THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

[JPizzack]

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.

yea, but some things have to change to fit that definition I think.....
the point is, free agency and salary caps defnitely affect competition. 95% of the time, it's a good thing...
I think it's EXTREMELY unlikely that a team can win say 5 times in a row anymore.

I just dont think that it takes a 15, 20, 30 year period to define what a dynasty is.

[antimorehead]

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.

Were lowering the standards?? How come you dont consider the Isles a dynasty?? If 4 Championships in a row doesnt qualify a team as a dynasty, what does?

Accommodate*

[Morehead State]

Were lowering the standards?? How come you dont consider the Isles a dynasty?? If 4 Championships in a row doesnt qualify a team as a dynasty, what does?

Accommodate*

4 years is simply too short a period of time. They were great teams, but thats not the standard.

[JPizzack]

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.

it's not mediocrity. it's a way to make sure sports, a means of entertainment mind you....can remain a competitive thing.

1) of course YOU would bring "conservatism" and "Liberal" into a ****ing sports debate
2) A red sox fan complaining saying teams are mediocre LOLOLOL. pot calling the kettle black.

[antimorehead]

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.

There has to be a core of players that dominate and they have to win championships consecutive years in a row.

[Morehead State]

yea, but some things have to change to fit that definition I think.....
the point is, free agency and salary caps defnitely affect competition. 95% of the time, it's a good thing...
I think it's EXTREMELY unlikely that a team can win say 5 times in a row anymore.

I just dont think that it takes a 15, 20, 30 year period to define what a dynasty is.

Well it sure as hell aint 5 or 6 years. Thats a friggin joke.

[antimorehead]

4 years is simply too short a period of time. They were great teams, but thats not the standard.

lmao YOU JUST SAID " if the giants win 3 more times over the next 10 years, id consider them a dynasty" !!!

There has to be a core of players that dominate, and you have to win at least 2 consecutive championships.

[byron]

well here is what wiki says: A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a hall of fame (e.g., National Hockey League), but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans. The most widely-accepted sports dynasties are those with multiple championships over a limited period of time, either consecutively with or without interruption (e.g., UCLA Bruins men's basketball from 1964 to 1975), or non-consecutively (e.g., Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders of the late 1970s and early 1980s, or the Liverpool football team of the 1980s). In a few cases, a dominant team without championships might be recognized as a dynasty (e.g., the Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s or the Minnesota Vikings of the 1970s), though this is likely to be disputed.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...sports-history


I'll take winning games /championships over labels any day....I'm not sure there is a clear definition for dynasties that everyone would agree on... makes for a great debate tho

[Morehead State]

There has to be a core of players that dominate and they have to win championships consecutive years in a row.

Why? The Yankees had a dynasty that started with Babe Ruth and ended with Mickey Mantle. There certainly does NOT have to be a core of players. Usually there isn't. The Habs went from Rocket Richard to Guy LaFluer and Ken Dryden. The UCLA Bruins went from Lew Alcindor and Mike Warren to Bill Walton and Henry Bibby.
Where on earth does this "core of players" standard come from?

[JPizzack]

There has to be a core of players that dominate and they have to win championships consecutive years in a row.

yea, except earlier he said that our '09 and '10 seasons would wash out the championships because we were mediocre. so, the tune is apparently changing lol