Who's the more successful franchise, the Spurs or the Bulls?

[Lakers_55]

Source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

I was thinking about this and did a little research...These teams have the 3rd and 4th largest number of NBA titles and both teams are perfect in the finals, 6-0 for Chicago, and 4-0 for San Antonio.

We can only go back to the NBA/ABA merger for fair comparison, although Chicago did have mild succes before then, at least making the playoffs most of those early years.

Advantages to Chicago:
total number of titles Chicago has 6, including two threepeats. Spurs have 4 titles and no repeats.
Conference finals records: Bulls 6-3, Spurs 4-6. Note, both teams started out in opposite conferences as to where they play now. Chicago did have a Western conference final loss in 1975. That isn't included here as Spurs were in the ABA then.

Advantages to Spurs:
Times missed playoffs, Spurs 4. Chicago since 1976-7 is 13.
Regular season winning percentage: This has to be in Spurs favor, and heavily. I won't do the math to deduct early Bulls years, just look at the link above. Spurs winning % is .598, Bulls is .508.
Divisional titles: Spurs 16, Bulls 7.

So, Chicago has more titles, but the Spurs are a lot more consistent year in and year out. Please select who you think is the most successful between the two teams and tell us why, thanks.

[justinandimcool]

Bulls.

More titles, and the most recognizable jersey in NBA history (#23).

[xtremesteven33]

Bulls.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

They had more titles and the best player in the game. Gotta give it to the Bulls.

[td4mvp21]

Bulls based on titles.

[sonic21]

Bulls

[xtremesteven33]

Success is definded by championships. Bulls take it. Although the story has not ended for San Antonio....stay tuned

[Rohirrim]

They had more titles and the best player in the game. Gotta give it to the Bulls.

[exstatic]

Bulls had a glorious 8-10 year run, but have been shit before and since. When you go to all time franchise win percentage, it's LA, then SA, then Boston. Chicago is barely a .500 team.

Spurs, as an overall franchise, and it's not close.

[BlackSwordsMan]

dur bulls

[mexicanjunior]

Bulls...more titles and the best player in NBA history...

[jag]

Success is definded by championships. Bulls take it. Although the story has not ended for San Antonio....stay tuned

Exactly.

[TheManFromAcme]

Between the Bulls and Spurs.....Bulls for sure.

The funny thing about this comparison is that these 2 (Bulls & Spurs) still don't compare to the OVERALL success of the Lakers and Celts. The Bulls and Spurs ARE NOT storied franchises. Who cares about when the Spurs entered the NBA. The fact of the matter still remains. You spurs are always seeking validation.

[z0sa]

Between the Bulls and Spurs.....Bulls for sure.

The funny thing about this comparison is that these 2 (Bulls & Spurs) still don't compare to the OVERALL success of the Lakers and Celts. The Bulls and Spurs ARE NOT storied franchises. Who cares about when the Spurs entered the NBA. The fact of the matter still remains. You spurs are always seeking validation.

Uh, no we're not.

[TheManFromAcme]

Uh, no we're not.


:violin....oh yes you are..

[Lakers_55]

Between the Bulls and Spurs.....Bulls for sure.

The funny thing about this comparison is that these 2 (Bulls & Spurs) still don't compare to the OVERALL success of the Lakers and Celts. The Bulls and Spurs ARE NOT storied franchises. Who cares about when the Spurs entered the NBA. The fact of the matter still remains. You spurs are always seeking validation.

Validation? A Spurs fan didn't make this thread. A fellow Laker fan, who also likes the Spurs made it. From the replies so far, most Spurs fans are giving it up to the Bulls.

I didn't post my opinion, now is as good a time as any to state it. I say the Spurs are the more successful franchise because they are competing almost every season, and as one Spurs fan noted, the Bulls sucked most of the time sans Michael Jordan. Missing the playoffs 13 times is a big scar on the Bulls legacy.

No team can win a title every year, you take what you can get. The Spurs consistent showing almost every season assure a lot of things:

1) A fan base that will stick around.
2) Television and radio revenue. People will watch and listen to a winner.
3) Repeat season ticket sales.
4) ROI (return on investment) for the owner. His business is making money.
5) Spurs are never out until they are beaten. This is true every year, especially in the recent ones. Chicago is often beat before the first month is over.
6) Press coverage in local papers. Look at an LA paper, how much do the Clippers get?

In summary, which team is most likely to win more titles in the future? The Spurs are, of course. They have proven they can consistently field fine teams. When the Spurs nab title #6, the answer to my topic will be near 100% in favor of them.

Carry on folks, there is no right answer. The discussion is what counts. Thanks.

[baseline bum]

Bulls. They had teams of 72-10, 69-13, and 67-15. The Bulls arguably have 2 of the top 5 teams in NBA history, and they destroyed the rest of the league for years. It's not even close.

[Obstructed_View]

Spurs were in the NBA ten fewer years, and have two fewer titles. It's a whole lot more likely the Spurs win two more in the next ten years, so that makes it kind of a wash. The Spurs have been consistently better, while the Bulls were frighteningly good for a short stretch, so again you could consider that a wash. It's a good debate because there's not really a clear winner between the two. As a Spurs fan for 20 years, it's just nice to be in the conversation. I can remember a time where a topic like this would be a joke to even bring up.

[samikeyp]

Between the Bulls and Spurs.....Bulls for sure.

The funny thing about this comparison is that these 2 (Bulls & Spurs) still don't compare to the OVERALL success of the Lakers and Celts. The Bulls and Spurs ARE NOT storied franchises. Who cares about when the Spurs entered the NBA. The fact of the matter still remains. You spurs are always seeking validation.

To which Spurs are you referring? Do any of them post here? You know, I thought Sequ was really Jacque Vaughn. :)

[samikeyp]

To answer the question, the Spurs..for the same reason Lakers 55 stated. Its about overall success, not just titles. Titles are a factor and are important but they are not the end of the story.

Well said :toast

[BlackSwordsMan]

Bulls just on jordan alone

[Duncan2177]

Bulls

[TheManFromAcme]

Good franchise (Spurs). That's all.

[MarCowMar]

Bulls for now. But depending on how Timmy wraps up his career I think the Spurs could have a very strong argument based on the culture and professionalism of the franchise, not to mention 'ships. :)

[Brutalis]

The Chicago Jordans.

However the Bulls don't compare.

[Brazil]

Thanks Laker 55 for this flatering comparaison but I'll go for the bulls no doubt for the number of titles for MJ. Now if the spurs can achieve 6 titles, the spurs will be ahead.

[SenorSpur]

It's a no-brainer - Bulls. 6 titles to 4.

[peskypesky]

Bulls. More Championships and the greatest player who ever played the game. But there's no doubt that the Spurs have been great for a decade+.

1. Lakers & Celtics just about tied
2. Bulls
3. Spurs
4. Pistons

[tlongII]

Spurs and it's not even close. San Antonio at least manages to stay relevant throughout the years. The Bulls were the greatest NBA team ever for a period of 8 years, but that ended when MJ left.

[Brazil]

Spurs and it's not even close. San Antonio at least manages to stay relevant throughout the years. The Bulls were the greatest NBA team ever for a period of 8 years, but that ended when MJ left.

:wow

[SpursDynasty]

Source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

I was thinking about this and did a little research...These teams have the 3rd and 4th largest number of NBA titles and both teams are perfect in the finals, 6-0 for Chicago, and 4-0 for San Antonio.

We can only go back to the NBA/ABA merger for fair comparison, although Chicago did have mild succes before then, at least making the playoffs most of those early years.

Advantages to Chicago:
total number of titles Chicago has 6, including two threepeats. Spurs have 4 titles and no repeats.
Conference finals records: Bulls 6-3, Spurs 4-6. Note, both teams started out in opposite conferences as to where they play now. Chicago did have a Western conference final loss in 1975. That isn't included here as Spurs were in the ABA then.

Advantages to Spurs:
Times missed playoffs, Spurs 4. Chicago since 1976-7 is 13.
Regular season winning percentage: This has to be in Spurs favor, and heavily. I won't do the math to deduct early Bulls years, just look at the link above. Spurs winning % is .598, Bulls is .508.
Divisional titles: Spurs 16, Bulls 7.

So, Chicago has more titles, but the Spurs are a lot more consistent year in and year out. Please select who you think is the most successful between the two teams and tell us why, thanks.

The Bulls. But MJ never had to face Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, so it evens out. The Bulls and Spurs are equally successful.

[m33p0]

Bulls based on popularity. You can't deny what Jordan did for the game of basketball. what Magic and Bird did, he expounded upon.

[samikeyp]

It's a no-brainer - Bulls. 6 titles to 4.

Based on that theory...

OKC>Phoenix.

:stirpot:

[Rohirrim]

As a Spurs fan it is just too hard to not respect 6 titles the way Jordan won them.

The Spurs will never repeat.

[samikeyp]

As a Spurs fan it is just too hard to not respect 6 titles the way Jordan won them.

The Spurs will never repeat.

No one is disrespecting what the Bulls did.

[Stump]

Jordan established a dynasty that was more dominant, both on the playing field and culturally, than any other dynasty in any sport. Or atleast, of anything I can think of. Nobody is trying to take that away from them.

However, before and since, they were not the special, while the Spurs have found a way to be exceptional throughout their history. It's not that suprising that most of us are giving the nod to the Bulls, especially since Spurs fans over the last ten years have been so championship oriented thanks to Tim Duncan, but I don't think championships are the sole determinant of a franchise's success. As somebody earlier mentioned, profits, a strong fanbase, a good image, and a consistently winning team are huge too. Even if they're a hated rival, I think the Phoenix Suns have been a successful franchise, but they haven't even won a single trophy.

I know I'm obviously biased, but I'd say the Bulls were the better dynasty while the Spurs are the more successful franchise.

[Ditty]

the best sg ever vs the best pf ever

damn bulls

who had more competition

spurs

[MarHill]

Jordan established a dynasty that was more dominant, both on the playing field and culturally, than any other dynasty in any sport. Or atleast, of anything I can think of. Nobody is trying to take that away from them.

However, before and since, they were not the special, while the Spurs have found a way to be exceptional throughout their history. It's not that suprising that most of us are giving the nod to the Bulls, especially since Spurs fans over the last ten years have been so championship oriented thanks to Tim Duncan, but I don't think championships are the sole determinant of a franchise's success. As somebody earlier mentioned, profits, a strong fanbase, a good image, and a consistently winning team are huge too. Even if they're a hated rival, I think the Phoenix Suns have been a successful franchise, but they haven't even won a single trophy.

I know I'm obviously biased, but I'd say the Bulls were the better dynasty while the Spurs are the more successful franchise.

Agreed!! :toast

Bulls were the better dynasty and the Spurs are the more successful franchise!!

[clubalien]

To which Spurs are you referring? Do any of them post here? You know, I thought Sequ was really Jacque Vaughn. :)

tim duncan-orion
:lmao

[lefty]

The Burs

[mikeanthony21]

Between the Bulls and Spurs.....Bulls for sure.

The funny thing about this comparison is that these 2 (Bulls & Spurs) still don't compare to the OVERALL success of the Lakers and Celts. The Bulls and Spurs ARE NOT storied franchises. Who cares about when the Spurs entered the NBA. The fact of the matter still remains. You spurs are always seeking validation.

Since when?

[Biggems]

one thing that has yet to be mentioned....

SA is a small market team with a limited budget, and yet is still able to compete year in and year out with the big dogs.

Chicago is a big market team with lots of money, and yet aside from the Jordan era, they have been a steaming pile of shit. Heck, even in the beginning of the Jordan era, they were garbage. It wasn't until they got Jackson and Pippen that they became the Bulls dynasty.

The Spurs are the better franchise.......they have the 2nd best winning % in NBA history and they are only 2 titles behind the Bulls, while having to dig under the couch cushions for loose change to pay players.

[pawe]

Even if the Spurs are constant winners, everyone will pick the bulls because of MJ.
Close the gap San Antonio and win the 08-09 LOB Trophy!!!

[TDMVPDPOY]

bulls only had 1 decade of dominance

while the rest is not even comparable to the spurs consistency...

[Biggems]

had we just taken care of business in the .4 game and game 7 against Dallas, we could very well have 6 titles and a 5 peat in our bag o tricks.

[m33p0]

had we just taken care of business in the .4 game and game 7 against Dallas, we could very well have 6 titles and a 5 peat in our bag o tricks.
you have to bring them up, don't you?

[jag]

had we just taken care of business in the .4 game and game 7 against Dallas, we could very well have 6 titles and a 5 peat in our bag o tricks.

I hate saying "if this" or "if that"....but when you really think about it ...it's pretty crazy how things could have worked out.

[T Park]

If you would've told me back in 1998, at the end of the Bulls Dynasty, that the Spurs, in 10 years on January the 2nd 2009, they would have 4 championships and the championship window would be open another 4 years, I would've thought you were crazy.


That being said the Bulls have had by far the most success, the two three peats, the greatest player to ever walk on the face of the earth, probobly the best coach ever to coach basketball coaching.

Its the thing of legends that your grand kids will ask about how it was and you will tell them about the Bulls and Spurs dynasties.

[mrspurs]

No clue. Im gonna say the Spurs because Im from San Antonio. And Im not from Chicago.

[spursfan09]

Between the Bulls and Spurs.....Bulls for sure.

The funny thing about this comparison is that these 2 (Bulls & Spurs) still don't compare to the OVERALL success of the Lakers and Celts. The Bulls and Spurs ARE NOT storied franchises. Who cares about when the Spurs entered the NBA. The fact of the matter still remains. You spurs are always seeking validation.

ugh you do realize that a Laker fan started this thread and that almost all Spur fans are replying with the Bulls right?

Anyway to answer the question- Bulls ofcourse. They had MJ.

[spursfan09]

But we have TD, and if he can manage to win 2 more titles than I think I will change my answer. :)

[Tully365]

It's an unfair comparison since the Bulls have been around longer. If you'd asked back in 1979 who was a better basketball player, the 16 year old Michael Jordan or the perennial All-star player Rick Barry, most people would've laughed at you. Today, everyone would agree that it's Jordan. I think we'll have to wait at least another decade before this question can be answered fairly. My bet is the Spurs handle the post-Duncan years better than the Bulls handled the post-Jordan years.

[exstatic]

Bulls. More Championships and the greatest player who ever played the game. But there's no doubt that the Spurs have been great for three decades+.

Do you even know the history of "your" team? The Spurs have had three great runs behind three HOF players, each lasting a decade, or close to it. Each HOF player took them to at least the Conference Finals. The Spurs have missed the playoffs, what, four or five times in 32 years? That's insanely good.

Outside of that 13 year period of Jordania, the Bulls have been an excrescence of a bad franchise.

[IronMexican]

The Bulls. But MJ never had to face Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, so it evens out. The Bulls and Spurs are equally successful.

Did you just give Pau some props?:wow

[SpursFanInAustin]

the best sg ever vs the best pf ever

damn bulls

who had more competition

spurs


I'll disagree with that last statement. As much as I love the Spurs and yes the Spurs have beaten some great teams like the Shaq-Kobe led Lakers in 2003 and the 2005 Pistons, the competition ends there. The Jordan led Bulls beat some of the greatest teams and players the NBA has ever seen. Most of the teams they beat had some of the top 50 NBA players of all-time. They beat the Isiah Thomas led Pistons in the 91 ECFs, Magic Johnson's Lakers in the 91 NBA Finals, Clyde Drexler's Blazers in the 92 NBA Finals, Barkley led Suns in 93, Shaq's Magic team in 1996, and Stockton and Malone's Jazz teams in 97 and 98. Not too mention, they played some great series against Patrick Ewing's NY Knick teams in the 90s, and a tough Pacer team in 98 led by Reggie Miller.

[NFGIII]

Seems that there are different definitions for a success franchise. LO trophies vs. consistency over time/years. Most seem to prefer the LO's to overall consstency.

If it LO's (6 to 4) then obviously it's the Bulls but if it's overall consistency (winnng records/winning %/ # of times to make playoffs...etc.) then the Spurs win hands down.

I personnally vote for the Spurs due to consistency over time. Let's face it sometimes it's a crap shoot when it comes to the draft. Just ask Boston in '97. What if the Blazers had actually drafted MJ instead of Sam Bowie? I know they had Clyde and didn't feel like they needed another SG but if they had a chance to go back and redo that draft don't you think they would have picked MJ? Chicago's 6 LO's don't happen and maybe we are discussing how the Clyde/Michael combo was fantastic. Or not.

[peskypesky]

Do you even know the history of "your" team? The Spurs have had three great runs behind three HOF players, each lasting a decade, or close to it. Each HOF player took them to at least the Conference Finals. The Spurs have missed the playoffs, what, four or five times in 32 years? That's insanely good.

Outside of that 13 year period of Jordania, the Bulls have been an excrescence of a bad franchise.

Of course I know the history of my team. I'm just not a blind homer. And in sports, almost doesn't count. I know the Spurs were pretty good in the 70s with Gervin, Silas and Kenon. But they never made it to the Finals, much less won a Championship. In the Robinson era, again they were very good, but never made it to the Finals, much less won a Championship. In the Duncan era, they've been awesome, but the failure to achieve even ONE back-to-back Championship means they can't be compared to the Bulls, who had not one but TWO three-peats. Three-peats. Three-peats. Do you know how sick that is?

So, I love my Spurs, but I give props where they are due. Homers don't.

[peskypesky]

If it LO's (6 to 4) then obviously it's the Bulls but if it's overall consistency (winnng records/winning %/ # of times to make playoffs...etc.) then the Spurs win hands down.

I personnally vote for the Spurs due to consistency over time.

You sure you didn't vote for the Spurs cause you're a Spurs fan?

And using your logic, the Phoenix Suns are a more successful franchise than the Chicago Bulls, as they have a better win % and have made the playoffs more.

[superbigtime]

Leave it to a Lakers' fan to ask a dumbass question like this. What's brighter? Night or day? Fuckstick.

[Reck]

Leave it to a Lakers' fan to ask a dumbass question like this. What's brighter? Night or day? Fuckstick.

Actually Lakers_55 is one of the few good Lakers fans on here.

I dont see anything outrageous of what he posted.

[Lakers_55]

Leave it to a Lakers' fan to ask a dumbass question like this. What's brighter? Night or day? Fuckstick.

It isn't dumb, you are. This is a basketball forum and I am here to read good posts. This thread is generating them. There are some great opinions about what makes a team great. What's fun about the question is that there is no right answer at this point in time. If it's 6 titles to 6, It would be near 100% of agreement for Spurs. If San Antonio gets title number 5 soon, then a lot of people will change their mind.

[JamStone]

Spurs were in the NBA ten fewer years, and have two fewer titles. It's a whole lot more likely the Spurs win two more in the next ten years, so that makes it kind of a wash. The Spurs have been consistently better, while the Bulls were frighteningly good for a short stretch, so again you could consider that a wash. It's a good debate because there's not really a clear winner between the two. As a Spurs fan for 20 years, it's just nice to be in the conversation. I can remember a time where a topic like this would be a joke to even bring up.

You make your argument on what you believe is more likely? There's no guarantee the Spurs win another championship in the next ten years. And, if they don't, would you give the edge back to the Bulls?

[vincent]

No doubt the bulls now. I hope things could change in a few years.

[superbigtime]

It isn't dumb, you are. This is a basketball forum and I am here to read good posts. This thread is generating them. There are some great opinions about what makes a team great. What's fun about the question is that there is no right answer at this point in time. If it's 6 titles to 6, It would be near 100% of agreement for Spurs. If San Antonio gets title number 5 soon, then a lot of people will change their mind.

My attempt at humor. I think it's pretty clear the answer is the Bulls because of two three-peats, even though their Franchise has not maintained consistent excellence spanning different key players' tenures as the Spurs have. If the Spurs get another LO trophy this year or next, there are good arguments either way.

[Darrin]

I value consistency over potency.

San Antonio.
4 NBA titles.
4 Finals Appearances.
9 Conference Finals.
28 playoff appearances
25 (of 32) winning seasons.
60 wins: 3 seasons.
50 wins: 18 seasons.
40 wins: 26 seasons.

[Ditty]

when kobe gets out of the nba we will every year because the lakers are the only team that hae truly beat us

it was luck for the mavs to beat us

no kobe= 3 more championships

[samikeyp]

Actually Lakers_55 is one of the few good Lakers fans on here.

I dont see anything outrageous of what he posted.

+1

[NFGIII]

You sure you didn't vote for the Spurs cause you're a Spurs fan?

And using your logic, the Phoenix Suns are a more successful franchise than the Chicago Bulls, as they have a better win % and have made the playoffs more.

Yes I'm a Spurs fan. And I simply didn't just "vote" for the Spurs simply because I'm a fan of theirs. But aren't you? Seeing how you regularly post here with the team logo, Duncan pic and all. But that isn't the point is it? I made an observation about how posters judge the topic - LO trophies vs. year in year out consistency. I prefer the latter. A personal choice which others have made, also. So what's your problem?

The Bulls won 6 LO's - two 3peats due to MJ and company. I think his/their accomplishments speak for themselves but that doesn't change what I said. Outside of MJ's tenure this franchise is an NBA doormat. Hasn't done jack frankly. As stated before if Portland drafts him then we talk about the Blazers vs. the Spurs. Right? Chicago has had many great players on their roster over the years but year in and year out the lack of a winning tradition is obvious. As stated in my previous post - the draft is a crapshoot and Chicago was fortunate to get MJ.

As for Phoenix - they haven't won any LO's and aren't the subject being discussed but in your opinion they have a better winning % than the Bulls. So? They don't warrant any discussion when it comes to winning LO's or establishing a dynasty. The Bulls an Spurs do. As stated in the thread the topic was to compare the Bulls to the Spurs.

Did you somehow miss that?

[IronMexican]

Defintely consistency. I would say the Spurs.

[peskypesky]

Yes I'm a Spurs fan. And I simply didn't just "vote" for the Spurs simply because I'm a fan of theirs. But aren't you? Seeing how you regularly post here with the team logo, Duncan pic and all. But that isn't the point is it? I made an observation about how posters judge the topic - LO trophies vs. year in year out consistency. I prefer the latter. A personal choice which others have made, also. So what's your problem?

The Bulls won 6 LO's - two 3peats due to MJ and company. I think his/their accomplishments speak for themselves but that doesn't change what I said. Outside of MJ's tenure this franchise is an NBA doormat. Hasn't done jack frankly. As stated before if Portland drafts him then we talk about the Blazers vs. the Spurs. Right? Chicago has had many great players on their roster over the years but year in and year out the lack of a winning tradition is obvious. As stated in my previous post - the draft is a crapshoot and Chicago was fortunate to get MJ.

As for Phoenix - they haven't won any LO's and aren't the subject being discussed but in your opinion they have a better winning % than the Bulls. So? They don't warrant any discussion when it comes to winning LO's or establishing a dynasty. The Bulls an Spurs do. As stated in the thread the topic was to compare the Bulls to the Spurs.

Did you somehow miss that?

:wakeup

[NFGIII]

:wakeup


Excellent!

Researching and understanding a subject matter puts you on the road to enlightenment.

Keep it up.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i dunno the bulls are a joke after jordan era

they robbed the knicks of a few trades for lottery picks, nice steal there

too bad they cant put those picks to good use....by building a team....it seems like they keep on drafting the same players after dealing away the players who play the same from the previous years....

[baseline bum]

I guess I'd rather have one title followed by 9 lotto years than 10 45-55 win seasons with early playoff exits, and Chicago's got that edge with their 6 titles. Aside from that, the only Spurs team that would have any shot whatsoever against the Bulls 4 best teams would be the 99 Spurs, and it'd still be a pretty big mismatch (they might be able to take the 93 and 98 teams that were running on fumes though).

[cherylsteele]

Between the Bulls and Spurs.....Bulls for sure.

The funny thing about this comparison is that these 2 (Bulls & Spurs) still don't compare to the OVERALL success of the Lakers and Celts. The Bulls and Spurs ARE NOT storied franchises. Who cares about when the Spurs entered the NBA. The fact of the matter still remains. You spurs are always seeking validation.
Actually it sounds like you are looking for validation for the Lakers and Celts instead. You tried to hijack the question by overriding it with something else not even asked in the 1st place.

I would love to have a 3-peat for the Spurs but since the merger the Spurs have been more consistent on the court. Off the court there have been a couple of times in the past when the Spurs were being discussed as a team that may move out of town, which was pretty much voided by drafting DRob, and Tim.

Draft wise they have been better especially in recent years than the Bulls.

Titles...edge goes to Chicago.....overall edge goes to the Spurs.....imo.