With the Giants third World Series win in five years, it highlighted for me how much the major pro sports are dominated by the same teams. They defeated the Cardinals, who have 2 WS wins in the last nine seasons and have seemingly advanced to the NLCS almost every season. They, along with especially the Yankees have dominated the sport, both recently and historically.

In the NBA, only two teams not named the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs, Pistons, Rockets, Heat (the Sixers, Mavericks) have won championships since 1980 and even those two have a combined six Finals appearances in that time frame. Along with the rest, they have over 80% of the Finals appearances in the last 35 seasons, including ALL of the 1980's.

The NFL is not much better, as the Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Packers, Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, Broncos, Dolphins, Colts and 49ers have combined to win 39 of a possible 48 Super Bowls and have 69 of a possible 96 SB appearances. 11 franchises.

Throw in the winless Vikings and Bills, dominant in the 70's and 90's respectively, and it jumps to 81/96. The same teams also dominate the championship game round.

I guess what I'm trying to ask if anyone is bored by this?

(10-31-2014 10:54 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I guess what I'm trying to ask if anyone is bored by this?

To some degree no.

Clubs remain successful because they are run a correct way. Some clubs use scouting and player development to keep up with the richer clubs that spend money on established players. There is a reason the Packers are the Packers and the Raiders are the Raiders.

No. I am still a huge fan of major league baseball and pro football. In pro football, there have been five different champions in the last five year and three -- New Orleans, Baltimore and Seattle -- are not among the teams you listed as the traditional champions. There is always a sense that with the right coaching staff, a few good drafts and some key free agents, a team can contend for a championship.

But some teams never contend, not even when really good.

(11-01-2014 12:19 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  But some teams never contend, not even when really good.

Who doesn't compete "even when really good"

False argument in my opinion. San Francisco did not win because they are dominant. They won because of a single man whom is the most dominant pitcher in Major League Baseball, perhaps of all time.

Otherwise, Kansas City was the better team and would have won that World Series, thus making your argument moot.

(11-01-2014 01:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  False argument in my opinion. San Francisco did not win because they are dominant. They won because of a single man whom is the most dominant pitcher in Major League Baseball, perhaps of all time.

Otherwise, Kansas City was the better team and would have won that World Series, thus making your argument moot.

huh, i actually believe that helps the argument, that having 1 dominant player helps a team win more championships.

especially in the NBA. Almost all the teams that win multiple championships have a dominant player. When that player retires, there is no guaruntee there will be more.

Some NBA franchises have done it with different players in different eras, but most others drop off and do not return.

(10-31-2014 10:54 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  With the Giants third World Series win in five years, it highlighted for me how much the major pro sports are dominated by the same teams. They defeated the Cardinals, who have 2 WS wins in the last nine seasons and have seemingly advanced to the NLCS almost every season. They, along with especially the Yankees have dominated the sport, both recently and historically.

In the NBA, only two teams not named the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs, Pistons, Rockets, Heat (the Sixers, Mavericks) have won championships since 1980 and even those two have a combined six Finals appearances in that time frame. Along with the rest, they have over 80% of the Finals appearances in the last 35 seasons, including ALL of the 1980's.

The NFL is not much better, as the Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Packers, Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, Broncos, Dolphins, Colts and 49ers have combined to win 39 of a possible 48 Super Bowls and have 69 of a possible 96 SB appearances. 11 franchises.

Throw in the winless Vikings and Bills, dominant in the 70's and 90's respectively, and it jumps to 81/96. The same teams also dominate the championship game round.

I guess what I'm trying to ask if anyone is bored by this?

The question is are these really statistical outliers? You named 11 NFL teams that have won 39 out of 48 superbowls. 11 out of 32 is roughly one third of the league. That means one third of the league has won multiple SB, and I am guessing that means one third has won 1 SB and the last third has won no SB. This does not seem too extreme to me.

I am not suggesting NFL teams that win multiple SB are just lucky, but the end result does not suggest a select few are over dominating statistically.

You should include Connecticut's professional sports teams...

Since 1999, UCONN Men's Basketball has won 25% of National Championships, while the Women have won 50% of National Championships.

The competitive balance of baseball is actually very high now, it's just that October is dominated by the Giants (and Cardinals to an extent). It's like the 50's, when it was rare for teams to win more 95 games but every season was dominated by the Yankees, Dodger, or Giants (with the Indians and Braves thrown in every now and then).

(10-31-2014 10:54 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  With the Giants third World Series win in five years, it highlighted for me how much the major pro sports are dominated by the same teams. They defeated the Cardinals, who have 2 WS wins in the last nine seasons and have seemingly advanced to the NLCS almost every season. They, along with especially the Yankees have dominated the sport, both recently and historically.

In the NBA, only two teams not named the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs, Pistons, Rockets, Heat (the Sixers, Mavericks) have won championships since 1980 and even those two have a combined six Finals appearances in that time frame. Along with the rest, they have over 80% of the Finals appearances in the last 35 seasons, including ALL of the 1980's.

The NFL is not much better, as the Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Packers, Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, Broncos, Dolphins, Colts and 49ers have combined to win 39 of a possible 48 Super Bowls and have 69 of a possible 96 SB appearances. 11 franchises.

Throw in the winless Vikings and Bills, dominant in the 70's and 90's respectively, and it jumps to 81/96. The same teams also dominate the championship game round.

I guess what I'm trying to ask if anyone is bored by this?

Same old, same old? :winged eagle:

The Giants won the World Series for the 3rd time in 60 years, but they dominate the sport? In this latest 3 titles in 5 years run, they didn't even make the playoffs in the other 2 years.

The giants beat the Cardinals? Uh . . . they beat the Royals in the World Series. The Royals have won 1 World Series in the entire history of the franchise.

The Yankees have dominated the sport recently? They've won 1 World Series in the last 14 years. And that's the only time they even got to the World Series in the last 11 years. They haven't even made the playoffs the past 2 seasons and their prospects for the future are bleak. Their dynasty is long over. Dominance? Their dominance historically came predominantly in a 40 year stretch between 1923-62. They've won 7 World Series in the last 50 years. Calling them the dominant power in baseball would be like calling Notre Dame the dominant power in college football for what they did before most of today's fans were even alive.

20 different teams have won the last 40 World Series. That's not enough diversity for you? Same thing in football. 20 different teams have won the 48 Super Bowls

As for the NBA, you just named 9 different teams that have won championships since 1980. Hardly the same couple of teams over and over. The Celtics have won won title in the last 29 years and the Bulls haven't won one since the turn of the century. Going back a decade after the Celtics dynasty ended, a different team was winning every year in the 1970's.

Are teams never supposed to repeat?

There was a time of real dominance in sports when the Yankees won 20 World series in 40 years, the Celtics won 11 NBA titles in 13 years, and UCLA won 10 NCAA titles in 12 years. That was a boring era, but this ain't that.

You got a point on the Giants, they hadn't won a WS since their days in New York before 2010.

But I'd say, especially when looking at the NBA, the same teams when over and over, often times with a different nucleus.' And if not win it all, they get to the Finals repeatedly with a different group of personnel except a player or two.

(11-01-2014 09:01 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  You got a point on the Giants, they hadn't won a WS since their days in New York before 2010.

But I'd say, especially when looking at the NBA, the same teams when over and over, often times with different nucleus.' And if not win it all, they get to the Finals repeatedly with a different group of personnel except a player or two.

NFL is very balanced. Perhaps almost too much.
Baseball was getting too dominated by Yankees and Red Sox. Hopefully that is shifting. It appears to be.
NBA is very dependent on 1 or 2 players. That's why the Lakers and Celtics dominated the 80s. That's why Chicago had 6 championships in 8 years with the Rockets taking the other 2-Jordan and Olajuwon. As those players go, it changes. Look at the Lakers now.

There was an article talking about how players didn't have to be in NY or LA (LeBron/Durant) anymore to make lots of endorsement money.

Baseball is the only sport that really has an issue.

(11-01-2014 06:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 01:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  False argument in my opinion. San Francisco did not win because they are dominant. They won because of a single man whom is the most dominant pitcher in Major League Baseball, perhaps of all time.

Otherwise, Kansas City was the better team and would have won that World Series, thus making your argument moot.

huh, i actually believe that helps the argument, that having 1 dominant player helps a team win more championships.

especially in the NBA. Almost all the teams that win multiple championships have a dominant player. When that player retires, there is no guaruntee there will be more.

Some NBA franchises have done it with different players in different eras, but most others drop off and do not return.

No, the point is that Kansas City was the better team and they absolutely would have won that Series if it hadn't been for a single player on the Giants team. The title of the thread contains the word "dominated". The Giants did not dominate the Royals. Therefore the Royals are the antithesis to what the OP is trying to say.

Couldn't the same thing be said about college athletics? In the past 25 years, how many teams other than Connecticut, Duke, North Carolina, Louisville, Syracuse and Kansas have won the men's basketball national championship?

I saw graphic a few weeks ago, when Mississippi State assumed the top ranking in the AP poll, that said that there have only been something like 27 teams ranked no. 1 in college football over the past 40 years.

I think it is the nature of sports for the good teams to stay good and for the bad teams to stay bad. That is what makes it so noteworthy and remarkable when a program like Mississippi State can reach the top level - even if it does not last through the end of the season.

The Giants won, no matter how you spin it!

(11-01-2014 09:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 06:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 01:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  False argument in my opinion. San Francisco did not win because they are dominant. They won because of a single man whom is the most dominant pitcher in Major League Baseball, perhaps of all time.

Otherwise, Kansas City was the better team and would have won that World Series, thus making your argument moot.

huh, i actually believe that helps the argument, that having 1 dominant player helps a team win more championships.

especially in the NBA. Almost all the teams that win multiple championships have a dominant player. When that player retires, there is no guaruntee there will be more.

Some NBA franchises have done it with different players in different eras, but most others drop off and do not return.

No, the point is that Kansas City was the better team and they absolutely would have won that Series if it hadn't been for a single player on the Giants team. The title of the thread contains the word "dominated". The Giants did not dominate the Royals. Therefore the Royals are the antithesis to what the OP is trying to say.

Dominated is in the title but the context is in reference to how only a few teams dominate each sport, often times in different eras and that even when some teams get good they still don't even compete for a title. I'm not saying that's good or bad but it does get boring watching the same teams win it over and over.

Unless you are a fan of those teams! Being a fan of a loser does get boring!

(11-01-2014 09:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 06:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 01:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  False argument in my opinion. San Francisco did not win because they are dominant. They won because of a single man whom is the most dominant pitcher in Major League Baseball, perhaps of all time.

Otherwise, Kansas City was the better team and would have won that World Series, thus making your argument moot.

huh, i actually believe that helps the argument, that having 1 dominant player helps a team win more championships.

especially in the NBA. Almost all the teams that win multiple championships have a dominant player. When that player retires, there is no guaruntee there will be more.

Some NBA franchises have done it with different players in different eras, but most others drop off and do not return.

No, the point is that Kansas City was the better team and they absolutely would have won that Series if it hadn't been for a single player on the Giants team. The title of the thread contains the word "dominated". The Giants did not dominate the Royals. Therefore the Royals are the antithesis to what the OP is trying to say.

So . . .

Kansas City was the better team and they absolutely would have won IF . . ."

Famous last words of every losing team. The Giants were the better team. Period.

Even if the Giants had swept the Royals 4 straight, that would have had nothing to do with making them dominant in the context of this conversation. It has everything to do with winning 3 titles in 5 years regardless of how they got them accomplished.

(11-01-2014 09:52 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 09:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 06:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 01:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  False argument in my opinion. San Francisco did not win because they are dominant. They won because of a single man whom is the most dominant pitcher in Major League Baseball, perhaps of all time.

Otherwise, Kansas City was the better team and would have won that World Series, thus making your argument moot.

huh, i actually believe that helps the argument, that having 1 dominant player helps a team win more championships.

especially in the NBA. Almost all the teams that win multiple championships have a dominant player. When that player retires, there is no guaruntee there will be more.

Some NBA franchises have done it with different players in different eras, but most others drop off and do not return.

No, the point is that Kansas City was the better team and they absolutely would have won that Series if it hadn't been for a single player on the Giants team. The title of the thread contains the word "dominated". The Giants did not dominate the Royals. Therefore the Royals are the antithesis to what the OP is trying to say.

Dominated is in the title but the context is in reference to how only a few teams dominate each sport, often times in different eras and that even when some teams get good they still don't even compete for a title. I'm not saying that's good or bad but it does get boring watching the same teams win it over and over.

It may be boring for you, but you seem to be arguing that it should be boring for everyone else. It isn't. Except for the Jordan Bulls of the '90's which of those teams that won was automatic? What makes it exciting is the uncertainty of the outcome even when the same team repeats. No one, for example, expected the Giants to win this year and the outcome was in doubt right up to game 7. How was that boring?

I've already pointed out the flaws in your statement that "only a few teams dominate each sport." That statement simply isn't true in the modern era - unless by "a few" you mean 20. There are after all only about 30 teams in each pro sport.

You're also ignoring the fact that many fans simply enjoy watching the beauty of the sport unfold. Even when the Bulls were automatic, Jordan was a thing of beauty to watch. Enjoying a sport isn't only about who wins and who loses.