New England was the heavy favorite. Everyone outside of Pennsylvania was putting their money on the two-time champs. There was no way the Eagles could win, the talking heads yelled. On paper, New England was just the better team, a dynasty in the making, but as the saying goes, that's why they play the games.
Unfortunately, they had to play this game, leaving us with one of the most anti-climatic Super Bowls in history. The score was close, sure, but everyone knew the Pats were going to win from the start. Even the chimps from the CareerFinder.com commercial could've picked this one. The outcome of this game was never in question, which says something about this Patriots team. For me, the highlight of the night was the start of "The Simpsons."
I didn't want the Pats to win, but if they were going to win, I wanted them to make it exciting. I couldn't believe Donovan McNabb's clock management at the end of the game. I expected him to back away from the line with time running out on the play clock and take off his helmet and jersey to reveal a Patriots jersey underneath, before heading to the Pats bench to exchange high fives with Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, leaving Philly fans stunned and Santa laughing in spiteful delight. That would've at least been interesting. As it was, we were subjected to another Pats win and the endless dynasty talk.
Watching ESPN after the game, they must have called the Pats a dynasty no less than 45,323 times in seven minutes. Now, before we go any further, let me clarify this point for ESPN and the entire world. The Patriots are not a dynasty! Bob Ryan was on my radio show (you can listen to Great Americans on SFM Radio at SportsFanMagazine.com -- shameless plug) this past week and made this point very well.
The definition of a dynasty (according to Dictionary.com): A family or group that maintains power for several generations.
Ryan then said something I agreed with; there are three dynasties in sports -- the Celtics, the Yankees, and the Canadiens. What New England has done over the past years has been great, but they clearly are not a dynasty. What they have is a great team (maybe the best ever?) or a great era, but they cannot be a dynasty until they have complete turnover and continue to be at the top.
Can they have that? Sure. Do they now? Absolutely not. I know New England fans think it's cute to call it a dynasty. I know that ESPN likes to throw the word around because it makes the game bigger than it is, but what is so hard about this? It's a simple concept, and until New England is consistently at the top of the NFL for several generations, they just are not a dynasty.
That is not a knock on their organization; I understand and respect its greatness. There is definitely something to be said for their team when everyone knows they will win the Super Bowl and they come and do it. That kind of dominance is to be admired. People just need to realize that the Patriots are not a dynasty.
I was talking to my friend from New England after the game and he refused to let the dynasty talk die. I rationally explained the definition to him and how he was abusing the English language (along with ESPN and most of the sports media world) and he still wouldn't accept it.
His stellar argument consisted mostly of, "you have to change the definition of a dynasty for the NFL." Now, I'm not sure, but if you have to change the definition of something to make it apply, it probably doesn't apply. I can argue that socks are actually apples all day long, but you will never see caramel-coated socks at the grocery store (unless you shop at the same grocery store as Star Jones, where I imagine everything must be carmel-coated).
My friend, ultimately realizing the inevitability of his defeat, tried to accuse me of being biased. What he failed to realize is that this wasn't about me vs. him, or Patriots Nation vs. Sports Gospel, this was him (and anyone else calling the Pats a dynasty) vs. the English language, and he was losing.
New England fans, enjoy your third Super Bowl in four years. Sports fans everywhere, acknowledge and respect the Belichick era and respect what this team has done. Talking heads, continue to heap your praise on this organization. All I ask is that you leave the dynasty talk with Philadelphia's victory champagne -- still on ice.
Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].
February 9, 2005
PeteDawg:
Words can have different meanings within different contexts, or multiple meanings altogether for that matter. A dynasty the way you’re using seems to me more like it relates to historical terms such as the Ming Dynasty of China or something like that. Sports teams rarely rule for generations, therefore the usual meaning of dynasty should not apply.
February 9, 2005
UR Moronic:
To win 3 out of 4 makes the patriots a dynasty. To win in the salary cap era makes theirs the hardest to accomplish.
To say they aren’t a dynasty makes sound like an ass.
Get your facts straight before writing such nonsense.
February 9, 2005
Mark Chalifoux:
To say they aren’t a dynasty makes me right. I know its hard for them to accomplish what they did, but that’s not what a dynasty is. Just because they did something great doesnt make them a dynasty. They need to have that turnover, and they haven’t had it yet.
You can’t change the definition to make it apply. I am not saying they aren’t great, but they just are literally not a dynasty. My facts are straight, its the english language.
What facts do you have?
“I think they are neat so they are a dynasty”
February 10, 2005
Dave:
Gotta agree with Mark here. I was going to write this from a statistical point of view (and still may, despite Mark’s fine column here).
Even if you adjust the definistion of dynasty for the NFL (a reasonable suggestion, if you ask me, because dominance over the periods like the Celtics, Canadiens, and the Yankees saw/see just hasn’t occurred in the NFL.
Still, let’s let a team be dominant for the majority of a decade before we call them dynastic.
Compare to the 60s Packers, the 70s Steelers, the 80s Niners, and the 00s Patriots and the 90s Cowboys are dominant over a short period, but by no means dynasties. The Pats may still become one. But, they’ve a long ways to go yet.