Basketball is not a sport, it's a way of life.

Three really is the hard way: A look at why three-peating is so damn hard and why there is no failure in not accomplishing it for the Aces

Three-peating is hard. I believe I read somewhere that it ranks roughly between adamantium and vibranium. The sheer act of winning a single title requires years of development, an infrastructure with a clear direction, players and coaches buying in, and typically a pinch of good fortune. Back-to-back titles require health luck, an ability to deflect the ever-encroaching "disease of more," and an insatiable hunger that drives a team to withstand every opponent’s best shot. Oh, and some more of that good luck. A three-peat? Well, that recipe requires all the aforementioned ingredients, plus withstanding arrogance and apathy, and finding a salve for fatigue.

After losing to the New York Liberty 3-1 last night, and in doing so becoming the most recent professional franchise to fail in their quest for a three-peat, the Aces now sit at a crowded table of organizations that were unable to crest team sports' highest level of distinction: the three-peat. That’s not to imply that the only way to be considered an all-time great team requires a three-peat in the portfolio. The Golden State Warriors recently had to settle for the "lowly" distinction of winning three titles in four seasons and four in eight. That Warriors team was as dominant a force as I had personally seen. However, Bill Simmons said he felt they weren’t a dynasty. I don’t agree with that, but it brings us back to the importance of a three-peat in defining legacy. There is something conclusive about a team being the clearly defined best in their sport for three straight years. One title can be unfairly perceived as a reflection of circumstance. A second clears that mark, but too many teams have accomplished back-to-back titles at this point for it to feel substantial enough as a distinction of sustained superiority. Four in a row is so rare that, in the history of America’s four major sports, only five franchises have ever won four or more titles in a row:

-            ’59-‘66 Boston Celtics

-            ’97-‘00 Houston Comets

-            ’76-’79 Montreal Canadiens

-            ’56-’60 Montreal Canadiens

-            ’80-’83 New York Islanders

-            ’49-‘53 New York Yankees

-            ’36-’39 New York Yankees

Outside of the Comets, it’s been over forty years since we’ve seen a four-peat at all. Thus, three straight championships have become the dividing line by which we collectively accept a team’s claim to dynasty status. This is especially true post-expansion, as being dominant over an entire league was much easier when teams only had to best a few other franchises. Again, I don’t think three in a row is the only measure of a dynasty, but much like a meter stick, it is the most universally accepted.

So, four-peats are now nearly nonexistent, but three-peats are still hard as fuck to come by. Just ask the NFL, where the Kansas City Chiefs are currently attempting to be the first franchise in the history of the league to accomplish the task. Here is a list of the franchises in the four major American sports that have three-peated (excluding the five listed above):

-            ’00-’02 Los Angeles Lakers

-            ’98-’00 New York Yankees

-            ’96-’98 Chicago Bulls

-            ’91-’93 Chicago Bulls

-            ’72-’74 Oakland Athletics

-            ’62-’64 Toronto Maple Leafs

-            ’52-’54 Minneapolis Lakers

-            ’47-’49 Toronto Maple Leafs

We have established the legacy element of three-peats and their general rarity, but why exactly are they so damn hard to come by? There are, of course, myriad reasons that impact sustained success in professional sports, but here are what I think are the core challenges to staying good enough, long enough, to winning three or more straight (I am not claiming these ideas to be of my own design):