Dynasty used to mean something more than two in a row, didn't it? Not to quibble - disappointed Oilers fan here, and full marks to Florida, but I'm curious. I always felt "dynasty" needed at least three years in a row...
And no one will remember next year that they won last year or the year before that. If the Oilers had won, then everyone would know. Unknown winning team.
Just because they go back-to-back they are a dynasty? In a few years they will call the Oilers losing back-to-back a dynasty, I guess. Blackhawks are not considered a dynasty winning 3 cups in 5 years... but back-to-back gets immediate inclusion, lul.
I hope that Canada will have a Stanley Cup champion....again.
(it's been a while).
Doom came out in 1993. Storm of the Century in March of 1993. Florida State won the National Championship....it seems like a long time ago. Because it is.
Comments
Late 70s Canadians and early 80s islanders (a run of four each) were the only teams to do it in the modern era.
(it's been a while).
Doom came out in 1993. Storm of the Century in March of 1993. Florida State won the National Championship....it seems like a long time ago. Because it is.
At the very least, a “dynasty” within the salary-cap era context.
@pierrevlebrun.bsky.social and @russohockey.bsky.social have more:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6433719/2025/06/17/panthers-stanley-cup-dynasty/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky