[simple simon]

we have had fun debating whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty .... so i thought i would broaden it a little bit ........ or a lot, to all sports

found this

In sports, the term dynasty is often used to refer to a team that dominates their sport for a period of time. Such dominance is usually recognized only after a team has won many championships in a given time (3 in 4 years, 5 in 8 years, 7 in 12 years, etc.).
Dynasty (sports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

does that fit your definition ?

fits mine as it includes the Patriots 3 in 4 years

[EmpireWF]

Yep...in today's era of free-agency, frequent player movement, parity (there is in every sport...except the NBA I guess you could say)...if a single franchise stays atop its sport for a series of years....they're a dynasty.

The Patriots of yesteryear (did Manning finally put the dagger in their heart?)
The Spurs

There's no real dynasty in baseball now, I guess you could say the last true one was the Yankees from 96-00.

[alex83]

yeah thats definatly an accurate definition of a dynasty becuase it mentions the most important thing which is that its for a period of time and now some over whelming dominance of the sport.

first teams that come to mind: Basketball: Bulls, Lakers and more i guess the Spurs now but i think people would cement them as a dynasty if they won it next year as well
Football: Pats definatly. i think people would be quicker to refer to the Colts as a dynasty if they won it next year than with the Pats. even though the Pats dominated the game for 3 of 4 seasons the Colts have been putting on a real show with Manning at the helm
Baseball: the yankees
Hockey:

the thing that i dont like so much about refering to a team as a 'dynasty' is that, does it only refer to teams that win the major trophey at the end of the season or can it be a team that is generally a great team e.g. the Colts?

[Lefty Noob]

Yep, that's an excellent definition of a dynasty. So if the Spurs repeat, then they ARE officially a dynasty. But not now.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Not sold on the amount of wins/years ratio...very, very few teams would fit that definition beyon the 3 in 4...

for example a team that wins 5 in 9 years while consitantly winning those 9 yers (playoffs, division etc) would not qualify...yet logic would tell me that a decade of dominance should rate higher than 4 years of dominance.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Not sold on the amount of wins/years ratio...very, very few teams would fit that definition beyon the 3 in 4...

for example a team that wins 5 in 9 years while consitantly winning those 9 yers (playoffs, division etc) would not qualify...yet logic would tell me that a decade of dominance should rate higher than 4 years of dominance.

Hmm, what about 3 in 4 or at least half of the titles in a decade-long span?

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Hmm, what about 3 in 4 or at least half of the titles in a decade-long span?

I can accept 5 in 10...or 4 in 10 with 3 title losses...