I think if the Spurs win the Championship this year I will consider them a dynasty. The Spurs are a model of what sports teams in all leagues should try to achieve. Tim Duncan easily has to be one of the top ten or top fifteen players to ever play in the nba.
I heard a great observation made by some random caller to a local radio show recently. He could very well be reading this thread at some point... He said, how can you consider the Spurs a dynasty when they allowed another team to establish their own dynasty (Lakers) within the same time period. Its a damn good point.
^^^ As much as I agree about a so-called Spurs dynasty, the point that there can't be two dynasty teams in the same era would mean Larry Bird's Celtics were not a dynasty either.
Also a good point. But I am willing to say they weren't, call me crazy. Also, unlike the Celtics run, the Spurs let a team within their same conference come out 3 straight times. The Celtics at least got to the finals on regular basis.
During the football season everyone was talking about the Patriots dynasty and they never won 3 in a row. They won 3 of 4 and if they had beaten the Giants it would have been 4 of 7. Disregard the 98-99 championship. If they won it this year, it would be 4 of the last 6 for the Spurs. And still, 5 rings in a decade is pretty damned good.
Football is completely different than basketball though. Not many teams win two in a row and no team has ever won three. Both of those have happened numerous times in basketball.
As much as I don't like the Spurs, I think they're the dynasty of the 00s. I think that any team that wins three+ times with the same nucleus and is there every year for ten years is a dynasty.
If they win this year, they're a dynasty. But while 3 titles in 5 years would normally qualify a team as a dynasty, the NBA is a different matter. You almost have to three-peat to be considered a dynasty these days and the Spurs haven't even won back-to-back titles never mind 3 straight.
Even if they win this year and everyone agrees they're a dynasty.. Hakeem's 2 year dynasty is far better
I completely disagree. The Spurs have dominated the West for ten years, even though they haven't won three in a row. This three-peat rationale is ridiculous. By that reasoning, the Lakers of the 80's weren't a dynasty even though they won five trophies.
If they win it all this year I would have to agree with you. With the West being so competitive this year (and many more years to come), it'll be a great feat in within itself if they manage to put another one in the bag.
Couldn´t care less, i don´t think such things should be Important, a team must aim to win every year not to be a Dynasty, imagine if teams focused on winning 3 championships in 3 years, then you´ll se a lot Boston-Like teams that will be done after 3 or 4 years, i love the fact that teams like Spurs, Houston, Dallas (even doe i hate them) or somehow Utah, build teams that you are familiar with them and you can say they Starting five has been almost the same for years. It makes the game more familiar and i love players that identify with a team, a league with teams looking to build 3-peet dynasties will be full of players that go from team to team without really caring about any ball club.
dynasty is a loose concept. no one really cares. but if you're a team that is in title contention every year for a decade and have actually won it 4 out of 9 years, it is a dynasty in my book. why does a team have to 3-peat to be considered one? how about we raise the bar then - you have to be like boston in the 60's to be a dynasty?
