Top Dynasties in Sports History

[OCdockskipper]

In the Super Bowl thread JAnderson stated that he was happy to be a fan of "The greatest athlete and greatest dynasty in sports history", as a compliment to the Tom Brady and the Patriots.  Fly Fisher responded "not even close, maybe in the top 10" to which deakNH replied "lets hear the other top 9".  Rather than take that thread further off topic, I will answer Deak's request here.

 

One note on Tom Brady.  He has performed better than any other quarterback in his era, I believe that is inarguable.  However, I believe alot of the Patriots success lies more on the shoulders of Bill Belichick than Brady (and the Patriots ownership who has given Belichick what he needs).  If the Patriots had Belichick & not Brady, I believe they still would have been successful.  If they had Brady but not Belichick, I'm not so sure.  Imagine Brady with Cleveland the last 2 decades, do you really think the Browns would have ever won a Super Bowl?  In that scenario, Brady would be nothing more than Vinnie Testaverde or Brian Sipe.  With titles comes accolades, and in the same way that Joe Montana is considered a better QB than Jim Kelly because he won the 4 Super Bowls his team went to, Brady is in the Roger Staubach & John Elway echelon of QB history, having won and lost multiple Super Bowls.

 

Now as far as rating the greatest dynasties in sports history, I kept it simple.  I kept it in the modern era, since 1950ish.  Titles were the prerequisite (see Jim Kelly/Buffalo Bills reference) and they had to be done with the same basic core group of players.  I made a slight allowance to college teams since they have limited time available to play in that arena and put more emphasis on the coach.  If the star &/or coach were with a team for a long period of time, but won championships with different core groups, those core groups were separated.  For example, the Lakers from 1999 - 2010 with Kobe Bryant & Phil Jackson were actually 2 different groups; the 1999-2004 team with Shak and the 2008-2010 team with Gasol.  To consider them one dynasty is a stretch.

The Spurs were tricky because even though Duncan & Popovich were there for all 5 titles, there were changes from the 1st to the 5th title.  However, since those changes occurred while the team was winning titles and the 4th & 5th titles included both Parker & Gianoble, I considered that one of the longer dynasties.

 

So with no further ado, here is my list of the greatest dynasty's that sports has ever seen:

 

1. 1956-1969 Boston Celtics                    11 titles
2. 1963-1975 UCLA Bruins                      10 titles
3. 1950-1958 NY Yankees                         7 titles
4. 1991-1998 Chicago Bulls                      6 titles
   2008-2016 Uconn Huskies (W BB)         6 titles

    6.  1983-1990 Edmonton Oilers                 5 titles

         1979-1988 LA Lakers                           5 titles
         1999-2014 San Antonio Spurs              5 titles

         2009-2017 Alabama C Tide (M FB)        5 titles
 

  10.  1974-1979 Pittsburgh Steelers              4 titles

         1975-1979 Montreal Canadiens             4 titles

         1981-1989 SF 49ers                            4 titles

         1996-2000 NY Yankees                        4 titles

         

 

So the good news for all you Patriots fans is your team only has to win this year and 1 more Super Bowl title in the next few years to crack the top 10.  Until then, take solace that the 2001-2004 Patriots were tied as a top 15 dynasty with about a dozen other teams.

[Jigfishn10]

Interesting list you have here OC. I personally don't care about dynasty talk, I think it's great for the talk show hosts who get paid to talk about nothing.

 

You have a basketball team at the top of the list who played against 7 other teams ALL year until about 1967 and by 1969 the league had a total of 14 teams.

 

You have 3 college teams that you're using to support your argument who don't play near the amount of games in a season than they do in their respective professional sport.

 

You have a team who spent more in payroll in the 2000 season than 4 of the lowest teams spent in payroll combined.

 

Quote

One note on Tom Brady.  He has performed better than any other quarterback in his era, I believe that is inarguable.  However, I believe alot of the Patriots success lies more on the shoulders of Bill Belichick than Brady (and the Patriots ownership who has given Belichick what he needs).  If the Patriots had Belichick & not Brady, I believe they still would have been successful.  If they had Brady but not Belichick, I'm not so sure.  Imagine Brady with Cleveland the last 2 decades, do you really think the Browns would have ever won a Super Bowl?  In that scenario, Brady would be nothing more than Vinnie Testaverde or Brian Sipe.  With titles comes accolades, and in the same way that Joe Montana is considered a better QB than Jim Kelly because he won the 4 Super Bowls his team went to, Brady is in the Roger Staubach & John Elway echelon of QB history, having won and lost multiple Super Bowls

Imagine Belichick in Cleveland? Do you know who he coached?

So because Brady didn't go 8-0 (5-3) instead of 4-0, he's considered inferior?

 

Not very good comparisons here don't you think? I think you should really compare teams that have played in free agency and a salary cap eras in order to compare apples to apples, otherwise this topic is moot. JMHO

[Choporoz]

Is a dynasty that lasts 5 years a dynasty?

Not ragging...I really have little interest in debating the list(s)...mostly just curious.  Seems that my pea brain thinks of dynasties as being somewhat longer.  But I don't have a number.  What is definition of a dynasty? might be a good starting point if agreement is possible 

I guess I can also get hung up on too much emphasis on championships....Atlanta Braves and Detroit Red Wings had runs that might be considered for such a list

If so, then maybe the Pat's get on there too

[roadwarrior]

Well, I don't know about "dynasties", but it sure is fun to be a fan of teams that are always in

the hunt. My favorites are the Chiefs in the 60's and 70's, Royals during the George Brett era,

Broncos for both John Elway and Peyton.

 

[greentrout]

Totally dominant ...

 

 http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/history/championships.jsp

 

Greatest sports dynasties ...

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/greatest-dynasties-sports-history#slide-1

[NYWayfarer]

11 hours ago, OCdockskipper said:

One note on Tom Brady.  He has performed better than any other quarterback in his era, I believe that is inarguable.  However, I believe alot of the Patriots success lies more on the shoulders of Bill Belichick than Brady (and the Patriots ownership who has given Belichick what he needs). 

There was a time when I believed the opposite was true. However time has shown that Belichick can be successful without Brady. He has gone 13-6 in 19 games without Brady since Brady became the starter over Bledsoe. The team has a winning record the few times Brady has been down. There is no doubt the two of them together is something magical.

 

My hope is one of them retires...soon, like after this season soon so we can put these thoughts to the test.

 

[OCdockskipper]

6 hours ago, Choporoz said:

...Atlanta Braves and Detroit Red Wings had runs that might be considered for such a list

If so, then maybe the Pat's get on there too

Yeah, those are great examples of franchises who had long runs of success, but didn't win a bunch of titles.  Doesn't mean they weren't great teams, it just seems that titles are part of dynasties.  Personally, I think the Bills run of 4 straight Super Bowls was incredible, but history seems to shine brightest on the title holders.

6 hours ago, roadwarrior said:

Well, I don't know about "dynasties", but it sure is fun to be a fan of teams that are always in

the hunt. My favorites are the Chiefs in the 60's and 70's, Royals during the George Brett era,

Broncos for both John Elway and Peyton.

 

I agree.  However, didn't many of the Braves fans get complacent after a while and didn't appreciate all those division titles they won?

[jbsoonerfan]

Those Celtic titles are about as impressive as the Pats conf titles. Only had to beat 7 teams. I wouldn't call that a dynasty. I mean Bill Russell was one of like 3 guys over 7' and the other 2 were white (I'm white, I can say that lol) when Wilt came along the dynasty wasn't as dominant. 

[gim]

Hard to discount what the Yankees have done in baseball over the course of their franchise history.

[OCdockskipper]

59 minutes ago, jbsoonerfan said:

Those Celtic titles are about as impressive as the Pats conf titles. Only had to beat 7 teams. I wouldn't call that a dynasty. I mean Bill Russell was one of like 3 guys over 7' and the other 2 were white (I'm white, I can say that lol) when Wilt came along the dynasty wasn't as dominant. 

Many folks bring up the smaller size of the league when talking about those Celtics, the counter to that is that the talent pool wasn't diluted with less teams.  Nowadays, with 30 plus teams in a league, even the best teams have some weak spot.  Russell's Celtics couldn't dodge a team and not have to play them to win a title, they had to beat the very best available at that time every year. 

 

Chamberlains career began in 1959, so he had to put up with Russell beating him quite alot.  Remember too that 7 of those titles were over the Lakers teams that featured Elgin Baylor and (after 1960) Jerry West.  Russell's Celtics weren't beating patsies, they were beating the most talented in the league.  If either Birds Celtics or Magics Lakers had dominated the other like Russell's team did to the Lakers, they would have been considered a better dynasty than the Jordan Bulls.

 

And note, this is coming from a Laker fan, who once threw a remote against the wall when Dennis Johnson hit a buzzer beater against them in game 4 of the 1985 Finals...

[jbsoonerfan]

Russell averaged over 22 RPG in his career, nothing about that says he didn't have a clear advantage. Not to mention he had the best PG in the league on his team. You have to at least admit you are comparing apples to oranges with those Celtics teams vs. anything in the last 30 years.

[OCdockskipper]

1 minute ago, jbsoonerfan said:

Russell averaged over 22 RPG in his career, nothing about that says he didn't have a clear advantage. Not to mention he had the best PG in the league on his team. You have to at least admit you are comparing apples to oranges with those Celtics teams vs. anything in the last 30 years.

Oh definitely, trying to compare the 60's to the 90's to now in any sport is apples to oranges.  I think that is why titles as opposed to stats is a good harbinger in deciding best dynasty's.  You have to be better than everyone else available year after year.

 

In the same way that Jordan outclassed any other shooting guard in the league, Russell was indeed the best center despite the gaudy stats that Wilt put up.  Maybe call it Russell the best and Wilt the most dominant.  The Celtics may have had the best point guard as well (for a few years), but those 60's Lakers had the best & most clutch shooting guard (West) and one of the most dominant forwards ever (Baylor).  Yet Russell always found a way to get the title.

 

Trust me, the last thing I want to do is give credit to any Celtic...?

[jbsoonerfan]

To me, that's why it is so hard to compare teams from different eras. I am a HUGE Jordan fan, and I don't think they (Bulls) would be dominant in today's NBA. Of course the game was more physical in the 90's so that would make a HUGE difference as well.