Group H: LTU-AUS-CAN-SEN

[paspalj]

You guys are getting way too deep in analyzing a very simple concept.
It's all about this specific tournament. Nobody cares. They just dont. If you check the ratings for the gold medal games in 2010 and 2014 you will laugh your ass off. It's hard to ask players to be patriotic and care about a tournament when nobody else in your country does. There has never been a redeem team in this tournament. It's always B caliber teams and it will always be that or worse. It doesn't matter if they lose it for the next 20 years. It's not the Olympics. There pride is hurt and it leads to changes.

I understand that this might be difficult for foreigners to understand but you guys have to trust me.
It has nothing to do with patriotism or agents or anything. The tournament just does not have any value.

I agree with you but the idea that the WC is "inferior" to the Olympics is created by the surroundings. People in general will watch what they are told to watch.

Look at the women's soccer WC for example. It was a great success. Watched by 14 million people. (The previous WC final had about 25 million).
In contrast 900,000 watched the basketball WC final.

But you will say "Soccer is much more popular in general so absolute numbers don't count" and you will be correct. So we can see the corresponding Olympics ratings.
1.38 million for the women's soccer, 11.7 million for men's basketball.

I understand that there are major differences between the sports and the number of followers. I also understand that there might be deviation due to rules (for example, in mens soccer in the olympics only 2 players over 23 are allowed so nobody cares). In addition, we should take into consideration that during the Olympics there are a bunch of other events happening at the same exact time so viewing will be "dispersed".

You reasoning is correct, but I can't shake this feeling that the NBA is just cherry picking. "Oh man, we can't ignore ALL international competitions, let's just pick one and say it's important."

But the idea is that somebody decided that the Olympics are more prestigious and the NBA players followed. That doesn't hold in general because for example we saw that it's not the case for women's soccer. Because that's what they were told. Naturally, people won't care for a tournament that doesn't feature their best players.

Also may I remind you that it was the loss of a world championship (2002) that lead to all the changes in Team USA, not the Olympics.

[usagre]

I disagree about a lot here.
It wasn't the 2002 loss that changed things it was 2004. If it was '02 then the '04 team would have been the A team which it clearly wasn't. The Redeem team '08 was to redeem '04. Further evidence that it wasn't '02 loss was that the following Worlds tournament again was a young B team and not an A team.

You're also wrong about the people being told what to watch tournament. The Olympic Gold medal has value, meaning and tradition. You can't manufacture that. Like I've said before if the Olympics didn't exist and the Worlds was the only option you still wouldn't see the top US players participating.

The US women soccer World Cup was popular for two main reasons. First it is the premier tournament and not secondary like the Fiba Worlds and it also popular among both genders.

[usagre]

A Ryder Cup style tournament would have a better shot of gaining interest in the US in my opinion. If it were to replace this tournament and a new concept from scratch doesn't have the disadvantage of carrying the historical baggage of being a second class event. I mean even when NBA players were restricted and it was only collegians you still got the B collegiate team.

Ryder Cup style,
USA vs Europe in a best of 5 or 7 series. This would be more competitive and would be a hit in my opinion.

[paspalj]

Although I was young back then, I do think that the loss of the WC on home soil was what shook things up. The idea was to build a national team around the (then) young players. It didn't pan out in 2004, and in 2006 (where the US was the heavy favorite) there was a major upset. So in 2008, built around players from 2004 and small additions along the way (Paul, Howard in 2006) and Kobe in 2008 they were able to reclaim their title. I still think that it's the chemistry that lifted the US team over Spain in 2008. The program was successful.

Anyway, maybe you are correct. You are from the US so you should know better. I'm just going with what I noticed around the internet.

[usagre]

2002 was important because it was the first time NBA players lost but 2004 hit home because it was the Olympics.

2004 team was business as usual trying to attract the top players but perceived security concerns led to a lot of A players refusing to participate. And you ended up basically with
a B caliber team poorly constructed and the worst NBA USA Olympic team ever.

[Dtown]

Although I was young back then, I do think that the loss of the WC on home soil was what shook things up. The idea was to build a national team around the (then) young players. It didn't pan out in 2004, and in 2006 (where the US was the heavy favorite) there was a major upset. So in 2008, built around players from 2004 and small additions along the way (Paul, Howard in 2006) and Kobe in 2008 they were able to reclaim their title. I still think that it's the chemistry that lifted the US team over Spain in 2008. The program was successful.

Anyway, maybe you are correct. You are from the US so you should know better. I'm just going with what I noticed around the internet.

usagre's right in that while 2002 raised eyebrows no one really cared about that loss despite the 6th place finish. Calls for reform didn't happen until after 2004. Even the 2006 team which was the first of the new system was designed as the warm up for the Redeem Team in 2008.

Part of the reason the Olympics became the event for Basketball was the Cold War. The Olympics often acted as a proxy war for the USA and USSR and Basketball just happened to be a sport both nations were good at. High stakes, high pressure, high number of people watching creates history, and creates importance.

[usagre]

Great point by Dtown. The Cold War atmosphere was an enormous factor. It was an alternative way to settle things. That's why '72 and '88 hurt. Not only the loss but who it was to. In today's world there isn't really a comp for that.

[usagre]

I would even argue that the 2000 semifinal close win against Lithuania raised more eyebrows than the '02 Worlds losses.
It was the Olympics and the team was a lot stronger. A B+ or A- type team that I define this way because about 5 of its players were good enough to make the A team.

[G&B]

I would even argue that the 2000 semifinal close win against Lithuania raised more eyebrows than the '02 Worlds losses.
It was the Olympics and the team was a lot stronger. A B+ or A- type team that I define this way because about 5 of its players were good enough to make the A team.

And so Lithuania 2000 was not A-level, maybe it was B or B + team, and its possible candidates could be: Ilgauskas, traumatized Macijauskas, Sabonis and Karnisovas still have not finished their sports career.
If these players had been in the game, they would have probably won the Olympic gold medals, because Lithuania had no other gold medal competitors except the USA.

But the sport is so interesting that nothing is known in advance.

[soulis79]

Mitch Creek will replace the injured Cooks.

[Mindozas]

And so Lithuania 2000 was not A-level, maybe it was B or B + team, and its possible candidates could be: Ilgauskas, traumatized Macijauskas, Sabonis and Karnisovas still have not finished their sports career.
If these players had been in the game, they would have probably won the Olympic gold medals, because Lithuania had no other gold medal competitors except the USA.

But the sport is so interesting that nothing is known in advance.

I don't know what means traumatized, but Macas blossomed later. In 2000 he was nowhere close to make the team

[Darrell Armstrong]

Watching the Australia vs. Canada friendly game right now and, man, do these teams need more time to get ready! Canada is sad to watch with a bunch of lesser-known players and Kevin Pangos as a standout in the first quarter. But Aussies really need to get their act together. At times it looks like they're playing without a coach, with Mills breaking plays and pulling up for three with no one to chase for the rebound; and him, Bogut and Ingles passing the ball into the stands. You know these guys are better than that, but for the moment they're getting their asses handed to them by Canada's C team.

[Mindozas]

Watching the Australia vs. Canada friendly game right now and, man, do these teams need more time to get ready! Canada is sad to watch with a bunch of lesser-known players and Kevin Pangos as a standout in the first quarter. But Aussies really need to get their act together. At times it looks like they're playing without a coach, with Mills breaking plays and pulling up for three with no one to chase for the rebound; and him, Bogut and Ingles passing the ball into the stands. You know these guys are better than that, but for the moment they're getting their asses handed to them by Canada's C team.

True, watched first half now, both teams relies too much on random offensive plays, defense quite shaky

[Tesla]

I don't think Australia are going to learn what defence is in the next few games. With Lithuania already doing it well against Serbia, Australia are going to struggle against Lithuania.

[Argylex]

Does anyone know what is going on with Senegal?
Their 12-man roster has 2 guards and something like 9-10 forwards/centers over 2.05m

Also, is Dieng injured?