RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Dynasties in the W
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which team(s) do you think have had dynasties?
Houston only
16%
 16%  [ 8 ]
Houston and Minnesota
54%
 54%  [ 26 ]
Houston, Minnesota, and Detroit
16%
 16%  [ 8 ]
Minnesota only
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Minnesota and Detroit
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Houston, Minnesota, Detroit, and Phoenix
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Houston, Minnesota, Detroit, and Seattle
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
Houston, Minnesota, and Seattle
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
Houston, Minnesota, Detroit, Phoenix, and Seattle
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
Houston, Minnesota, Detroit, Phoenix, Seattle, and Los Angeles
4%
 4%  [ 2 ]
Seattle only
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
Seattle and Los Angeles
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Minnesota, Phoenix, Seattle, and Los Angeles
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Another team or combination of teams not listed on here
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
The WNBA has not yet had a dynasty
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 48

Author Message
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7354
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/22 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

MNfan22 wrote:
Houston, Minnesota hands down, but gave Detroit a little nod.

Detroit Shock: ’03-08- in their 6 yr run , after winning it all in ’03 they were always in the mix in the East, except for the CT Sun who lost back2back Finals. Detroit picked up in ’06; going to 3 straight Finals and winning 2 of 3. That’s a decent 6 yr run.

Houston Comets; 4 years straight, Championships had to go through Houston.
Only 6 teams to start; ’98 10 teams and added talent to the league. I don’t see any teams running the table 4 yrs in a row any time soon. So Houston did set the bar to start the league.

Minnesota Lynx; 7 year run is a different bar. 7 years straight, Championships had to go through Minnesota.
7 times they played in Western Conf/Semi’s Finals series, 6 times, winners. No others have done that.
2X going to 3 consecutive Finals winning 4 of 6. Took a historic team to keep them from 7 straight Finals (in ’14).
No back2back Championships is about only mark one could have against them during the run; still a form of dominance yet to be matched.


Nailed it. In this order: Houston...Minnesota..................Detroit......................................................................................LA..............................Phoenix & Seattle



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
Spark4Life



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 4011



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/16/22 12:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Iluvacc wrote:
Comets Crying or Very sad and the Lynx. Thee end!


🤣🤣🤣🚫👎


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/18/22 1:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm v content that the second-to-last poll option has no votes on it

Thanks for participating, y'all

Please continue to vote if you haven't – the poll won't end until the end of April next year, aka the approximate beginning of next season

Based off the results, it looks like, with respect to which teams have had dynasties:

—Everyone agrees about Houston
—Most agree about Minnesota
—Some agree about Detroit


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/18/22 2:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Thanks for a thought-provoking poll.


Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5348
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/18/22 8:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Vegas will have to win at least three championships to enter the DYNASTY conversation.



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/18/22 8:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
Thanks for a thought-provoking poll.

My pleasure!

Rock Hard wrote:
Vegas will have to win at least three championships to enter the DYNASTY conversation.

They just need to keep their Core Four together, but particularly Gray & Wilson. As long as those two have a few other pieces to play with, they’ll have a chance every year until Gray (since she’s the oldest of the bunch) eventually slows down. Who knows how long that’ll take.

Who knows if Prioritization keeps other superstars away the next couple years as well, since Wilson & Gray don’t play overseas afaik. A talent drain in other parts of the League would increase Vegas' odds at becoming a dynasty even more.

The other 11 teams should absolutely be concerned if they weren’t already.


Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5348
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/22 8:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Vegas is a potential Dynasty team, then the rest of the league has to figure out how to construct a roster to defeat them. So what type of team can defeat Vegas the way they are presently constructed?



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
Spark4Life



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 4011



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/22 10:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Teams that were able to repeat as champions should be a no-brainer when it comes to "dynasty" classification.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18013
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/22 4:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Spark4Life wrote:
Teams that were able to repeat as champions should be a no-brainer when it comes to "dynasty" classification.


Two years is not a dynasty. Two titles and a 10-year gap before the third is not a dynasty. If y’all had beaten Detroit in 2003, you would have an argument. But to the joy of everyone outside Los Angeles, you did not beat Detroit.



_________________
All your Rebecca are belong to the Liberty.

(now with spelling variations)
Spark4Life



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 4011



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 11:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
Spark4Life wrote:
Teams that were able to repeat as champions should be a no-brainer when it comes to "dynasty" classification.


Two years is not a dynasty. Two titles and a 10-year gap before the third is not a dynasty. If y’all had beaten Detroit in 2003, you would have an argument. But to the joy of everyone outside Los Angeles, you did not beat Detroit.


Your team has never won shit. Much less won a back to back. We did what your team could never do, end the Comets reign and have one of our own. Please, don't let your LA hate cloud your judgement. And perhaps be less bitchy in your posts til your team actually wins something. 🤣


Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 11:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If a team can't win back to back titles or at least 2 in 3 years, I don't think you can really talk dynasty.

The media has cheapened the dynasty tag. When a team wins one and does so convincingly, they get the tag. If a team makes the finals 2 years in a row, even if they don't win, they get the tag.

Win back to back or 2 in 3 years or just be quiet about dynasty, because it isn't one.


Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 12:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Spark4Life wrote:
Teams that were able to repeat as champions should be a no-brainer when it comes to "dynasty" classification.


Nope, not a no-brainer. You can start the conversation about it, but what the team does in year 3 and 4 is what matters. Two years does not a dynasty make.


Spark4Life



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 4011



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 12:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:
Spark4Life wrote:
Teams that were able to repeat as champions should be a no-brainer when it comes to "dynasty" classification.


Nope, not a no-brainer. You can start the conversation about it, but what the team does in year 3 and 4 is what matters. Two years does not a dynasty make.


It is, though. If winning back to back was so easy, and doesn't matter, why haven't more teams done it then?


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 1:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

...for what it's worth: of the 47 votes the poll has received, only two of those 47 agree that the Sparks experienced a dynasty

granted, there are very few poll options on here that include LA. I regret not submitting a "Houston and Los Angeles" option for those who believe a dynasty implies and/or strictly requires consecutive championships captured – that's on me.

having said that: that was what the catch-all "Another team or combination of teams not listed on here" poll option was for, which still currently has zero votes as I type this


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12493
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 4:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

W Dynasty's are harder to gauge with the comets setting the standard with 4 in a row .



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5348
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 4:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
W Dynasty's are harder to gauge with the comets setting the standard with 4 in a row .

Then it's official. If your team hasn't won at least four championships in five or six years then your squad is not a Dynasty. Case closed.



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18013
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/20/22 10:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Spark4Life wrote:
Queenie wrote:
Spark4Life wrote:
Teams that were able to repeat as champions should be a no-brainer when it comes to "dynasty" classification.


Two years is not a dynasty. Two titles and a 10-year gap before the third is not a dynasty. If y’all had beaten Detroit in 2003, you would have an argument. But to the joy of everyone outside Los Angeles, you did not beat Detroit.


Your team has never won shit. Much less won a back to back. We did what your team could never do, end the Comets reign and have one of our own. Please, don't let your LA hate cloud your judgement. And perhaps be less bitchy in your posts til your team actually wins something. 🤣


I think it’s cute that you think you can hurt me in a way that matters. In twenty-five years of being a Liberty fan, I have seen what they’ve done, and what they haven’t done, and you think throwing that at me is going to hurt any more than experiencing it? I saw our games against Houston. I watched us lose to a dynasty. I was at the 2002 Finals. I watched us lose to a very good team that nevertheless did not establish a dynasty because, as was previously noted by an expert witness, y’all ran headlong into the Detroit Shock the next year.

If I were really being bitchy, I might say “you’re welcome” for that 2001 title, since y’all were the beneficiaries of Anne Donovan (may her memory be a blessing) pulling just enough of a miracle out of her ass to get an overmatched fourth-seeded Charlotte team into the Finals before they realized “oh shit we were not ready for this”, and maybe if y’all had gotten us or the Rockers we wouldn’t be having this conversation. (Actually, yeah, we probably would, because y’all still probably would have won, because nowhere in this conversation did anyone indicate the Sparks weren’t good, just that two titles do not a dynasty make.)



_________________
All your Rebecca are belong to the Liberty.

(now with spelling variations)
MNfan22



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2750



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/21/22 12:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Spark4Life wrote:
Hawkeye wrote:
Spark4Life wrote:
Teams that were able to repeat as champions should be a no-brainer when it comes to "dynasty" classification.


Nope, not a no-brainer. You can start the conversation about it, but what the team does in year 3 and 4 is what matters. Two years does not a dynasty make.


It is, though. If winning back to back was so easy, and doesn't matter, why haven't more teams done it then?

Winning back to back isn't easy but it also dosen't make for a dynasty. L.A wasn't the first or only team to do it, just the last team to do it.



_________________
Minnesota Lynx-est 1999-WNBA Champs! '11,'13,'15, '17
Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21901



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/21/22 12:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

MNfan22 wrote:
Winning back to back isn't easy but it also dosen't make for a dynasty.

Yeah, it's really that simple for me too.
Back-to-back titles is a very impressive achievement in this league, but a dynasty is a whole nother thing.

I went with the Comets + Lynx option when I voted, but I think the Lynx is arguable. They achieved sustained dominance but failing to get 2 in a row counts against them. On another day in another mood I might have gone with Comets only.



_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin