Why Was I a Bitch?

[Zero 114]

Some of you may remember the article that was started a few days ago, discussing the idea of "Modern Day Dynasties". While my reaction in that thread was a little more satirical, I stand by what I said.

 

First of all, I hold nothing against Ryan Power, aka Mr. Power, the original writer of that article. He writes that if Cologne pulls through and wins this finals series (go Calgary - sorry, old habits...) they will join New York and Davos as "Modern Day Dynasties". I just disagree with what he says.

 

Obviously, the VHL's definition of a dynasty has to differ from that of other sports leagues, considering the brevity of one's VHL career, and how cyclical the league is with its teams. The sports world defines a dynasty as a team that dominates its respective league for a lengthy period of time - generally upwards of 4-5 seasons.

 

In the VHL, this is not particularly common, and you'd have to go back through the record books and find a team that might come close to this type of dominance. This is why I think the VHL's definition of a dynasty should be a little stricter. For me, it's always been this: a dynasty in the VHL is when a team wins the Continental Cup in consecutive years. This has happened 4 times, though never post-expansion, but I don't believe that adding an extra 2 teams makes this phenomenon impossible - just a little tougher.

 

I guess that's why the "Modern Day Dynasty" term came in, though I disagree entirely with the use of the word dynasty at all. If Cologne wins the cup this year, and gets close or wins again next year, I would say they're a dynasty by every definition of the word - they'd have 3 cups in 4 years, and consecutive cups as well. Until then, 2 cups in 3 years isn't particularly impressive to me (no more than 2 cups in 4, 5, or 6 seasons), but perhaps I'm spoiled.

 

Agree to disagree, Mr. Power.

[scoop 3,265]

So two Cups in a row is a dynasty? What about longevity?

[Zero 114]

So two Cups in a row is a dynasty? What about longevity?

As I wrote, in a league like the VHL where even the best players are around for 8 years max, a 2 year cup streak is absolutely a dynasty. 2 cups in 3 years is not, though it's still very good. Let's not be so quick to throw around the dynasty tag just because we haven't had one in a while. It devalues the real ones.

 

Longevity's nice - the early 90's Buffalo Bills went to four straight Super Bowls - but winning is nicer.

[scoop 3,265]

As I wrote, in a league like the VHL where even the best players are around for 8 years max, a 2 year cup streak is absolutely a dynasty. 2 cups in 3 years is not, though it's still very good. Let's not be so quick to throw around the dynasty tag just because we haven't had one in a while. It devalues the real ones.

 

Longevity's nice - the early 90's Buffalo Bills went to four straight Super Bowls - but winning is nicer.

Okay so you're defining a VHL dynasty. Something like what the recent Americans and Dynamo did are more like what an actual sports dynasty would be.

[Devise 4,475]

Okay so you're defining a VHL dynasty. Something like what the recent Americans and Dynamo did are more like what an actual sports dynasty would be.

 

That was my perspective. Whether you agree with the term or not Zero in the old days there was far less league parity. While increasing it certainly makes it tougher to repeat, the fact remains that New York, Davos and potentially Cologne aren't going to be considered modern day dynasties JUST because they won 2 Cups in 3 years. 

 

Your focusing too much on the "how many x years" aspect of it, and not the window. Which is strange since that is what you consider to be a dynasty apparently, teams who can compete well for a bunch of seasons in a row. Things all these teams did. Remember New York, Davos, and now Cologne if they win it would be both 2 cups in 3 seasons and 3 straight finals appearances. The Chicago Blackhawks of the NHL are considered a current dynasty, and for them it's 3 cups over like 6 years. 

 

But generally speaking in leagues where there is a consistent threat of losing regardless of how good you are because there are other top teams, consistently making the finals, and winning multiple Cups over your "run" as a team is a good indication of a modern day dynasty. Furthermore, the fact is all 3 teams had a very good chance to repeat, and barely weren't able to do that. That has be to factored in. Winning a Cup, going to Game 7 of the finals the next year and barely losing, and then winning another Cup is exceptionally hard to do in a league parity filled VHL. Notice how only one team does it in their era? Riga attempted back to back, but they only made the finals twice in their run. Same with Toronto. Meanwhile not only did they make the finals in their respective dominant era's 3 straight times, Davos and New York also won it twice in that span. 

 

I guess I just don't see how that kind of dominance can be ignored or not recognized. Post expansion there were several different Cup winning teams, and even before. Since Davos last repeated, Helsinki was the only other team to attempt the feat other than Davos, Riga, and New York. Mostly because it was so hard to get to the finals again the year after you won the Cup. Hell Toronto won it in 29 and then didn't make the playoffs the next year despite still having a good roster. In a lot of cases good teams will flame out in the first or second round the year after they win. That was of course until the runs put up by Davos, New York, and now Cologne. That type of playoff success in a league as competitive as the VHL is right now to me is worth something. But it still comes down to Cups. If Cologne can't win it this year I don't put them as a modern day dynasty. 3 straight finals appearances and 1 cup is impressive, but 3 straight with 2 Cups is what I'd say is the minimum qualification for that modern day dynasty tag. 

[scoop 3,265]

That was my perspective. Whether you agree with the term or not Zero in the old days there was far less league parity. While increasing it certainly makes it tougher to repeat, the fact remains that New York, Davos and potentially Cologne aren't going to be considered modern day dynasties JUST because they won 2 Cups in 3 years. 

 

Your focusing too much on the "how many x years" aspect of it, and not the window. Which is strange since that is what you consider to be a dynasty apparently, teams who can compete well for a bunch of seasons in a row. Things all these teams did. Remember New York, Davos, and now Cologne if they win it would be both 2 cups in 3 seasons and 3 straight finals appearances. The Chicago Blackhawks of the NHL are considered a current dynasty, and for them it's 3 cups over like 6 years. 

 

But generally speaking in leagues where there is a consistent threat of losing regardless of how good you are because there are other top teams, consistently making the finals, and winning multiple Cups over your "run" as a team is a good indication of a modern day dynasty. Furthermore, the fact is all 3 teams had a very good chance to repeat, and barely weren't able to do that. That has be to factored in. Winning a Cup, going to Game 7 of the finals the next year and barely losing, and then winning another Cup is exceptionally hard to do in a league parity filled VHL. Notice how only one team does it in their era? Riga attempted back to back, but they only made the finals twice in their run. Same with Toronto. Meanwhile not only did they make the finals in their respective dominant era's 3 straight times, Davos and New York also won it twice in that span. 

 

I guess I just don't see how that kind of dominance can be ignored or not recognized. Post expansion there were several different Cup winning teams, and even before. Since Davos last repeated, Helsinki was the only other team to attempt the feat other than Davos, Riga, and New York. Mostly because it was so hard to get to the finals again the year after you won the Cup. Hell Toronto won it in 29 and then didn't make the playoffs the next year despite still having a good roster. In a lot of cases good teams will flame out in the first or second round the year after they win. That was of course until the runs put up by Davos, New York, and now Cologne. That type of playoff success in a league as competitive as the VHL is right now to me is worth something. But it still comes down to Cups. If Cologne can't win it this year I don't put them as a modern day dynasty. 3 straight finals appearances and 1 cup is impressive, but 3 straight with 2 Cups is what I'd say is the minimum qualification for that modern day dynasty tag. 

I hope you're not saying "modern day dynasties" as if to suggest that what New York and Davos did during their recent runs are not two of the greatest dynasties in VHL history.

[Victor 10,580]

I hope you're not saying "modern day dynasties" as if to suggest that what New York and Davos did during their recent runs are not two of the greatest dynasties in VHL history.

I think recent NY was the second best dynasty ever.

[Smarch 2,957]

I think recent NY was the second best dynasty ever.

 

Damn straight