First, in the Stanley Cup Finals, it's best out of 7 not 6, and some might argue that it's easier to win a single game than 4, but that's besides the point.


Second, there's quite a lot of difference between the definition of a dynasty and a touchdown, because for one, the other is pretty distinctly described in the rule book and the other is simply one term for greatness in sports.

So, in effect, I'm saying we can just make stuff up, because that is what f.e. those websites you sited have done. They've made up definitions for what a dynasty is in their opinion and according to those made-up guidelines they've handed out dynasty titles to some teams. As opposed to the touchdown, which I can't really make up a new definition for, I'm as free as those websites to define the term dynasty as whatever I please, because there's no unified and written down definition for what the term means other than of course some type of greatness. But for there to be a change in the points awarded by a touchdown, there'd have to be quite a few meetings between the league and the owners, and an official decision about it.

It just doesn't compute with me that you are saying that we can't define a dynasty to be something that hasn't already happened, because if that was the penultimate criteria no one could've even talked about a potential dynasty before a certain team won enough games/championships, and after that somebody went: "Hey, you know what, I think this team should be called a dynasty!" If that's the criteria, someone could've said right after the first Super Bowl in '67 that the Packers were a dynasty because they just won the Super Bowl. That would be as legit of a definition as any other based on the fact that the defining characteristic of a dynasty is that it has to be something that has already taken place.