Are the San Antonio Spurs considered a dynasty? I watched analysts debate this very subject on an NBA pre-game show, and I’ve still yet to draw my own conclusion. When I hear “Dynasty”, I think dominance, extended over a period of years. But the question becomes, with a championship being the ultimate sign of dominance, is winning the title in consecutive years essential to the criteria?
Main Entry: dy·nas·ty
1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time
The Spurs have won more division titles in the past 30 years than any other NBA franchise. If the Lakers manage to remain the last man standing in this year’s Western playoff race, they would tie, with 14. In the past 30 years, only the Yankees and Braves have won more division titles (15) than the Spurs. But even with 15 divisional titles, and only 1 World Series championship, I would categorize the Atlanta Braves more as “choke artists” than anything near a dynasty. The Spurs also possess the highest winning percentage of all sports in that time period, missing the playoffs just 5 times. Dynasty? No, not quite.
Until the Chicago Bulls went on a three year run of championships in the 90s, the Boston Celtics represented the last great NBA dynasty, running off a string of seven straight titles from 1960-1966. The Bulls ended their own run by winning 6 championships in 8 years, and left no questions to Chicago’s dynasty. The Lakers had a 3-peat of their own (2000-2002), and established themselves as the first dynasty of the 21st Century. And since the dismantling of that Lakers team, the focus has been on the Spurs, who managed to bookend the Los Angeles 3-peat, and pick up another pair of titles afterwards.
In all, the current run for the Texas black shirts is 4 championships in a 9 year period, with an opportunity to make it 5 in 10. A championship in 2008 would represent their first repeat performance. Is this a dynasty? If they add the hardware in ’08, there’s no question. But I’m still not sure we should be questioning, without this year’s title. If winning consecutive championships is a must, then it would mean the Spurs continuing to win titles in only odd numbered years would still restrict them from the label. If they won the title in ’09, and ’11, skipping this year and ’10, they would have 6 world Championships in a 13 year span. How can a team winning nearly half the titles in 13 years not be considered a dynasty?
I guess it's all open to interpretation. Either you must remain in power for consecutive years or be the most powerful in a span. I'll allow you to make the call. Are the Spurs a dynasty?