Listening to all of the build up about Tiger Woods returning to golf and about how important it is for Kobe to get as many rings as Michael Jordan reminded me again that I have never liked sports dynasties. Whether its because Houston has never had one (the 1995 Rockets weren't expected to really win), get annoyed by media hype of dynasties, or tend to root for the underdog I'm not sure. That said though I can see how having a dynasty can help a sport overall such as MLB probably benefits as much from Yankee success as it does Yankee hate. Wondering what the rest of y'all think.
I dont like the over-promotion of dynasties. That does nothing for me. That does nothing for the teams or players competing. As though all the golfers on the tour exist just to hand Tiger Woods all the accolades. I dont mind a dynasty if the playing field is even and the team is just that good. As in, the results are in and it happens to be a repeat champion. If a team is stacked, why should they un-stack themselves? I'm one of the ones that actually rooted for the Patriots to get a perfect season couple years back. I thought it'd be cool to see history made. But if it took Beli-cheating to do it, that goes into un-leveling the playing field and into dynasty over-glorifying. Just don't do it at the EXPENSE of the other opponent
It was special without the over-promotion factor. There are teams who are considered a dynasty, when actuality they weren't in a sense. In the NBA to me, there were only like 3 teams who you could consider a true dynasty. The Russell-Cousy Celtics (12 NBA titles) The MJ Bulls (6 NBA Titles in 8 seasons, he was retired briefly as well), we never saw them lose in the Finals, like alot of teams. The Showtime Lakers (5 NBA Titles in 8 seasons, 8 Finals Apperances in one decade) Also held the record for most consecutive division titles [with the Nordques] for 9 consecutive seasons until the Braves broke it in 1999 There are alot of great teams in NBA history, but there are not that many dynasties.
What do you think about the Yankees who have used their market size and money to stay on top? Technically the economics of MLB don't make for a very even playing field.
Supply and demand. Because the fans are paying double or triple the price on tickets than other teams, they should expect the organization to spend the money.
Doesn't that create a feedback loop though that guarentees that a team like the Yankees are always near the top while a team like the Reds is almost doomed to mediocrity? My own opinion is that isn't good for sports but there are convincing arguments otherwise.
That's not usually what gives organizations like the Yankees a dominant monetary position. They benefit from being in a large market with lots of television viewers. Since each MLB team is allowed to own and sell their own media rights, the teams in the largest markets have an automatic advantage before they sell a single ticket. There was a time not too long ago that the Yankees were receiving more than $150 million per year from their television contract alone (I don't know what the current number is but I doubt it's gone down), while a team like the Cardinals (which has a rabid fanbase of their own) makes maybe a third of that.
lol, i forgot about that...but if it makes a difference i was between like 9 and 12 when that happened , so its very blurry at best. you can imagine my memory of the rockets back to back titles. thank you youtube
I believe we're talking about Sports here, sir. I dislike dynasties because Houston has never had one. I'd likely feel differently if it were to ever happen to the Texans/Rockets/Astros.
