Are the Spurs a Dynasty?

With four championships in the last nine seasons, the Spurs have solidified their legacy on the game. But can they really be considered a dynasty?

No, they can't.

While 4 titles in 9 years in quite impressive, it doesn't qualify as a dynasty. The Spurs did not win any of the titles consecutively (not that Gregg Popovich minds. He told reporters "I don't give a s---," when asked about it last night.) and I can't quite label a team a dynasty when there was another dynasty during their reign. The Lakers won three straight titles in between the Spurs first two titles. As far as dynasty talk is concerned, it might be more appropriate to only count the last three titles, which were won in a five-year span.

No, the Spurs are not a dynasty, but what they have accomplished is truly special. The Spurs have been an elite team in the NBA for the past ten years, ever since Duncan joined the team in 1997. They have finished first or second in their division every one of those years. They placed no worse than fourth in the Western Conference in the last ten years, and they only finished fourth twice. All this in a period when the Western Conference was far more dominant the East.

Winning 70% of your games is tough on its own, but they did it six times while competing with the Stockton-Malone Jazz, the Kobe-Shaq Lakers, Chris Webber's Kings, Kevin Garnett's T'wolves, Dirk Nowitski's Mavericks, Steve Nash's Suns, and so on. All this with a salary cap and not a single lottery pick after Duncan. One could make the argument that what they've accomplished is more impressive than Bill Russell's Celtics. With a salary cap and a much larger league keeping the Spurs from adding high-priced talent, GM R.C. Buford has had a much more difficult task. I can already hear Celtics fans screaming at me for suggesting this and I'll calm them by saying that those Celtics were perhaps the only true dynasty and like I've said, that's not how to describe the Spurs.

Just because they are not a dynasty doesn't mean the Spurs should not be held in higher regard than other recent champions. We just need a different word for them. I propose "regime." It implies dominance, but one that can be spread out over a long period rather than strung together. For the past ten years, the Spurs regime has presided over the league. They have not been the best team every year, but they have always been very close to the top.

When we look back on the Spurs regime, we'll remember their understated domination. They lacked the star power and the hype of the Jordan's Bulls or Kobe and Shaq's Lakers, but they were in the mix for a championship every year for a ten-year period. And, of course, they aren't done yet. It's doubtful they will be until Tim Duncan has played his last game. It's difficult to rank the Spurs regime among the NBA's all-time great teams right now, but it's far from over. There's no telling how much longer it will last, and that is what makes it so impressive. There's no end in sight.