why water it down?

i think people are trying too hard to create something thats a thing in the past

this is why you water it down



With a salary cap era + 30 teams I think the requirements for a dynasty should be relaxed a bit.

3 cups over 6 years with one scf appearance as a loss I would consider a dynasty.

You could call it a "modern day dynasty". But I don't think putting them in the same group would cheapen it or water it down.

It depends what your definition of "dynasty" is. Some people probably think it means that you need 4 cups in 5 years or whatever and anything short can't be considered a dynasty. That's highly unlikely now. But that doesn't mean teams like Chicago and Los Angeles won't be as great as those dynasties 30+ years ago, it's just that the landscape has changed so that you can't win that much.

That said, I don't consider either the Hawks or Kings dynasties yet. They both need another cup win within the next couple years.

This post was edited by LuLer on Jun 22 2014 10:18pm

back to back cups would definately add to it too

Kings need to either win next year or make WCF again and win the following and I'll call them a dynasty

Pretty much 3 Cups in 6-7 years makes you a dynasty at this point.

Kings and Hawks are close.
We'll see how they progress in the next couple years

Imo Hawks should be a dynasty. Imo conference trrophy need to count too

This post was edited by ChoJo on Jun 23 2014 04:36am

should we include crosby in the top5 scoring of all time too because of the era?

its pretty standard that people try to make their own era relevant in the history books, but asz a dynasty, thats like saying we should prorate gretzkys records into todays standard and compare it to todays stars and thus discredit gretzkys achievements

This post was edited by dej on Jun 23 2014 04:58am

We aren't discrediting the old dynasties though..

you are by remaking the rules