first, yea, it's ridiculous to say that you would defend the Rockets as champions. secondly, YOU said, "I won't consider them a "Dynasty" unless they can win one after Duncan is on the downhill or retired. With Duncan struggling with plantar fasciitis last season, they looked mediocre against the Kings and Mavs in the playoffs. That's not "dynasty"...that's "dependency" IMO." Spurs looked mediocre agaisnt Dallas? they took Dallas to 7 games and would of won if it weren't for a ginoboli foul. where are the Bulls' and Lakers' championship after Jordan and Shaq were gone? they made the playoffs, whooptie do.
Well, the Spurs will have three of the four lowest ratings in the last twenty-five years or so. The ratings for last year's finals actually increased slightly (over the previous Spurs' series). Sunday's game got a 5.6. The Pistons, Lakers series from three seasons ago had an 11.4.
Dependency? What kind of logic is this? Of course a team will look mediocre when their star player goes down. This is the most ridiculous argument I've read in a while.
Let's see what happens next season. IF they can pull it off again then maybe. I hope the Rockets can get at least 2 more or more Championships before I turn 50.
The question is: Would you rather your favorite team do a three-peat and turn mediocre (i.e. Lakers) or even live in the cellar (i.e. Boston) or would you rather have a team that wins 4 titles over a span of almost a decade? Me? I take the latter not because of the quantity but because I know that that team is always in contention.
as much as I hate to say it, you have to give the spurs credit. they are an awesome organization. They pretty much are a dynesty I think. They are either winning it or in contention to.
I already posted this in the finals thread, but here we go: In this day and age, it seems like there's such a high turnover in players every year (can anyone quantify/verify this?) that it's much harder to have an old-school dynasty where teams can have a 5 yr run of titles. I think it's a great job by Pop, Duncan, and the Spurs GM that they've been playing at such a high level every year. By today's standards I would say this is as close as it gets to a dynasty for the future of the NBA. The Pistons probably had the best chance to rival the Spurs, but probably due to coaching changes and the inability to maintain their intensity their time has come and gone. I'm not a Spurs fan, but I'm just guessing that there's probably only one or two players from the first championship team on this year's team. Nearly every year they've been a top contender and quite frankly it looks like they'll still be a contender for at least the next 3 yrs. Nothing flashy, but still amazing.
Well with the current unsettled state of the roster particularly at the 4 spot, I'd say 52 wins would be something of a major achievement for this team. As for Dallas, who cares?
Think of how this board would be if that had been the Rockets winning their 4th championship in 9 years instead of losing in the first round for the 4th time in 7 years. I'll bet we'd be hearing the "D" word all over the place. For what it's worth, I'm hearing the same stuff up here in Dallas and it all sounds just as petty and envious up here as it does down there. I've been listening to Houston radio via the Internet and the callers all sound like jealous little children when they try to disparage the Spurs. And some of the posts on this board are truly sad. When we're reduced to ridiculing another team that is a winner in order to feel good about the Rockets, it's yet another indication as to how far the basketball fortunes have fallen in the place formerly known as "Clutch City".
Not to sound mean but so what? They still get to keep the rings and the Larry O'Brien trophies. They didn't take away the two Rockets' championships because of poor ratings either so lighten up and direct some at that ire at the bozos running this organization because they are the real reason the Rockets haven't been winners.
No to dynasty. They haven't dominated. They haven't won back to back. Consistently outstanding is what they are. But not dominant. But they very nearly lost in playoff series each of the last titles (Lakers, Pistons, Suns). Only the 99 team pretty much cruised in the playoffs, all the other teams potentially lose with a single different ball bounce or single different play. So we if we bring up this could be 5-6 titles argument, we should bring up this could be a 1 title argument. The Spurs big 3 played great last year against the Mavs, but the Mavs role players killed the Spurs. The Spurs got a break the Mavs, their worst match-up, got into their funk against GS this year and of course 2 freak plays against the Suns helped (that Nash's nose didn't stop bleeding in game 1, the Nash body chech that lead to the game 5 suspensions). The Spurs earned the title, but they also had good fortune, as much as most any recent title winner. Really the only steamrolling teams of late were the middle Lakers winner and the 99 Spurs. All the rest of the rings included close calls where things could have easily gone differently. I have no idea about the Lakers comment. The Lakers soundly beat them for the most part for the Lakers 3 rings, and injuries on the Lakers in their 4 peat attempt helped SA finally break through the team that had owned them. Sac gave the Lakers more trouble during that period.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2905923 NEW YORK -- The NBA Finals were a television bust. San Antonio's four-game sweep of Cleveland finished with a record-low 6.2 television rating and 11 share on ABC, Nielsen Media Research said Friday. That was down 27 percent from the 8.5/15 for Miami's six-game victory over Dallas last year and 5 percent under the previous low, a 6.5/12 for San Antonio's six-game win over New Jersey in 2003. The NBA finals averaged 9.3 million viewers this year. San Antonio's series-winning 83-82 victory on Thursday night got a 6.5/12, down 17 percent from the 7.8/14 for Game 4 last year. The NHL Stanley Cup finals also hit a record low this year, with NBC averaging a 1.6/3 for the final three games of Anaheim's five-game victory over Ottawa. The first two games were televised on the cable network Versus. The rating is the percentage watching a telecast among all homes with televisions, and the share is the percentage tuned in to a broadcast among those households with televisions on at the time. A ratings point represents 1,114,000 households. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings Table of NBA Finals average Nielsen ratings since 1976 Net. Year Series Rating CBS 1976 Boston Celtics 4, Phoenix Suns 2 11.5 CBS 1977 Portland Trailblazers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 2 12.7 CBS 1978 Washington Bullets 4, Seattle Supersonics 3 9.9 CBS 1979 Seattle Supersonics 4, Washington Bullets 1 7.2 CBS 1980 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 2 8.0 CBS 1981 Boston Celtics 4, Houston Rockets 2 6.7 CBS 1982 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 2 13.0 CBS 1983 Philadelphia 76ers 4, Los Angeles Lakers 0 12.3 CBS 1984 Boston Celtics 4, Los Angeles Lakers 3 12.3 CBS 1985 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Boston Celtics 2 13.7 CBS 1986 Boston Celtics 4, Houston Rockets 2 14.1 CBS 1987 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Boston Celtics 2 15.9 CBS 1988 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Detroit Pistons 3 15.4 CBS 1989 Detroit Pistons 4, Los Angeles Lakers 0 15.1 CBS 1990 Detroit Pistons 4, Portland Trailblazers 1 12.3 NBC 1991 Chicago Bulls 4, Los Angeles Lakers 1 15.8 NBC 1992 Chicago Bulls 4, Portland Trailblazers 2 14.2 NBC 1993 Chicago Bulls 4, Phoenix Suns 2 17.9 NBC 1994 Houston Rockets 4, New York Knicks 3 12.4 NBC 1995 Houston Rockets 4, Orlando Magic 0 13.9 NBC 1996 Chicago Bulls 4, Seattle Supersonics 2 16.7 NBC 1997 Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2 16.8 NBC 1998 Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2 18.7 NBC 1999 San Antonio Spurs 4, New York Knicks 1 11.3 NBC 2000 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Indiana Pacers 2 11.6 NBC 2001 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 1 12.1 NBC 2002 Los Angeles Lakers 4, New Jersey Nets 0 10.2 ABC 2003 San Antonio Spurs 4, New Jersey Nets 2 6.5 ABC 2004 Detroit Pistons 4, Los Angeles Lakers 1 11.5 ABC 2005 San Antonio Spurs 4, Detroit Pistons 3 8.2 ABC 2006 Miami Heat 4, Dallas Mavericks 2 8.5
You're really stretching it. While those series were somewhat competitive, the Spurs were against elimination a grand total of one game in those three series, and that was a home Game 7. Saying they "very nearly lost" is letting your bias show a little bit.
Rightly or wrongly, the reason the Spurs "dynasty" reference might be questionsed is cause of how prevalent being a repeat champion has become in the modern era(last 25 years) in all sports in defining a dynasty Football-the last 2 mini-dynasties were patriots in the 1st half of this decade, and the cowboys of the early 90s. Both teams won 3 SBs in 4 years. They were clearly the dominant team during those parts of the decade. And both had repeat champions Baseball-The last proclamied dynasty was the Yankess and from 1996-2000, they won 4 out 5 and were in position to win their 5th in 6 years. Basketball-The Lakers of the 80s, Bulls of the 90s, and Lakers of this decaded repeated. Even teams like the Rockets and Pistons successfully defended their crowns. So in terms of how they are viewed in historical terms right now, I don't think its unreasonable to take into account that they have not repeated.
Main Entry: dy·nas·ty Pronunciation: 'dI-n&-stE also -"nas-tE, especially British 'di-n&-stE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent 2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time - dy·nas·tic /dI-'nas-tik/ adjective - dy·nas·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb By definition, the dictionary states a dynasty must maintain it's position of power for a "considerable time." By power, we must mean championships, right? Before we even get to the definition of "considerable," we are stuck with the fact that the Spurs have not "maintained" ANY champioships in succession. SO, I rule "NO DYNASTY." Your witness......
Your silver and black bias is pretty old. It's pretty crazy to be such a diehard Spurs fan and front as a Houston fan like you do. The original poster is exactly right. The Spurs did very nearly lose to the Lakers in 2003. That was the year Robert Horry's 3 point shot to win Game 5 went in and out. The ball was about 3/4th of the way down. Any title which relies on Robert Horry MISSING a clutch wide open 3 to win the pivotal Game 5 is extremely lucky. Things like that are once in a blue moon. This doesn't even mention that in 2003 Nowitzki was injured for the Mavs in Game 3 WCF with the series tied 1-1. Or that Webber was injured that year in the playoffs and the Kings were a hungry bunch looking to win it all after being robbed in 2002. And, obviously since you are a Spurs homer, you'll disagree but if not for Stern's ridiculous decision to reward a Robert Horry unsportsmanlike cheapshot, the Spurs would probably have lost to Phoenix. the Suns had HCA and a lot of momentum going home. The Spurs didnt earn it on the basketball court. In 05, they did nearly lose to the Pistons and likely would have if not for a serious brainfart by Rasheed Wallace leaving Horry wide open. Sure, every title has luck, but some of the good fortune and dumb luck the Spurs have run into in their run (Kobe-Shaq being busted up, a team that murdered the Spurs in 00,01,02, and 04 in the playoffs, etc) is just crazy. In the end the 2 best words to describe the Spurs run, given the amount of luck they've had and how despciable Bowen/Manu are is "Who cares". The majority of America certainly doesnt.
It could just as easily be them only having 2 titles if 2 simplethings didnt happen 1) Robert Horry rimming a 3 in and out to win Game 5 in 2003 playoffs vs. LA 2) David Stern not being a complete idiot.
