Does it bother you that NBA Champions is referred as 'World Champions"?

[WRau1]

If you have the best players in the world playing in one league, how are they not World Champions?

then why not hold nets vs lakers finals if thats the case. bucks were heavily against odds to beat nets and win ring but they did it.
until you play you never know in a game of pro sports. also all the recent mvps are from europe not americans. if these guys went back to euroleague where something like RM of soccer happens, nba will be crushed.

But they don't go back to other leagues because other leagues can't pay them like the NBA and the level of competition is far worse. The best players in the world play in the NBA and that's not even debatable. Make whatever excuse you want, it's just a fact. Are there guys in other leagues that could play here? Of course. Overall, it's a small amount and the majority of the best basketball players on the planet play in one league, the NBA. World Champs.

[WRau1]

Imagine being bothered by the BEST LEAGUE in the WORLD calling its winners WORLD champions. Euro insecurity knows no bounds it's embarrassing how much you people whine on American forums begging for daddy USA to acknowledge your existence. We know you exist and we know your basketball leagues are terrible.

NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL are the best leagues in their respective sports and if any champion is called world champion here that is all that title is trying to convey. Somehow trying to spin that into some delusional American power fantasy is bizarre. Not one American would give a crap if the best euro soccer league called the winner world champions because it's TRUE. MLS cannot compete and we don't care.

But you can’t prove that year in year out unless you play teams from around the world.

Australia had the best Rugby League comp but we don’t say “World Champs”x

We also have the best AFL comp and don’t say world champs.

They have that, it's called the Olympics and the USA team consisting of all NBA players just took gold.

[Calamity_Cometh]

It is marketing. Nothing more. Sure, it's arrogant but no marketing firm is gonna drop using world champs.

[5paceman]

Not going to read all 12 pages, but World Champions makes sense. The NBA is made of the best players from all over the world and also there aren't rules that say only so many players from abroad are allowed.

[playoffs]

You think those guys are so uncompetitive they'd want to play in a league where nobody would respect their game? That's the problem with this idea. You can't just buy players to play for a team that doesn't matter in a league that doesn't matter. There were rumors 75M was offered to Kobe and Leberon at one point, they never left the nba and that was a decade ago. And to play in a nothing league, they might actually lose endorsement money. You'd you'd have to at least triple that number...maybe more to get these guys. 500 million a year for each and sure...ok. 80 isn't going to land more than MAYBE one star and that's insanely iffy. That's the power of having the NBA as a closed off league where either you're in it or you can't compete at the highest level. It's also why NBA superstars were ok to sign off on these player salary caps that prevent them from getting more money.

I explicitly said it's only a theoretical possibility. I'm not suggesting it would happen. But the fact that such a possibility exists means, imo, that in order to proclaim yourself as a world champ, you actually have to compete against the rest of the world. And sure, the NBA has historically been, and still is, significantly better than any other basketball league, but there's no guarantee this will last forever. The gap is shrinking year by year, and over time, yes, it will become possible for some Euro clubs to reach elite NBA levels. And then, at what point do you stop just assuming that the NBA teams are better? Are you sure that this can't happen in the next 10-20 years? A couple Euro billionaires and a bad CBA negotiation year, and you will start seeing that shift. If the last 5 years have taught me anything, is that it's foolish to take anything for granted.

Theory would imply a proven well established and tested thing that's built on other theories or facts. So you're saying hypothetically? Cause this isn't a theory! Theory is another word for the best factual evidence we have possible!

Anyway - it's not a reasonable idea! And why would those guy not just buy an nba franchise and/or move it to europe if they want to see game played there as if live fans matter?

The reality is the NBA has because they have a closed league and have no issue expanding and WANT TO expand to the europe...there's just no chance this happens.

If at some point another league becomes competitive, ok...maybe we should take a pause. But that's not probable. The nba system is just too effective and the nba is DREAMING of moving into other countries, they just can't figure out logistics. If there is enough talent to do it, they'll be elsewhere and figure it out.

TBH I find it extremely ironic (and hilarious) that you are splitting hairs about my use of the word "theoretical" rather than "hypothetical" in the SAME POST where you defend the incorrect use of the term "world champions" to describe the winners of a league that does not compete against the rest of the world.

[dhsilv2]

I explicitly said it's only a theoretical possibility. I'm not suggesting it would happen. But the fact that such a possibility exists means, imo, that in order to proclaim yourself as a world champ, you actually have to compete against the rest of the world. And sure, the NBA has historically been, and still is, significantly better than any other basketball league, but there's no guarantee this will last forever. The gap is shrinking year by year, and over time, yes, it will become possible for some Euro clubs to reach elite NBA levels. And then, at what point do you stop just assuming that the NBA teams are better? Are you sure that this can't happen in the next 10-20 years? A couple Euro billionaires and a bad CBA negotiation year, and you will start seeing that shift. If the last 5 years have taught me anything, is that it's foolish to take anything for granted.

Theory would imply a proven well established and tested thing that's built on other theories or facts. So you're saying hypothetically? Cause this isn't a theory! Theory is another word for the best factual evidence we have possible!

Anyway - it's not a reasonable idea! And why would those guy not just buy an nba franchise and/or move it to europe if they want to see game played there as if live fans matter?

The reality is the NBA has because they have a closed league and have no issue expanding and WANT TO expand to the europe...there's just no chance this happens.

If at some point another league becomes competitive, ok...maybe we should take a pause. But that's not probable. The nba system is just too effective and the nba is DREAMING of moving into other countries, they just can't figure out logistics. If there is enough talent to do it, they'll be elsewhere and figure it out.

TBH I find it extremely ironic (and hilarious) that you are splitting hairs about my use of the word "theoretical" rather than "hypothetical" in the SAME POST where you defend the incorrect use of the term "world champions" to describe the winners of a league that does not compete against the rest of the world.

The nba is a global organization that is made up of the best players from around the world. There's really nothing more they could do to make it a more global and inclusive system without grossly lowering the quality of the product or to have some post post season tourney nobody would take seriously.

[boogiezen]

It's an American thing. Ego and arrogance.

[Salieri]

The nba is a global organization that is made up of the best players from around the world. There's really nothing more they could do to make it a more global and inclusive system without grossly lowering the quality of the product or to have some post post season tourney nobody would take seriously.

You did a fine defense of your point of view throughout the thread and you wielded sharp rhetoric, but at some point you gonna have to let it go, man.

The fact is, in order to be crowned world champion you need to win a world championship. The NBA is not that.

I've seen you go relentlessly for the "best players from around the world" angle, and you're right in that. Sure, any player from all over the world can play in the NBA if he's good enough. Nobody is disputing that.

But that's irrelevant, because the NBA league is not a clash of players, it's a clash of teams. And sorry but no, in that regard -the only one that matters- the NBA is not a global organization because teams from all around the world are not allowed to participate. It's a strictly north american league.

I don't think any reasonable person would doubt the NBA winner would beat the winners of every other big league in the world, and the day that tournament happens, the NBA champs will rightfully be able to be called world champs. But until that day comes, there is no such thing as a world champion team, or club, or franchise, or whatever you wanna call it. It's a competition that doesn't exist so there cannot be a champion.

As I said, this is mostly a harmless publicity stunt that hurts nobody (or should hurt nobody, fragile egos notwithstanding), and I'm all for any marketing that helps the NBA, a product I enjoy a lot. So I'm totally fine with it and it doesn't bother me other than in the pure semantic sense. But if we wanna go technical, NBA winners are not world champions because they haven't won a world championship. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[preldzic]

Yes, it does, always has. Ego-centrism at its best. Since 1998, USA was World Champion as often as Spain and Yugoslavia, but US teams were World Champions every single year (except for 2019, thank you Raptors).
Can you imagine that the winner of La Liga (Spanish soccer league) would be referred as World Champion?!

[dhsilv2]

The nba is a global organization that is made up of the best players from around the world. There's really nothing more they could do to make it a more global and inclusive system without grossly lowering the quality of the product or to have some post post season tourney nobody would take seriously.

You did a fine defense of your point of view throughout the thread and you wielded sharp rhetoric, but at some point you gonna have to let it go, man.

The fact is, in order to be crowned world champion you need to win a world championship. The NBA is not that.

I've seen you go relentlessly for the "best players from around the world" angle, and you're right in that. Sure, any player from all over the world can play in the NBA if he's good enough. Nobody is disputing that.

But that's irrelevant, because the NBA league is not a clash of players, it's a clash of teams. And sorry but no, in that regard -the only one that matters- the NBA is not a global organization because teams from all around the world are not allowed to participate. It's a strictly north american league.

I don't think any reasonable person would doubt the NBA winner would beat the winners of every other big league in the world, and the day that tournament happens, the NBA champs will rightfully be able to be called world champs. But until that day comes, there is no such thing as a world champion team, or club, or franchise, or whatever you wanna call it. It's a competition that doesn't exist so there cannot be a champion.

As I said, this is mostly a harmless publicity stunt that hurts nobody (or should hurt nobody, fragile egos notwithstanding), and I'm all for any marketing that helps the NBA, a product I enjoy a lot. So I'm totally fine with it and it doesn't bother me other than in the pure semantic sense. But if we wanna go technical, NBA winners are not world champions because they haven't won a world championship. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

The location of the games played doesn't matter. All that matters is that the best players are there. I don't understand this odd idea that a professional organization's location would have anything to do with this. For my work...it makes sense that I have to work with people in nearly every country in the world, we manufacture goods that have to be sourced or distributed anywhere people are. Basketball doesn't need that. So what, because we have these stupid arbitrary borders that mostly just make human life more difficult, we can't accept that what matters, the players are the best of the best and that yes the nba champ is the professional world champ because it simple is by any sane definition. But no, we haven't gotten to see the best team in liechtenstein compete...

[SHO'NUFF]

Yes.

[Baski]

Doesn't bother me. It's just America being America. Don't think about it too much

[TheRealKaboom]

It's an American thing. Ego and arrogance.

Much better than whatever backwater eurotrash village you're from.

S3 for personal attack
-Harry

[MadIggy]

Like Indy 500, self-called the biggest spectacle in motorsport... when you have F1 and Moto GP.

[NuggetsWY]

Yeah, well, it used to be an obvious statement - but while the NBA Champion may be the best team in the world for now. The difference is dwindling. IMO it is time for a change.

[jk31]

and to make a broader point, likewise MLB, NHL and NFL champions are usually called World Champions for the reason that they are clearly stringest leagues for those specific sports and have the best athletes in those leagues than any other domestic league of that sport.

But, it's ignorant and arrogant imo calling world champions simply because it's a domestic competition (In some cases, USA+Canada) so no other country is taking part. So, calling it World Champions when there are dozens of leagues of thosr sports out there not even taking part is simply delusional.

I don't even care if there were only 2 countries in the world. New Zealand and let's say rest of the world was called "USA", it would still be narrow minded to call World Champions unless they face a champion team from New Zealand every season.

What does the country have to do with any of this? The NBA is an international league that just so happens to be played in two countries. Location of where teams play has nothing to do with anything. The league is made up of the best players from around the world.

The point that some people bring here is that a world champion is the team that wins the world championship. So only a country/national team can be world champion.
Does it bother me? Not really. Call it whatever you want. Everyone refers to it as NBA Champ. The wording of stuff is completely overrated.

[turnmeup88]

But when you talk national teams, you're talking about teams with restrictions to who can play for the teams. Thus why nobody puts these international (national) teams on the same level as professional teams. They're too limiting. And while maybe a us national team would win the nba title. It makes no sense to chose a "world" champion when each team can't pull players from the whole world.

No when I talk national teams there is no restrictions on who can play.

Every national team in the world can qualify for the World Championships. Once again I am not saying that there are clubs out there better than NBA teams, but let's say Real Madrid gets injected with a ton of money (from Middle East or whatever). Find a way to keep Doncic, get the majority of the spanish national team and splurge 100m a season for Morant, Zion, and Ayton.

Now that team would be at an NBA level, but because the NBA is closed league they would not even be on the road to an NBA championship. So that championship cannot be called the WORLD championship by definition...

As long as a team is called a "club" I can't really respect it as a professional organization. But...you CANNOT have a world champion professional title UNLESS it is a CLOSED LEAGUE! A CLOSED LEAGUE is an absolute 100% requirement!

Now if there were a situation where another league had a competitive team as you've mention...that would be interesting. We of course don't have anything like that. I'd really wonder what those guys would think because it would be really weird to take the money over competing to be the best by playing in the best league.

Sorry my mentioning of "club" is because that's what teams / franchises are called here in Europe regardless of sport. (Chelsea Football Club are the current Champions League title holder as an example). The word club is used because they often are teams that have different teams (women, men, youth, possibly other sports). Just a language difference, does not mean they are not professionally run.

[dhsilv2]

and to make a broader point, likewise MLB, NHL and NFL champions are usually called World Champions for the reason that they are clearly stringest leagues for those specific sports and have the best athletes in those leagues than any other domestic league of that sport.

But, it's ignorant and arrogant imo calling world champions simply because it's a domestic competition (In some cases, USA+Canada) so no other country is taking part. So, calling it World Champions when there are dozens of leagues of thosr sports out there not even taking part is simply delusional.

I don't even care if there were only 2 countries in the world. New Zealand and let's say rest of the world was called "USA", it would still be narrow minded to call World Champions unless they face a champion team from New Zealand every season.

What does the country have to do with any of this? The NBA is an international league that just so happens to be played in two countries. Location of where teams play has nothing to do with anything. The league is made up of the best players from around the world.

The point that some people bring here is that a world champion is the team that wins the world championship. So only a country/national team can be world champion.
Does it bother me? Not really. Call it whatever you want. Everyone refers to it as NBA Champ. The wording of stuff is completely overrated.

I don't believe this was the point being made as others have referenced something called a world cup "club" (it seems in europe club isn't like your local boys youth team but they use it for pro teams). So they really think where pro teams play games should have some "world" aspect because of arbitrary boarders that millionaire athletes don't have to really even think about.

[dhsilv2]

No when I talk national teams there is no restrictions on who can play.

Every national team in the world can qualify for the World Championships. Once again I am not saying that there are clubs out there better than NBA teams, but let's say Real Madrid gets injected with a ton of money (from Middle East or whatever). Find a way to keep Doncic, get the majority of the spanish national team and splurge 100m a season for Morant, Zion, and Ayton.

Now that team would be at an NBA level, but because the NBA is closed league they would not even be on the road to an NBA championship. So that championship cannot be called the WORLD championship by definition...

As long as a team is called a "club" I can't really respect it as a professional organization. But...you CANNOT have a world champion professional title UNLESS it is a CLOSED LEAGUE! A CLOSED LEAGUE is an absolute 100% requirement!

Now if there were a situation where another league had a competitive team as you've mention...that would be interesting. We of course don't have anything like that. I'd really wonder what those guys would think because it would be really weird to take the money over competing to be the best by playing in the best league.

Sorry my mentioning of "club" is because that's what teams / franchises are called here in Europe regardless of sport. (Chelsea Football Club are the current Champions League title holder as an example). The word club is used because they often are teams that have different teams (women, men, youth, possibly other sports). Just a language difference, does not mean they are not professionally run.

Mostly just kidding on the club thing. But when I hear that, I go right to youth sports or fat guys who get together on the weekend to relive their glory days. Not billion dollar organizations with the best athletes in the world.

[old skool]

I remember in 1992 when the Chicago Bulls beat Portland to win their second consecutive championship. Obviously they were the best team in the world. No other team could possibly be better, right?

I kind of remember the Nigerian national team asking them for autographs. Or was that a Dream?

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app