After last year’s NBA Finals, many people debated whether the San Antonio Spurs should be considered a dynasty because they had won three championships in the past five seasons. The biggest argument against the idea was that they had not won back-to-back titles, a must for some in any definition of a dynasty. Now, I think the term is being taken too far, as shown here by Yahoo! Sports:
Yes, the Patriots have won back-to-back Super Bowls before, but none of them have been in the past three seasons. That’s right, we’ve had three different Super Bowl champions since the last time the Patriots have won one. As far as I’m, concerned, the Dynasty ended years ago. 18-1 is nice, but dynasties are made by winning Super Bowls.