Is it the End of an Era?

I've just come up for air from a thrilling March of college basketball. Over the last few weeks, upsets, tight finishes, and outstanding performances have kept my brain pinging at a turbo-charged rate. And the Monday night finale was fantastic. My rooting interests were with Butler, but Duke was definitely a worthy champion.

As I said in my last effort for this site (while my ineptitude said they would go out to Syracuse), these Bulldogs played together as a team. Defense, motion offense, rebounding ... they all applied under a five-man principle for this "hometown" squad. Now, as I come out of my collegiate haze, my eyes focus in on the end of the professional schedule.

With a few days left in the marathon, one playoff spot is left in the East, and the squads out West are basically jockeying for seeding. In all the positioning, there's one organization that seems to be lost in the shuffle. Thing is, they're probably used to that feeling.

To put them in NCAA terms, they have the defensive mindset of Butler and West Virginia. Their main trio is as substantial of Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler, and Nolan Smith. Their coach is as accomplished as Mike Krzyzewski and Tom Izzo. And their personality is as unassuming as each of this year's Final Four.

Since the end of the Chicago Bulls' dominance in the 1990s, no franchise has more titles than the San Antonio Spurs (only the Lakers have the same count with four). They've proven that they should be regarded as one, it not the, team of the 2000s. The core of this team has mostly stayed intact through that time.

However, in 2010, the wear and tear on that core is starting to show. This is Tim Duncan's 13th year, the ninth for Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili's eighth. Bruce Bowen has gone from covering Kobe and LeBron to covering games on ESPN. Basically put ... time catches up to all of us.

Although the Spurs will be playing past next week, the threat for title contention seems to have faded. Could the Riverwalk see another Larry O'Brien Trophy in the near future? Sure. But let's play out the option of this era coming to a close. In that case, I'll have to rethink some things.

Have the Spurs Been Good For the NBA?

Over most of this run, I've been pretty staunch in avoiding or downplaying this franchise. I felt that they were the epitome of the lower-scoring, bogged-down defensive Association that developed in the mid-'90s. I remember saying multiple times during the 2005 and 2007 editions of the Finals that the competition was pretty unwatchable.

But looking back earlier in the week, I think of that Butler team. This squad didn't have a Da'Sean Butler, a John Wall, a Wesley Johnson, or a Cole Aldrich. However, I was fascinated by the fact that they held their first five tournament opponents under 60 points a game (and Duke only got to 61). If a team that focuses so much on fundamental play and defense can be good for college ball, then the same style has to be good for the Association.

Has This Run Been Undervalued?

Yes, and I've been at the forefront of that movement. I know that the experts have rolled out these facts before, but when comparing San Antonio's current core trio, there are few equals. Over the past 40 years, only two sets of players have won more titles ... the '80s Showtime Lakers and the '90s Bulls tandem of Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen. Sure, there are individual players that have had more success. However, as a combination, these players are in the most elite of classes.

Why Has This Squad Been So Underappreciated?

As I said before, they've been extremely fundamental, a.k.a. boring. Thing is, I like fundamentals. Utilizing the pass, switching picks, throwing back-cuts at an opponent's defense, and rebounding as a team make the game better, in my opinion. That's what the Spurs have done for the last 10-plus years under Gregg Popovich.

Furthermore, I've got to go back to Dick Vitale. That's right, the "Awesome, super-sensational, Diaper-Dandy" orator of the college roundball world. After Duke made the Final Four two weeks ago, he avowed his admiration for the program, talking about how their kids "go to class, don't get in trouble, and play with integrity" (so to paraphrase).

Wait a minute. He just described the scholarly equivalent of the Spurs organization. When's the last time you heard that any of the players were in trouble with the law, a jilted lover, the IRS, etc? Nothing? Me neither. Okay, what about on the court? What about Bruce Bowen and his "dirty" play? To be honest, that continuous designation of him would be tame compared to the teams of the '80s (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons) that people would probably say made the game more colorful.

On a Scale of 1 to 10, How Underrated Has Tim Duncan Been?

Personally, I would say an 8. Referring back to the last question, most of the Spurs haven't been given their due, but Duncan has been the overall leader of that bunch. In my mind, he single-handedly kept the bank shot alive in the professional game. His all-around presence puts him among the greatest power forwards in NBA history. But he's done it so quietly that the tidal wave of accomplishments seems more suffocating than crushing.

I remember all of the hype around him when he came out of college and was drafted with the first overall pick in 1997. And now, 13 years later, I wonder how the world would have showered him with glowing praise if he put up this type of career in Boston.

So, Overall, Are the San Antonio Spurs the Team of the 2000s?

This is interesting. If you proposed this question on the NCAA stage, you'd figure that Duke or Michigan State would be up for debate. Both have been fairly dominant in power conferences, while playing in multiple Final Four appearances under one coach.

Lakers lovers everywhere don't want to hear this, but I'm answering this question with a yes. Does L.A. have more titles? Uh huh. Do they have more conference crowns? Sure. But once Shaquille O'Neal left Tinseltown, the makeup of the Lakers core shifted, so, in my mind, the fourth title is very different from their earlier three-peat.

In contrast, San Antonio's core has pretty much remained intact since their 2003 championship victory against New Jersey. Parker, Bat-Manu (c'mon, you had to figure one of those was coming), Duncan, and Bowen were the glue that kept this squad a contender throughout the middle of the decade. If the question concerned the "organization" of the 2000s, I would have said L.A. (just like Michigan State or North Carolina would be in college). But focusing on the word "team," I'm going to put my stamp in the Heart of Texas (as I would for the Florida Gators that won back-to-back crowns in '06 and '07).

San Antonio is no longer the staunch title contender it has been over recent years. The Lakers have reloaded, Dallas and Denver have become legitimate threats, and Portland and Oklahoma City are becoming wiser than their youth. So if this is the Spurs' last stand, they've earned their due. But I've underestimated them before. It wouldn't surprise me if I underestimate them now.