For MLS what are the dynasties?

by Dave Clark on Feb 13, 2011 10:21 AM PST in Sounders: MLS Regular Season

A twitter discussion between the SBN MLS authors broke out last week over how many MLS dynasties have existed. Black & Red United claims that DC United are the only dynasty. While their initial stretch in MLS 1.0 was awesome (6 MLS Cups, Supporters Shields or US Open Cups from 96-99) , and clearly a dynasty, is it really the only one?

This discussion really was the inspiration for the Three Year Window post, because in this league maintaining greatness for a prolonged period is so difficult. Roster churn in MLS is just so high. It shouldn't really be surprise that Bruce Arena is on the charts as a dynasty maker. It also won't surprise you that Sigi Schmid is as well. With the Los Angeles Galaxy he took a good team and made it great, and that stretch of success lasted beyond his stay. From 2001-2005 the Galaxy took 5 MLS Cups, Supporters Shields or US Open Cups home.

More significantly is that the only other team to have a 3 year stretch with trophies on both ends of that stretch is again United from 2006-2008 with 3, but no MLS Cup. The Columbus Crew recently had a two year success with 3 trophies, but I would hesitate to call it a dynasty, though Sigi is again at the core of that success.

If the discussion is expanded a bit to teams that just missed the trophy in bookend years but including just under one a year only two teams are added. The Chicago Fire of 1998 to 2003 of Peter Wilt fame, the one upon which all other expansion teams will be measured despite the differing rules, took in 5 trophies with doubles to start and finish their run. The only other team that could apply would be a team that existed in two cities during its stretch. The San Jose Earthquakes moved and became the Houston Dynamo, but over their stretch from 2001-2007 they took in 5 major trophies.

One could include the lesser dynasty of "Those that Just Missed" but that would only add in the New England Revolution, with their SuperLiga title and 4 MLS Cup Final appearances without a win.

Below the break a table with the winners of each of the three major trophies that any US MLS team can win in a given season.

Year	MLS Cup	Shield	USOC
1996	DCU	TB	DCU
1997	DCU	DCU	FCD
1998	Chi	LAG	Chi
1999	DCU	DCU
2000	KCW	KCW	Chi
2001	SJQ	Mia	LAG
2002	LAG	LAG	Crew
2003	SJQ	Chi	Chi
2004	DCU	Crew	KCW
2005	LAG	SJQ	LAG
2006	HD	DCU	Chi
2007	HD	DCU	NER
2008	Crew	Crew	DCU
2009	RSL	Crew	SSFC
2010	CR	LAG	SSFC

Seattle by the way with a single major trophy in 2011 joins Bruce Arena's DC United, Peter Wilt's Chicago Fire, Sigi's Galaxy and the Nowak/Soehn United. The Columbus Crew could do the same. Real Salt Lake would have to get a double this year.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

A dynasty is....

…when every opposing team in the league is fervently awaiting or dreading games against you
…when every neutral supporter wants to watch the smug look wiped off your face
…when other teams invent curses related to your team
…when every other team and every other fan in the league hates you

Dynasties are for clubs that dominant their leagues over decades like Barcelona, the Yankees, Duke or the like. MLS has waaay too much parity to call any team a real dynasty.

by Dizzo on Feb 13, 2011 10:37 AM PST reply actions

The Yankees have had dynasties

But not recently, not in the 80s.

By your definitions the Chicago Bulls wouldn’t be a dynasty, and that just seems absurd. Other “non-dynasties” would include the 49ers.

I think a definition that eliminates teams that have won multiple titles over a significant stretch of years is useless.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Feb 13, 2011 10:42 AM PST up reply actions

The Bulls with Jordan would definately count

I was a Utah Jazz fan during that time. The Bulls were a giant block from one of the longest-tenured and highest winning coaches in NBA history getting a title (Jerry Sloan). And that was a team with both the all-time league leader in steals and assists (John Stockton) and the all-time leader in defensive rebounds and the second all-time leader in scoring (Karl Malone).

It was like they were cursed being in the same league with Jordan’s Bulls. I’m sure Sonics fans have the same the same memories since one of the best teams in the Sonic’s history had the unfortunate luck of playing during the Jordan Bulls era. Everyone dreaded playing them.

Did anyone feel that way about DCU during MLS 1.0? I didn’t follow football when the 49ers were ascendant so I don’t know how fans and players of other teams thought of them. I would imagine they hated their guts and quietly wanted to see them get crushed.

by Dizzo on Feb 13, 2011 10:58 AM PST up reply actions

But it wasn't a decade for the Bulls

It wasn’t a decade for the 49ers.

And in MLS with only 15 years it can’t be decades, so that would eliminate the league despite the clear prolonged stretches of success that a few clubs have had.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Feb 13, 2011 11:03 AM PST up reply actions

Good point

I retract the decades comment.

by Dizzo on Feb 13, 2011 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

I'd classify the New York Yankees from 1996-2000 as a dynasty.

Four championships in five years, including 114 wins in 1998.

I write for Stumptown Footy, SB Nation's Portland Timbers blog.

by thehemogoblin on Feb 13, 2011 12:21 PM PST up reply actions

I would agree

But while they are hated now, they currently are not in a dynasitic period

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Feb 13, 2011 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

In terms of hate

Casual sports fans hate teams in their respective dynasties because they soak up all the media and bandwaggoners. But a coast-to-coast “I hope this team gets their asses handed to them” attitude doesn’t necessarily mean dynasty. Look at the Cowboys. They haven’t been relevant in years, but everyone outside of Dallas despises them.

I think it’s difficult to stop hating on a team once you’ve invested so much emotion and bad feelings toward them. The hatin’ just continues regardless of how well they team performs.

Co-Captain of Green Street Elite

by deepsouthsoccer on Feb 13, 2011 12:02 PM PST up reply actions

A better comparison

The 49ers are clearly a dynasty no matter how you want to cut it. They won five SBs from 1981-1994 and missed the playoffs once from 1981-1998. A better question is whether or not you consider the Dallas Cowboys (circa 1991-1996 and 3 SBs), the Steelers (four SBs from 1971-1979) or Bills (four straight SB losses) to be dynasties. I know the general consensus of those Cowboys and Steelers is they were dynasties, but is less clear on the Bills.

Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter

by Jeremiah Oshan on Feb 13, 2011 11:37 AM PST reply actions

I've never met a soul who hated the Bills

then again, I can’t remember ever meeting a person who liked them either…

by Little old me on Feb 13, 2011 5:13 PM PST up reply actions

Not if it's just another USOC..

Dynasties imply dominance, and winning a trophy three years running that almost no other MLS teams care about certainly isn’t comparable to the other MLS “dynasties” you mentioned.

by Karlito Vargas on Feb 13, 2011 6:05 PM PST reply actions

Also...

There are other trophies like CCL, Superliga, and Inter-America that are at least as prestigious as the USOC if not more.

by Karlito Vargas on Feb 13, 2011 6:45 PM PST reply actions

I don't think anyone would argue CCL

But I think most people can agree that the Open Cup is more prestigious that Superliga, which is probably dead, and Inter America, which hasn’t existed since 1998.

Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter

by Jeremiah Oshan on Feb 13, 2011 6:55 PM PST up reply actions

True

But at the time it was a big accomplishment for an MLS club. I’d place Superliga roughly even with USOC simply because the competion being between MLS and Primera Division teams is a bit stiffer than against NASL and patchwork MLS sides. USOC has the edge when you consider it’s prestige historically so that’s how I strike the balance between the two.

by Karlito Vargas on Feb 13, 2011 7:20 PM PST up reply actions