An undervalued dynasty doesn't need our appreciation

[BIG IRISH]

By Mike Lopresti, Gannett News Service
SAN ANTONIO — First, the list of grievances so many grumble about the modern NBA, wishing it could still be yesterday.
There should be more character and more defense. Players with a stronger sense of family and team. Professionals who win professionally, without the grating noise of me-first egotists.

"All of those things," Brent Barry said, "are happening every day in San Antonio."

So why isn't everyone head-over-sneakers in love with the Spurs, of which Barry is one?

A few more good nights against the Cleveland Cavaliers, and they will have their fourth title in nine years. This dignified dynasty, without the trappings. "A different beast," LeBron James called them.

They are nobody's darlings outside their own domain. You get the feeling that the networks and league still miss the old Lakers and Celtics and Bulls.

The public at large feels so strangely distant from San Antonio, it does not even hate the Spurs (except maybe in Phoenix), :lol which our talk-show society tends to do when a team wins too much.

Is it as simple as market size and sports stature? This is the largest city in the country without a major league or Class AAA baseball team. Among the championship banners hanging in AT&T Center are two celebrating 2005 and 2006. Rodeos of the year.

Is this what the epicenter of the basketball universe is supposed to look like? Would the players be national immortals if this were Los Angeles or New York?

The Spurs don't know. The Spurs don't care. Offer sympathy for their lack of renown, and you find they do not want it.

"The fly-under-the-radar question," Tim Duncan all but sighed when the issue was brought forth the other day. "It doesn't matter to us."

"They sort of relish the fact it's all happening right here in this small little market," Barry said. "There's maybe a little smirk on the coach's face and the organization's face that we're doing it quietly and we're enjoying it, and that's all that counts."

But to simply dismiss the phenomenon is to miss how unconventional and special this is — San Antonio as capital of a dynasty, the Spurs as its unassuming creators.

"When I first came here, as a city, we had a lot of growing up to do," retired Spur David Robinson said the other night, standing outside the locker room before Game 1. "Now when you say San Antonio in Russia, people have heard of it. The Spurs have had a little to do with it."

Without basketball, San Antonio's claims to fame are an amazingly small landmark of a lost battle ("That's it?" is not an uncommon tourist response at first sight of the Alamo), and a swath of river through downtown bordered by sidewalks and dozens of restaurants, eager to contribute to a recent Men's Fitness magazine study that proclaimed this the second fattest city in America.

Destiny, however, gave San Antonio these Spurs.

The franchise was not only lucky to get top lottery picks to draft Robinson and Duncan, but was blessed that both not only happened to be great, but were of the personality that would make them so comfortable here.

Try to imagine Kobe Bryant a San Antonio lifer. Can't be done.

"It's irrelevant how people hold us up or don't hold us up, or talk about us or don't talk about us," coach Gregg Popovich said. "It's got nothing to do with real life."

For real life, turn right out of the AT&T Center parking lot, go past the Rio Grande Cafi and D's tattoos and the funeral parlor on the way toward downtown. A mile or so, and there it is at 217 Robinson Place.

The Carver Academy. A school to inspire city children to academic achievement. David and Valerie Robinson contributed $11 million to build it. He has stayed after retirement to watch over it. Plus, "be a father and a husband."

That, too, is a legacy of the Spurs. Just like the rings and the trophies.

Must aura come from being flashy or controversial or a statistical machine or big city? Can it not come from Duncan's airtight fundamentals or Bruce Bowen's willingness to do the dirty work of defense? "I came up old school," Bowen was saying Friday. "If you didn't play D, you didn't get on the floor."

Can it not come from unified purpose? "It feels like a little family here," Tony Parker said.

That is what must be decided about the Spurs, even if they themselves want no part of the debate.

They do not count Nielsen ratings, endorsement deals, network appearances or popularity polls. They count titles.


:clap
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2007-06-09-lopresti-spurs_N.htm

[T_MONEY_TX]

Pac Mans a spurs fan. http://www.boxingconfidential.com/mannyinterview.html

[SpurOutofTownFan]

One of the main problems is people dwelling in "old times were always good". That's actually not true, they were pretty bad. Why do people think Boston or Chicago will ever be good again as they were before, or LA Lakers for instance? Is it because they have tons of money on big markets or because it is a question of destiny they are supposed to be good in the future, establish new dinasties, etc. The more I hear it, the more I think they are kind of waiting for a messiah that will lift them from the dust so they will once again win it all for 5 years straight. It just doesn't make any sense. In this present, The spurs are the clear team of the decade, a disnasty if you wanna put it that way. Tomorrow, it might be Utah, or Portland or whatever, maybe even Orlando. Those cities with those great teams are in no way destined to be perennial title contenders. That is just part of the collective subconstious mindset of most people that see it that way.

[ClingingMars]

Pac Mans a spurs fan. http://www.boxingconfidential.com/mannyinterview.html

"Champions like champions"

-Mars

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I still think you got to win back to back to be a dynasty.

[T_MONEY_TX]

"Champions like champions"

-Mars
im not a pac man fan but i rember when he boxed here in town against mab he had a spurs duncan jeresy on.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

I still think you got to win back to back to be a dynasty.

I really don't think so and that has nothing to do with me rooting for the spurs. A dinasty in my book is more than just titles whatever the number of titles you get. I think the 2000-2003 lakers were a dinasty however they could have won more titles and they only got 3. I think they were pretty unbeatable back then. I think the spurs have been the team to beat in the last 5 years. We have the .4 second fluke that should have never happened back then that stripped the spurs of anotehr run to the championship and some bad calls from the NBA altogether that prevented teh spurs from being again in the finals last year 2006. When you consider a team, "the team to beat" for so many years, that looks to me as a dinasty team, like the lakers, the magic lakers or the jordan bulls, not even mentioning the russell's celtics. ALl of them teams to beat, even the bad boys were a mini dinasty and they were able to win it all while playing great teams of the age.

All of this without even getting into details about the franchise behind everything. Franchise-wise, tehre's no discussion I belive it has been the one from the decade on all 4 major pro sports. Indication of that is the fact of so many other franchises trying to emulate what san antonio does.

[td4mvp3]

I really don't think so and that has nothing to do with me rooting for the spurs. A dinasty in my book is more than just titles whatever the number of titles you get. I think the 2000-2003 lakers were a dinasty however they could have won more titles and they only got 3. I think they were pretty unbeatable back then. I think the spurs have been the team to beat in the last 5 years. We have the .4 second fluke that should have never happened back then that stripped the spurs of anotehr run to the championship and some bad calls from the NBA altogether that prevented teh spurs from being again in the finals last year 2006. When you consider a team, "the team to beat" for so many years, that looks to me as a dinasty team, like the lakers, the magic lakers or the jordan bulls, not even mentioning the russell's celtics. ALl of them teams to beat, even the bad boys were a mini dinasty and they were able to win it all while playing great teams of the age.

All of this without even getting into details about the franchise behind everything. Franchise-wise, tehre's no discussion I belive it has been the one from the decade on all 4 major pro sports. Indication of that is the fact of so many other franchises trying to emulate what san antonio does.

i'm curious: are you just categorically against spelling dynasty with a "y?"

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I really don't think so and that has nothing to do with me rooting for the spurs. A dinasty in my book is more than just titles whatever the number of titles you get. I think the 2000-2003 lakers were a dinasty however they could have won more titles and they only got 3. I think they were pretty unbeatable back then. I think the spurs have been the team to beat in the last 5 years. We have the .4 second fluke that should have never happened back then that stripped the spurs of anotehr run to the championship and some bad calls from the NBA altogether that prevented teh spurs from being again in the finals last year 2006. When you consider a team, "the team to beat" for so many years, that looks to me as a dinasty team, like the lakers, the magic lakers or the jordan bulls, not even mentioning the russell's celtics. ALl of them teams to beat, even the bad boys were a mini dinasty and they were able to win it all while playing great teams of the age.

All of this without even getting into details about the franchise behind everything. Franchise-wise, tehre's no discussion I belive it has been the one from the decade on all 4 major pro sports. Indication of that is the fact of so many other franchises trying to emulate what san antonio does.

I think it's just a matter of how people judge dominant. I'd consider the Spurs up there with other "great teams" like the 2000 Lakers and the Bad Boy Pistons, but they haven't stepped up into a dynasty. Not saying they can't do it, but I just don't see it yet, although they have all the ingredients (great coach, all time great player, etc.)

I'm not sure that many franchises are trying to emulate what San Antonio does, mainly because there is only one Tim Duncan. You see alot of owners shifting more towards a fast break, open court style, just because that's what puts fannies in the seats.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

i'm curious: are you just categorically against spelling dynasty with a "y?"

No, that's just a bad school project.. hehe

[td4mvp3]

I really don't think so and that has nothing to do with me rooting for the spurs. A dinasty in my book is more than just titles whatever the number of titles you get. I think the 2000-2003 lakers were a dinasty however they could have won more titles and they only got 3. I think they were pretty unbeatable back then. I think the spurs have been the team to beat in the last 5 years. We have the .4 second fluke that should have never happened back then that stripped the spurs of anotehr run to the championship and some bad calls from the NBA altogether that prevented teh spurs from being again in the finals last year 2006. When you consider a team, "the team to beat" for so many years, that looks to me as a dinasty team, like the lakers, the magic lakers or the jordan bulls, not even mentioning the russell's celtics. ALl of them teams to beat, even the bad boys were a mini dinasty and they were able to win it all while playing great teams of the age.

All of this without even getting into details about the franchise behind everything. Franchise-wise, tehre's no discussion I belive it has been the one from the decade on all 4 major pro sports. Indication of that is the fact of so many other franchises trying to emulate what san antonio does.

i think by definition a dynasty has to win more than one title, regardless of the potential to win more (the suns have been a potential powerhouse for years now). i think people connect dynasty with how dominant the playing was in addition to how many got won. so lakers, running through folks to start the decade, were a dynasty. if the spurs win this one, the idea of them not doing it back2back likely won't hold as much weight considering the near miracle shot needed for 03-04 and the silly foul of 05-06 in which both finals teams ended up getting booted in the 1st round of the following year's playoffs.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

I think it's just a matter of how people judge dominant. I'd consider the Spurs up there with other "great teams" like the 2000 Lakers and the Bad Boy Pistons, but they haven't stepped up into a dynasty. Not saying they can't do it, but I just don't see it yet, although they have all the ingredients (great coach, all time great player, etc.)

I'm not sure that many franchises are trying to emulate what San Antonio does, mainly because there is only one Tim Duncan. You see alot of owners shifting more towards a fast break, open court style, just because that's what puts fannies in the seats.

mmmm.. Mike Brown, Danny Ferry, Presti, PJ Carlesimo interviewing. I think there is a pattern already at some other franchises trying to emulate the same. I do also belive some franchises are trying to shift into fast break up tempo models.

[Dre_7]

I still think you got to win back to back to be a dynasty.

Did the Larry Bird Celtics win back to back?

[SpurOutofTownFan]

I think 10 years from now or less, people will be talking about the spurs from this era as anotehr dinasty, when everything settles down and the flavor of the month are the orlando magic or whatever or even the suns without Amare. All of this will soon make sense to everybody.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Did the Larry Bird Celtics win back to back?

No, and it's really hard for me to consider them a dynasty, because they didn't dominate the competition. The only for sure set in stone dynasty are the Jordan Bulls and the Russell Celtics.

[td4mvp3]

I think it's just a matter of how people judge dominant. I'd consider the Spurs up there with other "great teams" like the 2000 Lakers and the Bad Boy Pistons, but they haven't stepped up into a dynasty. Not saying they can't do it, but I just don't see it yet, although they have all the ingredients (great coach, all time great player, etc.)

I'm not sure that many franchises are trying to emulate what San Antonio does, mainly because there is only one Tim Duncan. You see alot of owners shifting more towards a fast break, open court style, just because that's what puts fannies in the seats.
actually i think teams are still following the old adage of b-ball: get a dominant big man. that was the recipe for shaq, hakeem (who got drafted ahead of jordan), duncan, robinson, and likely greg oden. the skill sets are different but the basic idea remains the same. but it's the fact that the spurs haven't really dominated their oppenants (how the hell do you spell that?) that likely keeps the spurs out of such conversations up to this point. but 4 titles (hopefully) in a decade is hard to argue with.

[dbreiden83080]

I still think you got to win back to back to be a dynasty.

Well i guess it comes down to what you favor. Everyone said the Lakers 3 peat was a dynasty and the Spurs are going for 4 in 9 years. 3 years of total dominance or 9 years of great consistancy that produced 4 titles. (Hopefully)

[FromWayDowntown]

I still think you got to win back to back to be a dynasty.

I understand the point of arguing that, and maybe the better way to describe what the Spurs will be if they can win another title is the Dominant Team of this Era.

The Spurs haven't gone back-to-back, but there's no doubt among those who follow the NBA closely that the Spurs have been the lone legitimate contender for every season since the Bulls were broken up. It gets hashed and rehashed here a lot, but there's a fairly legitimate argument to say that the Spurs would be in their 5th consecutive Finals right now, but for Fisher's absolutely improbable (if not impossible) shot at .4 in 2004 and but for Manu's touch foul on Dirk (and the subsequent swallowing of whistles by officials on the ensuing play) at the end of regulation of Game 7 last year. Obviously, the but for's cannot be disregarded, but it illustrates just how close they've been to having one of the better strings of Finals appearances ever. I don't think there's any question about which franchise has most consistently fielded the best teams in this decade -- it's all about Tim Duncan, but his teams have undoubtedly produced, whether they win these Finals or not.

[spursfan09]

I think if the spurs win this 4th one it will not be thier last.

[judaspriestess]

I still think you got to win back to back to be a dynasty.

you are always going the opposite direction aren't ya? :blah


Lots of Filipinos love the Spurs. I know of many Filipinos here in Vegas who love the Spurs. The Spurs are a popular international team.

[Strike]

I still think you got to win back to back to be a dynasty.

You gotta win a title to be a champion.

[samikeyp]

One of the main problems is people dwelling in "old times were always good".

True....the years between Gervin leaving and Robinson's arrival were horrid!

There is no one definition of what is or isn't a dynasty. Which makes the argument fun. Some tend to bring up the back to back argument in an attempt to slight the Spurs because they do not like the Spurs. (Although I don't neccessarily think that was DirtMcGirt's reasoning) If the Spurs can win it this year that will be the third in five years and the most this decade. I think they would have made a good argument. (and no, Laker fan...you don't have three this decade. The decade started with the 2000-01 season)

[Marcus Bryant]

I think you have to actually win a title to be considered a great team.

[samikeyp]

Good point.