Would like to create a thread for modern sports dynasties so we can sort of have fun (and contentious!) cross sport discussions. This may end up not working but I think it could be fun. My knowledge obviously does not extend very well out of the American big 4, but we should have fertile discussion here anyway.

One of the first questions of course is what is modern era for various sports.

The NBA has a pretty clear answer to this I think (post-Merger).

The NFL is a bit tougher because do you go with the beginning of the Super Bowl era, the merger (a few years later), or 1978 (when they made the biggest shift in rules).

MLB is an interesting question as well as there isn't really much of a demarcation line. You could go with free agency. You could go with the strike (though that seems too recent). You could go with the expansion of the playoffs.

NHL is another tough one. The original 6 era ended in the late 1960s with relatively rapid expansion (from the 1966 to 1967 season, the last season of the original 6 era) to 1993-1994 (completion of the expansion flurry) the league went from 6 teams to 26 teams (or an average rate of growth of a hair under .75 teams per year). This was chunked of course (first year the league doubled, with the WHA merger in 1979 to 1980 it added four more teams, and the early 1990s saw another flurry). The league did a lot of weird shit with divisions and conferences too (for example when the 6 teams expanded in they put them all in the same conference which means the good teams had to duke it out in one but the new expansion teams just futzed around before getting slaughtered in the cup (that is until the Flyers finally got good). The 1980s had a similar setup to now but in some cases 5 divisions. Scoring went way up largely because of talent dilution (I will argue this is the big reason the 1980s were so high scoring and everyone is looking at the wrong things with regards to offensive performance drop. There just weren't enough players in a game that wasn't bringing in international talent yet and still drew most talent from Canada to avoid having teams that would give up shitloads of goals. Systemic changes helped slow the game down too but I'd say the game right now is likely much better hockey than 1980s hockey it just doesn't have as much scoring because the players are better).

I think if I had to put a finger on a time period I'd go with the WHA merger because it brought in 4 teams and saw the playoff format solidify (though they still did crazy things like suddenly deciding to shift a division name (which were named after players so that from one year to next two divisions had an entirely different set of teams).

I'm not 100% sure why the NBA-ABA merger is considered such a sharp break. There was a big talent infusion and the NBA of the mid-'70s was pretty watered down. But the game itself was basically the same. ABA players had been going to the NBA and NBA players had been going to the ABA (and Rick Barry did both). It's basically four teams that joined. That's the listing impact.

I think 1980 is a better line. They added the three. They created the illegal defense rule that we grew up with.

That said, there was another break in 2002. The period from 2002 to 2006 fundamentally changed basketball. I think we'll look back at that as starting a new era. But that's too recent.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think the salary cap in 1984 is what matters.

I could see 1984 or 1980 working then. I think the three point line introduction is a bigger deal than the salary cap but maybe you build a buffer for the adjustment period

The three point line wasn't really a big deal in 1980 since teams didn't use it all that well, but it started a gradual change. I say 1980 works best because it's the point where at least the court looks the same.

What were the shifts in the rules? Without knowing that the merger seems to make the most sense, unless the rule changes involved how much the conferences played each other.

Rules freed up the passing game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_NFL_ ... le_changes

You're thinking of earlier changes in 2004 that caused some change. The 1978 changes were much, much bigger

I think the free agency era would be the way to go for MLB. 40 years is a solid chunk of time.

how long is a dynasty and what is a dynasty.

He's a Pats fan. Maybe he's talking about the 2006 rule that allowed each team to customize its own footballs?

I'd say the merger makes the most sense for the NFL. As long as everybody's playing each other and playing by the same rules it seems fair. Otherwise modern free agency would make the most sense as that has more to do with how dynasties are made, and just arguing Pats/Cowboys/maybe Broncos over and over wouldn't be fun.

For baseball I'd go with 1969, when they expanded again, when they first broke into divisions and also when they lowered the mound after the really low offensive levels of the late 60s through 1968. Since major league baseball had been around a lot longer than the major league levels of the other sports, it stands to reason that their modern era started before that of the other sports. I can see maybe even starting the modern era of baseball in 1961 when they first expanded.

Sustained period of success goes without saying. I think it also depends on the sport as to how you quantify it (some sports are more prone to change). The one part I would say is definitely not necessary is back to back championships BUT multiple championships are necessary in that case. I would also say a playoff miss is pretty much a combo breaker that kills the dynasty in almost all circumstances.

Spurs are a good example. To go with an even crazier example the Detroit Red Wings have not missed the playoffs since 1989-1990 Season. 24 consecutive years with 4 titles. But you could argue that includes multiple dynasties (pre and post lockout) or maybe only one ending at the lockout. And who is the unifying player? Their biggest star was Yzerman but they weren't a great team in the 1980s when he started. You could argue the beginning and ending point of the dynasty as Lidstrom joining the roster in 1991-1992 (in fact I will do just that since he was the best player on the dynasty teams) and ending with his departure.

In certain sports a couple key players or a coach define the dynasty. Patriots are one I'd give an exception to on the missing the playoff rule and run their dynasty from 2001 to no (or its two separate dynasties maybe but I think one makes more sense).

Other thoughts?

MLB I think 1969 makes sense and so would 1961. I'm sort of inclined to go with 1961 because it should be further back to count the modern era. If we go merger for NFL then I think we should go 1961 here. If we go 1978 for NFL (major rule changes) I think we should go 1969 for baseball.

For NHL it's either 1967-1968 when they expanded the league to 12 or 1980 with the acquisition of the 4 WHA teams. Hockey really doesn't have any major rule changes that demarcate it like the other sports though there are definitely stylistic changes. With that being the case I say we go 1968 if we take 1961 for baseball but 1980 otherwise (since the NHL's modern era beginning before baseballs would be weird).

For NBA I like 1980 as the starting point. Court looks like it does now and the three is an option. More to the point I don't want to deal with cutting into the Celtics and Lakers Bird and Magic years. Makes sense as this is by far the youngest professional league.

So anyway I advocate being a bit liberal with definition and saying

1961 - MLB
1967 - NHL
1970 - NFL
1980 - NBA

Any objections?

Any particular reason we're keeping this to modern dynasties? Why not just have a distinction?