According the the San Antonio Express News, the San Antonio Spurs have informed Cedric Jackson they will not be renewing his 10-day contract which expired on Friday.

During his time with the Spurs, he averaged 2.3 points. Jackson has stated he will go back to the D-League Erie Bayhawks.

With the Spurs facing the Golden State Warriors tonight, who else to turn to than the guys at Golden State of Mind. A site all Warriors fans need to check out daily!

In this Q&A we go over the key match-up, what it will take for the Warriors to win in San Antonio and much more. Check it out!

The Spurs have not lost at home to Golden State since 1997. What will the Warriors have to do to make sure the streak doesn't get to 24 straight games?

First things first and I hate to be harsh, but there's one thing in common between the Warriors and Spurs. Their window has closed.

Okay the Warriors "window" was never really open aside from a hot minute in the spring of 2007, but neither of these teams are even in the running for the O'Brien trophy.

But back to your question. What can the Warriors do to stop 24 straight L's in San Antonio?

Hmmmm. Is Michael Jordan in the D-League? CALL HIM UP!

What are your thoughts on former Spur and Project Spurs favorite Anthony Tolliver?

I don't believe there's a Dubs fan out there who isn't rooting for Tolliver. I love his hustle, energy, desire, and demeanor. Tolliver belongs in the NBA and hopefully there's a spot for him next season on the Dubs.

The Warriors seem to always find gems in the D-League. Is that because of good scouting or pure luck?

I don't think it's luck. Larry Riley (a former scout) and the Dubs work hard at mining the D-League for hot prospects. It also helps to have a coach like Don Nelson thatis very open to giving D-Leaguers a shot. I remember a year or two ago Nellie said something along the lines of a D-League call-up being more often a mid-1st round or 2nd round draft pick in terms of present-day production.

Are Raja Bell's days numbered being a defensive specialist in Golen St? Yes I said Golen.

I wasn't sure what "Golen" was, so I looked it up. Here's the Wikipedia entry for "Goleń".

So, I guess no?

Monta Ellis and Stephen Curry seem to be very similar players, except Ellis is more athletic. How have they co-existed?

I used to say this back when the Warriors were wasting the talents and hyper-athletic years of Baron Davis and Jason Richardson by foolishly teaming them up with a hideously unathletic and weak frontcourt of Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, and Adonal Foyle(thank you Chris Mullin).

The Warriors backcourt has problems, but the Warriors frontcourt is the problem.

They have coexisted because there's simply enough shots and possessions to go around for both Curry and Monta in Nellieball. They'll be fine on that side of the rock. Defensively is different, but that's another issue for a different time.

The real concern is the Dubs front court. Centers Andris Biedrins and Ronny Turiaf have both had terrible seasons. Anthony Randolph got off to a very weird and inconsistent start and Brandan Wrighthas been out the entire season. 4 and 5 are the problem areas for this team. The real question is not whether Curry and Ellis can play together, but whether one of them can be used to upgrade the 4 or 5 significantly in the near future. Until the front court is upgraded or makes big strides, this team is going nowhere.

What is your key matchup for this game and what's your prediction?

Tim Duncan will get his. Manu Ginobili will get his. But the Spur I'm most worried about going off for a career night and being Friday's night's Warrior Killer is DeJaun Blair. Prediction? Warriors by 1 and longtime GSoMers know what that means.

Also, I really want to give it up to the D-League. Don't sleep. The D-League is legit! Across the vast majority of the 30 teams in the association the difference between their 10th, 11th, and 12th men and the top D-League talents isn't all that substantial.

Think I'm being ridiculous? You ain't seen nothing yet. It doesn't get any more ridiculously wonderful than Ridiculous Upside. They should really change their slogan from just "NBA D-League Coverage" to "NBA D-League/ Coverage of Future Golden State Warriors"

Please check out Golden State of Mind! Best Warriors coverage on the net!

Last week, the San Antonio Spurs celebrated Noche Latina. A night where the NBA and the Spurs gave thanks to its Hispanic fans. For that night I wrote an article on the impact of Manu Ginobili on the Hispanic community in San Antonio.

For this game, I ventured out to the AT&T Center after the Spurs defeated the New York Knicks, to get the views from Spurs fans themselves on Ginobili and his contract situation with the team. Spurs fans show nothing but love for Ginobili. Enjoy.

Michael and Jeff break down the Spurs loss to the Orlando Magic. We unfortunately went quarter by quarter, noting positives and negatives for each, gave out the box score, gave out shiny and rusty Spur awards, looked at the upcoming schedule and took your call.

Our next live show (#199B) will be next Wednesday for the Spurs-Lakers game and we'll have Don from With Malice on live to preview the game.

Earlier today, Jordan Rivas, presented his reasons why the Spurs title run in 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007 does not place the franchise among the great NBA dynasties. 

Next is Lance Fell who will give his reasons why the Spurs should be considered a dynasty after winning the title four times since 1999.

Throughout time, there have been great dynasties all over the world. From 1550 thru 1292 B.C. the 18th Dynastyof Egypt helped usher in a new era of economic prosperity for the Egyptian people. Perhaps the most famous of all Egyptian Pharaohs, Tutankhamen became ruler of Egypt during the 18thdyansty at the age of nine, and died before his twentieth birthday. The Argead Dynasty was another great dynasty that ruled all of the Greek Empire from 700 to 310 B.C. Lead by none other then Alexander the Great, The Argead Dynasty was able to expand all the way from Greece to India, and conquer one of the greatest empires of all time, The Persian Empire. The last great Chinese Dynasty, the Qing Dynasty, lasted from 1644 all the way till 1912. 

But what is a dynasty? And what factors have to be involved for the label dynasty to be used? Webster defines dynasty as a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time. Bing dictionary said a dynasty is a prominent and powerful family or group of people whose members retain their power and influence through several generations. So after reading and going through an assortment of different definitions, I found the most common things needed for anything to labeled as a dynasty is it has to be a family, it has to have power, influence groups of people, and last for long period of time.

From 1999 to 2007, no other team in professional sports displayed those four qualities needed to be a dynasty like the San Antonio Spurs.

Family

There is no other team in the NBA that is more like a family then the Spurs. From the owner Peter Holt all the way to the players, every member of the Spurs franchise is a member of the family. Gregg Popovich and Tim Duncan have the type of connection that is rarely seen between coaches and their superstars. It's almost a Father-Son relationship. The same could be said about Tony Parker's relationship with Pop. Sean Elliott, who has been retired since 2001, still commentates games and continues to be a vital part of the organization while David Robinson, who has been retired since 2003, still goes to every game, and even has a stake in the franchise. Once you're a member of the Spurs family, you're always a member.

Power

Power is a necessity if your family is to be labeled a dynasty, and since 1999, the Spurs have been one of the most powerful franchises in all of professional sports. From 1999 to 2007, the Spurs had a winning percentage of .709, which is the highest of any team, in any professional sport during that time. In fact, in that span of time the Spurs won a total of 503 regular season games, which is 37 more then the second closest team, the Dallas Mavericks.

Influence

It's because of how successful and how powerful the Spurs have been, that they fulfill the next requirement of being a dynasty: the ability to influence other groups of people, and no team in sports has influenced their respective league like the San Antonio Spurs. It is because of the Spurs that the Phoenix Suns acquired Shaquille O'Neal. The Lakers obtained Pau Gasol so they could have a big man that could compete with Duncan and the Spurs. Former assis tant general manager Sam Presti is now the general manager of the Oklahoma City Thunder, and they look like they might be competing for a ring in a couple years. Former Spur Steve Kerr is the general manager of the Suns and Danny Ferry, now the general manager for the Cleveland Cavaliers, once worked in the front office for the Silver and Black as well. Teams throughout the Association have been influenced by the Spurs to build their teams through the draft, and find key role players through free agency to help compliment their superstars.

Time

The last thing needed to qualify as a dynasty is "time." A dynasty should influence other groups of people or organizations that surround it for a considerable amount of time. And the Spurs have done just that. For more then ten years, the Spurs have held their place at the top of the NBA, and in the world of sports, ten years can seem like an eternity. Not even the Great Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamen of the 18th Dynasty was King for ten years. Some might argue that they aren't a dynasty because the Lakers won three in a row and the Spurs never repeated. But the Spurs have maintained a level of greatness that is unsurpassed in modern sports. When the Lakers won their three titles, the Spurs were right their with them. Only in 2000 did the Lakers win more games then the Spurs. When the Lakers fell to pieces in 2005, it was the Spurs who continued excel and be the premiere team in professional sports.

All great dynasties leave behind a legacy. The legacy left behind from the Argead Dynasty will be one of Alexander the Great and his conquest of the Persian Empire. To this day he is still the measure in which all great generals compare themselves. The legacy left behind from the Spurs Dynasty will be one of "Tim Duncan the Great" and his conquest of the NBA. When Duncan retires, he'll be the measure by which all big men compare themselves.

However, Duncan's greatness won't be the only thing we remember about the dynasty. It will also be remembered for its commitment to the team concept. That no one player is bigger then the whole, and the idea that all the right pieces are needed if there is to be a parade in San Antonio. In sports, where egos often collide and money talks more than championships, every member of the Spurs organization, from 1999 till now have never put themselves before the team, and that's how great sports dynasties are defined.

They are defined by the great athletes and coaches that make up the franchise. Players like Michael Finely and Robert Horry, who were willing to accept the position of role player. Or a player like Manu Ginobili, who could start on any other team in the league, but understands his importance off the bench and does whatever is necessary not for himself, but for the team. That's how the Spurs Dynasty will be remembered.

I'll remember the Spurs Dyansty for so many things. The wins, the loses. The bitter rivalries withother teams and the emotions that every game brought out of me. Emotions I never thought I had. I'll always remember after we lose in 2006 to the Mavericks, I was eating at Taco Cabana (a local San Antonio fast-food chain) with my girlfriend at that time, when I broke down. I just started crying, right there in the middle of Taco Cabana, tears falling over my delicious fajita taco, when a man, who also had a Tim Duncan jersey on, came up to me and said, "It's going to be okay. There's always next year." I looked up at him, streams of tears large enough to raft pouring from my eyes, and I smiled. I smiled because I knew he was right. There is always that chance that next season we can take it.

That's what I'll mostly remember from the Spurs Dynasty. The excitement it brought to my hometown. The anticipation right before the season starts and the enthusiasm of each and every Spurs fan. The best memory of the Spurs dynasty for me was in 2007. Standing at the intersection of 24th and Commerce in San Antonio, in the middle of the street, embracing my uncle Gino, with a broom in one hand. Tears of joy this time, running down my face. The guy at Taco Cabana was right. We did it.

The Spurs Dynasty will be viewed in many different ways depending on where your from or what team you root for. Some people say its not a dynasty at all. To those people all I can say is fine. The statistics are there for anyone to see. No other team has had the immense success the Spurs had during their dynasty. They are a dynasty in every way possible. From 1999 to 2007 they were the most powerful team in the league and influenced a plethora of teams to make moves that could help them compete against the Spurs. But understand this, it's not over. As long as Tim Duncan is in a Spurs jersey, there's always the chance that the Spurs could win another championship. Then maybe that title will quiet all the doubters.

Today Project Spurs will be looking back at the Spurs' title run beginning in 1999 and ending in 2007.

Many say the Spurs' championship run places them among the great NBA dynasties, while others say the Spurs' championship run should not be considered a dynasty. To discuss this topic, Jordan Rivas and Lance Fell will present you their reasons the Spurs should be considered a dynasty and why they shouldn't.

First will be Jordan Rivas to state the reasons why the Spurs winning the NBA title in 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007 does not place the franchise among the great NBA dynasties.

The sports world has co-opted a term it doesn't understand. Talk radio and sports columnists have independently elected to riddle themselves in conjecture. They are content – some are even enamored with the idea – to substitute logic and definition for bias and subjectivity. Not satisfied with holding command over issues of sound opinion, they have opted to ascend to lofty Adamic proportions, naming whatever they choose, however they like. With pedantic demeanor and resolve amusingly, albeit obnoxiously, built of ignorance, they have re-purposed and brazenly redefined words plucked seemingly at random from the English language, with little regard for reality in their defining process.

The odd adoption, and ridiculous re-imagining, of the word 'dynasty' within the sports world holds no more validity than if I chose to select the noun 'cupcake', and assert that its definition is someone who wears a funny hat, but only on Sundays.

Sports media and clever marketing have led us to believe that the term "dynasty" is a malleable thing, that its definition is subject to debate and susceptible to change at the whim of whichever ESPN commentator holds the most clout or whichever blogger has the highest view count.

As the Zhou dynasty clearly demonstrates, a true dynasty, historically speaking, leaves itself no room to be questioned.

The application for the Spurs' admission into dynastic company reads unconvincingly. Immediately numbers jump out at you, like a haphazard grade school math problem, they read: '99, '03, '05, '07. The pattern is a telling one, and easily recognizable: the Spurs have never won consecutive championships.

In the gaps, years where the Spurs have not won titles, the story is most potent. They were ousted in the first round of the 2000 playoffs a year after their initial title win. They were embarrassingly swept out of the Conference Finals by the rival Lakers in 2001. Most recently, in 2008, the Spurs only won one game against the Lakers before again being denied a chance at repeating. If any part of the past decade could truly be called a Spurs dynasty, they would have to simultaneously be considered the most often humiliated dynasty in history.

Even the casual analysis of the last decade shows a distinct lack of unwavering dominance from the Spurs. The carefully applied execution of their fundamentally sound schemes took hold over the NBA in spurts, not stretches. Outside of a highly loyal South Texas fan base, even the casual NBA fans finds the titling of the Spurs as a dynasty a point of contention, not an accepted truth. The branding of the Spurs as a dynasty is often met with sound skepticism, at best entertained as an intriguing discussion on the effect of free agency and the salary cap, but almost never accepted outright.

Emphatic as Spurs fans might be, few others would agree that the Spurs are a dynasty. However inclined Spurs fans might be to declare themselves right, and the rest of the basketball world wrong, their assertion would lack a distinct sign of sound logic, that a majority of people lean in its direction.

If I, for example, were to claim that I am the world's greatest writer, however sure of it I am, if no one else agrees with me I would come off looking silly.

The further examination of the Spurs' qualifications as a dynasty reveals more peculiar occurrences.

First, let's establish that the run being considered for dynasty status took place between 1999 and 2007, a span of eight seasons. The Spurs have not won a title in two seasons, and seem highly unlikely to change that this season. Considering that eight year span between '99 and '07, let's look at some of these peculiarities.

In a span of eight years the Spurs totaled four titles. Meaning that during this run they were only the best team in the league half of the time. Shouldn't a dynasty be dominant all of the time? Considering the word has been stripped of any real meaning, its a hard question to answer. Even on the less demanding spectrum, however, couldn't we expect a dynasty to at least reign more than half of the time? Those who support calling the Spurs' run a dynasty want to claim one hundred percent of an era even though the Spurs were only on top of the league fifty percent of the time.

Most notably, and most damning, is that during the '99-'07 stretch, an odd thing happened – an entirely different, and more clearly verifiable, dynasty occurred: that of the Los Angeles Lakers. From the 2000 season through the 2002 season the Lakers won three consecutive titles, shutting out the Spurs for that time and etching their own name in league history.

For Spurs dynasty supporters that leaves a gut wrenching question: did two dynasties run during the same period of time? Did another dynasty happen in the middle of the supposed Spurs dynasty?

Allow me to assure you, that is impossible.

If we're going to hold the term in any regard, if any semblance of its former meaning is to remain intact, the term dynasty must remain historically exclusive to only one holder during any one stretch of time.

If you're going to define the Spurs' run from '99-'07 as a dynasty, then you must also definitively prove that the Lakers' run from '00-'02 is not a dynasty. Sirs and madams, if you can do that, then you will have exclusively captured my full attention as I await for you to deliver, from your magical bag of conjectures, the definitive proof that two physical objects may occupy the same physical space and that air molecules may be alchemized into solid gold.

In these matters, and in the larger issue of debate at hand, I eagerly await your rebuttals.

Today on WOAI San Antonio Living, Bob Gambert, aka Cyber Bob, gave out his list of the top local San Antonio blogs. Well Project Spurs made the list and he gave Project Spurs' very own Michael De Leon recognition for his years of efforts.  Thanks to Bob Gambert for recognizing Project Spurs and congratulations to all the other blogs who made the list. Well deserved!