Re: Calling all cars

[Jim Metz <james.metz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's not forget the Montreal Canadiens.



On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 05:30 PM, Douglas342@AOL.com wrote:

>      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).