You are, as always, invited to send your personal collegiate, prep or individual sport favorites, with the requisite snotty rejoinders like, "How could you forget ... ?" We just stayed with the pros because, well, we have errands to run.

A dynasty is three, or at the very least two with a bunch of others on either side of it. The Lakers haven't done it, simple.

But a lot of teams didn't make it because, well, they just didn't. The Big Red Machine seemed ready to win a lot of titles, but won only two. Now two is two more than most teams ever win, and maybe they would have kept winning had not Tony Perez been traded, but that's what could have happened, not what did happen. If we lower that standard, maybe the Cubs are a much greater franchise than we at first suspected.

But we don't lower the standard, because that's stupid. Really good isn't the same as great, and great isn't the same as dynastic. Never has, never will be, and those who say otherwise should be jabbed with pointy sticks.

A dynasty is three, or at the very least two with a bunch of others on either side of it. The Lakers haven't done it, simple.

So why then are otherwise sensible people claiming that they are? Largely, this is the need to be first on the block to say something whether or not it is actually true. You also see this a lot in Hall of Fame discussions, when great young players are posted into the Hall without taking into account things like bad personal lives, bad marriage, bad substance abuse issues, bad injuries or just plain bad luck.

It's called the Canseco Syndrome, and is a common malady cured only by time and being shouted down by your pals at the tavern.

So what are the Lakers, then, if not a dynasty? Really, really good. If they stay together and keep the eyes on the prize, and if the '76ers or Spurs or Bucks or someone else doesn't get dramatically better, and if neither Kobe nor Shaq get into spitting contests, or traction, maybe they can win that third title and actually walk the walk that so much talk has engendered.

Can they? No idea whatsoever. We have lots of people who are really good at explaining the past, and very few who are really good at explaining the future. Indeed, Tiger Woods is one of the very few examples of a lot of people being ahead of the curve on something spectacular.

And no, Tiger Woods isn't a dynasty yet, either, let alone an era. He's getting there, Lord knows, and there isn't a television executive capable of walking on his or her hind legs who doesn't believe he already is. Example? Nobody asked Woods to answer trivia questions from the insufferable Anne Robinson.

As for the Lakers, well, they are playing for history next year. Only the Lakers of '52-'54, the Celtics of '58-'66 and the Bulls of '91-'93 and '96-'98 ever did a treble. These Lakers can do that.Then again, everyone thought the '89 Lakers would do it, too. Pat Riley even promised they would.

But no. They lost to the Detroit Pistons, who in turn won another after that, and were going to be dynasty, too, until the Bulls changed all that.

So we can wait on the Lakers. We've all got plenty of time. Now go get an iced tea, lay down in the hammock, and relax. It's summertime, and the living is easy. The kids can cut the lawn and clean out the storm gutters.

That, after all, is what kids are for.

Ray Ratto of the San Francisco Chronicle is a regular contributor to ESPN.com