Do you consider the Spurs a dynasty?

[Real Deal]

I've been wondering this for a while now. ESPN has been talking about the "Spurs dynasty" all day long, and that's how they refer to them.

 

According to OTL a while back, a dynasty is a three-peat. The Spurs won three rings in five years...with the same trio, but not consecutive championships.

 

Many considered the Patriots a dynasty when they were winning their rings, although they also failed to achieve the three-peat.

 

Do you consider the 2003-2007 Spurs team a dynasty? Why or why not?

[JYD]

Yes, they were very dominant, which is rare in today's sports. Duncan, Parker, and Ginobeli had a great run, but it's pretty obvious it is over for them. Can't believe they won 60 games with that team, lol. But, all in all, I'd say they are a dynasty.

[Nitro]

Since when did a dynasty qualify as having to be a three-peat? Since 1985 only 4 teams, 3 NBA and 1 MLB, have achieved a 3-peat in any of the 3 major sports (including NCAA). I think that definition isn't the best to define a dynasty.

 

Anyway, I do consider the Spurs a dynasty. They won 4 titles in 8 seasons, and 3 titles in 5 seasons. I consider the team that won 3 titles in 5 seasons to be a dynasty because they essentially had the same core and mostly the same team, and that was where they really did dominate...they won at least 57 games all 5 seasons on top of those championships.

[Real Deal]

Since when did a dynasty qualify as having to be a three-peat? Since 1985 only 4 teams, 3 NBA and 1 MLB, have achieved a 3-peat in any of the 3 major sports (including NCAA). I think that definition isn't the best to define a dynasty.

Well, if I recall correctly, there was an OTL on ESPN that discussed the "three-year window" for dynasties. I know absolutely nothing about hockey, but they were saying how there were five teams on their dynasty list (is that even real?) that had a three-peat (or better), and that they should remove the others from the list.

[Nitro]

Well, if I recall correctly, there was an OTL on ESPN that discussed the "three-year window" for dynasties. I know absolutely nothing about hockey, but they were saying how there were five teams on their dynasty list (is that even real?) that had a three-peat (or better), and that they should remove the others from the list.

 

All those NHL teams were before 1985. And what qualifies a dynasty is subjective, and I personally disagree with having to go on a 3-peat to be considered a dynasty.

[Real Deal]

I'll go ahead and edit my initial post about a dynasty being a three-peat (technically). I suppose there's no true definition, nothing written in ink.

 

Seems like a lot of teams are considered dynasties for dominating in a span of 3-5 years (or more), with at least three championships to show for it. Not necessarily consecutive championships.

 

I've read an argument about the early 90's Buffalo Bills being a dynasty, but I have no idea how that's possible if they didn't win anything.

[Jenneral]

All those NHL teams were before 1985. And what qualifies a dynasty is subjective, and I personally disagree with having to go on a 3-peat to be considered a dynasty.

Same here. I feel that a dynasty is winning multiple championships in a close period of time. They don't have to be consecutive. The team just has to be at the top year after year and always remaining competitive. Therefore my answer to your question would be yes, the Spurs were a dynasty.

[Cleveland's Finest]

Yes, it's a dynasty. They didn't have a single off-year like LA did when they got eliminated in the 1st round.

 

To win 3 rings in 5 years is extremely difficult. It shows that even when they didn't win it all, they still stuck to the big three to win the other two rings.

[?QuestionMark?]

Well dynasty by definition implies consecutiveness so no.

 

Spurs are an interesting case though since for the most part, it was the same core that won those titles.

 

Maybe they need a new word for what SA did. Dominant works.