0 of 10

Associated Press

Perhaps the most fun part about debates over sports dynasties is that there is no set definition for the term.

One reason sports-talk radio hosts go to this topic whenever a team wins a second championship in "X" amount of years is because it is bound to light up the phone lines and draw reactions on websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Any team that is said to be a dynasty will immediately be compared to dominant sides from prior generations by fans and analysts alike.

One could use that famous definition linked to something entirely different for labeling a sports dynasty: "I can't define it, but I know what one is." It is understood that those Chicago Bulls teams that won six world championships in the 1990s were a sports dynasty. A debate could be made that the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s were the first true dynasty of the Super Bowl era.

Naming a sports dynasty these days is more complicated an exercise for a variety of reasons. Free agency and the constant movement of players makes retaining cornerstones of a championship roster more difficult than was the case decades ago. Expansion teams in the National Football League, National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball has increased the lengths of regular seasons and postseason tournaments.

Winning multiple championships in today's sports climate is special. That is why the "D" word comes up in columns and in discussions whenever a team accomplishes that feat. Have we merely cheapened the term "sports dynasty" when compared with some of the great all-time rosters in history, or do we need to broaden our definition of that term because of the nature of the industry in 2016?

You can decide with us.