Reply With Quote
Bulls.
More les, and the most recognizable jersey in NBA history (#23).
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 les 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 les Chicago has 6, including two threepeats. Spurs have 4 les 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 les: Spurs 16, Bulls 7.
So, Chicago has more les, 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.
Bulls.
More les, and the most recognizable jersey in NBA history (#23).
Bulls.
They had more les and the best player in the game. Gotta give it to the Bulls.
Bulls based on les.
Bulls
Success is definded by championships. Bulls take it. Although the story has not ended for San Antonio....stay tuned
Bulls had a glorious 8-10 year run, but have been 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.
dur bulls
Bulls...more les and the best player in NBA history...
Exactly.
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.
....oh yes you are..
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 le 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 les in the future? The Spurs are, of course. They have proven they can consistently field fine teams. When the Spurs nab le #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.
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.
Spurs were in the NBA ten fewer years, and have two fewer les. 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.
To which Spurs are you referring? Do any of them post here? You know, I thought Sequ was really Jacque Vaughn.
To answer the question, the Spurs..for the same reason Lakers 55 stated. Its about overall success, not just les. les are a factor and are important but they are not the end of the story.
Well said
Bulls just on jordan alone
Bulls
Good franchise (Spurs). That's all.
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.
The Chicago Jordans.
However the Bulls don't compare.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
