Reply With Quote
If Pop is such a technocrat then why did he allow Timmy to take such a beating this year without an help. Technically speaking, of course.
At last... a rational comment from one of the international fans. You're right, Manubili, the ideal thing would be to have NBA and FIBA teams play each other. The problem is, they play two totally different games. If you are really an international basketball fan, you know that's true. I would like to think that some of you are honest enough to admit it, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet.
It's kind of ironic that so many of you insist that Americans are arrogant, when FIBA is the one who said, "If you want to be World Champion, you have to come play on OUR courts, by OUR rules." None of you (internationals) would even consider the idea of FIBA teams playing on NBA courts, under NBA rules. Why? Maybe because FIBA's way is the "right" way? I think there is plenty of arrogance to go around on both sides of this argument.
There's no way to have a legitimate World Champion decided on the court. The differences in the rules, and the court dimensions are too extreme. (I'll say it again... we play two different games.) But, beyond that, the best NBA teams will have played a minimum of 98 bruising NBA games to get through the playoffs. Winning in the NBA is, in a very real sense, an endurance test as well as a basketball test. And the NBA playoffs are decided by brutal 7-game series, which helps insure that the better team advances. The FIBA "world championship" consists of a round-robin tournament to qualify, followed by a 16-team, single elimination tournament to crown a champion. It's just a totally different test.
Face it - FIBA crowns the World Champion of FIBA basketball, and the NBA crowns the World Champion of NBA basketball. You can make the case that neither are legitimate "world championships", or that they both are. But you can't say that one is legit and the other is not. I don't mind hearing that the Spanish team is World Champion of FIBA ball, but I don't dispute what the Celtics put on their banners, either.
If Pop is such a technocrat then why did he allow Timmy to take such a beating this year without an help. Technically speaking, of course.
And for you American fans who buy into everything Pop said, because it sounds logical, consider this:
1. The FIBA Championships are a 16-team single-elimination tournament. If the NBA played by those rules, how many "NBA Championships" would the Spurs have? Answer - one. In their last 3 Championship runs, the Spurs lost their opening game. In FIBA compe ion, they would have been out. Last season, the Lakers lost to the Rockets in the first game of Round 2... out. Do you really believe that a World Championship decided by a single game proves which team is best?
2. The NBA 3-point distance is 23.75 feet, and 22 feet in the corners. The NCAA 3-point distance is only 20.75 feet, and a lot of guys who shoot great in college can't consistently hit from 3 feet further out. Well, the FIBA 3-point line is only 20.5 feet, shorter than even the NCAA. Couple that with the trapezoid-shaped lane - which discourages play under the basket, but allows players to camp 12 feet from the basket without being in the paint. Do you really think we play the same game? Then how can you agree that the only "legitimate" World Champion is one that is decided by FIBA rules?
3. The FIBA court is 2 feet shorter, and quarters are only 10 minutes long. That makes it MUCH easier on the bigs to run the floor. FIBA teams can play a zone defense, with no defensive 3-second rule - which means that bigs can camp in the paint. Goaltending is legal under FIBA rules. Once again, how can you buy into the idea that there could be a unified World Championship, when the leagues are playing totally different games?
It's not a question of which one is better - they are just different. The differences aren't as big as those between American Football and rest-of-the-world football (soccer, to us). But they are too different to shove under one umbrella. I don't think that any (current) FIBA team could compete under NBA rules, over an 82-game season. And I don't buy the idea that using the term "World Champion" reqires playing under FIBA rules. It was a stupid, unnecessary rant by Pop. The Celtics have earned every one of those banners, many of them before FIBA was any factor in the basketball world. Pop should probably tone it down until he proves that he can do something without a young Tim Duncan.
I can admit that FIBA rules have made a lot of NBA players look pretty crappy. Their game isn't suited to that style of play. I think a lot of FIBA fans should man up and admit the same thing about their players under NBA rules.
Just a few things.
1st FIBA has changed the 3pt line, it is now exactly the same as the NBA.
2nd I don´t think anyone here argues about the way the NBA is played, but the argument is made that only US teams are allowed to compete with NBA teams, a tournament must be international for you to call world champions.
It is like if we in Argentina named "world champions" to the Argentina Polo champion as we have the best players, our players lead all teams in international compe ions (that are significantly worse than argentinean championship) and the Polo Federation doesn´t allow Argentina to bring any of our best 20-30 players into the Polo World Cup because they are too good (this is not a joke), yet, we could very well call "World Champion" to our league winner, but we don´t out of respect.
Following with the "International" argument, the reason we don´t do it is because only Argentinean teams play our polo championship, this is teh Argentina Championship, in order to have a world champion, even if it is meaningless as it is in Polo for the reasons given, yopu have to allow all countrys the chance to play or qualify for it.
In soccer, there is no "World Champions", what exists is a "World Club Championship" in where the winners of each Continental Clubs Cup play each other. And the winner is en led "Club´s World Cup Champion".
You outta respect the world if you want to get that recognition. I think the McDonalds World Cup, that was played before in which lastedition in 1999 the Spurs where the champions, resembles the idea of how a World Club Championship must be, it was also designed in a way than the compe ion combined rules of both the NBA and the European (FIBA) leagues.
In 2010 the FIBA World Club Championship will start but it won´t be a top tier tournament as it will be launched as a prototype, no NBA team has been invited because of this and also the Euroleague Champion won´t participate as well. But they plan to use this experience and have a better compe ion in 2011, inviting also the CBA (China) Champion as well as an NBA team (not confirmed that will be the champion), if this pans out well, we will have a good international Club compe ion set for 2012 as the most early.
Popovich is so right. It's ridiculous to see NBA teams calling themselves "world" champions.
of course, I would like to see the Mavs have that problem some day, but I digress
Last edited by ZB 512; 03-30-2010 at 07:01 PM.
The team that wins the world championship is the world champion. The team that wins the NBA championship is the NBA champion
Calling the MLB championship series the "world" series is ridiculous as well imo even though it's an old tradition. I love the "world series", but hate the name.
GSH is really spot on--FIBA basketball and NBA basketball are two mind-bogglingly different things.
I really do not think, however, that an international team could hang with the top NBA teams over an 82 forty-eight minute regular season games AND a grueling 7-7-7-7 playoff format. A single-elimination tournament is nearly always inferior to the series format (with the possible exception of American football). Not saying they couldn't get there, but they aren't close yet.
I agree and that is why winning the NBA championship is more impressive than winning the world championships imo....but winning the NBA championship does make a team the "world champions"
fify, even though I disagree
1) True. NBA and FIBA have different rules: a guy like James, for one, would be called for travelling 20-30 times during a game by FIBA rules. Including little kids games. It's a lot easier to beat the defender when you can take a couple of steps before you actually bounce the ball for the first dribble.
2) FIBA is a federation of basketball organizations of how many 150 states? NBA is a COMPANY with 30 franchises in ONE state.
3) Playing 82 mostly irrelevant games is part of the problem, in my eyes, yes. And rarely a 7 games series ends up with a FINAL, deciding game. It's nearly always tomorrow, in the NBA. It's almost NEVER tomorrow in FIBA championships.
4) We can face it: the NBA crowns the WORLD champions of NBA basketball, if you believe that there is nothing beyond the NBA. There is a lot, actually. As the history of recent international compe ions have proven.
And as coach Popovich, and the Spurs FO, was the FIRST to understand.
Which is precisely the reason why is so successful in his business.
In summary, as a NON-American basketball fan and ex-player, I thank coach Popovich for his nice comments, right on target.
Last edited by temujin; 03-31-2010 at 07:57 AM.
There are currently 83 foreign players on the NBA roster (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/10/27/i...ers/index.html), most of whom grew up learning basketball under FIBA rules. It looks like they don't have a problem adapting their game to the NBA rules. How, if the game is that different?
Beat me to it. Pop in no way talked mess about America, just American arrogance. It disgusts many Americans, myself included.
And I don't follow baseball, but how long have other nations been able to match and even beat America at its own past time? The World Series definitely has no grounds to stand on. At least Americans still get the gold in basketball every once in awhile.
, I don't agree, with you, but I do. I would argue most vehemently for no one to be able to say that they are the world champions. It would be as hard to decide that as deciding a universal currency. Neither FIBA or NBA would budge, and if they tried to meet halfway rules-wise, both organizations wouldn't be able to agree what the equilibrium would be. I'm guessing one way to decide would be that there would have to be one game under FIBA rules, one under NBA rules, and one under averaged rules. If one team won the first two games, there'd be no need for a third. Or another way would be a 5/7 game series with averaged rules, but the FIBA side would that's how it's done in the NBA, not FIBA. And the NBA might about only playing 1 game. And no, I don't have a clue how the zebras would be chosen, and how they'd make sense of rules they'd never had to follow before.
P.S. By "rules", I mean measurements of the court, how charges, goaltending, defensive 3 sec, and other things are officiated, # of available fouls, and pretty much anything else different about the two leagues.
Bravo!!! I know it's hard to swallow, but neither league has the "right" to claim a World Championship. That said, if FIBA wants to use that le, I don't care. And if the Celtics want it on their banners, so what? It doesn't change a thing.
I'll let you FIBA fans in on a little secret. The American fans didn't name the World Series, and they didn't put the words "World Champions" on the Celtics' banners. The owners did it, to generate hype and make more money. The average fan never, ever, ever thinks about it until one of you (or Greg Popovich) brings it up. We may think, "We beat the Pistons in the Finals" or "We beat the Yankees in 6 Games". But I've never had the thought, "My team is the best in the world." For you guys to generalize that American fans are arrogant, because the team owners chose to use the word "World" is kind of ridiculous. We laugh right back at you. You may not like that, because it challenges your world view about Americans. But it's true.
When you guys start arguing that FIBA teams are just as good as NBA teams, we're going to argue back. It's what sports fans do. But the fact is, we'll never know unless they decide to compete with each other under a common set of rules. And I don't see how that can happen unless they combine into a World League.
But since you insist that Americans are the arrogant ones, I'm going to post some facts about how FIBA came to "own" the name World Champions. I keep hoping that a few of you are going to be big enough to man up and say, "Gee... I guess we aren't perfect, either."
Last edited by GSH; 03-31-2010 at 01:48 PM.
So exactly how did FIBA come to "own" the use of World Championship?
FIBA was founded as an amateur basketball federation, which they remained until 1989. (You do know that the "A" in FIBA stands for amateur, don't you?) They staged their first "World Championship" in 1950, even though only 10 teams played in the tournament. (That same year, the Minneapolis Lakers won their second professional NBA le.) So how can the winner of a crappy 10-team tournament be considered a "World Champion"? Because FIBA said so? If you don't like the word arrogant, let's just call it presumptuous.
For 40 years, the FIBA "World Championship" was supposedly an amateur compe ion. But many of the countries featured squads that were sponsored, and played together year round. They had veteran players who were professionals in everything but name. The American teams were made up of college kids who were selected to play, and practiced together a few times before competing. The winners of those tournaments never faced the best players in the world, who were professionals. But they still called themsleves "World Champions". Why? Because FIBA said so. Still don't see any FIBA arrogance?
What FIBA should have called the tourney was the Amateur World Championships. Were any of you FIBA fans talking about how arrogant it was for FIBA to claim the le of World Champion back then? Nope. They got a pass, because it was understood that it was an amateur championship.
How about 1986? The USA team won the FIBA World Championship, with a bunch of recently-graduated college players. That same year, the Boston Celtics (featuring Larry Bird) beat the Houston Rockets (featuring Hakeem Olajuwon) in the NBA Finals. So the USA college all-star team was considered the World Champion, while the Celtics were "just" the NBA Champions. Why? Because FIBA said so. Team USA wouldn't have been in the Top 10 in the NBA, but they were supposed to be the best team in the world? That's not arrogance, it's just stupidity.
Everyone accepted that FIBA was amateur compe ion, and virtually no one would have suggested that those teams could have competed in the NBA. So in 1989, FIBA finally started officially allowing professional players. But the rosters of all the best teams (USSR, Yugoslavia, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, etc.) were largely the same as the previous year. Naturally, FIBA looked for a way to have their professionals compete against the NBA professionals, right? Nope... the FIBA (Amateur) World Championship just became the de facto FIBA (Professional) World Championship. Same tourney, same players - but suddenly they are presumed to be on par with the NBA? Why? Because FIBA said so. Somehow, simply using the name "World Championship" makes it a fact?
Incidentally - the 1990 "World Champion" Yugoslavian team featured 7-year vet Drazen Petrovic, Vlade Divac (5 years), Tony Kukoc (3 years), and USA team featured a 20 year old Alonzo Mourning, 20 year old Christian Laettner, 19 year old Kenny Anderson, Chris Gatling, Henry Williams, Todd Day, Lee Mayberry, Billy Owens, and some other guys you don't know. That same year, the Bad Boy Detroit Pistons repeated as NBA Champions. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best... right?
FIBA was arrogant as for not calling their tourney the World Amateur Championship. And when they made the transition to a professional league, they were just as arrogant for keeping the name, when they knew that they were excluding the best of the NBA. Yes, they have international compe ion. But don't you guys all say that championships have to be earned?
Like I've said. If they want to use the name, fine. But don't pretend that there is only one side to the story.
Last edited by GSH; 03-31-2010 at 12:40 PM.
Agreed and this is an example of the evolution in thinking as national borders are continuously being broken down. Within a generation or so I really don't think this subject would generate this much interest and conversation.
Prior to the late '90s or beyond there was no question that the NBA was the best league on this planet and I believe it still is. Calling former NBA champions in the 20th century World Champions doesn't present a problem with me. There was absolutely no way any national team outside of the USA that could even remotely stay with those teams as evidenced with the Dream Team's performance in the '92 Olympics. The fact that many non-Americans think that concept is arrogant and wrong is meaningless since at the time no nation or nations could have been compe ive against the NBA. So essentially those NBA champions were the best in the world irrespective of what other people think. It is what it is.
But as stated above things are a changin'!
So you really think that prior to say 10 or so years ago that the world could actually compete with the USA in either baseball or Basketball?Pop is right. Americans have some kind of "world" fetish, that`s why the rest of the world likes to make fun of them. If you are so ignorant to call your national tournament "World series" you deserve it.
Really? Arrogance not withstanding. Really????
And ShoogarBear has a point here - the USA doesn't either emphasize or put all that much effort and money into the sport at the present time. Though it has gained a lot of attention over the past decade or so but I don't think it will ever rival the big 4 - Baseball, football, basketball, hockey.
If this nation would to embrace soccer like it does the big 4 then you can just about ship the FIFA trophy in "football" to the USA every four years. We would dominate and that's not just my opinion either. I have many friends who are non-American who have talked to me about the "what if" scenario concerning USA focusing on soccer first. (I assure them that they have nothing to fear but fear itself and to stop worrying about it. It ain't gonna happen! Ever) But with our integrated athletic programs starting with kids 6 or younger - city leagues followed by elementary/junior high/high school/college ins utions all plugging into this would turn out teams you could only dream about. If all our best athletes played soccer first rather than any of the big 4 it would be an international nightmare for all of you not part of the USA.
Technically you are correct and from say 2000 on out I believe that is the best way to view it but in the past there couldn't be an agruement to that effect. There just wasn't any credible teams worthy of competing against the NBA teams regardless of whether they either had a team, weren't given the chance to compete in the NBA or world tournaments or for that matter that a world tournament existed.
Now that it does then a true world champion can be determined.
But that brings up a very sticky point: NBA vs FIBA rules - see below
I agree with you on this. The two styles are completely different and should be viewed as such. I've always wondered how an American invented game was hijacked by the Olympic committee and FIBA and turned into what we see today. With all due respect to those that like the FIBA game it just isn't as good as the NBA version but that's just my honest opinion. To each his own. I grew up in England and went to English schools for two years so I grew up playing sccor first and to this day will always watch it. I lkie the game but many of my friends here think it's boring and dull and call me a *****. I could care less what they say becasue I watch soccer and this summer is going to be great! Every four years I even schedule vacation time in order to catch daytime games.
And for the TD reference he was totally disgusted by the way he was beat up down low without so much as a call here and there. He was completely ineffective in Athens in '04. A great example of how FIBA rules make NBA players look crappy. I didn't blame him for not wanting to play again in international tourneys.
Always two sides to a coin or agrument. And I agree with you about what FIBA has done to the sport and how it has portrayed itself to the world.
But how are these two different styles of play/rules going to be reconciled? Probably never or if so then with alot of pain and suffering. Because I believe that there will never be a true World Champion if two different sets of rules exist. As stated about TD earlier he was completely ineffective under the FIBA system. He learned a totally different game and got exposed for that under the current Olympic/FIBA system. I believe that if the NBA type of play/rules were in force at the time things would have been very different. But then I believe many internationals would be up in arms about changing the rules to accomodate NBA players.
Good luck with that one. Our great gandkids may not even see that happening.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
