Do you consider the Spurs a dynasty?

[Seadood228]

[ QUOTE ]
sadly, yes

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if the next generation of fans will realize just how stacked the competition was during this current Spurs run. To be able to do what they've done is pretty amazing.

[Ralph Wiggum]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

edit to say: Moreso than the Lakers. People will put asterisks on 2 of the Spurs titles (this year, and the lockout shortened year), but the Lakers twice won conference finals in very tough matches against injury depleted kings teams...never full strength)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not directed at you, but I think it's BS when people want to asterisk titles. We can asterisk the Lakers title for the horribly officiated game 6 against the Kings. Or last year's Heat. Or asterisk Hakeem, since MJ was playing baseball. All these crappy circumstances that sometimes happens is called life. As long as it's not blatant cheating, no titles should be asterisked.

<font color="white"> edit: Holy crap, this my 1600th post. </font>

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

edit to say: Moreso than the Lakers. People will put asterisks on 2 of the Spurs titles (this year, and the lockout shortened year), but the Lakers twice won conference finals in very tough matches against injury depleted kings teams...never full strength)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not directed at you, but I think it's BS when people want to asterisk titles. We can asterisk the Lakers title for the horribly officiated game 6 against the Kings. Or last year's Heat. Or asterisk Hakeem, since MJ was playing baseball. All these crappy circumstances that sometimes happens is called life. As long as it's not blatant cheating, no titles should be asterisked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I just know that people will be trying to apply *s this year, like they did in the lockout year.

[ProfessorBen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

edit to say: Moreso than the Lakers. People will put asterisks on 2 of the Spurs titles (this year, and the lockout shortened year), but the Lakers twice won conference finals in very tough matches against injury depleted kings teams...never full strength)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not directed at you, but I think it's BS when people want to asterisk titles. We can asterisk the Lakers title for the horribly officiated game 6 against the Kings. Or last year's Heat. Or asterisk Hakeem, since MJ was playing baseball. All these crappy circumstances that sometimes happens is called life. As long as it's not blatant cheating, no titles should be asterisked.

<font color="white"> edit: Holy crap, this my 1600th post. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT

[Artdogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

edit to say: Moreso than the Lakers. People will put asterisks on 2 of the Spurs titles (this year, and the lockout shortened year), but the Lakers twice won conference finals in very tough matches against injury depleted kings teams...never full strength)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not directed at you, but I think it's BS when people want to asterisk titles. We can asterisk the Lakers title for the horribly officiated game 6 against the Kings. Or last year's Heat. Or asterisk Hakeem, since MJ was playing baseball. All these crappy circumstances that sometimes happens is called life. As long as it's not blatant cheating, no titles should be asterisked.

<font color="white"> edit: Holy crap, this my 1600th post. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Are 'roids and pine tar the only things that are "blatant cheating?"

[Poofler]

Yes, and I think clearly, but I understand why some might hesitate. The problem with the Spurs is that their run was essentially interrupted by a Lakers team that was better than they were for a few years. It's probably difficult for some to conceive of a team being a dynasty, yet being #2 to another team for a non-trivial amount of years.

[dw2006]

No way are they a dynasty. A dynasty is when particular teams reigns over the rest of the league for several years. Dynasty teams win multiple consecutive championships and are clearly the best team in the league over that period of time. The Spurs have been the best team in the NBA over the past decade but no consecutive championships precludes them from dynasty discussion. The Lakers from 2000-2002 were the last dynasty team.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
Duncan and a bunch of other guys you won't remember (except maybe Horry and David Robinson)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that "memorable" players is a requirement for being a dynasty, but you do realize that David Robinson is a sure-fire Hall of Famer, right?

[Dynasty]

My standard rule of thumb for a dynasty is winning three championships in a row. In basketball, where quite a few teams have done exactly that and more, the Spurs 3 titles in 5 seasons and 4 titles in 9 seasons seems to come up a bit short.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
My standard rule of thumb for a dynasty is winning three championships in a row. In basketball, where quite a few teams have done exactly that and more, the Spurs 3 titles in 5 seasons and 4 titles in 9 seasons seems to come up a bit short.

[/ QUOTE ]

i see your point, there is the lack of them being dominant and unbeatable in consecutive years like the bulls or lakers, but if the spurs win again this year, and they are 80% favorites, that will be half the championships in a decade. they havent won yet, but that would be impossible to not be one. and they are one of the 2-3 frontrunners for next year regardless of what happens.