Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you honestly think America winning the Olympics is the best of the best in basketball?! It's not. It is indeed a 2nd tier event. It's like a pop warner team playing a pro team. Not one of our professional basketball stars would look at that gold medal and give it two thoughts (it's like a shoot around for them). They know the major accomplishment in their lives is winning the NBA championship and so do any of the European players that play in the NBA. The event is a joke. Which make the fact that they were upset such an embarrassment for the country in 2004. The U.S. could easily put together a second set of athletes that were a notch lower than the "Dream Team" and they could win the gold medal also. As mentioned previously, it would be like having a professional NFL team that wins every game by 40+ points. It's boring and noncompetitive, and no one would have interest in that for long (the Nielsen ratings would plummet). The reason most American sports have such excitement is because at some point, the elite teams meet each other and it's like a prize fight. But you don't get that in Olympic basketball. There is never another elite team that comes around (and therefore no suspense whatsoever). Some of you people are so caught up on winning that you miss the point that people want a competitive event. it meant more when our amateurs (who are outstanding) represented the country. We did extremely well and it was fun to watch. Our greatest event in history was the Miracle on Ice. That event would have meant nothing had it been professional hockey players. This whole winning at all costs mentality that some of you have is a bit much. I think most people would like to watch a competitive game than what we're getting now. Would you honestly feel proud accepting a medal if you beat a 10 year old in a fight? Would you raise the American Flag and think how special you were for beating this kid? I'm thinking not. But that is what happens sometimes with the type on one-sided-ness we get in some of these events. Again, boring and uninteresting.
And yet these NBA players proudly volunteer to go play for their country, thereby risking injury/increasing the odds that they won't win an NBA championship in the process. Let's face it: if you took out professional athletes from the game (specifically, basketball here) for every country, the US would still slaughter the opposition. But you shouldn't apologize/feed bad for being the best.
And yet these NBA players proudly volunteer to go play for their country, thereby risking injury/increasing the odds that they won't win an NBA championship in the process.
Non Sequitur (and many don't for the exact reason you stated....they realize it's pretty silly in the grand scheme of things and means very little to them)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Let's face it: if you took out professional athletes from the game (specifically, basketball here) for every country, the US would still slaughter the opposition. But you shouldn't apologize/feed bad for being the best.
Exactly. They did just find with their amateurs. No need to go any further. Not many people want to watch a non-competitive event.
Isn't the idea of the Olympics to figure who is the best in the world? Why should professionals be disallowed? I'd rather watch Usain Bolt break world records than watch some hack off the street run the 100m dash.
"For all the cheers, roars and ovations in all the Olympic stadiums and arenas over all the years, perhaps the most significant Olympic sound heard in the last quarter-century was a yawn.
Because a yawn, symbolically, was how the public greeted what might have been the most controversial change in rules that the International Olympic Committee ever instituted.
The one firm rule that always governed the Olympic Games was that amateur athletes were permitted to compete. Professional athletes were not.
This question came up on a radio show yesterday. I believe the Olympics should be amateur only and I have lost all interest since they started playing with professionals (especially the "dream team"). Talk about boring. And admittedly, what a disgrace that one of those teams actually lost (absolutely embarrassing).
One of the hosts on the show said he didn't care how lopsided the games were as long as it was America showing it's dominance. I say nonsense. The United States in general, has always done well in the medal counts and has won the total medals on numerous occasions. I think viewers want competitiveness. It's no different than if someone was a fan of a NFL team and for 5 years straight they never lost a game and won all their games by 40 or more points on a weekly basis. How long would it be before people just turned it off and stopped watching. There's no excitement in that. And for most fans, they would rather see an entertaining game rather than a blowout.
I couldn't care less about this sending their best crap. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that if their were any individual players that were that good in games the U.S. dominates like basketball, they would be in the NBA making some serious coin. The championship for basketball is the NBA finals...not the Olympics. No one cares that we beat Lithuania.
I have to agree with most all of this. I too lost interest once the US decided to buy gold medals in basketball by sending pros to beat the sneeze out of everyone and assure a win.
IN 1996, we went to the Olympics. What we saw was much more enjoyable than what they showed on TV. Besides not having to listen to sportscasters, we were able to be in the action and gather an appreciation for the Spirit of the games, something that has yet to be broadcast successfully on American TV
While US Basketball does appeal to a few fans, we much more enjoyed the game between Australia and Puerto Rico, because the game was never more than 5 points back and forth, and ended close. It was much more exciting than watching the US Pros blow out a team like Nepal....
We also got to experience the games that are played in most of the world, but not so much in the US, (And therefore not covered in the US)
Soccer had not yet caught on as much as it has now, and sports like Handball, Field Hockey are played extensively outside of the US. They did not show the swordfighting on TV either, but it was not a sport where Americans often win. Which is what the TV sticks with sadly....sports showing Americans winning, as opposed to a game that is truly International, but not so popular here in the USA.
Which makes the games more fun to attend (Unless they are in a place, like ,say, RIO Brazil, where the safety and security cannot be assured)
But I am against the Pros playing. It has ruined basketball. Why not allow college players, High school grads that stand out, make the team?
I did a whole Onion Type story one year about professional wrestling in the Olympics. Sad thing was that many people BELIEVED it !
I would not know where to begin now, since I have stopped watching non-entertaining Entertainment Wrestling (we call it Entertainment wrestling here, because it exists to try to entertain, not to represent a legitimate sporting competition).
BUT sadly, it is all about Money, amateur or not, and not about the spirit or competition of the games as much anymore. TV wants MONEY. Pros bring in money. Advertisers mean money, and the games generate money for the host (Unless you are in someplace, like,say... Brazil, where a p*ss poor job is inevitable, or Russia, where lack of funds and lack of tourist money allow the venues to crumble afterwards.)
With the Olympics being about Money, at least to American TV Networks, then Pros will be encourages, regardless of how little some of us approve.
Really my only reason for always insisting we include professionals in big sports is basketball. I'm a huge basketball fan and the only time you get to see the best assembly of players is Team USA at the Olympics.
If the World Cups of basketball and hockey got some traction and often had the best players competing, there would be no need for the Olympic events for these sports.
I often hear that if there is a bigger event to win in a sport than the Olympics, the sport should not be included in the Olympics or should only allow amateur athletes. To me, this requires an important differentiation. The biggest trophy to win in basketball is the NBA Finals. The biggest trophy to win in hockey is the Stanley Cup. However, these are for club (team/franchise) accomplishments. What about international (country vs. country) competition?
Example: soccer. Soccer's biggest prizes at the club level are league titles (La Liga, Bundesliga, EPL) and the Champions' League, all of which easily trump the Olympics. This is the same for basketball/hockey/baseball in that winning the best club league(s) on the planet is far bigger than winning Olympic gold. What about the international level? Soccer has the World Cup, which is probably the biggest international sports event with the most coveted prize.
Olympic gold doesn't hold a flame to winning a World Cup, so soccer should not be included. Same with golf- winning a major or a Ryder Cup is bigger than Olympic gold. Just look at the reactions of these popular golfers to questions about them skipping Rio. They think it's a joke that golf is in the Olympics. Golf should not be included.
We've reached a point that international pride in some of the bigger USA sports doesn't need to manifest itself on the playing field. Our two biggest sports are football and basketball, both of which we absolutely dominate with ease. We are so dominant that any win that isn't a blowout is a disappointment. Basketball is heralded as this international game, but no country besides the US can put together a starting 5 of NBA players.
I doubt basketball/hockey/baseball will ever reach the level of having legitimate international competition using professional players. If the sports had evolved earlier, maybe. League titles are so important financially that players competing for anything other than the league title is a liability.
Should not be in Olympics long-term:
Basketball
Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Baseball
Football (obviously)
Hockey
Basically any sport with bigger events to win than Olympic gold + pro athletes making millions of dollars. Individual events like track and field require different consideration, but for the most part athletes in individual disciplines aren't paid that well compared to those in team sports.
Non Sequitur (and many don't for the exact reason you stated....they realize it's pretty silly in the grand scheme of things and means very little to them)
Proof? You're talking nonsense now. I've seen little to nothing from the athletes who sign up to play to suggest that playing for their country in the Olympics means "very little to them." On the contrary, I've seen nothing but prideful comments. And there's no disconnect here. Again, I ask why would they do something that they think is "silly" or means "very little to them," thereby increasing the risk that they will get hurt in the process, and thus increasing the likelihood that their regular jobs will be jeopardized? Doesn't make much sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99
Exactly. They did just find with their amateurs. No need to go any further. Not many people want to watch a non-competitive event.
Ah, so I guess you really don't have a problem with lopsided games . . . just as long as NBA players aren't the reason for the lopsidedness? (as I wrote before, even before the pros were allowed to play, the US still dominated in games/scores). What are folks like you going to push for next? Exclude the USA completely (amateurs and pros) from Olympics play in several sports because of how dominant we are? A sort of affirmative action for athletes? Give me a break
I remain opposed to prohibiting the best of the best partake in what is supposed to be a competition of the best of the best. The fact that some league signed superior talent shouldn't prevent such talent/individuals from participating in the games. Thankfully, pro-athletes at the Olympics don't seem to be going anywhere.
Proof? You're talking nonsense now. I've seen little to nothing from the athletes who sign up to play to suggest that playing for their country in the Olympics means "very little to them." On the contrary, I've seen nothing but prideful comments. And there's no disconnect here. Again, I ask why would they do something that they think is "silly" or means "very little to them," thereby increasing the risk that they will get hurt in the process, and thus increasing the likelihood that their regular jobs will be jeopardized? Doesn't make much sense.
Apparently you're not aware that plenty of NBA players have chosen not to play by choice (I doubt they would do that if it was such a big deal and meant so much to them...it clearly doesn't). So you're not getting the best team anyway.
The names that said no - either due to personal preference or injury - are far more impressive than the ones actually coaxed into uttering yes. LeBron James, James Harden, Stephen Curry, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Kawhi Leonard, Damian Lillard, Gordon Hayward, Anthony Davis, LaMarcus Aldridge, Blake Griffin and John Wall. And the no-shows wouldn't just wipe the floor against the 2016 team - they could have fielded one of the flashiest 5-on-5 matchups since a round ball sank through a peach basket.
Thanks to the nays, Harrison Barnes is now an Olympian. So is ex-Rocket Kyle Lowry. As is DeMarcus Cousins
And what kind of comments would you expect a player to make that decided to play (silly response). It's clear why it means little and was articulated well by the comment right after mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Ah, so I guess you really don't have a problem with lopsided games . . . just as long as NBA players aren't the reason for the lopsidedness?
I remain opposed to prohibiting the best of the best partake in what is supposed to be a competition of the best of the best. The fact that some league signed superior talent shouldn't prevent such talent/individuals from participating in the games. Thankfully, pro-athletes at the Olympics don't seem to be going anywhere.
I have no idea why you came to that conclusion. There has been nothing more lopsided than when the NBA players started playing. There were at least some competitive games when it was at an amateur level. Look up the comparison if you don't believe me.
Your comprehension level is really off base here. As myself and AKtoWAtoUt stated, the championship for basketball is not the Olympics, it is the NBA championship (and so on with the other sports he listed). It's not that difficult to understand. The Olympics are clearly 2nd tier (whether you want to accept it or not).
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 07-15-2016 at 05:40 PM..
Apparently you're not aware that plenty of NBA players have chosen not to play by choice (I doubt they would do that if it was such a big deal and meant so much to them...it clearly doesn't). So you're not getting the best team anyway.
The names that said no - either due to personal preference or injury - are far more impressive than the ones actually coaxed into uttering yes. LeBron James, James Harden, Stephen Curry, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Kawhi Leonard, Damian Lillard, Gordon Hayward, Anthony Davis, LaMarcus Aldridge, Blake Griffin and John Wall. And the no-shows wouldn't just wipe the floor against the 2016 team - they could have fielded one of the flashiest 5-on-5 matchups since a round ball sank through a peach basket.
Thanks to the nays, Harrison Barnes is now an Olympian. So is ex-Rocket Kyle Lowry. As is DeMarcus Cousins
Sure, some NBA players have chosen not to play (but, I note, that this list also includes players who have decided to play in the past, which, again, brings me back to my point about it not making sense to argue that people who think the games are silly/waste of time go/have gone to the games, thereby increasing risk of injury, which would harm their ability to play in the NBA), would play in the games. Still, the last I checked, none of these players have claimed that they thought the games were silly/waste of time. And with the Zika outbreak, its even more ridiculous in my view to claim that those players believe the games are silly/waste of time. In fact, while players like Curry have openly stated they're not playing in order not to aggravate recovery knee injury, others have apparently claimed concerns about Zika (which is a real concern for people trying to have children) as a serious concern: Stephen Curry will opt out of the Olympics, and more NBA players could follow - SBNation.com Not to mention that other NBA stars have mentioned injury/concern for injury as their reason for missing. Ultimately, though, you do have a team comprised of NBA/pros players. While some NBA players may never play in the Olympics (perhaps even because they think the games are "silly" or a waste of time), I don't know how you, especially given the considerations I've mentioned, can serious claim that those players who actually DO decide to play (and, ultimately, this conversation is about them) believe that the games are silly. But, again, every interview/reaction I've seen from NBA players participating in the Olympics have expressed great pride/patriotism in playing for their country during the games. I've never heard a participant in the games say otherwise.
And I'll concede the team is not "best" that the US has to offer, but its still pretty darn good. Moreover, though, due in large part because of the inclusion of a largely NBA squad, the team is likely far better than a team that would be comprised solely of amateurs and remains the best team going into the games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99
And what kind of comments would you expect a player to make that decided to play (silly response). It's clear why it means little and was articulated well by the comment right after mine.
The fact is that you have provided nothing/poor logic to suggest that NBA players playing in the games believe the games are silly/a waste of time. Meanwhile, the analysis that the players do not believe as you claim when they are willing to risk injury/earnings potential by deciding to play is far stronger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99
I have no idea why you came to that conclusion. There has been nothing more lopsided than when the NBA players started playing. There were at least some competitive games when it was at an amateur level. Look up the comparison if you don't believe me.
Your comprehension level is really off base here. As myself and AKtoWAtoUt stated, the championship for basketball is not the Olympics, it is the NBA championship (and so on with the other sports he listed). It's not that difficult to understand. The Olympics are clearly 2nd tier (whether you want to accept it or not).
Umm, I merely looked at the scores for Team USA at the Olympics before FIBA allowed professionals to play (apparently, you didn't).
Even in the pre-NBA/professional era where there the US didn't win gold when it played (the few times that that happened . . . of course, they also haven't always won gold in the post-NBA era), the overwhelming majority of its games were still blowouts. Interesting (and I only compared the last 6 games without pros/NBA players to account for the fact that there have only been 6 games where pros have been allowed to play, the average point differential (26.8795) is HIGHER than the average point differential once NBA players have been allowed to play (26.8775) . . . if you count all of the pre-NBA era games, the gap becomes even larger.
The fact is that, even in the pre-NBA era (as shown above), Team USA was still blowing away its competition. We should celebrate greatness, not try to limit it by instituting some form of perverse affirmative action for athletes.
Also, even if I agree that the championship for basketball is the NBA championship, that point does nothing to seriously support your contention that NBA players (in the fact of their public proclamations in support of country/national team when playing AND given the fact that they are risking injury to play for country, which threatens to hurt their ability to earn the NBA championship) believe the Olympics are silly If anything, given what I've argued about risking injury, etc., the fact that the NBA championship is the premier basketball championship only greatly weakens claims that the NBA players who play in the Olympics believe the games are silly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If anything, given what I've argued about risking injury, etc., the fact that the NBA championship is the premier basketball championship only greatly weakens claims that the NBA players who play in the Olympics believe the games are silly.
