yeesh, you act like the spurs didn't get very big gifts from the basketball gods when the team that had won 67 games and beaten the spurs, legitimately, twice in the regular season after the season in which that same team came into san antonio and managed to win a 7-game series (even with a choke in the finals) got knocked out in the first round; that a suns team that walloped the spurs by 20 in game 2 of their series and beat the spurs in san antonio went down in flames by a few points without stoudamire and diaw (at the very least, maybe they pull out the game 5 win); and that the final two opponents on the way to the le hadn't gotten that far in their current incarnations and surprised everyone that they had. i don' t expect a repeat because i was stunned they won it last year and attribute it mostly to the compe ion, not the spurs' overwhelming play. yeah, we're a few games out of the top spot but if our compe ion had been stouter (wins over knicks, arenas-less/butler-less wizards, and deplorable indiana do not inspire) could just as easily have been losses against better squads. the argument only goes so far, considering they did beat the suns, but your rationale that the spurs proved their mettle only goes so far as well. i think they got lucky this year, nothing points to that chance last year. and none of that takes into account parker's injury and barry's injury.