Re: Does it bother you that NBA Champions is referred as 'World Champions"?
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:17 pm
The 2021 World Champion Milwaukee Bucks just unveiled their banner!
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2129004
dhsilv2 wrote:Salieri wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
So if I read you right. Teams are from our WORLD called EARTH. So the nba champs are the world champs. The whole NBA is from our same world. By your logic if a team isn't from our world I agree they don't count. But this is a league of teams from the world and that's all you want.
It's obvious you didn't read me right
Ah sorry, you think which tectonic plates a team plays games on has some meaning but have no reason why it does.
dhsilv2 wrote:ACMFFL wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Define standing? Basketball hasn't been that popular a sport globally until the last 30 or so years. I mean you think China is really watching Eurobasket? Africa? South America? Australia?
People want to see the highest level of competition in a sport. Now I know for some reason with these "clubs" soccer was screwed up and there's no proper league for it. But thankfully basketball has a real league for the top competition. That's what fans should want. The world games? A giant who cares?
Wat? Maybe I misunderstood you but the Champions League is still the highest level of competition in football even without the winners claiming the world champ title.
And what's wrong with the word "club"? On the other hand I think nobody has a problem with the word "franchise"
My understanding is the "champions league" isn't an actual league though. A group of teams have to qualify for it so it doesn't count because it means that there effectively are no set top teams. Or in a better way of putting it, there talent pool of players can be more spread out.
JujitsuFlip wrote:The 2021 World Champion Milwaukee Bucks just unveiled their banner!
UcanUwill wrote:Winsome Gerbil wrote:As I said in the last thread about this: no. It's true.
It's also true in baseball and American Football. There are no teams or countries even close, and the world's best players all play in this one league. It's not a closed domestic league, it's a world league. It's MVP last year was a Serbian. The title was won by a Greek of Nigerian descent.
Now if the "World Champion" was claimed in soccer that would be a problem.
So, most of the times in every other league, MVPs and champions are foreigners, doesnt make them world champions of any kind, calling yourself world champion for winning a national league is just technically incorrect, the worst kind of incorrect.
Those are pretty slick!stillgotgame wrote:JujitsuFlip wrote:The 2021 World Champion Milwaukee Bucks just unveiled their banner!
The World Champion ring is sweet too.
?s=21
Salieri wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Salieri wrote:
It's obvious you didn't read me right
Ah sorry, you think which tectonic plates a team plays games on has some meaning but have no reason why it does.
So, you didn't read me right AND you're also gonna tell me what I think? Because you know what I think better than me?
Okay, buddy. I tried to make you understand a very simple concept: a world champion needs to compete in a world championship in order to be called so. Let's try one last time with a very basic example:
During the 2011 Athletics World Championship, everyone knew Usain Bolt was the best 100m sprinter in history, let alone the world. He was the world record holder. He had won many competitions before that tournament, and would go ahead to win many more after it.
But he got disqualified in the 2011 finals, something that allowed Yohan Blake to win the race, becoming World champion.
Bolt won the 100m finals the next year in the 2012 London summer Olympics, but he was NOT the world champion because he didn't win a world championship.
Up until 2013 when he would reclaim the crown, somebody else was the world champion. It didn't matter that he was the best runner to ever live. It didn't matter that he won many other competitions. He didn't win the last tournament named WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Thus, for those 2 years he wasn't the world champion as much as he dominated the sport.
He needed to win the competition that gives its winner that title in order to hold that title. It doesn't matter if he was much better than everyone else. It didn't matter what other tournaments he won. He couldn't claim to be the world champion until he won at the World Championship.
It's a matter of semantics. As I've said since the beginning, nobody doubts NBA winners are MUCH better than EL winners or any other team in the world. All they need to do to be accurately called world champions is win a World Championship. Up until that tournament is created, that title can't be held by any team because that competition does not exist. To illustrate the point: football -soccer- teams were also itching to brag about being world champions, so the Intercontinental Cup became the FIFA Club World Cup, and now the yearly winner of that tournament can legitimately be called World Champions. See how easy it is?
Now, if you STILL don't understand what I mean and you keep going on talking about millionaire players, country borders and tectonic plates (LOL), I've done all I can and this is not a hill I wanna die on. As I said, it doesn't bother me except in a semantic, linguistic, anal retentive way. It's just not an accurate moniker, that is all.
ACMFFL wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:ACMFFL wrote:
Wat? Maybe I misunderstood you but the Champions League is still the highest level of competition in football even without the winners claiming the world champ title.
And what's wrong with the word "club"? On the other hand I think nobody has a problem with the word "franchise"
My understanding is the "champions league" isn't an actual league though. A group of teams have to qualify for it so it doesn't count because it means that there effectively are no set top teams. Or in a better way of putting it, there talent pool of players can be more spread out.
That's because every team has to earn its spot in the Champions League but usually a real top team qualifies for it.
A few months ago the best teams in Europe tried to create a closed league based in the North American sports system, the Superleague, but the winners would not have claimed the world champ title, that league still would have been a continental league.
The NBA itself doesn't officially refer to the NBA winner as the world champions.
I'm not 100% sure about it so correct me if I'm wrong.
dhsilv2 wrote:Salieri wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Ah sorry, you think which tectonic plates a team plays games on has some meaning but have no reason why it does.
So, you didn't read me right AND you're also gonna tell me what I think? Because you know what I think better than me?
Okay, buddy. I tried to make you understand a very simple concept: a world champion needs to compete in a world championship in order to be called so. Let's try one last time with a very basic example:
During the 2011 Athletics World Championship, everyone knew Usain Bolt was the best 100m sprinter in history, let alone the world. He was the world record holder. He had won many competitions before that tournament, and would go ahead to win many more after it.
But he got disqualified in the 2011 finals, something that allowed Yohan Blake to win the race, becoming World champion.
Bolt won the 100m finals the next year in the 2012 London summer Olympics, but he was NOT the world champion because he didn't win a world championship.
Up until 2013 when he would reclaim the crown, somebody else was the world champion. It didn't matter that he was the best runner to ever live. It didn't matter that he won many other competitions. He didn't win the last tournament named WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Thus, for those 2 years he wasn't the world champion as much as he dominated the sport.
He needed to win the competition that gives its winner that title in order to hold that title. It doesn't matter if he was much better than everyone else. It didn't matter what other tournaments he won. He couldn't claim to be the world champion until he won at the World Championship.
It's a matter of semantics. As I've said since the beginning, nobody doubts NBA winners are MUCH better than EL winners or any other team in the world. All they need to do to be accurately called world champions is win a World Championship. Up until that tournament is created, that title can't be held by any team because that competition does not exist. To illustrate the point: football -soccer- teams were also itching to brag about being world champions, so the Intercontinental Cup became the FIFA Club World Cup, and now the yearly winner of that tournament can legitimately be called World Champions. See how easy it is?
Now, if you STILL don't understand what I mean and you keep going on talking about millionaire players, country borders and tectonic plates (LOL), I've done all I can and this is not a hill I wanna die on. As I said, it doesn't bother me except in a semantic, linguistic, anal retentive way. It's just not an accurate moniker, that is all.
I'd like to make a lot of jokes here, but I'm sorry I don't think it would be respectful to you. The bolt stuff doesn't even remotely apply. Soccer is a horrible professional system I'd never wish on any sport.
But the nba is a world organization, made up of people from the world. They use a closed system because a non closed system doesn't work at all. You can't be a world champion professional team if you don't play the full season together and you can't do that over 24 time zones. You have to be organized in a few reasonable time zones.
You need to make a point man otherwise I'm sorry, I can't even respond.
No you can't call yourself a world champion if you ONLY compete in a tournament. You have to be a part of a full season in a professional sport's league. You must win the top league and that league must have fixed teams, must pull players from the world, it must have a clearly advantage in getting players, and it must be by far the clear cut best set of players in the world.
There is no soccer world champ because soccer's system is complete and utter trash!
Salieri wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Salieri wrote:
So, you didn't read me right AND you're also gonna tell me what I think? Because you know what I think better than me?
Okay, buddy. I tried to make you understand a very simple concept: a world champion needs to compete in a world championship in order to be called so. Let's try one last time with a very basic example:
During the 2011 Athletics World Championship, everyone knew Usain Bolt was the best 100m sprinter in history, let alone the world. He was the world record holder. He had won many competitions before that tournament, and would go ahead to win many more after it.
But he got disqualified in the 2011 finals, something that allowed Yohan Blake to win the race, becoming World champion.
Bolt won the 100m finals the next year in the 2012 London summer Olympics, but he was NOT the world champion because he didn't win a world championship.
Up until 2013 when he would reclaim the crown, somebody else was the world champion. It didn't matter that he was the best runner to ever live. It didn't matter that he won many other competitions. He didn't win the last tournament named WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Thus, for those 2 years he wasn't the world champion as much as he dominated the sport.
He needed to win the competition that gives its winner that title in order to hold that title. It doesn't matter if he was much better than everyone else. It didn't matter what other tournaments he won. He couldn't claim to be the world champion until he won at the World Championship.
It's a matter of semantics. As I've said since the beginning, nobody doubts NBA winners are MUCH better than EL winners or any other team in the world. All they need to do to be accurately called world champions is win a World Championship. Up until that tournament is created, that title can't be held by any team because that competition does not exist. To illustrate the point: football -soccer- teams were also itching to brag about being world champions, so the Intercontinental Cup became the FIFA Club World Cup, and now the yearly winner of that tournament can legitimately be called World Champions. See how easy it is?
Now, if you STILL don't understand what I mean and you keep going on talking about millionaire players, country borders and tectonic plates (LOL), I've done all I can and this is not a hill I wanna die on. As I said, it doesn't bother me except in a semantic, linguistic, anal retentive way. It's just not an accurate moniker, that is all.
I'd like to make a lot of jokes here, but I'm sorry I don't think it would be respectful to you. The bolt stuff doesn't even remotely apply. Soccer is a horrible professional system I'd never wish on any sport.
But the nba is a world organization, made up of people from the world. They use a closed system because a non closed system doesn't work at all. You can't be a world champion professional team if you don't play the full season together and you can't do that over 24 time zones. You have to be organized in a few reasonable time zones.
You need to make a point man otherwise I'm sorry, I can't even respond.
No you can't call yourself a world champion if you ONLY compete in a tournament. You have to be a part of a full season in a professional sport's league. You must win the top league and that league must have fixed teams, must pull players from the world, it must have a clearly advantage in getting players, and it must be by far the clear cut best set of players in the world.
There is no soccer world champ because soccer's system is complete and utter trash!
As I said, if I couldn't make you see the light with my last try, I give up. So I won't keep going with this kind of bizarre conversation.
And feel free to make those jokes! I don't mind a bit of teasing and banter, especially when the subject isn't a serious one, or at least one I don't take seriously. In the end, who cares about the accurate label of an NBA champ? I sure don't, seeing as it is a publicity stunt.
You're lucky though that this is my last reply, because there is (at least) one demonstrably false statement in each paragraph of that post. I could shred it to pieces if I wanted to prolongue this nonsensical debate. Alas, I'm not interested and you'll have the last word. I suggest you use it to make some of those jokes so we can balance out a bit the heavy words of the anti-american vs anti-europe part of the thread. Can we at least agree that those guys are way too serious, way too offended, and they're projecting way too much for such a light hearted topic as this one?