Should Olympic basketball be for the U24 category ?

[sinobball2]

I just realize 15/15 of the Nigerian team are Americans, and 14/15 were born in the US. The only player born in Nigeria, Shane Lawal, moved to the US at age 8.

You can't even find 15 Asian-American guys that can play.

 

[reamily2]

They have a commendable grassroots program never thought someone would be beaten us in that category..

 

[Federoy2]

Americans have no national team tradition like the rest of the world has. Yes, they like to see heroes, Olympians, like swimmers etc. They had some competition with the Sovjet Union at the Olympics. So it's part of their DNA. But when it comes to team sports. It's all about NBA, NFL, etc. They don't really watch the national baseball team, or ice hokey team either. In fact, the national basketball team is probably the only American national team which receives some attention in the States.

Be it as it may, we have to think on a global basis. In my view it is all about how most countries perceive it, rather than one particular one. And most countries do not even participate at the Olympics basketball tournament. The fact that only 2 to 5 European countries can qualify for the Olympics is not representative for the most prestigious basketball event. As long as the US sends its NBA stars, it will be great for the rest of the globe.

There's a lot about American sporting culture that you're unaware of or not privy to. Unlike most of the world, we don't have a singular national sport. The NFL is the most popular, but it competes with baseball, basketball, ice hockey, soccer and individual sports for public attention and dollars. The market is crowded here, and because we have more entertainment options than most places, we tend to internalize domestic sports with a passion not given to our national teams. The Olympics, and to some extent, the World Cup are the only international events that capture our attention because they're prestigious, established events too big to ignore.

It took me awhile, but I'm actually in favor of the FIBA World Cup being the dominant tournament over the Olympics, but we're fighting an uphill battle. The Olympics is an older competition, arguably more prestigious, and it pits the best of the best against each other. Although basketball has made leaps and bounds in both participation and popularity over the last 20 years, developmentally it's no where near football when you compare the two sports on a global level. The best teams in African and Asia would struggle to finish in EuroBasket's top 16, and that speaks volumes to how far the sport has to go before we start seeing real parity. As of now, the World Cup is a watered-down version of the Olympic tournament, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[Dtown2]

My issues with embracing the World Cup are two fold.

1: the oldest reason: The players (US) have never really embraced it. Hard to get networks and fans to care when the players don't. It's a chicken egg thing, kids growing up will care and want to do it if they see players embracing it, but why would players embrace it when it's never been that important before?

2: the newest reason: Oh god the FIBA qualifying system is a dumpster fire.
"Lets have the greatest basketball tournament in the world, with all the best players. But first a qualifier...featuring none of the best players"

I could accept if they made an agreement with say the Euroleague and it was just the NBA that wasn't complying, then you could just chalk it up to arrogant Americans or something. Either way it would still be a decent field. Nope the two best leagues in the world, hundreds of the best players in the world, aren't going to participate. The fuck? Would it really be so hard to just have the windows from July to September?!

 

[Steadysoul2]

My issues with embracing the World Cup are two fold.

1: the oldest reason: The players (US) have never really embraced it. Hard to get networks and fans to care when the players don't. It's a chicken egg thing, kids growing up will care and want to do it if they see players embracing it, but why would players embrace it when it's never been that important before?

2: the newest reason: Oh god the FIBA qualifying system is a dumpster fire.
"Lets have the greatest basketball tournament in the world, with all the best players. But first a qualifier...featuring none of the best players"

I could accept if they made an agreement with say the Euroleague and it was just the NBA that wasn't complying, then you could just chalk it up to arrogant Americans or something. Either way it would still be a decent field. Nope the two best leagues in the world, hundreds of the best players in the world, aren't going to participate. The fuck? Would it really be so hard to just have the windows from July to September?!

their new system would world if they dumped the qualifiers and make the zone cups matter again so teams actually get a summer off.

 

[Victorious2]

It took me awhile, but I'm actually in favor of the FIBA World Cup being the dominant tournament over the Olympics, but we're fighting an uphill battle. The Olympics is an older competition, arguably more prestigious, and it pits the best of the best against each other. Although basketball has made leaps and bounds in both participation and popularity over the last 20 years, developmentally it's no where near football when you compare the two sports on a global level. The best teams in African and Asia would struggle to finish in EuroBasket's top 16, and that speaks volumes to how far the sport has to go before we start seeing real parity. As of now, the World Cup is a watered-down version of the Olympic tournament, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

The trick is to allow as many European teams as possible and separate three Asian teams in different groups. One can add one or two South Americans teams as well. It will lower the level just a little but in the group phase, but it will still remain interesting.

I.e.

Italy
Slovenia
Croatia
Iran

Turkey
USA
Russia
China

Greece
Germany
Australia
Brazil

Most of these teams do not participate at the Olympics this year, but I can assure you that these groups are almost as competitive as the Olympics.

As for the players. The players will go to the best international tournament. If there is just one global tournament. That's where they are going to go. On the other hand, if they have different options every other year, then many players prefer to skip tournaments.

 

[Terrorizer2]

- Hockey - behind NHL

By the way, I doubt it.

As of the topic itself, I think that the more highest quality national teams tournaments we have the better. I'm still mourning relinquishing of that good ole biannual EuroBasket cycle And Olympic one is really the most prestigious and popular. So no need to change anything about it.

P.S. Pure 'average individual quality of players pool' concerned, EuroBasket is still the best out of three major international tournaments, I think (and quite surprisingly shfting to the 24 teams participating mode didn't significantly hurt its standing in this department). Especially if we have in mind that resurgence of Canada and, to a lesser degree, Australia as potential international basketball powerhouses is a recent phenomenon.

 

[sime0n2]

Why wont Lin play for any NT? Whats his thought process? Just too busy in the summer? Doesnt want to commit to Taiwan to offend Chinese fans?

 

[Beez2]

Why wont Lin play for any NT? Whats his thought process? Just too busy in the summer? Doesnt want to commit to Taiwan to offend Chinese fans?

Tiger Mom says "no"

"His father is really happy about the opportunity for him to play for Taiwan, but his mother is still hoping that her son will focus on securing long term stability in the NBA," said Ting Shou-Chung, the Taiwanese Basketball Association chairman.


Read more: http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...s-jeremy-lin-stats-nba-news.htm#ixzz4IviivXDj

 

[judasmartel2]

-snip-

Hmm. Let me cook up potential groups in the WC and the OG in a separate thread, thank you.

 

[pohani komarac2]

Fiba and Uleb already made everything bad they could in recent years to make basketball village sport, why not try to finish job

 

[celticheart2]

How about doing what they do for football and only allow a certain number of player over a certain age to play. This would level out the playing field. Although USA probably wont be as fun to watch, but hey we still got the all star games to look forward to.

 

[pohani komarac2]

With this rules US would be even more dominant. Outside US teams are struggling to create 12 man roster now, imagine how limited player pool would be with this rules, while USA has no problems sending 12 established NBA players U-24

 

[Hoopster2]

With this rules US would be even more dominant. Outside US teams are struggling to create 12 man roster now, imagine how limited player pool would be with this rules, while USA has no problems sending 12 established NBA players U-24

This is correct. The Under 24 rule will benefit NBA owners it will lower the possibility of a star player going down to injury. It also serves other nefarious purposes it can be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the players in the upcoming CBA negotiations. The top players all at some point in their career want to win a gold medal. The owners know this and will use as a weapon to wring concessions from the players. Finally I think the owners also want to minimize the IOC. If the Olympics are out of the way then they could possibly get FIBA to revenue share or failing that they could start their own tournament, see the NHL world cup of hockey, where they get all the revenue. They definitely want international play just on their terms and they make the money from it.

 

[saalsapr2]

There's a lot about American sporting culture that you're unaware of or not privy to. Unlike most of the world, we don't have a singular national sport. The NFL is the most popular, but it competes with baseball, basketball, ice hockey, soccer and individual sports for public attention and dollars. The market is crowded here, and because we have more entertainment options than most places, we tend to internalize domestic sports with a passion not given to our national teams. The Olympics, and to some extent, the World Cup are the only international events that capture our attention because they're prestigious, established events too big to ignore.

It took me awhile, but I'm actually in favor of the FIBA World Cup being the dominant tournament over the Olympics, but we're fighting an uphill battle. The Olympics is an older competition, arguably more prestigious, and it pits the best of the best against each other. Although basketball has made leaps and bounds in both participation and popularity over the last 20 years, developmentally it's no where near football when you compare the two sports on a global level. The best teams in African and Asia would struggle to finish in EuroBasket's top 16, and that speaks volumes to how far the sport has to go before we start seeing real parity. As of now, the World Cup is a watered-down version of the Olympic tournament, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

I agree with this, but come on, football is the king sport in the US, the TV ratings alone prove it. College football, despite being amateur gets so much attention too. The second spot is a fight between Baseball and Basketball with baseball still holding a slight edge, considering the average attendance comparison between the MLB and NBA. Basketball is the one sport where there such a talent gap between the world's best and the 50th ranked team (right now Qatar) that its hard to imagine Fiba gaining more popularity, unless they do something about it personally, probably by changing rules.

 

[albemorkel5762]

The debate over whether Olympic basketball should be restricted to the U24 category is multifaceted. Advocates argue that limiting participation to younger athletes promotes fairness by leveling the playing field among countries with varying levels Discover more of professional basketball development.

 

[mrdeviljin2]

• Reduced Competitiveness: Limiting the age might lead to a decrease in the overall quality of play, as younger players often lack the experience and skill level of seasoned professionals.
• Loss of Star Power: The absence of well-known athletes could diminish the excitement and viewership of the event, affecting its popularity.
• National Pride and Tradition: Olympic basketball has traditionally been about showcasing the best talent, regardless of age. Changing this could alienate fans who appreciate seeing established stars compete.
• Career Opportunities: Older players often serve as mentors to younger athletes; excluding them could diminish opportunities for growth and learning.

 

[Aina Mischelle2]

I don't think soo

 

[Aina Mischelle2]

Limiting Olympic basketball to players under 24 could be an interesting idea, but I think it might undervalue the prestige and level of competition at the Olympics, which is one of the biggest stages in sports. While the World Cup and continental championships are important, the Olympics offer a global platform where the best of the best should compete, regardless of age. As for the comparison with other sports, each sport has its own unique structure and challenges, and while basketball players may only have one chance at a gold medal, it doesn’t make it any less prestigious. The value of Olympic gold isn’t just in the number of medals but in the significance of representing your country on the biggest global stage.