Spurs Dynasty?

Does anyone else have a problem with the media referring to the Spurs as a dynasty? I know winning 4 titles in the past 9 years is impressive, but a dynasty….come on. How can you have a team (L.A. Lakers) win 3 consecutive titles during your so called "dynasty", when you can’t even win back to back titles. To me the media is using the term* way too loosely. I know with free agency it is a lot harder to duplicate the Celtics of the 60’s, 11 titles in 13 years, but I mean the Bulls of the 90’s won 6 in 8 years**. Also consider that only 7 teams have won a championship over the last 24 years, and the fact the spurs have 4 during that time span is even less impressive. Over those 24 years here is how the champions have broken down: Bulls – 6, Lakers – 6, Spurs – 4, Pistons – 3, Rockets – 2, Celtics – 2, Heat – 1, Pacers - 0. In conclusion the Spurs are having a good run, but they need to at least win this year and next year to even start to deserve dynasty talk.

*We might as well call Klein “finishing” the Chicago marathon the last two years a dynasty, because he didn’t come in last.
**The Bulls probably would have won it 8 straight years if it wasn’t for MJ “trying” to play baseball.