Gold Medalist Questions the NBA Champs Being Deemed "World" Champs

[eyeatoma]

Did Manu become an American or Parker? Cause otherwise the Spurs very much weren't the national champs. Meanwhile wasn't everyone on the Argentina team from Argentina? How is that a world team?

Argentina won in a global tournament.

Listen we can't argue that the level of competition in the NBA blows the international competition out of the water. But the fact remains that I'm nearly every competition with the word World used in its been national teams competing. Us national leagues are one of the few that use the world in their championship trophy/award.

The US highly values the Olympic basketball gold medal, because it's a global tournament. The US lost face when they lost the gold, in many ways because it was a world/global tournament.

And I'm saying they're wrong. It's not a world tournament if each team isn't built from the talent around the WORLD! You can't build a team from just one nation!

And yes, the US national whatever basketball group that I don't give a crap about does seem to care about the olympics. Honestly, I don't think team sports should even been in the olympics but that's another topic. I personally don't care in the slightest.

That sounds more like it's your definition rather than how the majority of people define it.

[ItsDanger]

This guy is confusing club teams vs national teams. It isn't that complicated.

[dhsilv2]

I feel like we're talking about two wildly different things here. You're talking about the best model for a top sports league. I'm talking about what makes a championship (or any other similar competition) a world championship as opposed to just a national or continental championship.

The two aren't the same. At no point have I ever implied that a world championship is or even should be the best championship. The two are just different concepts.

I don't think the things are different. To be the best league, you must be the world's best league and it must be an international league. Meaning the best players from the world are able to as freely as possible compete and the overwhelming majority of the best players are all in that league.

Again, I don't think LOCATION has any role what so ever in this. Location is a function of logistics.

What matters is that the talent is the best that the world has to offer and that teams are made up of players from all over the world with the objective of being the best.

They absolutely are different. You are talking about how to be the best league. I'm not. I'm talking about what makes a competition into a world competition. Being the best league isn't how a competition becomes a world competition. Again, the two concepts (best league vs world competition) are NOT synonymous. They are different concepts.

I don't see the distinction, to be the world champ I'd expect the following.

1. Within reason all nationalities get to compete.
2. The best players are competing.
3. Teams are build to be the best with no restrictions on who can play with whom.
4. Games must be played in logistically within reason to assure no impairment of the quality of the games.

The NBA meets these requirements. Most "world champions" don't meet these. You could call the FIBA stuff the "National World Champions", but not the world champions.

[eyeatoma]

Did Manu become an American or Parker? Cause otherwise the Spurs very much weren't the national champs. Meanwhile wasn't everyone on the Argentina team from Argentina? How is that a world team?

Argentina won in a global tournament.

Listen we can't argue that the level of competition in the NBA blows the international competition out of the water. But the fact remains that I'm nearly every competition with the word World used in its been national teams competing. Us national leagues are one of the few that use the world in their championship trophy/award.

The US highly values the Olympic basketball gold medal, because it's a global tournament. The US lost face when they lost the gold, in many ways because it was a world/global tournament.

And I'm saying they're wrong. It's not a world tournament if each team isn't built from the talent around the WORLD! You can't build a team from just one nation!

And yes, the US national whatever basketball group that I don't give a crap about does seem to care about the olympics. Honestly, I don't think team sports should even been in the olympics but that's another topic. I personally don't care in the slightest.

I think you may be confused why they are using the word world. World doesn't mean every team has to have members from around the world in their team. It means people representing their country are playing in a global tournament. The reason most athletes take immense pride in winning these is because it's against the world.

[JonFromVA]

The NBA plays in the US and Canada, but it is truly a world league consisting of the best players from around the world. Until this changes, I see nothing wrong with random 3rd parties using this term. As far as I know the NBA itself does not.

The FIBA/Olympic championships are just an exhibition meant to help popularize the sport wrapped around each nation's flag to fool people in to caring about it. If all we had were national teams and they played together full time and got their salary from the competitions, it would be something else, but it's not.

[eyeatoma]

I don't think the things are different. To be the best league, you must be the world's best league and it must be an international league. Meaning the best players from the world are able to as freely as possible compete and the overwhelming majority of the best players are all in that league.

Again, I don't think LOCATION has any role what so ever in this. Location is a function of logistics.

What matters is that the talent is the best that the world has to offer and that teams are made up of players from all over the world with the objective of being the best.

They absolutely are different. You are talking about how to be the best league. I'm not. I'm talking about what makes a competition into a world competition. Being the best league isn't how a competition becomes a world competition. Again, the two concepts (best league vs world competition) are NOT synonymous. They are different concepts.

I don't see the distinction, to be the world champ I'd expect the following.

1. Within reason all nationalities get to compete.
2. The best players are competing.
3. Teams are build to be the best with no restrictions on who can play with whom.
4. Games must be played in logistically within reason to assure no impairment of the quality of the games.

The NBA meets these requirements. Most "world champions" don't meet these. You could call the FIBA stuff the "National World Champions", but not the world champions.

The NBA literally stands for National Basketball Association.

[dhsilv2]

Argentina won in a global tournament.

Listen we can't argue that the level of competition in the NBA blows the international competition out of the water. But the fact remains that I'm nearly every competition with the word World used in its been national teams competing. Us national leagues are one of the few that use the world in their championship trophy/award.

The US highly values the Olympic basketball gold medal, because it's a global tournament. The US lost face when they lost the gold, in many ways because it was a world/global tournament.

And I'm saying they're wrong. It's not a world tournament if each team isn't built from the talent around the WORLD! You can't build a team from just one nation!

And yes, the US national whatever basketball group that I don't give a crap about does seem to care about the olympics. Honestly, I don't think team sports should even been in the olympics but that's another topic. I personally don't care in the slightest.

That sounds more like it's your definition rather than how the majority of people define it.

The majority is wrong on most things. Majority rules is better than having a king, but it's by no means a good system.

[eyeatoma]

And I'm saying they're wrong. It's not a world tournament if each team isn't built from the talent around the WORLD! You can't build a team from just one nation!

And yes, the US national whatever basketball group that I don't give a crap about does seem to care about the olympics. Honestly, I don't think team sports should even been in the olympics but that's another topic. I personally don't care in the slightest.

That sounds more like it's your definition rather than how the majority of people define it.

The majority is wrong on most things. Majority rules is better than having a king, but it's by no means a good system.

Bruh... At this point you're just in denial.

[Nuntius]

Should the title of world champion be left to the country that wins FIBA tournaments and the Olympics?

I mean, the team that wins the World Cup is quite literally the World Champion. The team that wins the Olympics is the Olympics Champion and can also call themselves a World Champion since the Olympics are a world tournament.

In both cases, though, we're talking about national teams. Both of those tournaments are national teams only. There isn't a similar competition for professional basketball clubs.

If the NBA playoffs is not equivalent to a World Cup or the Olympics then isn't that a reason to disqualify calling the NBA champions the world champions?

That is why Noah Lyles is right and why a lot of people find this whole World Champions thing a little silly. But, at the end of the day, I'm not going to tell anyone how they can call the NBA champions. It's a very, very minor thing that doesn't actually hurt anybody so I don't really care if people want to call it that.

[dhsilv2]

And I'm saying they're wrong. It's not a world tournament if each team isn't built from the talent around the WORLD! You can't build a team from just one nation!

But that is literally what national teams are for. That is literally their concept. And in team sports, the high profile World Championships tend to be for national teams and not franchises/sports clubs.

And that's why they aren't world champions and the NBA is.

Look 100 years ago it made sense to have amateur teams compete and to have the winners of each city or state or whatever local municipality play for a national championship and then it made sense for those national champs to compete for a world champion. We didn't have real pro teams then. We didn't have any way to build WORLD teams so that was the system we had in place. That system is grossly dated in 2023 and makes absolutely no sense today. Just because we have a broken tradition doesn't mean it still makes sense in 2023.

[dhsilv2]

That sounds more like it's your definition rather than how the majority of people define it.

The majority is wrong on most things. Majority rules is better than having a king, but it's by no means a good system.

Bruh... At this point you're just in denial.

And yet, nobody has explained with any level of sanity why a world national team champion should be seen as a world champion.

[Nuntius]

I don't think the things are different. To be the best league, you must be the world's best league and it must be an international league. Meaning the best players from the world are able to as freely as possible compete and the overwhelming majority of the best players are all in that league.

Again, I don't think LOCATION has any role what so ever in this. Location is a function of logistics.

What matters is that the talent is the best that the world has to offer and that teams are made up of players from all over the world with the objective of being the best.

They absolutely are different. You are talking about how to be the best league. I'm not. I'm talking about what makes a competition into a world competition. Being the best league isn't how a competition becomes a world competition. Again, the two concepts (best league vs world competition) are NOT synonymous. They are different concepts.

I don't see the distinction, to be the world champ I'd expect the following.

1. Within reason all nationalities get to compete.
2. The best players are competing.
3. Teams are build to be the best with no restrictions on who can play with whom.
4. Games must be played in logistically within reason to assure no impairment of the quality of the games.

The NBA meets these requirements. Most "world champions" don't meet these. You could call the FIBA stuff the "National World Champions", but not the world champions.

That is not what the term "world champion" means, though. That is not what that term has ever meant. You are just making up your own definition here.

And you know what? That's fine. You have the right to make your own definition, no one's stopping you. But that is NOT what these terms means and it is NOT what people mean when they're using these terms.

As I said in the last two replies, we're talking about two wildy different things here.

[Nuntius]

As far as I know the NBA itself does not.

But they do. NBA franchises (which make up the NBA) literally use the term "World Champions" in the banners they hang in the rafters and the rings they give out to their players.

[eyeatoma]

The majority is wrong on most things. Majority rules is better than having a king, but it's by no means a good system.

Bruh... At this point you're just in denial.

And yet, nobody has explained with any level of sanity why a world national team champion should be seen as a world champion.

I mean everyone has, you just disagree, which is fine. But it doesn't mean you're right.

[Nuntius]

And I'm saying they're wrong. It's not a world tournament if each team isn't built from the talent around the WORLD! You can't build a team from just one nation!

But that is literally what national teams are for. That is literally their concept. And in team sports, the high profile World Championships tend to be for national teams and not franchises/sports clubs.

And that's why they aren't world champions and the NBA is.

Look 100 years ago it made sense to have amateur teams compete and to have the winners of each city or state or whatever local municipality play for a national championship and then it made sense for those national champs to compete for a world champion. We didn't have real pro teams then. We didn't have any way to build WORLD teams so that was the system we had in place. That system is grossly dated in 2023 and makes absolutely no sense today. Just because we have a broken tradition doesn't mean it still makes sense in 2023.

I'm all for abolishing traditions that are dated and no longer work but the defition of what the term "world champion" means is nowhere near where I'd start

[dhsilv2]

They absolutely are different. You are talking about how to be the best league. I'm not. I'm talking about what makes a competition into a world competition. Being the best league isn't how a competition becomes a world competition. Again, the two concepts (best league vs world competition) are NOT synonymous. They are different concepts.

I don't see the distinction, to be the world champ I'd expect the following.

1. Within reason all nationalities get to compete.
2. The best players are competing.
3. Teams are build to be the best with no restrictions on who can play with whom.
4. Games must be played in logistically within reason to assure no impairment of the quality of the games.

The NBA meets these requirements. Most "world champions" don't meet these. You could call the FIBA stuff the "National World Champions", but not the world champions.

That is not what the term "world champion" means, though. That is not what that term has ever meant. You are just making up your own definition here.

And you know what? That's fine. You have the right to make your own definition, no one's stopping you. But that is NOT what these terms means and it is NOT what people mean when they're using these terms.

As I said in the last two replies, we're talking about two wildy different things here.

And I'm saying the way the term has been used is based on a dated model, and is WRONG today! That system hasn't made since in at least 30 years. Today it's sheer stupidity!

If you want to call a team the "World NATIONAL Champion" then whatever. But if you call that team the world champion, that isn't what they actually are. We change how we speak as we get better information, there are changes to how things function, or for countless other reasons. IN 2023, the NBA champion is the most obvious and clear world champion for basketball.

[eyeatoma]

As far as I know the NBA itself does not.

But they do. NBA franchises (which make up the NBA) literally use the term "World Champions" in the banners they hang in the rafters and the rings they give out to their players.

The NBA is wrong lol. Just because an organization is wrongly touting this, doesn't make them right. That's why we corroborate and get multiple opinions. Which again goes back to that word i mentioned before, majority.

[eyeatoma]

I don't see the distinction, to be the world champ I'd expect the following.

1. Within reason all nationalities get to compete.
2. The best players are competing.
3. Teams are build to be the best with no restrictions on who can play with whom.
4. Games must be played in logistically within reason to assure no impairment of the quality of the games.

The NBA meets these requirements. Most "world champions" don't meet these. You could call the FIBA stuff the "National World Champions", but not the world champions.

That is not what the term "world champion" means, though. That is not what that term has ever meant. You are just making up your own definition here.

And you know what? That's fine. You have the right to make your own definition, no one's stopping you. But that is NOT what these terms means and it is NOT what people mean when they're using these terms.

As I said in the last two replies, we're talking about two wildy different things here.

And I'm saying the way the term has been used is based on a dated model, and is WRONG today! That system hasn't made since in at least 30 years. Today it's sheer stupidity!

If you want to call a team the "World NATIONAL Champion" then whatever. But if you call that team the world champion, that isn't what they actually are. We change how we speak as we get better information, there are changes to how things function, or for countless other reasons. IN 2023, the NBA champion is the most obvious and clear world champion for basketball.

Good grief.

You're clearly living in an alternative dimension because I don't think there is a single person here who believes this.

[dhsilv2]

But that is literally what national teams are for. That is literally their concept. And in team sports, the high profile World Championships tend to be for national teams and not franchises/sports clubs.

And that's why they aren't world champions and the NBA is.

Look 100 years ago it made sense to have amateur teams compete and to have the winners of each city or state or whatever local municipality play for a national championship and then it made sense for those national champs to compete for a world champion. We didn't have real pro teams then. We didn't have any way to build WORLD teams so that was the system we had in place. That system is grossly dated in 2023 and makes absolutely no sense today. Just because we have a broken tradition doesn't mean it still makes sense in 2023.

I'm all for abolishing traditions that are dated and no longer work but the defition of what the term "world champion" means is nowhere near where I'd start

If I told a 10 year old who doesn't follow sports "these are the world champions", what would they think. No way in hell does someone with no knowledge of this would think "oh each country put together a team and was limited by that". They'd think "oh it's the best team in the world". If it doesn't make sense, it should change.

[dhsilv2]

Bruh... At this point you're just in denial.

And yet, nobody has explained with any level of sanity why a world national team champion should be seen as a world champion.

I mean everyone has, you just disagree, which is fine. But it doesn't mean you're right.

Nobody has even made an effort. You're argument is "well this is not how it's done, so lets just stick to this stupid dated system".