THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavenIII

I disagree here, I think if you are using the term Dynasty in a sports context, if "sports" change then the definition of what a Dynasty is "in that context" also changes.

---

A sports dynasty is what it is. It is what its always been. Because conditions in today's sports leagues have changed, doens't mean that the definition of a sports dynasty changes.
A sports dynasty is still an excellence and dominance over a long period of time. Unless the definitions of "long period of time" or "excellence and dominance" change with the rules of the games, your point is moot.
The reality is that its just a lot harder to have a sports dynasty anymore. You can't move the goal posts closer Daven. Or are you one of those guys who thinks everyone should get a trophy even if they finish last?
"Its harder to have a sports dynasty...so lets change the definition"..... I reject that.

thanks matt, just waiting for dthe old name to be approved. Didnt know it took a few days....
Lawl, if you dont like your new name or want your old name back, email the giants board and tell them your old email address. Should work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antimorehead

thanks matt, just waiting for dthe old name to be approved. Didnt know it took a few days....
Lawl, if you dont like your new name or want your old name back, email the giants board and tell them your old email address. Should work.

---

"Imgrate" is the best name on the Giants boards. Why would anyone want to change it.

So we are still waiting for Lawl, Sharrick, Daven and I don't know who the 12th guy is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morehead State

A sports dynasty is what it is. It is what its always been. Because conditions in today's sports leagues have changed, doens't mean that the definition of a sports dynasty changes.
A sports dynasty is still an excellence and dominance over a long period of time. Unless the definitions of "long period of time" or "excellence and dominance" change with the rules of the games, your point is moot.
The reality is that its just a lot harder to have a sports dynasty anymore. You can't move the goal posts closer Daven. Or are you one of those guys who thinks everyone should get a trophy even if they finish last?
"Its harder to have a sports dynasty...so lets change the definition"..... I reject that.

---

I think the definition of a long period of time in sports HAS changed, that's what I'm getting at.

you say a sports dynasty is what it is and what it's always been...you say just because the condition in today's sports leagues have changed doesn't mean that the definition should/can change.

but that's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

our constitution is constantly changing (not that it's something I like but it is) if that's changing whose to say the definition of dynasty can't, in fact most words mean different things now then they meant years ago.

I think the definition of Dynasty can change to fit today's conditions.

you say you can't move the goal closer, but suppose for some reason the force of Gravity some how got stronger...wouldn't you have to lower a basketball hoop to make it fair? you can move the goal closer if conditions warrant it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morehead State

So we are still waiting for Lawl, Sharrick, Daven and I don't know who the 12th guy is.

---

I thought I already joined the league? perhaps it was MMB's other one that I joined? can someone repost or send the info to me so I can register.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morehead State

Championships are certainly a major component, but its also a consistent excellence as well. These "down" years for the Sox are still winning seasons. 90-72 and 89-73 are not losing seasons.

---

I guess winning when it matters doesnt factor in to definition of dynasty. The sox have missed the playoffs the last 2 years, soon to be 3. They are certainly not a dynasty, nor are our beloved GMen.
The last dynasty in sports was the Yanks of the late 90's. The Patriots of early 2000's is debatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavenIII

I think the definition of a long period of time in sports HAS changed, that's what I'm getting at.

you say a sports dynasty is what it is and what it's always been...you say just because the condition in today's sports leagues have changed doesn't mean that the definition should/can change.

but that's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

our constitution is constantly changing (not that it's something I like but it is) if that's changing whose to say the definition of dynasty can't, in fact most words mean different things now then they meant years ago.

I think the definition of Dynasty can change to fit today's conditions.

you say you can't move the goal closer, but suppose for some reason the force of Gravity some how got stronger...wouldn't you have to lower a basketball hoop to make it fair? you can move the goal closer if conditions warrant it.

---

To buy your analogy, (moving the basket lower to make it more fair) one would have to suggest that someone is being treated unfairly. Its not "unfair" to anyone that a "dynasty" is what it is. Its not unfair to win a championship and not call that a "one year dynasty".
One would also have to say that since there is free agency and salary caps, that time and space have changed. That the definition of "extended period of time" has somehow changed. That time itself has been bent by some force of physics. Well it hasn't. 10 years is still 3652 days. 20 years is still 20 years, The time contunuum hasn't changed because Kurt Flood sued MLB.
Its like you are saying that we still deserve to have dynasties...its our right...so we need to change the definition.
I'm sure Barack Obama would agree with you though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antimorehead

I guess winning when it matters doesnt factor in to definition of dynasty. The sox have missed the playoffs the last 2 years, soon to be 3. They are certainly not a dynasty, nor are our beloved GMen.
The last dynasty in sports was the Yanks of the late 90's. The Patriots of early 2000's is debatable.

---

The New York Islanders won 4 straight Stanley Cups from 1980 thru 1983. They were NOT a dynasty. That was a great run of winning championships.
Its amazing to me that two so called conservatives are taking the liberal view that we need to lower standards to accomodate todays mediocrity.
Color me shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antimorehead

I guess winning when it matters doesnt factor in to definition of dynasty. The sox have missed the playoffs the last 2 years, soon to be 3. They are certainly not a dynasty, nor are our beloved GMen.
The last dynasty in sports was the Yanks of the late 90's. The Patriots of early 2000's is debatable.

---

If the Giants won 3 more championships in the next 10 years and played at a high level for that time, I would definately say they would be a sports dynasty. And that dynasty would have started in 2007.