PDA

View Full Version : Yankees say George Steinbrenner dies at 80


ctt1wbw
Jul 13, 2010, 08:51 AM
According to the news, Steinbrenner had a heart attack and died. :(

mscriv
Jul 13, 2010, 09:14 AM
NEW YORK The Yankees say owner George Steinbrenner has died. He was 80.

Spokesman Howard Rubenstein said he died Tuesday morning. He had a heart attack, was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Fla., and died at about 6:30 a.m, a person close to the owner told The Associated Press. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the team had not disclosed those details.

Steinbrenner, who celebrated his birthday July 4, had been in fragile health for several years.

Flags were immediately lowered to half-staff at Steinbrenner Field, the Yankees' spring training complex. The Yankees says many employees there were in tears.

The death comes two days after the team's beloved public-address announcer Bob Sheppard died at 99.

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bbo_obit_steinbrenner)

rhett7660
Jul 13, 2010, 09:17 AM
Wow....... RIP George. You may not have been liked by all.....

pilotError
Jul 13, 2010, 09:19 AM
He hasn't been in good health for a while now.

RIP George...

quagmire
Jul 13, 2010, 09:24 AM
RIP George. You brought back the Yankees in championship form.

Though still bitter about him replacing old Yankee Stadium( wanted to ditch it since the 1980's).

rdowns
Jul 13, 2010, 09:48 AM
At least he won't go to hell as a convicted felon since Reagan pardoned him.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 09:55 AM
Many might not like him but he will still be one of the best sports owners ever.

rdowns
Jul 13, 2010, 10:17 AM
Many might not like him but he will still be one of the best sports owners ever.


Not to mention one of my favorite Seinfeld characters.

Lord Blackadder
Jul 13, 2010, 11:35 AM
His sporting legacy is a cruel one for small and medium-market cities. He proved that the majority of professional teams in this world exist largely to provide wins for the big teams.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 11:52 AM
His sporting legacy is a cruel one for small and medium-market cities. He proved that the majority of professional teams in this world exist largely to provide wins for the big teams.Actually it proves that most owners don't know how to manage a team.

Lord Blackadder
Jul 13, 2010, 12:00 PM
Actually it proves that most owners don't know how to manage a team.

Many owners don't, but I think that Steinbrenner (among others) proved that many professional sports leagues are oligarchies, not democracies. Without salary caps and other controls, big cities with money have rich owners and win championships. Small and medium sized cities don't.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 12:03 PM
Many owners don't, but I think that Steinbrenner (among others) proved that many professional sports leagues are oligarchies, not democracies. Without salary caps and other controls, big cities with money have rich owners and win championships. Small and medium sized cities don't.You can't say that it is the owners fault when they are not breaking any rules. If you want to force the game to the smaller markets enlist harsh salary caps and also salary floors.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 12:13 PM
The Yankees organization mourns the passing of Principal Owner / Chairperson George M. Steinbrenner III.

Mr. Steinbrenner passed away in Tampa, Fla., this morning at age 80. He is survived by wife, Joan; sisters Susan Norpell and Judy Kamm, children, Hank, Hal, Jennifer and Jessica; and his grandchildren.

Funeral arrangements will be private. There will be an additional public service with details to be announced at a later date.

At the time of his passing, Mr. Steinbrenner was celebrating his 37th anniversary as Principal Owner of the New York Yankees in 2010. Under his leadership, the Yankees became the leading sports franchise and the most highly recognized sports brand in the world.

On January 3, 1973, a group of businessmen formed and led by Mr. Steinbrenner purchased the New York Yankees from CBS for a net price of $8.7 million. It took just five years for his aggressive leadership to turn the organization back into World Champions. In the 37 years he was Principal Owner of the club, the Yankees posted a Major League-best .566 winning percentage (3,364-2,583-3 record) while winning 11 American League pennants and seven World Championships (also the most in the Majors).

In addition to the team's on-field success, the New York Yankees have consistently shattered franchise and league attendance records at home and on the road. In 2009, they drew 3,719,358 fans in their first season of play in Yankee Stadium, topping the American League in attendance for the seventh straight season (2003-09). Currently, the Yankees remain the only franchise in baseball history to draw more than 4 million fans at home in four consecutive seasons (2005-08).

In recent years, Mr. Steinbrenner's foresight into both sports and business continued to build the value and prominence of the franchise, positioning it for the future. In 2002, Sporting News named him the No. 1 "Most Powerful Man in Sports." Forbes Magazine has consistently listed the Yankees as the most valuable franchise in all of Baseball. Mr. Steinbrenner's vision led to the creation of YankeeNets, which owned the New Jersey Nets and New Jersey Devils and ultimately led to the launch of the YES Network, a trailblazing enterprise that has been the nation's most watched regional sports network for the past seven years. Most recently, Mr. Steinbrenner teamed with long-time friend and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, creating Legends Hospitality, LLC, a new concession and merchandising company which currently operates at the Yankees' and Cowboys' new stadiums.

In 2006, his participation in the groundbreaking ceremony for the new Yankee Stadium underscored his role as the principal impetus in moving the much-anticipated facility towards its opening in 2009.

Mr. Steinbrenner's tenure of over 37 years exceeded that of any other New York Yankees owner by 13 years (Colonel Jacob Ruppert purchased the Yankees with Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston in January 1915, bought out Huston in 1922, and maintained sole ownership in the club until his death in January 1939 a total of 24 years). Since Mr. Steinbrenner became Principal Owner, the other 29 Major League clubs had over 100 owners or ownership groups while the Yankees had just one.

Mr. Steinbrenner's success in the sports world began at an early age. He was a multi-sport athlete at Culver Military Academy (where he is in the Athletic Hall of Fame) and at Williams College. He began his successful coaching career as an assistant football coach at two Big Ten universities, Northwestern and Purdue. Then he assembled championship basketball teams in the National Industrial and American Basketball Leagues. In 2002, he was honored with the highly prestigious Gold Medal Award from the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame for a lifetime of "outstanding commitment, dedication and dynamic leadership in his business, as well as his personal life."

Mr. Steinbrenner devoted as much time and effort to the U.S. Olympic Committee as he did to his many other sporting endeavors. He was Chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee Foundation (1997-2002) and the Olympic Overview Commission (1988-89) that was created to evaluate the structure and efforts of the U.S. Olympic program. He also served as Vice President of the USOC (1989-96) and was honored with the General Douglas MacArthur USOC Foremost Award and the F. Don Miller United States Olympic Award.

Mr. Steinbrenner was a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame's Board of Directors and served on the NCAA Foundation Board of Trustees since 1990.

Most of Mr. Steinbrenner's philanthropic endeavors were performed without fanfare. However, he was repeatedly recognized by the communities in which he immersed himself. In 1993, he earned the Tampa Civitan Club's "Outstanding Citizen" Award, and in 1998, Tampa Law Enforcement named him "Citizen of the Year" for founding a scholarship fund for the children of slain law enforcement officers. In addition, Mr. Steinbrenner was honored as an "Outstanding New Yorker" by the New York Society of Association Executives in 1997 and credited in 2009 by the Museum of the City of New York as one of the "New York City 400," recognizing "people who have helped create the world's greatest city since its founding in 1609."

In February 2008, the Tampa City Council and the Board of the Hillsborough County Commissioner's Office both passed resolutions endorsing the renaming of Legends Field in Tampa after Mr. Steinbrenner to pay tribute to his numerous contributions to the area. On March 27, 2008, Mr. Steinbrenner joined by his family pulled down a curtain draped above the outfield scoreboard to unveil the new name for the Yankees' Spring Training home: George M. Steinbrenner Field.

In the fall of 2009, George M. Steinbrenner High School was opened in Lutz, Fla. The school was named after Mr. Steinbrenner by the Hillsborough County School Board in recognition of his philanthropic involvement in the community, particularly with the school system.http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100713&content_id=12229780&vkey=pr_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy

Lord Blackadder
Jul 13, 2010, 12:21 PM
You can't say that it is the owners fault when they are not breaking any rules. If you want to force the game to the smaller markets enlist harsh salary caps and also salary floors.

I think we're going to fail to ever agree on this, which is fine - but in my opinion Steinbrenner and others like him are playing foul without actually breaking any rules. He knew that the league system is not strictly fair, and that he has the means to collect championships using (admittedly shrewdly-manged) piles of money that other teams don't have access to. Even more critically, he was aware that large markets like NYC can be leveraged to give him an economic advantage over other teams even before his own money is involved.

I think big cities should be held stongly in check so that even the smallest markets have a good chance to win.

I hate dynasties.

Anyway, I'm not here to speak ill of the dead, but to many of us Steinbrenner represents the big-city, big-money hegemony in sports, and I think it's fair to examine that legacy with a critical eye.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 12:25 PM
Sure teams like the Yankees and Red Sox will out spend everyone else, but they also get the most ticket revenue because they have the biggest fan base. So why should they not spend the money. Any team can sign a free agent. Look at the Twins. They are not a huge market team and they are doing great.

We can also spin it the other way with teams like the Pirates who pocket every dime they get from revenue sharing, The Yankees are paying the owner and he is just eating the money. The same can be said of the Orioles.

Lets also not forget that when Steinbrenner bought the team they were near the bottom of the division. The Yankees were not always a powerhouse even under George. Spending money does not always equal championships.

leomac08
Jul 13, 2010, 01:00 PM
and right before the all-star game :(

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 01:02 PM
and right before the all-star game :(He always knew how to get the most headlines.

Lord Blackadder
Jul 13, 2010, 01:04 PM
The Twins are doing well, but they have three world series titles - the Yankees have nine times as many - and that's about the best a smaller market can expect. Periods of heavy spending are not sustainable in the smaller markets. Big markets will always have better players and more money to spend if necessary.

I think Steinbrenner's successful business model with the Yankees should be seen as an anti-example for the league, and they should introduce salary caps, revenue sharing and other economic controls.

I know I'm in the minority though - most sports fans like to see big teams dominate. New York may be a very large city, but the vast majority of New York fans are not local supporters.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 01:08 PM
The Twins are doing well, but they have three world series titles - the Yankees have nine times as many - and that's about the best a smaller market can expect. Periods of heavy spending are not sustainable in the smaller markets. Big markets will always have better players and more money to spend if necessary.

I think Steinbrenner's successful business model with the Yankees should be seen as an anti-example for the league, and they should introduce salary caps, revenue sharing and other economic controls.

I know I'm in the minority though - most sports fans like to see big teams dominate. New York may be a very large city, but the vast majority of New York fans are not local supporters.If you look at the fan base for the Yankees and Red Sox you will see that it is most of the Northeast. Connecticut is a 50/50 split between Yankees and Red Sox. Head up to Maine and it is all Red Sox, down through New Jersey is Yankees. That is a huge number of people. I doubt anywhere else in the country has that big a fan base for a few teams.

Tilpots
Jul 13, 2010, 01:12 PM
Anyway, I'm not here to speak ill of the dead, but to many of us Steinbrenner represents the big-city, big-money hegemony in sports, and I think it's fair to examine that legacy with a critical eye.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Well, it's OK to hate George, but hopefully it's not for doing what he's supposed to within the confines of the rules. The owners of all the teams help shape the rule book. I don't think you'll see any of them saying Steinbrenner "cheated." He owned the most income generating franchise in baseball and rightly used it to his advantage. To the victors...



Spending money does not always equal championships.

Money's won more championships than it's lost.

yg17
Jul 13, 2010, 01:26 PM
That is a huge number of people. I doubt anywhere else in the country has that big a fan base for a few teams.


The Cardinals might rival it, except it's just spread out more rather than concentrated in one area. For a long time, they were the only professional baseball team west of the Mississippi River, so they had a lot of fans out west and some of that has been passed down through the generations. It also extends to other areas east of the Mississippi, such as Kentucky, Indiana, Tennesee and Mississippi.

Lord Blackadder
Jul 13, 2010, 01:47 PM
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Well, it's OK to hate George, but hopefully it's not for doing what he's supposed to within the confines of the rules. The owners of all the teams help shape the rule book. I don't think you'll see any of them saying Steinbrenner "cheated." He owned the most income generating franchise in baseball and rightly used it to his advantage. To the victors...

Winning has very little to do with how well pitchers pitch and batters bat. It has far, far more to do with merchandizing, building stadiums, hiring teams of marketeers and doing deals with television companies in vast, sumptuous boardrooms, expensive resaurants or exclusive country clubs. Baseball teams are rich peoples' playthings, and we are just a revenue source that needs to be appeased with spectacle. It's all highly capitalist, which is why rich capitalists like Steinbrenner own and run teams.

Steinbrenner didn't cheat, but the league is not fair. At least not as fair as the game aspires to be.

Tilpots
Jul 13, 2010, 01:53 PM
Winning has very little to do with how well pitchers pitch and batters bat. It has far, far more to do with merchandizing, building stadiums, hiring teams of marketeers and doing deals with television companies in vast, sumptuous boardrooms, expensive resaurants or exclusive country clubs. Baseball teams are rich peoples' playthings, and we are just a revenue source that needs to be appeased with spectacle. It's all highly capitalist, which is why rich capitalists like Steinbrenner own and run teams.

Steinbrenner didn't cheat, but the league is not fair. At least not as fair as the game aspires to be.

Gotta completely disagree with your statement. Winning has EVERYTHING to do with pitching and batting. That's what the money buys a guy like Steinbrenner, better athletes. Ticket sales and merchandising are a means to the end of getting the highest paid players, who typically, are the best players. They then in turn give you a better chance to win the game.

Lord Blackadder
Jul 13, 2010, 02:19 PM
Gotta completely disagree with your statement. Winning has EVERYTHING to do with pitching and batting. That's what the money buys a guy like Steinbrenner, better athletes. Ticket sales and merchandising are a means to the end of getting the highest paid players, who typically, are the best players. They then in turn give you a better chance to win the game.

Perhaps I should be a little more specific - pitching and batting wins games, but all the other stuff I mentioned wins championships and builds dynasties.

Being a shrewd owner in a smaller market might allow you to build a great farms system and then spend what money you have on a couple marquee players and make a run for it - you might get lucky and win a pennant or even a World Series. But it's a crapshoot. And without the big brand building and so forth you won't be able to sustain it - your marquee players will be unaffordable after a season or two, your breakout farm system products will go to Boston or New York, and you'll be left in yet another rebuilding phase with very little capital.

If you want to win championships, building a championship team is the last thing you do. The first thing you do is get investors on board and start building infrastructure and brand recognition. The whole notion that "anything can happen" on the field of play is a myth in baseball. It's a statistical inevitability that (in an uncapped, lightly regulated league) big cities will win and smaller ones lose. Which is why NYC is bloated with championships while some very old teams have perhaps one or two.

einmusiker
Jul 13, 2010, 02:24 PM
I think we're going to fail to ever agree on this, which is fine - but in my opinion Steinbrenner and others like him are playing foul without actually breaking any rules. He knew that the league system is not strictly fair, and that he has the means to collect championships using (admittedly shrewdly-manged) piles of money that other teams don't have access to. Even more critically, he was aware that large markets like NYC can be leveraged to give him an economic advantage over other teams even before his own money is involved.

I think big cities should be held stongly in check so that even the smallest markets have a good chance to win.

I hate dynasties.

Anyway, I'm not here to speak ill of the dead, but to many of us Steinbrenner represents the big-city, big-money hegemony in sports, and I think it's fair to examine that legacy with a critical eye.

I used to sort of agree with this perspective... but then there's the cubs. Oh the cubs :D

Tilpots
Jul 13, 2010, 02:32 PM
If you want to win championships, building a championship team is the last thing you do. The first thing you do is get investors on board and start building infrastructure and brand recognition. The whole notion that "anything can happen" on the field of play is a myth in baseball. It's a statistical inevitability that (in an uncapped, lightly regulated league) big cities will win and smaller ones lose. Which is why NYC is bloated with championships while some very old teams have perhaps one or two.



I agree with a lot of what your saying. Money eases the path to championships. It's true. But it doesn't guarantee it. The guys on the field still have to make the plays. The pitchers have to throw strikes and the hitters have to hit in the clutch. The Yankees have won an awful lot of Titles, but they don't win every single one, though they probably should on paper.:p

IMO, the NFL has done a much better job than any of the other leagues of creating a system that levels the playing field for all franchises. Just look at Green Bay. They not only compete, but routinely make the playoffs and they're probably the smallest city in the country to host a major sporting team.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 03:29 PM
How level is the NFL when the Lions are horrible and teams like the Patriots win everything.

Tilpots
Jul 13, 2010, 04:14 PM
How level is the NFL when the Lions are horrible and teams like the Patriots win everything.

There's no accounting in the rules for the likes of an idiot like Matt Millen. Watch out for the Lions this year, too. I don't think they'll be in the playoffs, but Stafford's gonna give those boys a chance.

And with the Patriots, they've just built a great franchise, they didn't buy it. Kraft and Belichick have consistently gone out and brought in the players that worked for the system they play. Castoffs from other teams and smart draft picks have made huge contributions for them, so they didn't have to break the bank to get it done.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 04:17 PM
There's no accounting in the rules for the likes of an idiot like Matt Millen. Watch out for the Lions this year, too. I don't think they'll be in the playoffs, but Stafford's gonna give those boys a chance.

And with the Patriots, they've just built a great franchise, they didn't buy it. Kraft and Belichick have consistently gone out and brought in the players that worked for the system they play. Castoffs from other teams have made huge contributions for them, so they didn't have to break the bank to get it done.The Pats still had a dynasty, the only way to rid sports of dynasties is to force players to 1 year deals and allow for rotation. That is the only way to give the smaller teams a chance. Salary caps and floors and 1 year contracts.

TuffLuffJimmy
Jul 13, 2010, 04:20 PM
Well that's too bad. He was great on Seinfeld.

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 04:21 PM
Well that's too bad. He was great on Seinfeld.You know it wasn't really him on Seinfeld.

Tilpots
Jul 13, 2010, 04:32 PM
The Pats still had a dynasty, the only way to rid sports of dynasties is to force players to 1 year deals and allow for rotation. That is the only way to give the smaller teams a chance. Salary caps and floors and 1 year contracts.

The Patriots have been the anomaly of the NFL. Nobody else has even come close. I don't have a problem with a team earning the dynasty label. And while the Yankees haven't technically "bought" the dynasty moniker, it sure looks that way when you compare payrolls (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams). The Cubs really are the anomaly in baseball, huh?:D

MacNut
Jul 13, 2010, 04:47 PM
The Patriots have been the anomaly of the NFL. Nobody else has even come close. I don't have a problem with a team earning the dynasty label. And while the Yankees haven't technically "bought" the dynasty moniker, it sure looks that way when you compare payrolls (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams). The Cubs really are the anomaly in baseball, huh?:DThere are ways around salary caps. Look at what the Celtics and the Heat are doing now in the NBA, they sign a few big stars to max contracts then get filler players. They are working in the rules but still creating super teams. It really isn't adding parody to the league. I don't really see a way around spending money and still finding a way to get the big name players.

rhett7660
Jul 14, 2010, 07:24 PM
The Patriots have been the anomaly of the NFL. Nobody else has even come close. I don't have a problem with a team earning the dynasty label. And while the Yankees haven't technically "bought" the dynasty moniker, it sure looks that way when you compare payrolls (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams). The Cubs really are the anomaly in baseball, huh?:D

In what way????

Tilpots
Jul 14, 2010, 07:55 PM
There are ways around salary caps. Look at what the Celtics and the Heat are doing now in the NBA, they sign a few big stars to max contracts then get filler players. They are working in the rules but still creating super teams. It really isn't adding parody to the league. I don't really see a way around spending money and still finding a way to get the big name players.

I really don't follow the NBA but I will stick to the idea that what the NFL is doing has created the most parody of all the Major sports in the US. I don't have any facts handy to back it up, right now, but I'll scrounge some up and link 'em later.

In what way????

The Patriots are the anomaly because with all the free agency rules, salary cap restrictions, franchise designations and the like, they are the one team that has managed to overcome them and win three Super Bowls in four years. And what separates them from the Cowboys and 49ers of the past is the era of rule changes designed to prevent it from happening due to a teams wealth.

dmr727
Jul 14, 2010, 08:08 PM
It's Parity. ;)

Ttownbeast
Jul 14, 2010, 11:05 PM
Well that's too bad. He was great on Seinfeld.

Wouldn't know--hated Seinfeld (not funny in my opinion) I seen ol George Steinbrenner doing a pizza commercial now and again though...not bad. I hated George but I still liked him better than Trump and Oprah because he was in baseball but since he was the owner of one of the two teams I hated the most--the two being the A's and the Yankees I had to hate him...hey maybe the Mariners have a shot this year! LOL

kuaiyouming
Jul 14, 2010, 11:10 PM
.

Tilpots
Jul 15, 2010, 10:15 PM
It's Parity. ;)

:o Right you are. Unless you were talking about Seinfeld's Steinbrenner, an obvious parody. :D

BanjoBanker
Jul 15, 2010, 11:43 PM
As principal owner, George did exactly what he was supposed to do: build a Championship team. Many people called him obnoxious and abrasive, but IMO that was out a sense of envy. He made a bunch of money and had a great time spending it on what he loved, the Yankees. For all the whiners who say he paid for his championships I say look at how many times the Yanks won before Steinbrenner! 26 times since the beginning of the World Series. So many of the greatest names in baseball have played for the Yankees, their being the best is a legacy that Steinbrenner simply maintained. I wish Hank and Hal all the best and my condolences to the Steinbrenner family.

Tilpots
Jul 16, 2010, 07:54 AM
As principal owner, George did exactly what he was supposed to do: build a Championship team. Many people called him obnoxious and abrasive, but IMO that was out a sense of envy. He made a bunch of money and had a great time spending it on what he loved, the Yankees. For all the whiners who say he paid for his championships I say look at how many times the Yanks won before Steinbrenner! 26 times since the beginning of the World Series. So many of the greatest names in baseball have played for the Yankees, their being the best is a legacy that Steinbrenner simply maintained. I wish Hank and Hal all the best and my condolences to the Steinbrenner family.

They've been the richest organization that whole time, too.:rolleyes:

Gasu E.
Jul 23, 2010, 09:35 AM
I think we're going to fail to ever agree on this, which is fine - but in my opinion Steinbrenner and others like him are playing foul without actually breaking any rules. He knew that the league system is not strictly fair, and that he has the means to collect championships using (admittedly shrewdly-manged) piles of money that other teams don't have access to. Even more critically, he was aware that large markets like NYC can be leveraged to give him an economic advantage over other teams even before his own money is involved.

I think big cities should be held stongly in check so that even the smallest markets have a good chance to win.

I hate dynasties.

Anyway, I'm not here to speak ill of the dead, but to many of us Steinbrenner represents the big-city, big-money hegemony in sports, and I think it's fair to examine that legacy with a critical eye.

Those are the rules. Steinbrenner did not create them. They were the result of a century-plus of major league baseball developments; including, not least, the Curt Flood decision and the MLBPA (the players' union).

What Steinbrenner did was pure business. He realized that the Yankees were an undervalued asset, purchased them cheaply and leveraged them into a business empire. The championships were merely a means to the end of reviving the Yankees brand, at which he was eminently successful. You can go into cities anywhere in the USA, and even world-wide, and see people wearing the distinctive NY logo. He has built a huge and extremely lucrative media operation from scratch on top of his team assets. This was all done based on his belief that winning championships was core to the brand revival. He was right.

I guess this means that KC Royals fans might see their team win the World Series once every forty years, rather than once every thirty years, which is an unfortunate side effect. However, I find it difficult to feel sorry for the teams themselves and the owners. These are just rich businessmen who weren't as smart as Steinbrenner.

Gasu E.
Jul 23, 2010, 09:50 AM
The Patriots are the anomaly because with all the free agency rules, salary cap restrictions, franchise designations and the like, they are the one team that has managed to overcome them and win three Super Bowls in four years. And what separates them from the Cowboys and 49ers of the past is the era of rule changes designed to prevent it from happening due to a teams wealth.

There are a couple of problems with your statement. First, your tense is wrong-- the Patriots are not on a current winning streak as they have not won the Superbowl since 2004. More importantly, though, every full decade since the Superbowl began has had a single top team that dominated at the Patriots level. In the 00's, the Pats won 3 of 4; in the '90's, Dallas did the same; in the '80's SF won 4 of 8; and in the '70's, Pittsburgh won 4 of 6. Obviously at most one team per decade is likely to have this level of success since there are only a limited number of SB titles available per decade. :) No knowledgable person would deny the Pats were the top team of the '00's but it is stretching it to put them in some different class from the dominant teams of earlier decades.

Tilpots
Jul 23, 2010, 08:21 PM
There are a couple of problems with your statement. First, your tense is wrong-- the Patriots are not on a current winning streak as they have not won the Superbowl since 2004. More importantly, though, every full decade since the Superbowl began has had a single top team that dominated at the Patriots level. In the 00's, the Pats won 3 of 4; in the '90's, Dallas did the same; in the '80's SF won 4 of 8; and in the '70's, Pittsburgh won 4 of 6. Obviously at most one team per decade is likely to have this level of success since there are only a limited number of SB titles available per decade. :) No knowledgable person would deny the Pats were the top team of the '00's but it is stretching it to put them in some different class from the dominant teams of earlier decades.



The difference is, as I noted, that the NFL put rules in place to bust the dynasties of the 70's, 80's and 90's. The rules were meant to create parity (got it right this time). Then come the Patriots who, despite the rules meant to level the playing field, go along and become a "dynasty." I'm not sure this puts them in a different class of previous champions, but they certainly didn't simply buy their championships as could be argued with some of those teams you mentioned.

BTW, I'm not a Pats fan. I actually really dislike them, but you have to respect what the team has done knowing the context of the rules they did it in. I'm a Skins fan. We won three titles in 10 years but nobody ever considers us a dynasty.:mad: What up wit dat?:confused: