Reply With Quote
Tell that to Shawn Marion.Not really an issue. Isn't this their banner:
BTW, I'm jealous of that banner with the names around the edges. Spurs should have thought of that...
Not really an issue. Isn't this their banner:
Tell that to Shawn Marion.Not really an issue. Isn't this their banner:
BTW, I'm jealous of that banner with the names around the edges. Spurs should have thought of that...
Yep, tht was nice.
Only a worldwide compe ion can produce a "world champion".
The NBA champion could probably rightly call themselves the best basketball team in the world, but that does not make them "world champion".
If you win the NBA championship you're the NBA champion, if you win the World championship you're the World champion. It isn't that hard to get.
This. (Of course).
NBA > Euroleague
USA > Greece
sooo.... why not just say NBA World Champions?
make everybody happy..
I understand now - it's about the wording/ le of the compe ion not so much a true compe ion of the world's best basketball players. Makes sense I guess.
Actually, the NBA champion is closer to a World Champion than anything in national team tournament play. In national team tournaments such as the Olympics and World Championships, if you're a great player but everyone in else in your country sucks, you're out of luck. You can't even play in those national team tournaments if you wanted to, even if you're the best player on earth.
In the NBA, every great player is able to participate. There's no type of bias that will keep you out if you are qualified. So if World Champions is defined as the champions of the best players in the world, the champions as determined by the NBA playoffs fit that definition better than any other tournament in existence.
Pop and Manu are wrong.
They simply stopped with this World champions stuff after several US teams filled with All Stars millionaires were ridiculized on several World compe ions by several teams from other countries, some with the population of Maine, featuring a bunch of unknown players.
The Mavs were a pretty good exmple of a world team.
Nowitski
Stojakovic
Barea
Marion
Beubois
Mahinmi
They have an American owner, though called Cuban.
Pop n Manu are right.
I get your point but you're wrong Timvp (it's a rare thing on this board but you are)
''World champions'' means being the champion of the Worlds.
''Olympic champions'' means being the champion of the Olympic tournament.
''NBA champions'' means being the champion of the NBA. Now, we all know that this league is by far the best compe ion in the world but it's not worldwide.
We have in Europe the exact same situation with soccer. The famous Champions League is by far the biggest and most compe ive compe ion in the world (just like the NBA in BB). However, the winners never claim itself as world champions. They are only European champions
Like the Mahinmi?
I see what you're saying but, personally, "World Champions" should mean the champions decided when the best players in the world compete. That's the NBA. And I disagree that the NBA isn't worldwide because every qualified player on earth can play in the league ... and that's not something you can say about the World Championships or the Olympics.
It's not an argument I can win but a tournament in which players are often omitted based on man made geographical boundaries shouldn't determine the champions of the world. The best players in the world should determine the world champions.
Which automatically rules out the Mavs.
To proclaim yourself "World champion" in a non-Worldwide compe ion is just y, even if you're the best team/player in the World. Like romain.star said, Barcelona is without a question the best team in the World in soccer but they don't go out saying they're the World champions when the win the Champions League (which undoubtedly is the best soccer compe ion in the World).
Besides, the NBA champion beign better than the USA NT is at the least arguable, so no, Manu and Pop aren't wrong at all.
Last edited by DAF86; 01-08-2012 at 01:57 AM.
When FIBA held its first "World Championship", there were a grand total of 10 teams competing - 6 of them from Latin America. Most of the teams absolutely sucked, and Team USA was comprised of crappy college players. The idea of calling that abortion a "world championship" was far more presumptuous than the NBA's claim. And yet, FIBA still considered the winner of that pissant little tourney the "official" world champs. Why? Because they said so. It was unparalleled arrogance.
That being said, kudos to Pop for recognizing that there is good basketball being played around the world now. But when the Celtics (for instance) raised their first banner, basketball elsewhere was in comparative infancy. Times change, and people change with it. Some people are stuck in the past, trying to change history. (And a few other people are just blinded by the nationalistic rhetoric they chant like a mantra. You know who you are.)
Might as well be world champion thought. Ain't like any team could beat the NBA champions in a series anyhow, much less it be close.
It's semantics, but if you could get the NBA champs, put them in the World Championships, clone the foreign players video game style and go at it, the NBA would win every time.
Not to mention the NBA champ has taken on the best Euro teams before, and crushed them. I seem to remember the Spurs doing this when they trained in France.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
