Re: Maybe the IOC shouldn't let Nigeria compete if they can't keep up with real countries.
moondog Send a noteboard - 03/08/2012 04:28:53 PM
Why shouldn't they? Other countries have been using their pros for years. And what does the NBA have to do with the US team? What about the NBA players who play for other countries in the Olympics, and who are often their home country's best chance to compete? Should they be banned from play by the NBA (can the NBA shut them out of the Olympics? ) just because the US has the most talent?
the nba could definitely take them out of the olympics if they so chose. in fact, that's exactly why david stern is floating the "under-23" rule right now, because the nba has complete control over where and how its players compete.
All-but-failed states like Nigeria just don't have the stuff to assemble teams that can compete with first world countries. They lack the standards of living to make basketball skills widely available to the populace, the lack the resources to hone that talent and to organize and train and field a competitive team. None of this is the fault of the US team. Admitedly, they could probably be less obnoxious about it, but that's what people have been saying (albeit sometimes in hushed tones lest they be called racist) about the NBA in general for years. However, even in amateur sports leagues, basketball teams and players don't slow down their play to let cripples or untrained players keep up with them. They don't bench their best players when up against a club that hasn't put in the same practice time. Instead, divisions are selected and organized to group comparable teams together, or at least, teams with similar resources and talent pools, so as to maximize the chance of victory occurring solely on skill at, or dedication to, the sport in question.
when you cruise to a 78 point halftime lead, you are no longer competing against anyone but yourself. it's obvious nigeria didn't have the kind of training and dedication to field a team that could compete at the nba level, but they aren't such pushovers that they can't compete against the rest of the world.
What's the point of another country winning the gold medal when they know they are only beating a US team playing under severe restrictions? In the film "Miracle" about the US Hockey team in 1980, Kurt Russel's character snottily asserts the superiority of his team's win over the so-called Dream Teams of professional athletes, claiming that his bunch of amateurs and nobodies who peaked that year at the Olympics is the REAL "dream team". And he is right to a point, but the idea of the original Dream Team was not winning at all costs but the thrill of seeing some of the greatest active living legends of the game on the court together, and the United States FINALLY getting a chance to show the world what the best Americans were capable of, rather than the 4th tier players up against the best of the rest of the world.
The Dream Team that Russel's character sneers at was exactly what he and his fellow US Olympic coachs and their athletes had been up against for years. The stars of the Soviet hockey team were no more amateurs than Lebron James et al are today (the difference being, the US government is not going to punish Kobe Bryant by confiscating his home and voiding his contract if the US only comes away with the Bronze medal). They were elite, professional players and the US was only one of the last countries to do what everyone else had been doing for years.
By taking away the best US players, you deprive the less talented countries of their own chances for an equivalent of the "Miracle on Ice."
The Dream Team that Russel's character sneers at was exactly what he and his fellow US Olympic coachs and their athletes had been up against for years. The stars of the Soviet hockey team were no more amateurs than Lebron James et al are today (the difference being, the US government is not going to punish Kobe Bryant by confiscating his home and voiding his contract if the US only comes away with the Bronze medal). They were elite, professional players and the US was only one of the last countries to do what everyone else had been doing for years.
By taking away the best US players, you deprive the less talented countries of their own chances for an equivalent of the "Miracle on Ice."
alternatively, the US olympic team -- by limiting itself to under 23 year old players -- is still fielding a team that's at least as good as 75% of the world's teams. winning bronze against other countries who are still using their nba superstars is much more validation for the US team than it is denigrating the win of the other countries. already the international competition is much more favorable to the nba stars because they play a longer game and have a farther 3-point arc than the international version. it's asinine to put up players who are playing a game which is easier than the one they make their living at and then saying "oh well it's only fair that we get to use our professional players". our basketball team will ALWAYS have an extra advantage as long as they are veteran nba players out there and not semi-pro college kids.
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
/olympics: is it necessary to win a basketball game by 80+ points?
03/08/2012 08:39:56 AM
- 681 Views
Judging by what happened in the badminton, yes it is.
03/08/2012 08:45:23 AM
- 446 Views
yes i know they had to actually play the game to the end, i still find it boring to watch either way
03/08/2012 04:06:14 PM
- 386 Views
Maybe the IOC shouldn't let Nigeria compete if they can't keep up with real countries.
03/08/2012 12:12:24 PM
- 612 Views
My thoughts are they could institutionalise something like the soccer competition
03/08/2012 12:51:09 PM
- 382 Views
Soccer does that on purpose so that the World Cup means a lot more *NM*
03/08/2012 03:22:35 PM
- 185 Views
Football does it *because* the Euro/World Cups mean a lot more. An important distinction. *NM*
03/08/2012 07:58:58 PM
- 178 Views
What Wibble said, and the reason has to do with the amount of competitive teams.
03/08/2012 08:25:08 PM
- 451 Views
Re: Maybe the IOC shouldn't let Nigeria compete if they can't keep up with real countries.
03/08/2012 04:28:53 PM
- 597 Views
So who is stopping the other countries from making their own NBAs if they want to compete?
03/08/2012 08:56:46 PM
- 414 Views
Did you read coach K's response?
03/08/2012 03:50:26 PM
- 466 Views
i saw it this morning after i had already posted the original comment
03/08/2012 04:32:08 PM
- 524 Views
I guess I still don't understand your complaint.
03/08/2012 06:17:05 PM
- 448 Views
my main objection is how the olympics are now nothing more than an extension of pro leagues
04/08/2012 05:39:08 PM
- 382 Views
You'd have us kick out every Olympian other than the boxers, then?
04/08/2012 06:00:08 PM
- 371 Views
no, i'd have the olympics be more about sport and less about money
04/08/2012 06:12:24 PM
- 392 Views
"Need"
03/08/2012 06:17:26 PM
- 397 Views
Re: "Need"
04/08/2012 05:53:39 PM
- 405 Views
No. Do you want to know, really? Your tone throughout makes me wonder if you do. *NM*
05/08/2012 05:09:42 PM
- 177 Views
The US doesn't always win the gold medal, you know.
03/08/2012 07:41:33 PM
- 497 Views
one silver, two bronze, one boycott -- all others gold since 1936
04/08/2012 05:55:11 PM
- 400 Views
I prefer athletes to put in their best performances, since their wages are paid for by spectators
03/08/2012 07:04:33 PM
- 422 Views
You really don't seem to grasp athletic competitions too well, it seems
03/08/2012 09:31:53 PM
- 514 Views
The "professionals shouldn't compete" argument is one of the dumbest things I've read in months.
06/08/2012 07:08:56 AM
- 384 Views