RealGM

I can't remember if I did this thread here,

How many championships do you need in a Decade to be a Dynasty and what team will have the next dynasty?

In a decade, 3-4. 3 in a row is a dynasty IMO. How many times has this question been answered? lol

3 people is a crowd.

In before lakers

I think 3 is the minimum amount of titles needed in a decade to be considered a dynasty. With only 3 chips, two other factors have to be true. First, they must have won a back-to-back title at some point. For example, Team A wins the '04 championship and then the '07 and '08 championships. Repeating shows that is wasn't a fluke. Also, Team A would have to be a contender for at least 7 of the 10 years in the decade. If a team wins 4 championships in a decade I would consider them a dynasty, so long as they were a contender for at least 7 of 10 years of the decade. If a team wins 3 in a row, they are a dynasty, on the simple fact that it is extremely hard to 3peat. Any more than 4 championships in a decade and a team is definately considered a dynasty as they have won at least half of the championships for that period of time.

Just my opinion.

Most recent dynasties

San Antonio Spurs - '99, '03, '05, '07
LA Lakers - '00, '01, '02
Chicago Bulls - '91, '92, '93, '96, '97, '98

11 in a decade.

I'd say three with the same core. I count it as different dynasties if you have an entirely different team between some of them.

i mean like look at the celtics. between 1974 and 1984 they won four titles.

yet, the that is not really a dynasty because those were done with different cores. they are not considered to be the same. so even if they win the titles with in that ten year span, its not really dynasty if the whole team is different.


similarly, lakers win more titles this decade, it would be considered seperate from the kobe/shaq dynasty becasue the pieces are so different.

Probably 3 or 4 championship rings or so...In the years of not winning the ring, they must be still in a elite level and show dominance over the league IMO...That defines a dynasty...

farzi wrote:In before lakers

See ...there you go ...

Now your getting smart .....

You see the word Dynasty and the first thing that comes to your mind is the Lakers .

TonyMontana wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



See ...there you go ...

Now your getting smart .....

You see the word Dynasty and the first thing that comes to your mind is the Lakers .

when i think dynasty, i don't think Lakers

first things that come to mind are: 80's television show, crappy car from the 90's, and the Chicago Bulls

3 in a row secures the title dynasty. I would say 5 in a decade because it shows dominance throughout the decade being champs for half of the decade, but 4 is hard enough.

4 titles in a decade is a whole lot too, but then 6 other teams have won the championship or a few teams have won the rest.

Are the Lakers a dynasty? Yes from 2000, 2001, 2002

Are the Spurs a dynasty? Pretty damn close. 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007 right? those are pretty good. if the spurs can win this year or next year im willing to label them a dynasty for the first decade of the millenium

The spurs are more of a dynasty then the recent lakers, just because they haven't won three in a row doesn't count them out at all.

Recent, Bulls then spurs then lakers

I might be a little strict but I wouldn't consider anything under three championships in a row a dynasty. Dynasties rule the league for a period of time, three years is a good minimum. Teams like the Spurs are obviously elite historically but I wouldn't consider them a dynasty. They never dominated competition consistently for an extended period. They win, lose and then come back and win again. They show faults that true dynasties do not. You can't have loss within your reign or else your reign is flawed.

JValone wrote:I might be a little strict but I wouldn't consider anything under three championships in a row a dynasty. Dynasties rule the league for a period of time, three years is a good minimum. Teams like the Spurs are obviously elite historically but I wouldn't consider them a dynasty. They never dominated competition consistently for an extended period. They win, lose and then come back and win again. They show faults that true dynasties do not. You can't have loss within your reign or else your reign is flawed.

by that logic there has only been four dynasties in NBA history.
2000 lakers
90s bulls
60's celtics
50s lakers


those are the only team that have won three or more championships in a row.

Like I said, I'm strict, haha. To me that's a dynasty, three of more in a row. Teams like the 80s Lakers/Celtics and 00s Spurs are elite for sure but they never dominated the entire league for longer then just a season or two. The Lakers/Celtics is kind of unfair because they were both so great, the Spurs haven't had to contend with the same equally great team year in and year out. But once again, by definition they can't be considered either just because a dynasty must control the league without fail. Just my opinion, but dynasties are special and the term gets thrown around too much for my tastes.

TonyMontana wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



See ...there you go ...

Now your getting smart .....

You see the word Dynasty and the first thing that comes to your mind is the Lakers .

Nah, I think of homers

I think a dynasty is a team that has won several championships in a certain time frame with the same core group, and they have to have at least a span of two in a row.

I think a dynasty has to have at least two straight championships. So this eliminates the Spurs IMO, as they haven't been able to win two in a row during this stretch of theirs. They win, lose, then win, then lose, then win again. Dynasties don't do that IMO.

Now, if the Spurs win this year they'll definitely be considered a dynasty IMO (3 in 4 years, 4 in 6).

With this I would say that team with the same core group has to win at least 3 championships in that span. So it can't be they win one, and then 3 years later win two more and still have the same star players.

Dynasty is a very exclusive group, and should be considered one. It's not easy to be a dynasty, so it shouldn't be handed out to every great team.

10scott10 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


by that logic there has only been four dynasties in NBA history.
2000 lakers
90s bulls
60's celtics
50s lakers


those are the only team that have won three or more championships in a row.

There you go. That list looks about right doesn't it.

sule wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



when i think dynasty, i don't think Lakers

first things that come to mind are: 80's television show, crappy car from the 90's, and the Chicago Bulls

This is what I thought of first:



Couldn't help it. I grew up in the 70s.

Id say at least 5 in a decade, with 1 of them being back-to-back would solidify your team as a dynasty.