BRAVE NEW WORLD: Teams can't acquire status of dynasty just by playing well

March Madness has come and gone, and the Final Four is upon us.

I'm sure many of you understand the draw of the NCAA tourney. I have read that businesses expect to lose millions of dollars due to lost productivity during the NCAA tournament.

Born in Kansas City, Kan., I am a die-hard Jayhawks fan. Sadly, they have let me down these last five years, and I'm sure NCAA fans everywhere know the frustration of having their teams upset early. They're hardly the dynasty all of us Kansas fans were hoping for.

Dynasty is generally a label given to only the best of the best sports teams. Webster's Dictionary defines a dynasty as "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time." While this certainly can be applied to the world of sports, is that all there is to it?

March Madness opened with Duke once again as the No. 1 seed in the tournament. It seems Duke is always up around the top, but once again they failed to win the tourney. But do they constitute a sports dynasty?

By contrast, some dynasties are obvious: UCLA was a dynasty in the late-1960s and 1970s, the New York Yankees were under Casey Stengel, and the Boston Celtics had dynasty status in the '70s. No questions there. These teams simply steamrolled all the competition, leaving only themselves at the top.

But being obviously good doesn't necessarily make a team great.

Who'd have thought that not a single team in the No. 1 seed would make it to the NCAA Final Four this year? Who'd have thought that the Pittsburgh Steelers, a team that made the NFL playoffs on the last day of the season, would beat so many teams that had played better all year - eventually winning the Super Bowl? That is the other side of greatness, the ability to stay strong and play well under pressure.

Some dynasties are not so obvious. These are the teams that everyone expects to be good because they are always good. The Atlanta Braves under skipper Bobby Cox would fall into this category. Somehow, year after year, they have managed to be competitive, to be one of the teams to beat. While they have only a single World Series victory, you can count on them being in the playoffs come October.

What has always defined a dynasty for me goes beyond just being good or consistent.

What defines a dynasty in my mind is being recognized as good by the rest of the sporting world; it is being the team people love to hate.

Everyone knows the Yankees are good, and many hate them for it. I cannot stand the Yankees, either, to the point where I am willing to root for whoever beats them - even if that has to be the Red Sox.

The same is true of Duke. Year after year, I have found myself rooting against Duke, regardless of who the team is playing. If that's not a sign of greatness - albeit a begrudging one - I'm really not sure what is. Does this mean Duke is great enough to be a dynasty? Maybe. But being truly great goes beyond just having one or two of these characteristics; it requires a unique combination of them all.

Some teams have it and some teams - no matter how good they may seem - never quite get it under their belts.

Write to Andrew at apbalke@bsu.edu


Comments

More from The Daily






Loading Recent Classifieds...