"Sports Team Dynasty" - Why does Pro Cycling have so few?

[Polish]

First, a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a hall of fame (e.g., National Hockey League), but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans. The most widely-accepted sports dynasties are those with multiple championships over a limited period of time, either consecutively with or without interruption (e.g., UCLA Bruins men's basketball from 1964 to 1975), or non-consecutively (e.g., Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders of the late 1970s and early 1980s, or the Liverpool football team of the 1980s). In a few cases, a dominant team without championships might be recognized as a dynasty (e.g., Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s), though this is likely to be disputed.

So my question - why so few Pro Cycling Dynasties?
What are some of the reasons?

Are there more than wiki realizes?
"Red Train" of Saeco? Banesto Dynasty of Delgado/Indurain? Molteni?

Do cycling fans fail to record the history of the sport properly?

Is pro cycling not really a team sport?

Is it too difficult to build a Cycling Dynasty? Too much genius required?

Is it because Cycling does not have a "Hall of Fame" or such sort?

Maybe the "Team Classification" is poopoo'd by the fans?

Riders changing teams too often? eg Alberto or Lemond?

BTW, I pose this question in the clinic because some will argue the only reason there could even be a Sports Team Dynasty in cycling is because of PEDs blah blah lol.

 

[William H]

Partly because it's got a strong individual component - Contador would win the Tour on any Pro Tour team.

Partly because teams don't have anything to keep them in existance long term. Most sports, teams are sustained by ticket sales in an established home ground, and loyal local support. Cycling teams are formed by the money of often transient sponsors, compete all over the world and have no home stadia.

 

[ManInFull]

First, a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)


So my question - why so few Pro Cycling Dynasties?
What are some of the reasons?

Are there more than wiki realizes?
"Red Train" of Saeco? Banesto Dynasty of Delgado/Indurain? Molteni?

Do cycling fans fail to record the history of the sport properly?

Is pro cycling not really a team sport?

Is it too difficult to build a Cycling Dynasty? Too much genius required?

Is it because Cycling does not have a "Hall of Fame" or such sort?

Maybe the "Team Classification" is poopoo'd by the fans?

Riders changing teams too often? eg Alberto or Lemond?

BTW, I pose this question in the clinic because some will argue the only reason there could even be a Sports Team Dynasty in cycling is because of PEDs blah blah lol.

Cycling is a "pseudo" team sport. I classify it as such because, in the most popular and famous cycling race, the TdF, the highest award is for individual achievement. If the team classification was the top award and actually recognized as such, then it would be more of a team sport.

What you highlight above also comes into play. What if there were rules and salary caps that created an environment where most racers stayed on the same team?

 

[ElChingon]

Well I think there are plenty of dynasties in cycling.

1. Mapei, wins Paris-Roubaix taking all three podium spots three times! Then winning P-R two more times. Giro and Vuelta with Rominger, then countless other Classics and other races!
2. Reynolds-Banesto-Caisse d'Eparnge, as Reynolds wins Tour and Vuelta with Delgado, then as Banesto five Tours two Giro's with Indurain and Vuelta with Olano, then Vuelta with Valverde.
3. I could go on but it just seems no one posts cycling dynasties on that page or you don't recall all the dominating teams in cycling history. Time to do some reading.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

First, a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)


So my question - why so few Pro Cycling Dynasties?
What are some of the reasons?

Are there more than wiki realizes?
"Red Train" of Saeco? Banesto Dynasty of Delgado/Indurain? Molteni?

Do cycling fans fail to record the history of the sport properly?

Is pro cycling not really a team sport?

Is it too difficult to build a Cycling Dynasty? Too much genius required?

Is it because Cycling does not have a "Hall of Fame" or such sort?

Maybe the "Team Classification" is poopoo'd by the fans?

Riders changing teams too often? eg Alberto or Lemond?

BTW, I pose this question in the clinic because some will argue the only reason there could even be a Sports Team Dynasty in cycling is because of PEDs blah blah lol.

Perhaps cycling doesn't have a "Sports Team Dynasty" because unlike other sports it doesn't need shoulder pads?

 

[Polish]

Well I think there are plenty of dynasties in cycling.

1. Mapei, wins Paris-Roubaix taking all three podium spots three times! Then winning P-R two more times. Giro and Vuelta with Rominger, then countless other Classics and other races!
2. Reynolds-Banesto-Caisse d'Eparnge, as Reynolds wins Tour and Vuelta with Delgado, then as Banesto five Tours two Giro's with Indurain and Vuelta with Olano, then Vuelta with Valverde.
3. I could go on but it just seems no one posts cycling dynasties on that page or you don't recall all the dominating teams in cycling history. Time to do some reading.

Yes, I agree Mapei and Reynolds/Banesto/Ciass are Dynastic.
I think the Wiki Page needs some updating from a Cycling perspective.

Also I would add:

Ti-Raleigh
ONCE
Flandria
KAS
Molteni
Peugeot
Renault-Gitane
CSC/Saxo/Sunguard?
SKY?

SKY lol I crack myself up sometimes.

Best Dynasty Ever?
Debatable of course.
USPS/Disco/Astana/Shack gets my vote

 

[Granville57]

So my question - why so few Pro Cycling Dynasties?

USPS/Disco/Astana/Shack gets my vote

lol

 

[Dr. Maserati]

<snip>
Best Dynasty Ever?
Debatable of course.
USPS/Disco/Astana/Shack gets my vote

I think USPS/Disco/Astana/Shack were more like Dallas than Dynasty.

 

[Granville57]

Of course there was that episode where the USDA inspectors made a surprise visit to the ranch.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course there was that episode where the USDA inspectors made a surprise visit to the ranch.

I remember that - it was like a bad dream.

 

[Polish]

I think USPS/Disco/Astana/Shack were more like Dallas than Dynasty.

I think Guimard was more like JR

 

[greenedge]

USP, Panasonic, Raleigh, Astana, CSC and of course Festina ( immortilised )

 

[ambrose]

i think there are dynasties, but it's not as obvious.
Problem is that the teams change their names with sponsors. look at USPS/Disco/Astana/Shack as an example, 4 names 1 team.

If you didn't properly follow the sport you probably wouldn't realise that they are really the same team. the change names, riders kits etc.. so although the team may essentially be the same, from the outside it doesn't appear so