Phil Jackson: Spurs aren't a dynasty

[T_L_P]

After this year, it ain't even a question.

[BuffaloBill]

Yup and he also had Shaq and Pippen. Crazy talent

[magmo68]

Phil is saying that by DEFINITION they are not a DYNASTY...IGNORANCE is bliss...reading without comprehending, might as well be an illiterate...

[BuffaloBill]

Phil is saying that by DEFINITION they are not a DYNASTY...IGNORANCE is bliss...

What's the definition of dynasty?

[LoveTheNBA23]

What's the definition of dynasty?

Actual definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynasty


Accepted definition in sports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29

Wikipedia lists six dynasties for the NBA. The Celtics dynasty should have been split in two.

[Hizack]

What's the definition of dynasty?

No official definition obviously, but I guess the following unofficial definition would be widely agreed:
a. 3 championships in 3 years, or
b. 4 championships in 5 years

[T_L_P]

Either the Bird Celtics and Spurs are a dynasty, or neither are. Bird never won b2b either, and unlike them, the Spurs have the best Win % in all of sports.

Or hey, maybe Hakeem's Rockets is more of a dynasty than either.

[SouBeachTalents]

Either the Bird Celtics and Spurs are a dynasty, or neither are. Bird never won b2b either, and unlike them, the Spurs have the best Win % in all of sports.

Or hey, maybe Hakeem's Rockets is more of a dynasty than either.

I think any criteria for a dynasty is you need a MINIMUM of 3 championships with the same core of guys

[sbw19]

[COLOR=Teal]I wouldn't mind being called anything if my teams is a legit contender year in and year out. Spurs got their titles, little else matters including how they're viewed.
[/COLOR]

[SamuraiSWISH]

Thank You Phil ... anyone with a brain knew this to be the truth. You can't call yourself a dynasty never having defended the throne, winning back to backs. Which is way more challenging than just winning a ring every other season or two. Let's not even mention 3 in a row.

[Rose'sACL]

Thank You Phil ... anyone with a brain knew this to be the truth. You can't call yourself a dynasty never having defended the throne, winning back to backs. Which is way more challenging than just winning a ring every other season or two. Let's not even mention 3 in a row.

Spurs are clearly a dynasty. they have won multiple championships with same core.

[juju151111]

Spurs are clearly a dynasty. they have won multiple championships with same core.

They are not a dynasty

[SamuraiSWISH]

Spurs are clearly a dynasty. they have won multiple championships with same core.

Clearly they're not if it's up for debate.

[Akhenaten]

dy

[Da_Realist]

“You know there are some obvious examples that are out there that everybody can point to," Jackson, an 11-time champ as a coach, said in April. "Tim Duncan making the salary he's making after being part of a dynasty -- not a dynasty, I wouldn't call San Antonio a dynasty -- a force, a great force. They haven't been able to win consecutive championships, but they've always been there.”

From his Twitter:
For those folks that disagree with my SAnt statement think this:
A dynasty definition is a sequential ruler…sorry the Spurs did not win 2xs.


Phil bitter Pop is a better coach than him

I agree with Phil. That doesn't diminish the Spurs. He said they were a "great force".

A very good, consistent title threat every year - yes.

A dynasty - no.