As a very wise man once said:
While I agree that the Spurs (as of today) are not a dynasty...
...yeah. We've got nothing to be ashamed of. As a matter of fact, Life is Good.
Back to my champagne and cigars.
td
Lol who gives a if people think we are a dynasty. One fact remains, and it is undisputable.
The spurs are one of the winningest sports franchises across all disciplines of sports, with 4 championship trophies.
You get there, or come close to it, then ill give it a thought to care about what you or your team thinks.
SpursFan:Buaaa! Buaaa! . . . I want the Spurs tobe called a dynasty! . . . Buaaaa! Buaaa!
Mavs/Suns/Jazz/Denver Fans: Buaaa! Buaaaahuaaa! I want to win a championship! I want to have a ring! Buaaa Huaaa Buaaa!
Spurs Fan: What the am I crying about???!!!! . . . Life is good in San Antoine!
The bottom line is who cares? Really? I'm going to support the Spurs no matter what the so called experts say! Not calling them a dynasty is not going to detract the Spurs from accomplishing their goal for next season, and that's to win the NBA le again. The only way to counter this nonsense is to keep supporting the team. With every NBA le the Spurs win, those Laker, Suns, and Mavs fans along with the NBA, will continue to moan and groan the Spurs success. When asked the dynasty question, Pop answered with "I don't give a !"
spurs are a dynasty
what now
-Mars
I don't think it's as subjective as some people seem to think.
Can a team be a Dynasty by winning consistently during the regular season but not ever winning a Championship?
The answer to that is of course not, so winning during the regular season has nothing to do with being a Dynasty, it's winning Championships.
Being a Dynasty is about being the best for some ammount of time.
Certainly the ammount of time is somewhat subjective, but you have to win Championships with consistency, the Spurs have never even repeated and as such should not be considered a Dynasty...
For whatever it's worth, Todd Boyd is a Professor in the USC School of Cinema Arts, not a sportswriter -- at least not by trade; sportswriting is more of an avocation for Professor Boyd. His USC bio proclaims that "[h]e is an expert on issues of urban popular culture and is internationally regarded for his work on race, cinema, hip hop culture, and sports. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Boyd is acknowledged as one of the individuals who created the academic study of hip hop culture." He has also written a book with NBA roots, en led "Young, Black, Rich, and Famous: The Rise of the NBA, the Hip Hop Invasion."
He's a sociologist commenting on matters about the NBA. I don't find fault with Dr. Boyd's academic pursuits. But his commentary hints of a particular sociological bent that suggests that the biggest fault he might find with the Spurs might be the absence of an overt hip-hop culture in the organization. His column reminds me of Stephen A. Smith's intimations a few years ago that the Spurs were just too "white" to be taken seriously as an elite NBA team.
It is not just about how many championship rings you have won, it is how you went about achieving those rings.
that right there loses all credability for this stupid hateful article. The Celtics don't count either cause they beat the Rockets? Like its the Celtics fault on who they played for the championship. How ing stupid and a complete waste of precious time that I want back.
Empire (ěm'pīr') N - A unit ( The Spurs ) having extensive territory (NBA) ruled by a single supreme authority ( Tim Duncan ).
Spurs Empire Rules !!!
I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the Spurs have the highest winning percentage OF ANY TEAM SPORT over the past decade.
That's dominant enough for me.
Here's the dude bio:
Wikipedia
Basically, he's no different than you or me about having an opinion in sports.
I even wonder if he played ball at all.
Yikes, that dude is obsessed with race.
Winning percentage don't mean ...
For the record, I'm not trying to make this about race, ethnicity, or culture. Dr. Boyd is en led to his opinions and, while I disagree with this one, I find most of his other published work to be significant and insightful. I do think, though, that his opinions of relative value when it comes to matters associated with the NBA depends signficantly upon his views of the significance of hip-hop culture. That, to me, is an inapt basis for making those sorts of observations on a broad scale as his column about the Spurs attempts to.
In the end, I don't disagree with his ultimate conclusion.
Spurs core is Tim, Tony, and Manu. Everyone else will likely be changed out in the next 12-14 months. Spurs actually have cap room next summer. ONly T,T, and M are under contract beyond, plus the team has an option on Butler.
Big men age better, so Tim can play at a high level for probably 5 more years, age 36 or so. , Jabbar played until he was 42.
Tony hasn't even hit his peak yet. If he's truly unveiling the 3 pointer, the league should be ing terrified.
Manu is hitting that guard slow down age, but he's so ing smart, basketball wise, that he can still contribute in a Barry/Finley kind of way.
For what it's worth, the article is correct. They (Spurs) are NOT a dynasty until they win back-to-back les...period. Scream from the mountain tops all you want, but it's true. Even the Spurs (Tony Parker even said it on tv tonight) agree. Going every other year and in between falling on your face, doesn't cut it.
It could also be said that the Spurs worked hard to win one year then suffered a "let down" the next. A sustained effort could be the key and it doesn't help for the breaks to go you way every now and then either.
I didn't remember hearing the Basketball God say that winning back to back was a prerequisite... matter of opinion I guess. To me winning half the time over a 9 years period is good enough.
Everyone is en led to his opinion, and Boyd has all the rights in the world to think the Spurs are no dynasty. The problem with his article is that it's arguments are flawed and inept. That's what make people react to it imho, not his opinion.
Dynasty:
"a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time"
The Spurs never maintained their position, they were knocked off the next season each time they won a championship.
Simply winning consistently isn't enough either, it's about winning rings consistently..
I'm surprised he called the 80's Lakers a dynasty. If he hadn't done that, his argument would be a lot stronger.
All Spurs have to so is win next year and you'll consider them a Dynasty?
Works for me.
The '80s Lakers did go back-to-back.
But keep in mind his argument isn't just about basketball. A team has to appeal to his hip-hop sensibilities for him to consider them a dynasty, which makes his opinion rather ridiculous.
Tony Parker raps and is marrying Eva.
What more does he want?
The Notorious P.H.D jealous you ain't got Eva and the cold hard cash?!?!?!
On the other hand, Spurs have always been contenders to win the le.
The same can't be said about the 2000-2002 Lakers (our only real compe ion to be considered a "Dynasty".)
But he's French.Tony Parker raps and is marrying Eva.
What more does he want?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote