Friday, June 15, 2007

Are the Spurs a Dynasty?

Since the Spurs victory has seemed inevitable for a long time, and LeBron hasn't given the sportscasters much to talk about, the only real debate about this year's championship was whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty. Here are some compelling reasons for both sides.

~ Three reasons why the Spurs ARE a dynasty ~

1) The Spurs have won four championships in nine years, more than the Kobe-Shaq Lakers, and any team since the Bulls and before the Bulls, passing the Bad Boy Pistons and the Larry Bird Celtics. And the team that is usually considered an unquestionable dynasty, the Bulls, won six championships in eight years, dominating the eighties. The Spurs have won four in nine years, being a consistant force since 99', through the two thousand's.

2) The Spurs have been able to win while still passing the torch - David Robinson handed his team over to Tim Duncan and the transition hasnt sparked a massive rebuilding effort or the premature, management-enduced exodus some championship teams have had to deal with (like the Bulls). Additionally, Michael Jordan helped thirty people, over six championships get rings, while Duncan has already helped thirty-five people, over four championships get rings.

3) The Spurs have been able to get to the finals and win despite a tough, difficult level of competition in the vicious western conference. They have had to defeat championship caliber teams like the Suns and Mavericks year in and year out before even playing for a ring.

~ Three reasons why the Spurs ARE NOT a dynasty ~

1) The Spurs have not been able to win consecutive championships, and certainly not three in a row like their immediate dynasty predecessors the Chicago Bulls. This inability to put back-to-back wins together has undercut the argument that the Spurs are a consistent contender as the front runners year in and year out are the Suns and the Mavericks, not the Spurs.

2) The Spurs have not had star-laden teams that usually put the finishing touches on a "dynasty" label. While this is not really a criteria for being a dynasty, it helps explain why people have not labeled them a dynasty - because they don't have that flair. Sure, Duncan is a great 20/10 guy but he's not Kobe, and he's certainly no MJ.

3) The Spurs have not been dominant in their conference. The mold for a dynasty was carefully built by the Chicago Bulls, a team that rose from the east amidst competitive Cleveland and Detroit teams that were in their division, as well as strong Knicks teams, Heat teams and a few others that made the east the cream of the crop. The Bulls were still dominant in the more difficult conference - winning 72 games one year, the most ever. The Spurs on the other hand had only the third best reccord in the east, once again behind the Suns and the Mavericks.

You decide...

No comments:

Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Technorati Favorites Blog Listings