Dynasty?

So with the NBA finals all wrapped up somewhat prematurely there is only two questions still left to be answered before the draft. The first one is whether I should ever be allowed to make predictions or comment on basketball again? The answer to that one is difficult but my feeling is if I write enough columns about it eventually I'll write something intelligent. The second question which is the topic of this column is whether the Spurs are a dynasty. Let's take a look at the facts.

The Pros

• They've now won four championships since 1999 (9 year span) which is more than any other team
• They've had the most dominant player of the past ten years in Tim Duncan who has been on all four championships.
• They're two best other players have been on three of the four championship teams (Parker, Ginobli)

The Cons

• They've never won back to back championships which is a staple of dynasties.
• They're current mark of four championships in nine years pales in comparison to the Celtics eleven in thirteen years or the Bulls six in the nineties.
• Other than Duncan their hasn't been much continuity between all four teams. Their have been players like Ginobli and Parker for the last three but three championships in seven years isn't a dynasty.
• Normal dynasties also don't allow other teams to win three championships in there run of dominance like the Lakers did. Also those Lakers teams were better than any Spurs teams that won.

So when you break down the Pros and Cons of a potential Spurs dynasty it looks like they just fall short. If one of the above Cons wasn't there I'd lean the other way. But with no back to back championships, no continuity between all four teams and another mini dynasty in between there so called dynasty I just can't label them a dynasty. The 1999 Championship just seems to distant from now to be included. If however they win next year or the year after I'll give them the respect they will then and only then deserve.