PDA

View Full Version : 3 rings in 3 years or 3 rings in 6 years?



knickshottic
03-15-2011, 05:13 PM
If u had to choose of the two would u rather ur fav team win 3 rings in 3 years or 3 rings In Six years? Of course after the three rings in a row u would have to rebuild n possibly miss the playoffs for 2 straight years...

Ur thoughts would be appreciated n thanks in advance.

Cano4prez
03-15-2011, 05:14 PM
3 rings in 3 years..

JWO35
03-15-2011, 05:16 PM
3-Peat

*Pays Pat Riley*

Hawkeye15
03-15-2011, 05:17 PM
huh. That is an interesting question. I honestly think 3 rings in 6 years would be better. Longer period of celebration time for me personally.

Great question

I added a poll for ya

Rentzias
03-15-2011, 05:17 PM
I like not eating my words and being able to gloat without taking a break. Three-peat.

GREATNESS ONE
03-15-2011, 05:18 PM
3 in 3 but does it really matter? If your team won 3 titles I think any fan would be ecstatic.

haggis
03-15-2011, 05:20 PM
I'll take the 3-peat

Crackadalic
03-15-2011, 05:20 PM
At first i thought this was a dumb question because you want to 3peat but when you think about it winning 3 in 6 years means more chances to beat the best to be the best? IDK wtf im talking about no more

levignjw
03-15-2011, 05:25 PM
3-peat for sure.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-15-2011, 05:27 PM
easily 3 in 3 years

JordansBulls
03-15-2011, 05:29 PM
huh. That is an interesting question. I honestly think 3 rings in 6 years would be better. Longer period of celebration time for me personally.

Great question

I added a poll for ya

Current Bulls I'd take 3 rings in 6 years.

Testaverde16
03-15-2011, 05:33 PM
If youre saying you win 3 in 3 years, then you still have a chance to win in the next 3 years.... so i'd take that. Also, 3peat sounds better, more dominant team.

Geargo Wallace
03-15-2011, 05:38 PM
I'd take 6 rings in 8 years.

championships
03-15-2011, 05:38 PM
I say 3 in 3. That's a dynasty. 3 in 6 is probably debatable as a Dynasty or not.

Chitownhero14
03-15-2011, 05:40 PM
3 in 6...cause it means that team is contending for 6 straight years! I'd rather have 6 good years and 3 rings then 3 good years and 3 crap years

J_M_B
03-15-2011, 05:41 PM
I'm in the minority, but I'll rather have 3 rings in 6 years..

Bruno
03-15-2011, 05:42 PM
This is similar to the individual player argument of "peak years" or "sustained longevity". Both are amazing, but I can't help but feel like three in a row expresses near legendary dominance. Good question.

nycsports2
03-15-2011, 05:43 PM
3 peats are hard too do ill take the 3 in 3

allSUAVE
03-15-2011, 05:45 PM
3 rings in 6 years , It would make for a better story. ups and downs!

JordansBulls
03-15-2011, 05:50 PM
If youre saying you win 3 in 3 years, then you still have a chance to win in the next 3 years.... so i'd take that. Also, 3peat sounds better, more dominant team.

In this case he mentioned if you win 3 in 3 years that you rebuild afterwards. Basically as an example. You are 1996-1998 Bulls where you win 3 in a row and in 1999 you rebuild. or you are the Spurs in 2003 and you win 3 titles thru 2008

Avenged
03-15-2011, 05:54 PM
3 in a row will put your team in a class that not many make. You'll join elite company, be considered a dynasty, and your top player would most likely be high in the rankings of all-time.

I'd definitely take 3 rings in 3 years.

J-Relo
03-15-2011, 05:55 PM
3 in 3 basically means 3 years of domination and after those 3 years of lottery.
3 in 6 means contending every year including getting to the top half of the time.

I take second.

shizzle09
03-15-2011, 06:07 PM
3 in 3 because you still have 3 years to win a 4th.

stlbest5in2013
03-15-2011, 06:08 PM
this should be for heat fans only, lebron already guaranteed, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8.........................rings


the other teams fans do not get an opinion on this because the king already claimed 8 rings before winning one.

Storch
03-15-2011, 06:19 PM
It really depends if you're a fan of a team that is used to winning and contending in the playoffs each year. If you are a fan of let's say the Cavs (no offense) then 3 rings over 6 years would be nicer than a 3 peat (perhaps?) since that means the cavs would be in the playoffs contending for the title 6 years in a row... As opposed to a quickie of a 3 peat then down to the dungeons again.

I'm a Laker/Bulls fan so I would say 3 peat.

Rentzias
03-15-2011, 06:28 PM
3 in 6...cause it means that team is contending for 6 straight years! I'd rather have 6 good years and 3 rings then 3 good years and 3 crap years

Well put. It's like the 79-88 with the Lakers/Celtics battling, switching on and off.

PhillyFaninLA
03-15-2011, 06:29 PM
huh. That is an interesting question. I honestly think 3 rings in 6 years would be better. Longer period of celebration time for me personally.

Great question

I added a poll for ya


I like my teams by competitive year in and year our t so 3 in 6 means I have a better team and can enjoy a longer run.

More-Than-Most
03-15-2011, 06:30 PM
3 in 3 years... Love the 3 peat.

210Don
03-15-2011, 06:34 PM
well as a spurs fan weve had the 3 in 6 kinda and we still get disrespected i would rather have 3 out of 3 cuz you cannot be talked down on either way its great

shizzle09
03-15-2011, 06:41 PM
well as a spurs fan weve had the 3 in 6 kinda and we still get disrespected i would rather have 3 out of 3 cuz you cannot be talked down on either way its great

how do they get disrepected? They're a class organization that has given its fans multiple titles. You mean here on PSD? if so what do you expect. there's way more hate on pSD than there is positvity.

Storch
03-15-2011, 06:42 PM
well as a spurs fan weve had the 3 in 6 kinda and we still get disrespected i would rather have 3 out of 3 cuz you cannot be talked down on either way its great

Who disrespected the Spurs?! They've been legit for years and years. They're the epitome of a championship caliber team that shuts up and plays night in and night out. Respect.

knightstemplar
03-15-2011, 06:42 PM
well as a spurs fan weve had the 3 in 6 kinda and we still get disrespected i would rather have 3 out of 3 cuz you cannot be talked down on either way its great

oh boo hoo :cry:

redsox0717
03-15-2011, 06:42 PM
I'll take either one....honestly how many teams ever reach any of these options? It's like would you rather have a Lamborghini or a Bentley

mttwlsn16
03-15-2011, 06:43 PM
as a clipps fan id take 1 in 6 years and be ecstatic lol

210Don
03-15-2011, 06:51 PM
lol i mean in the sense that many people dont think were a dynasty because weve never won back to back.... even though we won 3 chips in 5 years

lakeshow3peat
03-15-2011, 06:51 PM
well both would be legit to have but it all depends on what kind of team is built . Like if its built around talent with superstars i say 3 peat but if built around young core like thunder 3 out 6 years is good as well . It all depends on if your team needs adjustments or another role player or bench player.

GREATNESS ONE
03-15-2011, 06:52 PM
as a clipps fan id take 1 in 6 years and be ecstatic lol

LMAO !!! For real though, does it really matter? a Title is a Title and 3 is 3 , some teams will never get one it seems and you just have to be happy to get either one.

knightstemplar
03-15-2011, 06:56 PM
lol i mean in the sense that many people dont think were a dynasty because weve never won back to back.... even though we won 3 chips in 5 years

you guys are a small market thats why

Hawkeye15
03-15-2011, 06:58 PM
well as a spurs fan weve had the 3 in 6 kinda and we still get disrespected i would rather have 3 out of 3 cuz you cannot be talked down on either way its great

I honestly never get why you think the Spurs get disrespected. Maybe by fans who live by "what have you done for me now", but real fans understand how awesome the Spurs have been for 14 years dude. They get respect.

Hawkeye15
03-15-2011, 07:01 PM
lol i mean in the sense that many people dont think were a dynasty because weve never won back to back.... even though we won 3 chips in 5 years

yeah, but I think dynasty requires back to backs, etc. And quite honestly, I would rather have 4 rings in 14 years, and be tough every year in the playoffs, then have 4 rings, and they all get clumped together. It makes the ride so much longer for a fan, don't you agree?

Swashcuff
03-15-2011, 07:02 PM
Magic and MJ always spoke about this and Magic himself said that MJ 3peating is a reason he 1uped him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w

^Magic speaking on Jordan going for a 3peat

3peats are held in higher esteem

knightstemplar
03-15-2011, 07:04 PM
Magic and MJ always spoke about this and Magic himself said that MJ 3peating is a reason he 1uped him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w

^Magic speaking on Jordan going for a 3peat

3peats are held in higher esteem

if kobe completes a 3peat in june, hell one up magic, and become the gLoat

Swashcuff
03-15-2011, 07:06 PM
One of the biggest reasons a lot none Laker fans view them as a better franchise than the Celts is because of that franchise's sustained success in virtually every decade of basketball. I can certainly understand why someone would say that they'd take 3 titles in 6 years.

While I am on the fence I am leaning towards 3 in 3.

Rego247
03-15-2011, 07:07 PM
3peat.

Swashcuff
03-15-2011, 07:07 PM
if kobe completes a 3peat in june, hell one up magic, and become the gLoat

I thought most Laker fans were already of that view?

Hawkeye15
03-15-2011, 07:15 PM
The thing is, I don't care about how my team is viewed by others if I am happy. And I would prefer to be better over a longer period of time. 3 rings in 6 years does this.

By the way, everyone here knows you can have both, right? :)

knightstemplar
03-15-2011, 07:24 PM
I thought most Laker fans were already of that view?

not me
magic has 5 titles, kobe has 5, but magic has 1 more finals mvp
but kobe does have the most points in laker history

JNA17
03-15-2011, 07:36 PM
3 rings in 3 years. Then u rebuild and in ur 6th year u'll be contending again.

C-Style
03-15-2011, 08:13 PM
3 Straight = Dominance... How many teams have had a 3peat? Russell's Celtics, Mikans Lakers, MJ's Bulls and Shaq/Kobe's Lakers. only 4 times

Hustlenomics
03-15-2011, 08:21 PM
3 years in 6 rings. No 3 rings in 6 years

smith&wesson
03-15-2011, 08:31 PM
3 peat only because it suggests a more dominant run.

RaiderLakersA's
03-15-2011, 08:43 PM
3-peat me.

3 in 6 years doesn't mean that you're dominant every year for 6 years, necessarily:

1st year - Championship
2nd year - Miss the playoffs
3rd year - Championship
4th year - Miss the playoffs
5th year - Championship
6th year - Miss the playoffs

Or you could go this route:

1st year - Championship
2nd year - Championship
3rd year - Miss the playoffs
4th year - Miss the playoffs
5th year - Miss the playoffs
6th year - Championship


Feel free to run various scenarios and permutations if you like, but you'll still come up short of "dominant."

Hawkeye15
03-15-2011, 09:00 PM
3-peat me.

3 in 6 years doesn't mean that you're dominant every year for 6 years, necessarily:

1st year - Championship
2nd year - Miss the playoffs
3rd year - Championship
4th year - Miss the playoffs
5th year - Championship
6th year - Miss the playoffs

Or you could go this route:

1st year - Championship
2nd year - Championship
3rd year - Miss the playoffs
4th year - Miss the playoffs
5th year - Miss the playoffs
6th year - Championship


Feel free to run various scenarios and permutations if you like, but you'll still come up short of "dominant."


well, it doesn't really happen that way. Not unless there are weird circumstances. But the highs and lows of a championship team aren't typically win it all, lottery, win it all, lottery, etc

pd1dish
03-15-2011, 09:03 PM
id rather 3 peat, and then after two years, repeat the 3 peat. oh wait, my team did that

JordansBulls
03-16-2011, 03:17 PM
Basically you are the Celtics from 1981-1986 or the Lakers from 2000-2002.

Lake_Show2416
03-16-2011, 03:34 PM
3 peat

Ray
03-16-2011, 03:38 PM
Id rather win 3 in 3. Most likely if you win 3 in 6, those 3 years you don't you are still top contenders. To me, it sucks coming so close to winning but end up falling short. The emotional heartache sucks. But if I knew my team had one last hurrah in them and the team was done after that championship, I wont be as emotionally invested in them and not as sad at the end of the season.

Gibby23
03-16-2011, 03:51 PM
3 in 3 is better in my opinion. You don't expect the 4th and it is fun watching the team rebuild for a couple of years and getting new players.

ChiDougie19
03-16-2011, 04:02 PM
3 in3

ko8e24
03-16-2011, 04:21 PM
3 in 6 means that you weren't able to defend your title. A knock on these Spurs, thought a great accomplishment of 4 titles, they weren't even close after any of those 4 titles in defending their title to the fullest potential.


1999: Won Championship
2000: Lost to PHX Suns in 1st rd, with Kevin Johnson coming out of retirement, lol


2003: Won Championship
2004: Lost to Lakers in 2nd rd in 6 games, D-Fish 0.4 shot in game 5


2005: Won Championship
2006: Lost a game 7 on their own home floor in OT to the Dallas Mavs in 2nd rd


2007: Won Championship
2008: Basically lost to an offensively explosive uprising Lakers team in WCF, while Spurs themselves looked old

ko8e24
03-16-2011, 04:22 PM
Oh, to add on to my answer....

I'd rather win 3-titles in 3 yrs (3peat), chill for 6 yrs (2 of those 6 yrs just be in the finals), then win another 3 titles in 3 yrs (3peat again) :)

Hellcrooner
03-16-2011, 04:48 PM
11 rings in 13 years.

wont happen again tough

John Walls Era
03-16-2011, 04:50 PM
3-Peat... then I don't care if my team sucks for the rest of the decade.

RaiderLakersA's
03-16-2011, 05:16 PM
Both are good problems to have. :)

And I'm suddenly feeling rather spoiled, since I've been around long enough to see my Lakers almost do both, winning 5 titles in the 80s, only to 3 peat in the new millenium.

But man, was that drought from the Showtime Era to the ShaqKobe Era a b****!!!

Hellcrooner
03-16-2011, 05:32 PM
10 rings and 6 finals in my lifetime.

Thats what i prefer definelty.

if that another 10 rings and 6 finals when im twice my age ill be satisfied

king4day
03-16-2011, 05:34 PM
3 in 6 years. That's controlling the league IMO more than 3 and out.

king4day
03-16-2011, 05:36 PM
I'll take 1 and be happy for the Suns :)

PippensBulls
03-16-2011, 06:44 PM
3 rings in 3 years

My team would be up there with the Minneapolis Lakers, the 90s Bulls, and the 2000s Lakers. Pretty lofty company I must say.

3 peat is definitely a tough task to accomplish. Not even Magic's Lakers or Bird's Celtics or Duncan's Spurs could do it.

ko8e24
03-16-2011, 06:46 PM
3 rings in 3 years

My team would be up there with the Minneapolis Lakers, the 90s Bulls, and the 2000s Lakers. Pretty lofty company I must say.

3 peat is definitely a tough task to accomplish. Not even Magic's Lakers or Bird's Celtics or Duncan's Spurs could do it.

Duncan's Spurs haven't even repeated and Bird's Celtics didn't even repeat. They're not even in the discussion.

You should've added Hakeem's Rockets though (94 and 95)

PippensBulls
03-16-2011, 07:04 PM
Duncan's Spurs haven't even repeated and Bird's Celtics didn't even repeat. They're not even in the discussion.

You should've added Hakeem's Rockets though (94 and 95)

Same difference. Those were legendary teams, so it just furthers my point. If they can't even repeat then what does it tell you about 3 peating?

ko8e24
03-16-2011, 07:07 PM
Same difference. Those were legendary teams, so it just furthers my point. If they can't even repeat then what does it tell you about 3 peating?

Good point

DaBear
03-16-2011, 09:06 PM
I'd take 6 rings in 8 years.

this

The Jokemaker
03-16-2011, 09:15 PM
I want 6 years and 3 rings. Means youre likely in the hunt and in the playoffs for six years, and no rebuilding times. Also, if you 3 peat after a while winning may not be as great. But if you win, lose, win, lose, win, I think that would allow for maximimum enjoyment.

MacFitz92
03-16-2011, 09:15 PM
Three rings are three rings any way you look at it in my opinion.

Time2Dieeee
03-17-2011, 12:04 AM
6 rings in 6 years for me! dynasty

What?
03-17-2011, 02:00 AM
Defiantly the 3peat

Then after your contending team is done you spend a few years rebuilding and try and win again

TylerSL
03-17-2011, 08:37 AM
3 titles in 6 years. Look at this way. 3 titles in 3 years would be nice, but 3 years is only a portion of greatness. You would be serious title contenders for 6 years, with this. 6 years would be a star players prime. 6 years is also a long time and you would be dominate for longer.

TylerSL
03-17-2011, 08:38 AM
I'll take 1 and be happy for the Suns :)

il take one for the Heat and be happy lol

VikesTwinsWolve
03-17-2011, 01:33 PM
3 peat

RidgeRaider24
03-17-2011, 05:04 PM
id rather have 6 rings in 6 years! i always want my teams to be contenders, and as long as ur a contender anything other than a ship would be bust to me! granted i dont see anyone going 6 for 6 but if u have a chance to win i always want to win

RaiderLakersA's
03-18-2011, 03:49 PM
10 rings and 6 finals in my lifetime.

Thats what i prefer definelty.

if that another 10 rings and 6 finals when im twice my age ill be satisfied

I'll be happy with just one more ring this year. Then Phil Jackson can ride off into the sunset like a Kurosawa Ronin, the Lakers second 3-peat under his tutelage and his 12th championship run a fait accompli.