I think the better measure is which sets of teams make it to the AFC/NFC title games. There are many teams that would be considered "dynasties"
Go J-E-T-S Go!!!!
The Green Bay Packers are and will always remain a dynasty. Why do you think Green Bay is known as "Titletown?"
GO PACK!
GO PACK!
Nice article, but you fail to mention in more detail about other teams that have trouble winning playoff games, much less making the playoffs.
For me, a long suffering Detroit Lions fan that went through the agony of seeing the referees blowing a bunch of calls during last week's Detroit Lions at Dallas Cowboys playoff game, it felt like Yogi Berra's phrase about "Deja vu all over again" in the ways the Lions find new ways to lose football games (but in this case, they had a lot of help from the zebra shirted officials.)
The Jets may have not been to the Super Bowl in over 45 years, but at least they got to one. Heck, the Jets have more playoff wins or Conference appearances than the Detroit Lions have playoff wins (1 win in 57 years in the sad case of the Detroit Lions.)
For me, a long suffering Detroit Lions fan that went through the agony of seeing the referees blowing a bunch of calls during last week's Detroit Lions at Dallas Cowboys playoff game, it felt like Yogi Berra's phrase about "Deja vu all over again" in the ways the Lions find new ways to lose football games (but in this case, they had a lot of help from the zebra shirted officials.)
The Jets may have not been to the Super Bowl in over 45 years, but at least they got to one. Heck, the Jets have more playoff wins or Conference appearances than the Detroit Lions have playoff wins (1 win in 57 years in the sad case of the Detroit Lions.)
Seattle is a dynasty.
Lowenstein failed to mention probably the most important factor: Pete Rozelle decided to have all the TV revenue divided EQUALLY among the franchises. Therefore, small TV market teams (i.e. Green Bay) have been able to compete for players on an equal basis.
It doesn't require graphs and indexes, just look at the winning percentage.
I find the real issue to be teams that win their division with .500 or worse records, and teams that suck in the regular season but squeak in and then get hot and knock off really good teams that had a bad day.
I find the real issue to be teams that win their division with .500 or worse records, and teams that suck in the regular season but squeak in and then get hot and knock off really good teams that had a bad day.
Some argue here that due to expansion we can't compare the Green Bay Packers team of the 60's to modern teams. In a sport where any team can win on any given Sunday, the greatly expanded schedule has made it much tougher to get to the Big Game. It took Miami 17 games to have a "perfect season." Now a team has to play a minimum of 19 games to win the championship.
1
You are a dynasty if you win when you have competition in your division. The 70s Steelers had competition, the 80s Niners and 2000s Patriots did not - their divisions were AWFUL, so you could pencil in 6 or 8 wins each year, making 10 a low bar.
Even though as a Giants fan I hate the Cowboys, what they did in the 90s is more impressive because the Giants, Washington and the Eagles all had times when they were really good too, making that pencil line pretty thin.
Just my $0.02
Even though as a Giants fan I hate the Cowboys, what they did in the 90s is more impressive because the Giants, Washington and the Eagles all had times when they were really good too, making that pencil line pretty thin.
Just my $0.02
1
Roger, I have read your books and your father's. I am surprised you would apply your metrics to something as plebeian as pro football. I understand this stuff a lot better than the Black–Scholes model.
Here's an idea. Maybe you could arrange for the likes of LTCM to go to an NFL training camp and serve as tackling dummies.
A dynasty is established with multiple championships. It is tarnished and in decline only when the team is no longer competitive for a championship. The most egregious example of that is the Browns. For that symbol of Cleveland to sink so low is an outrage.
Here's an idea. Maybe you could arrange for the likes of LTCM to go to an NFL training camp and serve as tackling dummies.
A dynasty is established with multiple championships. It is tarnished and in decline only when the team is no longer competitive for a championship. The most egregious example of that is the Browns. For that symbol of Cleveland to sink so low is an outrage.
2
Hoping for the day when the headline won't have the word "dynasties" in it. I know, it'll never happen, just wishing.
1
Mamba, your questions are rhetorical, right?
The answer is always ownership. The McCaskeys are related to former football people; they are not "football people" themselves, in the manner of the Rooneys or the Maras.
The Cubs have had so many non-baseball owners it's no wonder they've stood still for over a century. The Chicago Tribune as an owner? Sam Zell as an owner? I was comforted a little when he sold the team. I think.
The owner has to live, breath, and eat his sport, and this hasn't happened with the Bears or Cubs in a long time. The last great Bears team (1985) was assembled by George Halas himself just before he died. We've had amateurs at the helm ever since.
Reinsdorf got lucky with Michael Jordan, and there's that one fairly recent World Series title with the Sox, so the verdict is still out on him.
Bill Wirtz was a penny-pinching real estate guy who knew nothing about hockey, and made the Blackhawks annual losers until the day he died. Defying logic, his son Rocky is a smart, free-spending "hockey guy," and now the Hawks are in it every year.
Do yourself a favor and stop worrying. Accept the fact, as I have, that the Bears and Cubs will never be relevant until someone like Robert Kraft shows up with someone like Bill Belichick.
I hope we're both still alive when it happens.
The answer is always ownership. The McCaskeys are related to former football people; they are not "football people" themselves, in the manner of the Rooneys or the Maras.
The Cubs have had so many non-baseball owners it's no wonder they've stood still for over a century. The Chicago Tribune as an owner? Sam Zell as an owner? I was comforted a little when he sold the team. I think.
The owner has to live, breath, and eat his sport, and this hasn't happened with the Bears or Cubs in a long time. The last great Bears team (1985) was assembled by George Halas himself just before he died. We've had amateurs at the helm ever since.
Reinsdorf got lucky with Michael Jordan, and there's that one fairly recent World Series title with the Sox, so the verdict is still out on him.
Bill Wirtz was a penny-pinching real estate guy who knew nothing about hockey, and made the Blackhawks annual losers until the day he died. Defying logic, his son Rocky is a smart, free-spending "hockey guy," and now the Hawks are in it every year.
Do yourself a favor and stop worrying. Accept the fact, as I have, that the Bears and Cubs will never be relevant until someone like Robert Kraft shows up with someone like Bill Belichick.
I hope we're both still alive when it happens.
3
Using '70s, 80's, etc. is pretty artificial and could be faulty. If it's a ten-year period, why not, say, '84 to '93? This is the NY Times, so we can handle a little complexity.
3
The Belichick mindset and approach to the game is so intriguing. He knows he's not going to be champion every year, which is acceptable to him. His goal is to be as competitive as possible for as sustained a period as possible. He will let great players leave the roster and still be able to compete. He might have won more rings if he had held onto and stoutly paid a few more Lawyer Milloys over the years.
Belichick has fulfilled his definition of dynasty, which follows the championship philosophy set down by Jack Nicklaus: do not count the number of titles you have won, but rather count the number of times you have put yourself in a position to win a title. Nicklaus finished second or third in an astounding number of tournaments.
Always being in the hunt regardless of the personnel - that's the Belichick legacy. In this day and age, when you compare his record against that of other teams over the same time period, it can reasonably be called dynastic. It's not what fans want (especially when your juggernaut loses to the Giants), and it certainly isn't what Brady wants (the SB losses appear to haunt him more than they do his coach) but to me it is more worthwhile to pursue a high level continuum than to chase a one-shot, win-now fleeting vision. When you do it Belichick's way, it means you're going to have to gain success by finding value and coaching superbly rather than by bankrolling an armada of superior talent. That's a hard task. Not many can do it.
Belichick has fulfilled his definition of dynasty, which follows the championship philosophy set down by Jack Nicklaus: do not count the number of titles you have won, but rather count the number of times you have put yourself in a position to win a title. Nicklaus finished second or third in an astounding number of tournaments.
Always being in the hunt regardless of the personnel - that's the Belichick legacy. In this day and age, when you compare his record against that of other teams over the same time period, it can reasonably be called dynastic. It's not what fans want (especially when your juggernaut loses to the Giants), and it certainly isn't what Brady wants (the SB losses appear to haunt him more than they do his coach) but to me it is more worthwhile to pursue a high level continuum than to chase a one-shot, win-now fleeting vision. When you do it Belichick's way, it means you're going to have to gain success by finding value and coaching superbly rather than by bankrolling an armada of superior talent. That's a hard task. Not many can do it.
7
"He knows he's not going to be champion every year, which is acceptable to him."
You have to be kidding. Have you ever seen Coach Belichick's face and demeanor after one loss?
Coach Belichick pays for top talent like his quarterback. But he is frugal, maybe for the cap and his owner, but more so in order to have roster flexibility and future draft picks. Also, you might examine his record without Brady and with the Browns. He's a Hall of Fame coach. But his machinations all come down to one guy, especially in the playoffs. I will say that the Patriots fine regular season records and playoff tickets are a function of Belichick's planning and organization.
You have to be kidding. Have you ever seen Coach Belichick's face and demeanor after one loss?
Coach Belichick pays for top talent like his quarterback. But he is frugal, maybe for the cap and his owner, but more so in order to have roster flexibility and future draft picks. Also, you might examine his record without Brady and with the Browns. He's a Hall of Fame coach. But his machinations all come down to one guy, especially in the playoffs. I will say that the Patriots fine regular season records and playoff tickets are a function of Belichick's planning and organization.
1
I wonder how this index would work if you expanded it one level, to the conference championship games? Yes 10 different teams won the NFC championship from 2001-2010, but the Eagles made it to 4 straight of those games, and 5 overall. The Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Jets and Peyton Manning have pretty much monopolized the AFC championship of late. The Cowboys, 49ers and Packers had a lock on the NFC championship game in the 90s.
Another comment pointed out the expanded playoffs format as a culprit, and I think that fact can't be ignored in this analysis.
Another comment pointed out the expanded playoffs format as a culprit, and I think that fact can't be ignored in this analysis.
2
I think measuring dynasties on Super Bowl appearances is limited. In my opinion a dynasty is team that year-in and year-out has a legitimate chance to win the Super Bowl.
Sports are too random...especially with expanded playoffs....for a team to win consistently. I actually looked at NFL dynasties in-depth and ranked them in the Super Bowl era. The 80's-90's 49'ers ranked first and the 60's-80's Cowboys ranked second. You can check it out here:
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2014/11/15/7223847/ranking-the-nfl-dynast...
Sports are too random...especially with expanded playoffs....for a team to win consistently. I actually looked at NFL dynasties in-depth and ranked them in the Super Bowl era. The 80's-90's 49'ers ranked first and the 60's-80's Cowboys ranked second. You can check it out here:
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2014/11/15/7223847/ranking-the-nfl-dynast...
3
The draft works. Wasn't that the purpose of it in the first place?
Impressive that the article managed to ignore the Raider's, a dominant team from the late 60's to the early 80's, winning the SB three times in eight years.
3
The best winning percentage in any sport. Except for the immaculate reception should have had at least another Super Bowl. Had difficult AFL/AFC playoff competition with fine teams of the Chiefs, Dolphins and Steelers.
Commitment to Excellence, and just a nasty, winning bunch.
Commitment to Excellence, and just a nasty, winning bunch.
2
Given expansion, a team making its Conference Championship game is an equivalent achievement to making the Super Bowl in the 60's. Measured that way, I think you'd find there are teams with equally dominant stretches.
Also, dominance doesn't necessarily conform to our arbitrary determination of decades. A team that makes a Conference Final 4 times in 7 years is a dynasty, and so it one that makes 5 in 9.
Also, dominance doesn't necessarily conform to our arbitrary determination of decades. A team that makes a Conference Final 4 times in 7 years is a dynasty, and so it one that makes 5 in 9.
4
What makes the NFL great is parity. Sure, the Jets are perennial doormats, but that's due to incompetence. Meanwhile, MLB lets some teams buy the best players. Great if you are a NYY fan, but I don't understand why anyone would attend a baseball game and root for a team where the deck has been stacked against them for decades.
9
A's seem to be doing well year after year with the deck stacked against them.
The Jets could be described as a dynasty of losers, I suppose.
6
Butt Fumble FTW.
It doesn't matter what your "Dynasty Index" is - the Jets will still continue to exhibit futility of Kotitean noteworthiness that, one decade down the line, will come to make the Red Sox or Cubs look like veritable Yankees.
1
There is simply no comparison with the teams of Lombardi, Landry, et al. Those days are over for good.
Today we don't even have "teams", per se, just mostly independent contractors who change the color of their uniforms as the color of cash turns greener. We have more teams, more divisions, playoffs with wildcards, etc..., all in the name of making a buck.
Yes, pro football has always been a business, but we are over the top at this point. Sad, in a way.
It is difficult to imagine a dynasty in today's game.
Today we don't even have "teams", per se, just mostly independent contractors who change the color of their uniforms as the color of cash turns greener. We have more teams, more divisions, playoffs with wildcards, etc..., all in the name of making a buck.
Yes, pro football has always been a business, but we are over the top at this point. Sad, in a way.
It is difficult to imagine a dynasty in today's game.
11
The expanded playoffs has had a big impact. Surprised not to see it mentioned.
1
Why have my much beloved frustrating Chicago Bears never become a winning NFL dynasty within my living memory? The Bears are no Bulls.
What if any thing does that have to do with the team's ursine choice of mascots?
Chicago has one Major League Baseball team on the almighty South Side of Chicago wearing pale hose. And another team that last won a championship when Geronimo and Quanah Parker were both still alive. Those miserable miscreant masochists have a bear cub as their mascot. And they play on a field with weeds growing on the wall with cattle troughs for urinals and cold dogs for food. Cubs fans chant "I hope he hits a touchdown" and wait for half-time to go hit the head.
Or maybe a move is in order? How did Colts end up in Indy, Rams in St. Louis and Cardinals in Arizona? Where did the Ravens come from? Why do Patriots, Ravens, 49er's, Steelers, Saints, Packers and Broncos win?
Or maybe it has something to do with what we call football rarely involves the foot or the brain unlike the real sport of football aka soccer?
The Los Angeles Bears?
I am Bullish on my Bears! Sweetness and Butkus and Samurai?
What if any thing does that have to do with the team's ursine choice of mascots?
Chicago has one Major League Baseball team on the almighty South Side of Chicago wearing pale hose. And another team that last won a championship when Geronimo and Quanah Parker were both still alive. Those miserable miscreant masochists have a bear cub as their mascot. And they play on a field with weeds growing on the wall with cattle troughs for urinals and cold dogs for food. Cubs fans chant "I hope he hits a touchdown" and wait for half-time to go hit the head.
Or maybe a move is in order? How did Colts end up in Indy, Rams in St. Louis and Cardinals in Arizona? Where did the Ravens come from? Why do Patriots, Ravens, 49er's, Steelers, Saints, Packers and Broncos win?
Or maybe it has something to do with what we call football rarely involves the foot or the brain unlike the real sport of football aka soccer?
The Los Angeles Bears?
I am Bullish on my Bears! Sweetness and Butkus and Samurai?
4
According to the Fed, there's more upward mobility in the NFL than in America in general.
http://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/how-difficult-is-moving-up-in-i...
http://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/how-difficult-is-moving-up-in-i...
1
You have to control for the increased number of teams and playoff spots. Of course there is more variation in playoff teams these days because more teams compete.
And yet, with some variation, the same small group of teams rise to the top each year (New England, for example), and the same group of teams stay at the bottom (Miami, for example). Some teams remain consistently better-run than others.
And yet, with some variation, the same small group of teams rise to the top each year (New England, for example), and the same group of teams stay at the bottom (Miami, for example). Some teams remain consistently better-run than others.
3
Watching the NFL games , sometimes I get the impression that they are orchestrated rather than officiated!
3
Interestingly, I've always considered that the Raiders had at times dynasty material, but little if any mention of them here! Why is that?!
4