Bettman called the Blackhawks a dynasty when he gave the Cup over to the Toews last night. But it got me thinking, is it a dynasty?
There are a few true dynasty in sports history. The Celtics winning 11 in 13 years (the most crazy stat ever) and the Bulls getting 6 in 8, come to mind.
But in modern times, it’s really tough to repeat as champs. The Blackhawks haven’t repeated as champs. They won 3 in 6 years, which is a great accomplishment, but I feel like you need back to back wins during that span.
The Patriots did 3 in 4 years, and 4 in 13. The Spurs did 5 over 15 years, but also no consecutive wins (although they should have had back to backs in ’13 and ’14).
The Blackhawks obviously have had a long stretch of success and look to have a real shot of competing for the Cup every year as long as they have their core guys. But should a dynasty be the same group of guys continually winning or should it be the team that changes but manages to keep winning.
The Patriots and Spurs both have a few mainstays, Brady and Duncan, that have been in all the wins, along with the same head coach. Toews and Kane have been with the ‘Hawks for all their wins, and with the same head coach as well.
So to summarize, my question comes to to points:
1. Does a dynasty require back to back wins?
2. Should a dynasty require the same players/coaches or just the same team?
I think the team has to be able to survive when players leave, but there still needs to be a link through out the dynasty, whether it is a player, or a coach, or in the Patriots and Spurs case, both.
Either way, I think if the Blackhawks aren’t considered a dynasty, they can definitely become one real soon.