I don't mean to belittle the franchise's accomplishments over the past decade at all. I've sometimes thought that it must be great to be a Spurs fan, having a team that consistently wins championships or is in contention year after year, rather than winning a few championships and then disappearing (Lakers). The Spurs are definately the best team in the post-Jordan era, and of this decade. However, I can't help but feel that the label of "Dynasty" that the media is using so much these days is overstating things. I used to think that a sports "dynasty" was an unbroken chain of several championships, although an allowance for a small gap (like 3 championships in 4 years) could be made. But now, the Spurs who haven't repeated once are being called a dynasty. IMO it's silly to call 4 championships in 9 years a dynasty, especially when there's a repeat Lakers dynasty in that same period. How can you claim a dynasty over a period of 9 years when you've failed to win the championship more often than not? I almost think they would have a better claim to a "dynasty" if they just left out the one in 1999 and talked about their 3 championships in the last 5 seasons. I think the media is trying to talk the Spurs up because they want a story. Anyone else agree with me?
Maybe one more championship. I know they have 4 but for some reason they don't fall under the term dynasty IMO. They are just that team that plays consistently well and plays amazing defense in the playoffs.
easily yes, a contender every year for almost a decade and for several years to come. the right combinations of great general managers, coaches, and scouts are the masterminds of dynasties and the spurs clearly have that
I would think that in order for a team to be called a dynasty they have to win more than 3. The Spurs are just real good, not a dynasty though. Lets see them defend the title 3 more times.
this is the espn sportsnation question on their site right now. the funny thing is that every state has a majority yes, except one: arizona. phoenix.
I think they are a dynasty, but not as dominant of one as you would think. If they can defend the title back to back then they could be considered one. They have been a great team every year and one the championship 4 times in 8 years. If they can win back to back, or just win one more, then I think you can label them a true, elite dynasty. To be a dynasty, I think you have to win at least one back to back along with your other titles. But if they win one more, in say, 2 years, you can't argue with 5 titles in 10 years.
i personally don't think the spurs are a dynasty because they've never won back to back titles. and i dont like horry or bowen so... if they win another one this year or next year with the same team then i might consider them a dynasty but for now i don't.
4 championships in 9 years may not sound that impresive, but 3 championships in 5 years is. The Spurs have been the best team in the NBA for the past five years and there is no argument against that. After SA won the championship in 99', if you think about it, they really had to rebuild their team as most of their players retired or left except Tim Duncan. The current core of the Spurs really formed when they got Parker and Ginobilli, and this SA team is still very much in their prime: Duncan is 31, Ginobili 30, and Parker only 25. If they find a good replacement for Bowen (who may still have a year or two left), I wouldn't be surprised if they win another championship or two in the next few years. This team is certainly not as dominant as the Bulls of the 90's, but they can rival Shaq and Kobe's Lakers (remember the end of the Lakers dynasty began when they lost to SA in 03) and should be considered a dynasty.
I agree with this. If they're a dynasty, then that's the time frame -- the 3 in 5 years. I just don't see how a team can be a dynasty when another team 3-peats within that team's supposed "reign." In other words, how can the Spurs have had a dynasty since 1999 when the Lakers had a 3-peat during those 9 years? Now, if you want to talk about the past 5, it's up for debate. And if they repeat -- which would be 4 titles in 6 years -- that's pretty impressive. Especially considering they'd have had to get out of the West all those times.
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.
Um, they have won 4 titles. they've defended it 3 times, albeit not successfully. but between the non-title years, i'm sure they were at least in the conference finals twice. the Spurs deserve their props and ARE a dynasty.
Agreed. And beyond that, only the Bulls, Celtics, and Lakers have collected more than 4 titles *in the entire history*, let alone the last 9 years. A dynasty is a team that's dominant over a long period of time and wins titles. Who cares if they win back-to-back titles? Being in the mix for titles for 9 straight years and winning 4 of them is absurdly impressive, and seems like the very definition of a dynasty. Neither the Bulls or the recent Lakers were able to maintain success for that long. (The Bulls had two separate dynasties - but in the middle, they weren't a serious championship contender) If this were the Rockets instead of the Spurs, everyone would agree that we're a dynasty.
