2009
7388_feature

With the Pittsburgh Steelers having just recently captured their second Super Bowl in four years and sixth overall, it seems like a good time to tackle one of the most subjective and contested concepts in sport, “the dynasty.”

How does one define a sports dynasty? Who has rightly deserved the title of dynasty throughout sports history? What does “dynasty” actually mean?

The last question is the easiest to answer. The origin of the word is from the Greek dunasteia, meaning “lordship.” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a dynasty is defined as:

1) a succession of rulers of the same line of descent.

2) a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.

Not too much help there, although it’s evident why the notion of a sports dynasty is so debated.  There just isn’t a tangible or relevant definition of the term.  It has been up to the professional leagues, teams, writers and fans to determine what has constituted a dynasty over the years.

When exactly the term entered the vernacular is difficult to pinpoint, but two of the original teams to garner the designation—the Boston Celtics of the late '50s and 60s and the UCLA Bruins of the 60s and early '70s—still come the closest to fulfilling the second definition of the word, “a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.”

Red Auerbach’s Celtics won 11 of 13 NBA titles from 1957 to 1969, including eight straight.  John Wooden’s Bruins took down 10 of 12 NCAA championships from 1964 to 1975, highlighted by a run of seven in a row.  Those teams—particularly the Celtics—were dynastic in the truest sense of the word, in that they were sports families headed by powerful patriarchs that held their standing over an extended period of time.

Mergers, expansion and free agency have drastically altered the landscape of professional sports since the old school UCLA and Celtics dynasties.  Understanding that, let’s dissect the dynasties of the (semi) modern era. We’ll use the mid-1970s as a jumping off point, considering the ABA-NBA merger took place in 1976, MLB introduced mainstay franchises such as the Mariners and Blue Jays in 1977, and the Super Bowl era was well under way.

In my opinion, there are two parameters that must be met if a team wants to enter the dynasty debate.

1) The team must win back-to-back to titles.

2) The team must win or have won another title within a few years of the successive championships.

In the three major sports there are a handful of squads that have gone back-to-back over the last 40 years, but that was it.  They didn’t win another one before or after the consecutive titles within a reasonable amount of time.  Among these teams are the New York Yankees (’77 and ‘78), Detroit Pistons (’89 and ‘90), Toronto Blue Jays (’92 and ‘93), Houston Rockets (’94 and ‘95), and Denver Broncos (’98 and ‘99).

p

Single Page
Vote Now! - Author Poll

Which is the greatest modern dynasty?

  • 70s Pittsburgh Steelers
  • 80s Los Angeles Lakers
  • 90s Chicago Bulls
  • 90s New York Yankees
  • 00s New England Patriots
vote to see results
Results - Author Poll

Which is the greatest modern dynasty?

  • 70s Pittsburgh Steelers

    0.0%
  • 80s Los Angeles Lakers

    0.0%
  • 90s Chicago Bulls

    66.7%
  • 90s New York Yankees

    0.0%
  • 00s New England Patriots

    33.3%
  • Total votes: 6
(0)
...
Share This  
Crop_45x45
or to post this comment

1 Comments

There are no comments yet. Get the conversation started by leaving the first comment

Loading more comments...
posted just now
  • Loading...
  • Nobody has liked this comment yet
Cancel

This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete

92
reads

1
comments

written on February 19, 2009 Sports


CBS Sports Official Partner
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Getty Images.
Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Getty Images is strictly prohibited.