Re: Calling all cars

[Douglas342@xxxxxxx]

     Tough to argue with this one.  In 10 years, UCLA had at least two 
complete turnovers of players; the Yankees have been winning championships 
for 50 years or so.  The Celtics, on the other hand, had a terrific run in 
the 50s and 60s, all with one William Felton Russell holding down the middle. 
 Maybe it's really an argument about what constitutes a "dynasty."  I think a 
dynasty is a team that wins over and over while undergoing personnel changes. 
 I don't see the Jordan Bulls, or the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, as dynasties.  One 
can make a far more valid argument for the Celtics of the 50s through 80s as 
being a dynasty.  But the 60s Celtics?  No, no dynasty, just great teams.
     And I am sure that there are better examples in smaller college sports, 
such as Syracuse lacrosse, and wasn't there some Division III football team 
that won its national title about nine straight years?  Augustana or some 
such?

In a message dated 6/11/02 12:31:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
callmebogie@yahoo.com writes:


> 
> poll on ESPN.com for "greatest dynasty".  Celtics of the 60s are currently
> in 3rd, behind UCLA basketball (in 2nd) and the Yankees (in 1st).