Jump to content

Do You Enjoy Dynasties in Sports?

Vic Mackey

By Vic Mackey
in Football

 Share

Dynasties  

66 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you enjoy them in sports?

    • Yes
      27
    • No
      39

Recommended Posts

Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 46936

Posted
Posted

Posting this in Football but it is for all sports. I hear many say dynasties are good for sports are needed. We need someone to envy, hate and desire to beat. Others say no way as it gets old, boring and stale for the viewers of all the other teams. We have seen 2 modern dynasties in both college and pro run parallel to each other with the Patriots and Bama. Patriots started earlier and is now done with but they got 6 titles in 9 tries. Bama now has 6 titles in 12 years. And with them, there is absolutely no signs of slowing down as they constantly just reload every class with unreal amounts of talent. Not sure how you unseat them with regularity. Even their "down" years are still damn good. They never fall off under Saban. The only thing Bama has left to do is win back to back.

Do you enjoy watching dynasties? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4320

Posted
Posted

There’s a reason beyond cocaine why the 1970s NBA isn’t considered the glory years. Feeling like you have a shot is important, but great teams are fun and memorable to watch. If victory seems more due to chance and luck rather than greatness, I’m not sure why I wouldn’t just watch reruns of Price Is Right Plinko. There’s obviously a point where the dominance becomes so substantial and sustained that you lose interest, but I don’t think we’re there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHIEF

CHIEF 5072

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

I am a Dallas fan and actually enjoyed the Pats dynasty.

I know as a fan of DFW + UT, my teams have zero shot at a dynasty any longer. So I don't even worry about that. 

I wouldn't count out a sober Sark. Especially what he displayed last night.

CHIEF

Edited by CHIEF
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NTVTXN

NTVTXN 1432

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Vic Mackey said:

I am a Dallas fan and actually enjoyed the Pats dynasty.

I know as a fan of DFW + UT, my teams have zero shot at a dynasty any longer. So I don't even worry about that. 

This is where I am. As a lifelong Cowboys and Longhorns fan it’s been a LONG 10+yrs for UT and damn near three time as long for us Cowboys fans...ugh.

But to answer your question- Honestly- I generally do not like dynasties. I like seeing new teams/individuals win.  
The only dynasty I actually enjoyed was the Bulls run with MJ...twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OrangEngr

OrangEngr 1034

Posted
Posted

I think the biggest issue right now is that there are more or less 3 dynasties in CFB. The fact that you know it’s pretty much going to be one of them is what makes it so exhausting. Much less chance for a random upset to give someone else a chance. You may always have known the patriots were making the Super Bowl, but at least you cycled through NFC teams 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3432

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

I am a Dallas fan and actually enjoyed the Pats dynasty.

I know as a fan of DFW + UT, my teams have zero shot at a dynasty any longer. So I don't even worry about that. 

I enjoy the Pats loses as well as their wins.  Kind of weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
youdunnf'dup

youdunnf'dup 2147

Posted
Posted

It honestly depends on the dynasty but generally speaking I think it’s good for professional sports. I think Bama’s dynasty is bad for college football because Bama alone elevates the entire SEC in the eyes of the people that matter. But that in and of itself if why I think college football is kinda dumb. But it’s good for pro sports. My mom is the furthest thing from a sports fan, but she’s knows the key players on all the dynasty teams. I think you want to have that, and I don’t think some of these guys would be full on household names if not for those dynasties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Grew up on Cowboys- Steelers and Yankees.  Then Lakers- Celtics and the Niners.  The only team I liked out of any of them was Dallas.

I also loved the Edmonton teams and Gretzky.  Of course the 90's Cowboys were brilliant. I have also enjoyed the Astros teams of the past 5 years or so and am sad to know my favorite Astro will not be back, in George Springer. That part sucks and salary caps can pull fans both ways.

I like it when my teams have been at the top, mainly Jimmy's Cowboys and the Astros everyone loves to hate; aside from that, I've typically rooted for the team trying to take out the dynasty.  I loved the Sixers in the 80's. Luv Ya Blue  Oilers too.  I was always pretty neutral on the Patriots, but enjoyed how much people got into a twist over them.  They also did it for a long ass time, relative to other football dynasties. As a fan, sometimes, it was just, "holy shit they keep doing it."

 

At the college level, Tech basketball with Beard and baseball with Tadlock have been at the pinnacles of respective program history for the past 4 years in hoops and 6 years in baseball.  I expect them to win, or at least play their asses off if they don't.  I think in college, it is so critical to have the right guy there, as much or more-so that the players on the field.  Yes, I whole heartedly believe Tech destroyed its football future when it fucked over Mike Leach.  That one still burns( no rash.)  i disagree that the program had necessarily peaked.  we'll never know.

i like dynasties.  i enjoy the sweet precious, extremely limited time my teams have been on top.  I love the chase when it's somebody else.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hate

Hate 20103

Posted
Posted

It really depends.  I loved the Spurs, obviously.  I really hated the Yankees of the late 90's.  I loved the Cowboys of the early 90's (I don't call the 70's era Cowboys a dynasty).  I loved the 80's era Lakers but I hated the 00's era Lakers.  I really really hate the current Alabama success mostly because, as mentioned, it somehow elevates the entire SEC to almost another NFL division level.  I hated the Steelers of the 70's and the 49er's of the 80's even though I very much respected them and liked to watch their games.  I loved the Edmonton Oiler's of the 80's. They may have been the most top to bottom talented team I've ever seen.  I loved the Tiger era of golf.  I hate the Patriots with a passion. 

In short, you need a third option that says "it depends". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Every sport has them and yet every sport likes to complain about them.  

NHL:  Montreal Canadiens in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's.  Something like 20 Stanley Cup titles in that span.  Nobody whines.  

NBA:  Lakers and Celtics for 40 years or someshit, both those teams accounted for 30 titles.  Nobody whines.

College hoops:  UCLA in the 60's and 70's wins like 11 outta 15.  Nobody whines. 

MLB:  Yankees.  Don't get me started. 

College football:  we're living through one right now.  And there have been others.  No matter how much bitching Mack Brown did about scholarship restrictions like he was the only major program coach in the nation that had to deal with them, certain programs are racking up massive hardware.  

Plus, when it comes to college baseball and swimming, Texas has built a couple of dynasties themselves and nobody around here seems to mind.  

I just fucking hate the Yankees.  What everybody else has done is just damn impressive.  You even have to drink 9 shots and appreciate the hardware OU has racked up in the Big XII.  If you're honest with yourself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
futureman

futureman 22415

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

I am a Dallas fan and actually enjoyed the Pats dynasty. 

yeah agree. I used to dislike brady but now I just respect the hell out of him. and you gotta respect belichick and saban. greatness is appealing.

and like you, I grew up with the greatest team in professional sports history: the jimmy johnson dallas cowboys. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hate

Hate 20103

Posted
Posted
Dynasties are fun when they have other dynasty competition. That's they the 70s had the greatest era of football, and a lot of other sports, baseball, golf, tennis, etc...
 

I would agree with this. One of the things that made the early 90’s Cowboys so great was the rivalry with the 49ers. It’s also what made the Cowboys/Steelers of the 70’s so great. It hasn’t really worked on me for Alabama/Clemson of the present for some reason though.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wood

wood 11166

Posted
Posted

Generally, I don't enjoy sports dynasties much, and I can tell you that the latest one in F1 is absolutely sucking the life out of the sport. It's not just that Mercedes has won 7 straight team and driver Championships, it's the utter predictability of it all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 46936

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 hours ago, DougO said:

Dynasties are fun when they have other dynasty competition. That's they the 70s had the greatest era of football, and a lot of other sports, baseball, golf, tennis, etc...

 

This was kind of how the Spurs/Lakers dynasties were. They overlapped. And played in the playoffs.

With Dallas' dynasty in the 90s, they had the Niners as their nemesis. Pats had the Colts and Broncos. Brady vs Manning was awesome.

I guess Clemson is Bama's nemesis? They have kept them from an additional 2 titles. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28692

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Post Oak said:

Only if it's one of my teams

You would think that this is the obvious answer but as I recall there were a number of people who thought if Mack won another championship right after '05 he would leave. They wanted to win a lot but not so much that Mack would leave the program. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard Kimball

Richard Kimball 1492

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, DougO said:

Dynasties are fun when they have other dynasty competition. That's they the 70s had the greatest era of football, and a lot of other sports, baseball, golf, tennis, etc...

 

You kinda threw me off on a tangent about boxing. When I was a late teen/early twenties guy, Foreman, Norton, Frazier and Ali were all at or near their peaks, and there's never been an era where boxing was better.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

You kinda threw me off on a tangent about boxing. When I was a late teen/early twenties guy, Foreman, Norton, Frazier and Ali were all at or near their peaks, and there's never been an era where boxing was better.

I got the tail end of the heavyweight era you describe.

the 80's with Hearns/Leonard/Hagler/Duran were pretty damned fun.

The Mike Tyson era was fun even though I never really liked him until after he was through fighting.  He was as big a force as boxing has seen, albeit minus the HUGE social statements Ali also made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 46936

Posted
  • Author
Posted
19 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Exactly. People love champions and repeat champs. People also dislike them but will watch to see them get beat. Happened with Lakers/Celtics, Pistons, Bulls. Happened with Steelers/Cowboys in 70s, Niners in 80s, and Cowboys in 90s. Happened with the U (Miami), USC, Florida, Bama and Clemson. 

Parity is great in theory but this isn’t Russia. This isn’t Russia, is it Danny?  People love repeat champs and they will always make their leagues more popular than parity. With the parity that exists in professional sports, it makes the Pats and Spurs long distance runs extremely impressive, especially the Pats. I can see arguments on both sides as to whether what Saban has done is more difficult than Belichick.  Both have strong cases. 

That is where I stand. Many say they have dynasties but they absolutely add the element needed for me. It is a huge deal when a dynasty gets knocked off. UT beating USC in 2005 was huge not just for us UT fans but the country finally saw USC lose after only losing 1 game in 3 years. It was a big deal to see Miami get knocked off by Ohio St in 2003. Giants knocking off the Pats.  The newcomer (at the time) Clemson beating Bama in 2016 to give Saban his first NC loss. 

I am not sure 20 years and 20 different teams winning would be compelling. I know it sounds good to some in theory but meh, I like the giants forming over time and teams trying to knock them off. 

Right now we could be seeing a dynasty forming with the Chiefs. They were so damn close to going to the Super Bowl in 2018. And they are heavy favorites to get back this year. And they got their key guys locked up and a great coach.

But you never know. Many thought after Rodgers won the SB in 2010 and then they went 15-1 the next season, a dynasty was forming. Nope. Never got back one time.Saints the year before after they won. Nope. Never got back once. Seattle back to back and then most thought Russell Wilson would dominate for years to come. Nope. Not only did he never get back, never even got to another NFC championship game. It's fun to me to watch the growth of a team into a dynasty or almost one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 46936

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Dr. Beeper said:

Agreed. The NFL is very compelling as a casual (and Cowboys) fan. Lots of storylines with Mahomes, other surging young QBs in Allen and Jackson, and the old NFC trio of Brees, Brady and Rodgers. All 4 games are extremely compelling matchups and though it looks like a Chiefs-Packers matchup, nothing would surprise me. And even if you have the No.1 seed favorites there, it is still compelling because of HOF QBs searching for their 2nd title. 

Yep. The AFC has a great crop of young QBs for their future. The NFC is kind of the opposite where the older guys lead the charge. The younger crop over there is Dak/Goff/Wentz/Jimmy G/Daniel Jones/Trubisky. That is not as compelling as Mahomes/Allen/Jackson. And then you have Herbert who looked damn good even on a shitty team. Deshaun Watson is still great and probably better than Allen and Jackson right now but Houston is doing their best to ruin him. 

And it seems over the last decade plus, the NFC is always more wide open. For the last 2 decades in the AFC, if you weren't Brady, Ben R or Peyton Manning, you really had no shot. Flacco was an outlier one year. Those 3 guys ran the AFC for nearly 20 years it seemed. Ben R is near the end. Brady is in the NFC and Peyton is gone. In the NFC, you had  a bunch of different guys to go the Super Bowl over that same time frame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...