Do the Spurs qualify as a dynasty?

Granted, they're not as important as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but as long as there have been barstools, there have been men sitting on those stools arguing about sports. This week, John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter sit at a virtual bar and debate whether or not the San Antonio Spurs qualify as a dynasty. Take a seat, order a beverage and feel free to give us your two cents.

Anthony: The first thing anyone looks at when considering whether or not a team should be viewed as a dynasty is the number of championships won in a certain amount of time. Well, since the strike-shortened season of 1999, the Spurs have won four titles. While none of those have been back to back, there's no denying how hard it is to win one NBA title, nevertheless four in nine years. They've also won six division titles in nine years, which is quite an accomplishment in the stacked Western Conference. Another thing to consider is that they've largely kept the same core of players throughout the years and only Tim Duncan can really be considered a superstar. (Although Tony Parker might be on his way.)

John: The Merriam-Webster definition of a dynasty is "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time." Applying this to sports is a little tricky...

(Read the rest of the debate after the jump.)

21 Comments On: "Do the Spurs qualify as a dynasty?"

 
I would say 4 titles in 9 years gets them close to being a dynasty. If they get into the finals and win another one, then you can put the stamp on it for sure.

I agree fiver. It's still four titles in a decade. That is incredible. They already deserve the label dynasty.

4 titles in 9 years and going deep into the playoffs every year in those 9 years.... In my opinion that gets a dynasty stamp

They didn't go deep into the playoffs every year. In fact, they didn't make it out of the Western Conference semifinals in four of the five years they didn't win the title. Just sayin'.

Its still 4 titles in nine years......That is very hard to do

Absolutely it's very hard to do. I was just correcting your statement that they went "deep into the playoffs every year in those 9 years." In the five non-title years, they went to the WC Finals once, the WC Semifinals three times, and were knocked out in the first round once.

They are definitely the closest thing to a dynasty that we have in the NBA, and it all depends on your definition. I'd like to see them repeat - every dynasty before them has repeated.

It's still four titles. How tough is that?

If they beat the Hornets on Monday, they could be on their way to 5.

Don't say that!

FIVE, you know I'm a Spurs fan so thanks for holding it down while I was away. Dynasty.

Well, they are looking more like that dynasty every day after dispensing with the Hornets. I wouldn't bet against them when they play the Lakers.

hell yeah they're a DYNASTY no questions ASKED

Without a doubt they are a dynasty. Id like to point one more thing out. What is this stuff with Tony Parker might be on his way to being a superstar? He already is and by far.

Four in nine isn't bad. I'd say it qualifies. If they win this year, no doubt.

Now Red Auerbach - he had a dynasty

Now John Wooden - he had a dynasty

Try 10 titles in as many years before you can add to this list.

Nobody's comparing the Spurs to the Celtics dynasty because you can't. Red's record will never be matched. The Spurs should qualify as a dynasty.

Not even Red won ten in a row. Please don't compare college and pro...please.

4 titles in 9 years is pretty good. Only three other NBA franchises have ever been more lucky. The Lakers and the Celtics were going back and forth trading titles with each other in the 80's with one interuption by the 76ers, and most people feel they deserved to be called dynasties despite having a tough time repeating (The Lakers finally did get a back-to-back at the end of that run). The Spurs have been trading places with the Lakers from the Western Conference in every NBA Finals since 1999 with one interuption by the Mavericks, and if the Spurs manage to beat the Hornets then one of those two teams will definitely be in the finals again.

Tony Parker is pretty much a superstar too. MVP in the previous year doesn't say that?

No dynasty I say! They're not doing it back to back. Without complete domination, you can't call it a dynasty.

There is no doubt in my mind that they do!

What's up for debate here? Really? If four Titles in nine years doesn't constitute being a dynasty, burn the dictionary, close the Hall-of-Fame, wake up James Naismith and let him know that the game of basketball no longer exists.

Your comment:



Featured Stories Today
Tips for Dating Maria Sharapova
Last week, Maria Sharapova put herself up for auction, agreeing to go on a date with the highest...
Shaq: I am the Black Michael Phelps (video)
TSC EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: At the Phoenix Suns training camp last week, Shaquille O'Neal calls himself...
 
I'm Embarrassed
I made a comment after the game [Sunday] that's worth repeating - I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed...
Ranking QBs by Likeability
Plenty of well-informed NFL experts put together lists of the best quarterbacks in the league, but...
Coaching debacles highlight Monday Night Game
Rarely will I ever comment on an individual game that I'm not a fan of.But tonight's Monday Night...
Most Comments Today
Most Comments This Week

Top 7 Related Stories
Top NBA Quizzes
Recent NBA Fans
Most Popular NBA Articles

 
 
© Copyright 2008 Yardbarker, Inc. All Rights Reserved