|
|
#52
02-07-2005, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dynasty
[ QUOTE ]
With that said, I think they would get pasted by the other teams on that list. I don't say that because of anything against the Pats. I just think the teams in the era before the salary cap and free agency had much greater concentrations of talent i agree [/ QUOTE ] Dude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Belichek (?sp) would find a way to win!! 
|
|
#53
02-07-2005, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dynasty
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] when i already pointed out that it is easier to win a cluster of titles in the NBA than it is in the NFL. [/ QUOTE ] The reason that its easier to win a cluster of titles in the NBA, is because the best team wins a much higher percentage of the time (thanks to best of 7 format). So its not really easier, its actually harder, its just easier for the best team to show they really are the best team, therefore its easier to see when a dynasty is actually occuring. [/ QUOTE ] Way off base. The fact is that it is much easier in the NBA. Why? Because instead of 24 relevant starting players, there are only 5. One player in the NBA has a massively disproportionate impact on the game. Note this is also why upsets are far more prevalent in NCAA basketball than in NCAA football. Small schools can get lucky with one or two awesome players in basketball which enables them to hang with the big boys. In football, however, this isn't the case as a few lucky recruits aren't nearly enough to overcome the sheer volume of talent that the big time programs get. Michael Jordan was not only on the floor for 90% of the time in games he played in, he was on both the offensive and defensive end, and constituted 20% of his teams players on the floor. Compare that to an NFL starter who is on the floor for roughly 50% of a game and is 9% of his team's total on the field. You need much more depth and balance to win in the NFL. Couple that with the higher injury risk and shorter career span and it becomes obvious why NBA teams are able compete and dominate for prolonged periods of time while NFL teams rarely have a window longer than 3-4 years
|
|
#54
02-07-2005, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dynasty
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. People were calling Pitt. a dynasty after winning 3 in 5 years. they are a dynasty. period. [/ QUOTE ] That was my point.
|
|
#55
02-07-2005, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dynasty
The Patriots are not quite a Dynasty yet, they are close, but they have not done this over enough seasons to be a real dynasty. If they win the SB next year they will be a dynasty, but their current stretch has only lasted 4 years, with one crappy season. It takes 5-7 years to be a dynasty.
|
|
#56
02-07-2005, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dynasty
[ QUOTE ]
The Patriots are not quite a Dynasty yet, they are close, but they have not done this over enough seasons to be a real dynasty. If they win the SB next year they will be a dynasty, but their current stretch has only lasted 4 years, with one crappy season. It takes 5-7 years to be a dynasty. [/ QUOTE ] So if you win 3 in 4 years like NE, you're not a dynasty? But if it takes you 5 years to win 3 like Pitt in the 70s (before the last one), then you are?
|
|
#58
02-07-2005, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dynasty
Dynasties should not be graded on a curve. The Yankees were a dynasty. UCLA basketball under John Wooden was a dynasty. The Patriots are not a dynasty.
|
|
#60
02-07-2005, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dynasty
The Yankees '96-'01 were a dynasty and that about.com author does not mention them. If the Patriots win next year, I don't think anyone can deny that they will be a dynasty. But now, not so much. It's weird how a lot changes in one year, though.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
