Regarding the conversation on how measurable the hypothetical matchup can be, there could of course be certain criteria
For example, I am watching the USA-Lithuania semi-final in the 2000 Olympics and there is an obvious (and constant) aggression of the Lithuanian bigs on the offensive glass that wasn't obvious in the previous USA opponents after 1992. Also, there is no lack of fear for the Lithuanian players to slash or pass the ball during their drives in order to distract the defensive focus, although the defensive bigs were Garnett and Mourning. In other words, basketball had changed a lot. It had become quicker and the way to beat the U.S. team was to get closer to their way of approaching basketball than to wait for them to play your style and beat them with team ball. After all, there was a challenge for the European NTs to get a team to beat under whole new circumstances. Finding ways to reduce the easy points through fast breaks and force a more tactical approach to the match, focusing on a possession-per-possession plan became more realistic as a view for international coaches, with a team playing a clearly superior game athleticism-wise
This point, however, is existing mainly because the 1992 team was lucky enough to not get a decent matchup in the Olympics. This way, the debate of "USA vs the Rest" was transferred from the "NBA vs Europe" to the NTs immediately, without interruptions and it was considered as common sense. No-one would doubt the 40+ margins that the U.S. team got in Barcelona without even trying. Add to that the NBA's clear superiority as a league and you don't need much to create a legend. Legends are not easy to overcome. And this one has many sides and it's rather convincing
The "no matchup" thing is what I call key here. And it might have given the U.S. three straight golds in the 90s, but these competitions are nearly living the "no matchup" dream rather than reality. If someone excludes the Olympics of 1992, then the fear against the U.S. team as a given "unbeatable" one severely diminishes
Genjuro's point about Serbia (Savic, starting PF indeed, and the team's 2nd scorer missing the final and Divac with 5 fouls mid-way 2nd half) is true. Back then, again, even with the living myth of the U.S. being incomparably better than the rest, the Serbian mentality was a winning one. Either because they were not allowed to play for 3 years or due to this champions' mentality, it was back in 1996 that Serbia made it clear that USA wasn't unbeatable for 30'. Divac being a big name in the NBA (thus being able to matchup with the U.S. bigs) was and remains a factor for this match's turning point, but there is a disregarded note here.. Even after 1999, when the transformation of international basketball was obvious, it wasn't so likely that USA would lose a match, as it was in this 1996 match. If you ask me why, there is only one reply and it's very clear. No-one had seen these players losing. Neither as Yugoslavia nor as Serbia. If it was common sense for the U.S. team not to lose, so it was for Serbia. Maybe someone can explain that it was a taboo, even then, for USA with NBA players to lose and it wasn't for Serbia, because USA existed and was beating everyone by more points
That's of course true, but good enough only to put on paper a favourite and an underdog. So, in this matchup, the rule of "no matchup" that existed before doesn't make much sense, if you ask me. I can accept that we have an equation with an x factor and a y factor and in 1996, USA as x is stronger of a factor than Serbia as y. But until then, it was only equations using an x factor and there was no y factor. And, if there was Yugoslavia in 1992, there would definitely be an x and there would also be a y, and the 1992 y would be stronger than the 1996 y and maybe equally strong or stronger than the 1992 x
To give it some more depth, in 2002, before the Olympics started and with the U.S. having got the first scares from Sydney, Divac had said the famous today "We don't think we can beat them. We know we can beat them" quote. This is not an accident and this is not the Yugoslavia of 1992. It is Serbia of 2002, with Divac way past his prime and the U.S. team suspected that they can actually lose
So, in my opinion, there are several ways of measuring things. The one is how teams approached the U.S. game. On this, several factors have played a part and they are well discussed here. Another way is the improvement of defence overall in Europe. A third factor is the lack of knowledge of international players by the U.S. teams. In other words, the understanding that there is more than the NBA and it's worth mentioning it. Somewhere there, one can place the stats of the players in their NBA teams, whether they are Yugoslavians or Americans. It's a less important factor than someone would think. Take the stats of any NBA successful player in international basketball in any of the important squads in international competitions and you will note that the stats are either similar or worse. Divac, as mentioned before, though the leader of the Serbian team and an important player of the Yugoslavian squads, he was never among the top scorers for them. This doesn't mean much really. It has more to do with the coach. On the other hand, Haddadi has more influence for Iran, because he is by far the team's best player. This is why Yugoslavia is Yugoslavia and Iran is worse than them
And, another thing. The 1992 dream team helped basketball a lot. Not by creating fans, of course or by creating the superiority feeling to the opponent. They just helped the other teams understand that basketball in Europe and basketball in the U.S. can actually come closer over the course of time. The 1992 team dominating and the 1994 team being clearly worse yet not possible to challenge yet gave an image of regression that was approached in the 1996 and 2000 competitions as "doable" by other teams, before Argentina, Serbia and Spain all beat them in 2002. If it wasn't for the 1992 team, it wouldn't get the rest of the squads trying to figure out what they need to do in order to improve and beat them at the end. And this is one of the parts of the previous decade's image of basketball. I am still not as sure that things would have been so good for international ball today, without three things:
1) The Yugoslavian team not existing in 1992, thus the U.S. team prevailing witout another "unbeatable" factor in the equation
2) The first wave of successful NBA players coming from Europe, thus breaking the original taboos before the mid-late '80s
3) The takeover of Euroleague from ULEB in 2000, which slowly helped basketball become more professional in Europe
