Would you consider the Spurs a dynasty?

[austinjw]

Yea, that whole 1980's argument is completely and utterly ridiculous. The 79 - 80 season is officially considered the first year of the 1980's for the nba. I mean, as mentioned above, even the official NBA website says so. I mean, no one ever says the lakers were the 99 -00 champions, it's always the the lakers were the champions in 2000. The year that the finals occured in is always the year that the winning team is considered the champion.

So now that that's settled, lets move on to the actual debate at hand.

Just my opinion, but the spurs aren't a dynasty because they have never defended their championships. Any other team that has been unanimously considered a dynasty in the NBA, 80's lakers, 90's bulls, etc, has at least won back to back championships. Why should we start changing precedence for the San Antonio spurs all of a sudden. Just my 2 cents. It just seems to me that history is pretty clear on this matter and some spurs fans are trying to take some arbitrary numbers and skew them in their favor. Instead of reverting to historical precedence they hide behind the opinion card. Why they may be right, it does come down to opinion, but at least have something to back it up.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

Yea, that whole 1980's argument is completely and utterly ridiculous. The 79 - 80 season is officially considered the first year of the 1980's for the nba. I mean, as mentioned above, even the official NBA website says so. I mean, no one ever says the lakers were the 99 -00 champions, it's always the the lakers were the champions in 2000. The year that the finals occured in is always the year that the winning team is considered the champion.

So now that that's settled, lets move on to the actual debate at hand.

LOL It's not settled just because you'd like to think it is. Whether you count the year when the season started or the year when it ended is always going to be a matter of personal preference and whether you go by the technical definition of the sequence of decades or the common usage one is also going to be up for debate since, ya know, one is official and one is how everyone practically defines it, they both have equally valid arguments.

lol 'settled'. Okay.

Just my opinion, but the spurs aren't a dynasty because they have never defended their championships. Any other team that has been unanimously considered a dynasty in the NBA, 80's lakers, 90's bulls, etc, has at least won back to back championships. Why should we start changing precedence for the San Antonio spurs all of a sudden. Just my 2 cents. It just seems to me that history is pretty clear on this matter and some spurs fans are trying to take some arbitrary numbers and skew them in their favor. Instead of reverting to historical precedence they hide behind the opinion card. Why they may be right, it does come down to opinion, but at least have something to back it up.

I'm still sticking with at least one threepeat for a 'dynasty', but a dynasty isn't neccesarily better than a sustained period of dominance like the 80s Lakers or recent Spurs.

[austinjw]

-= original quote snipped =-
LOL It's not settled just because you'd like to think it is. Whether you count the year when the season started or the year when it ended is always going to be a matter of personal preference and whether you go by the technical definition of the sequence of decades or the common usage one is also going to be up for debate since, ya know, one is official and one is how everyone practically defines it, they both have equally valid arguments.

lol 'settled'. Okay.

Dude, are you serious. Since the discussion is based on how the NBA counts its decades I'd think their website would give us all the information we need. It doesn't matter how people count the decades in other circumstances, that's completely irrelevant. It doesn't come down to personal preference, it comes down to what the NBA deems to be RIGHT.

When discussing NBA history, the intelligent thing would be to go by the guidelines the NBA has set. I mean if you want to ignore NBA history then that's fine. But the facts and precedents they've set for their own league disagree with what you're stating.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

So I'm not only to assume that NBA.com is an infallible website (my fantasy league was there this season, I know better), but I'm also supposed to acknowledge that NBA decades are somehow different than real life decades?

It's an argument that won't be 'settled'. Get over it. Move on.

[College Boy]

I would ave to say yes they are. True they have not won back to back, but hey've been dominate. Honestly, the difference maker in this whole matter is the media. Being as the Spurs are not a media friendly team due to their style of play, they seem to be completely forgotten about until the playoffs, when they can no longer be ignored. I mean, seriously, how can the media continue to overlook the Spurs over and over again? FOr some reason, they're never the odds on favorite to take it all. Yet 4 out of the last 9 times they have, and all the other times they came pretty freaking close. Alright, how bout this: The Spurs are a dynasy, however, of the othe other dynasties, they are the least dominant.
I guess you also have to look at as a compairson thing to. You're all basing them on how they compare to other dynasties. So that makes them look worse than they are. But as a stand alone team, they look great. Example, in highschool I cam out with a 3.2. As a standalone that sounds pretty good (also considering that I can't remember doing ANY homework). But n comparison to th othe 690 people in my class, I was the top person in the botto half. So when you say it like that it sounds worse. Get it?

[College Boy]

Sorry for the typos....these keys are a little messed up.

[TommyTheCat]

i think one thing that puts doubts into peoples minds is that the lakers won 3 straight in the middle of this 'dynasty' going from 99-present. i kept thinking about this and it seems to be pretty hard to actually get the dynasty label when you've been dominated 3 years in a row during the cycle.

[andrewww]

i think one thing that puts doubts into peoples minds is that the lakers won 3 straight in the middle of this 'dynasty' going from 99-present. i kept thinking about this and it seems to be pretty hard to actually get the dynasty label when you've been dominated 3 years in a row during the cycle.

thats a good point actually. never thought of it that way lol.

[CoachPop]

i think one thing that puts doubts into peoples minds is that the lakers won 3 straight in the middle of this 'dynasty' going from 99-present. i kept thinking about this and it seems to be pretty hard to actually get the dynasty label when you've been dominated 3 years in a row during the cycle.

That might be mitigated a little bit by remembering the fact that Timmy hurt is knee at the end of '00, and missed the playoffs, so they weren't able to defend their title that year. With all those guys returning from that championship squad, there's no telling what they could have done in the playoffs. But at least it's only 2 years that the Lakers dominated the Spurs in the playoffs, not three. And also, the Spurs lost to the eventual champs those two years. Kind of the way the Celtics went back and forth for a while there in the '80s. Although those two Spurs Lakers series weren't that competitive.

I'd say they should be considered a dynasty because of the decade long sustained level of excellence, always getting to at least the 2nd round (with a healthy Timmy), with 4 titles along the way.

[LAKESHOW]

i think one thing that puts doubts into peoples minds is that the lakers won 3 straight in the middle of this 'dynasty' going from 99-present. i kept thinking about this and it seems to be pretty hard to actually get the dynasty label when you've been dominated 3 years in a row during the cycle.

nice point. and it has its merits. if the spurs wouldve went straight through from 00 till now, without a doubt. but those 3 just turned the basketball world on its head. so yeah, that is a very good point.

i would also add, that the LAKERS could also play spoiler now, in the final reaches of this decade. i.e. the 08 and 09 seasons. the spurs legacy would be cinched, clinched and rung up as DYNASTY if they win this year, and of course, lock up its first back to back. the only team that I see would be in their way, is the LAKERs. as i dont see the celtics or anyone back east to take them down.

the spurs are currently known as a championship basketball team. which is fantastic. but to be known as a DYNASTY! a team that could compete against other teams in other eras, they would need to win it this year. i would say with their experience, they have a great chance. because I see my LAKERs as a year away. the LAKERs are poised, primed and ready to just take over from next year on out. guaranteed, but do not have the chemistry and experience as the spurs do.

but this year, this is san antonios chance. i would venture to say "final" chance to get DYNASTY status. as they seem to be slower than previous years.

so again, the LAKERs were spoilers (so to speak), in the beginning of this decade. and they could also play that role again, at the end of this decade.