The Instigator
ChadIrvin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
randompersonkp1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The San Antonio Spurs are the Most Successful Franchise in NBA History

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 54939
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ChadIrvin

Pro

The San Antonio Spurs are the most successful franchise in NBA history for a number of reasons and I believe I can prove it with cold hard facts. I don't think anyone can make a strong enough case for any other team in the NBA, past and present.

A strong front office and a dedicated coaching staff with dedicated players, past and present. No franchise in NBA history has accomplished more than the San Antonio Spurs have in their entire history.
randompersonkp1

Con

The Spurs are not the best franchise ever if you are talking about all of nba history. While the Lakers have been bad for the past two years and I also hate the Lakers personally, they are the best franchise ever. I don't think the spurs had Jerry West, Kareem, Magic, and Kobe all in one franchise. And the team has won so many championships that I lost count how many they won. The Lakers are the best franchise ever.
Debate Round No. 1
ChadIrvin

Pro

My opponent would like everyone to believe the Lakers are the most successful franchise of all time. Ignoring the fact that if it weren't for many major super stars playing for them throughout their history they would not have won the titles that they did. While the Spurs have had only a handful of superstars and have managed to win four championships and made the playoffs 34 out of 38 possible times since 1976.

Since the 1989-1990 NBA season the Spurs have only missed the playoffs once. And since the 1997-1998 NBA season they have not missed the playoffs once, winning 4 championships and making it to the Western Conference Finals 9 times. All this by using one superstar (Tim Duncan) and a couple All Stars (Tony Parker and Many Ginobili). David Robinson helped win two of the first four before retiring. Any other team would have folded after their super star left.

The Spurs continue to win even after they get old. Their players stick with the team and so does their coach. The only other team to keep the same coach longer than the Spurs is Utah and they never won a single Championship. The Lakers have won many Championships, yes, but using many super stars to accomplish this feat. The Spurs use a few super stars and dozens of role players.

The Spurs have an NBA record 15 consecutive seasons winning 50 or more games, which includes the lockout shortened season which had only 66 games. The best the Lakers could do was 12 straight.

The Spurs have made the playoffs 17 consecutive times, while the best the Lakers could do was 16 consecutive seasons.

The Lakers have been successful with a huge fan base, while the Spurs have been very successful with a small fan base. Not to mention ex Commissioner David Stern made it his goal to hate the Spurs with every fiber in his bones.

My opponent would like to have you believe that the more super stars a team has had the more successful they are. I guess that worked well in the 2002-2003 season with Karl Malone, Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton and Kobe Bryant. (Sarcasim)

The Spurs have used very few super stars, while the Lakers have used dozens. No flashy egotistic players have kept the Spurs winning, while the Lakers have used many super stars; Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Earvin Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Shaquille O'Neal, James Worthy. The Spurs use role players for most of their playoff runs.

So, it isn't difficult to argue that the San Antonio Spurs are the most successful team in the NBA, all time.

WWW.wikipedia.org
WWW.basketball-reference.com
randompersonkp1

Con

Why are you talking about the 02-03 season? Most of those players were in there final seasons? If your going to bash the Lakers on that season then I can bash you about last season when the spurs signed Tracy McGrady. Let's go over the championships you won, your first title was against AN 8 SEED your next two titles were against teams with average players and your last title was won because the only good player on the cavs was lebron. David Stern also did not like the lakers ether, because he blocked the Chris Paul trade FOR NO REASON AT ALL. The lakers have actually beaten good teams in the finals. They have beaten dr. j and the sixers, the detroit bad boys, Allen inverson sixers, the kg celtics, and of course, the Larry bird celtics. The Lakers are the most successful team in nba history.
Debate Round No. 2
ChadIrvin

Pro

"Let's go over the championships you won, your first title was against AN 8 SEED your next two titles were against teams with average players and your last title was won because the only good player on the cavs was lebron."

The Spurs' first championship was against an eighth seed? So what? That eighth seed beat the number one seed, Miami Heat who had Alonzo Mourning. It isn't as off the Knicks sat around and had their thumbs up their butts. They were a very good eighth seeded team.

"The lakers have actually beaten good teams in the finals. They have beaten dr. j and the sixers, the detroit bad boys, Allen inverson sixers, the kg celtics, and of course, the Larry bird celtics."

And I'm guessing when the Spurs beat the Pistons in the Finals in seven games, the Pistons weren't a good team? Talk about the bad boys. They were one of the toughest defenses in the league and definitely the most physical. And Lebron being the only good player on the Cavs team is wrong. They had David Wesley, Lebron James, Donyell Marshal, Larry Hughes, Eric Snow... a lot of good players and role players.

And the Spurs are not only successful on the court, but in the front office as well. The Spurs have the best recruiting management in the league and have had the best for a long time. Picking up great foreign players from all over the world. The Lakers rely on throwing money at Super Stars to get them to play for them. The Lakers are the New York Yankees of the NBA, just throwing money at super stars and enticing them with a large city full of glitz. The Spurs have a very small market and still keep good, quality role players.

Since 1989 the Spurs have always been a title contender. The Lakers haven't been a title contender since e early 2000's and only a few years at that. And before then haven't been title contenders since the 80's. The only time the Spurs haven't been contenders was in the late 80's.

And let's not even talk about pre 1970's. Being a contender or champion in the 40's, 50's, and 60's didn't mean much when there were only 10-18 teams contending.

The Spurs are the most successful team in the NBA.
randompersonkp1

Con

On NBA.com it lists the best teams in nba . The lakers have two teams on that list. The spurs have zero. You want to talk about winning? The still have the longest winning streak in nba history. If the spurs were better then the lakers they would have a longer winning streak then the lakers. While the lakers have had multiple dynasties, the spurs have only had one. You cannot face the facts more talent= more championships which the lakers have had more of and the spurs have less of. In conclusion the lakers are worlds better then the spurs in tradition, talent, and overall winning. The lakers are the best franchise ever.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.