Tokyo Olympics: The Thread (OPEN SPOILERS, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!)

[pdxKingsFan]

So, basically, you're riding out on this tired old trope, whether it's true, or not? Something that arguably hasn't been true, since at least 2004 (if it was ever true, at all), and definitely hasn't been true since 2008, but you're just going to stick to that unfair label, anyway, because it may have been true, once? Do you still refer to your local team as the "Jailblazers," too?

Is it tired? The team has no cohesion, players don't seem to take it seriously compared to the rest of the world and think they can just waltz out an all-star team at season's end and be entitled to play in the medal games. Most players seem to go once and get their gold and move on while other countries stars will compete their entire career. It's the farthest thing from almost everyone else having their one moment at the games every 4 years.

Maybe if they made the competition like men's soccer, where it was U23 with a few senior spots, it could be more compelling.

And I'd find the women's soccer more compelling when the rest of the world takes the sport as seriously as the US does.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Is it tired? The team has no cohesion, players don't seem to take it seriously compared to the rest of the world and think they can just waltz out an all-star team at season's end and be entitled to play in the medal games. Most players seem to go once and get their gold and move on while other countries stars will compete their entire career. It's the farthest thing from almost everyone else having their one moment at the games every 4 years.

Hard disagree. The cohesion part is true, but hard disagree about the stuff in bold: the players they send out there are totally taking it seriously, and there's no evidence whatsoever that they think they can just "waltz out" and "be entitled" to play in the medal games. Where are you even getting that from?

The cohesion part is totally fair but, to that point (and Bomani Jones just spoke on this on Highly Questionable, today), if you're the best basketball player in Serbia, you're going to be the best basketball player in Serbia, for a while. If you're the best five that Australia can put on the court, you're going to be the best five that Australia can put on the court, for a while. Like, seriously, look at how long it's taken Argentina to rebuild their program, after the Golden Generation retired. Hell, they're still wheeling Luis Scola's forty-one year-old ass out there!

So, anyway, those guys are going to play dozens of games together, over multiple years. And that's going to build the cohesion that can lift you over a team that may be more talented, but doesn't have that continuity. And also isn't accustomed to playing under different rules. And doesn't really have time to get accustomed. The best five that USAB can put on the court is subject to change, from year to year. And, like I've mentioned in another thread, the United States is the only country that plays basketball, in the world, that thinks that it's club league championship is a bigger deal than the Olympics, or the FIBA World Cup... but that's not a function of the athletes being "entitled," it's just different priorities. As far as this goes:

Most players seem to go once and get their gold and move on while other countries stars will compete their entire career.

We definitely don't see eye-to-eye on the notion of athletes competing in multiple Olympics being the better way to go. But, at least with other countries, you can make the argument, "Well, who else are they going to send?" Spain is still sending Rudy Fernandez's old ass to the Olympics, because they have to: he's thirty-six years old, and he's still the best guard they've got. And his backup is almost as old as he is. There's no virtue or nobility involved in him still playing for the NT.

Maybe if they made the competition like men's soccer, where it was U23 with a few senior spots, it could be more compelling.

What, basketball? That'd just be more of what we have, now, except with more frequent losses, and larger margins of defeat. And, there's still be no continuity, because the players would literally age out of playing for USAB. And, are we going to be the only country not sending our best? What would be compelling about that?

And I'd find the women's soccer more compelling when the rest of the world takes the sport as seriously as the US does.

I'm just not understanding how you're making the leap from, "These guys are so much better than everybody, that it's not interesting," to "These guys are the bad guys."

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Hard disagree. The cohesion part is true, but hard disagree about the stuff in bold: the players they send out there are totally taking it seriously, and there's no evidence whatsoever that they think they can just "waltz out" and "be entitled" to play in the medal games. Where are you even getting that from?

The cohesion part is totally fair but, to that point (and Bomani Jones just spoke on this on Highly Questionable, today), if you're the best basketball player in Serbia, you're going to be the best basketball player in Serbia, for a while. If you're the best five that Australia can put on the court, you're going to be the best five that Australia can put on the court, for a while. Like, seriously, look at how long it's taken Argentina to rebuild their program, after the Golden Generation retired. Hell, they're still wheeling Luis Scola's forty-one year-old ass out there!

So, anyway, those guys are going to play dozens of games together, over multiple years. And that's going to build the cohesion that can lift you over a team that may be more talented, but doesn't have that continuity. And also isn't accustomed to playing under different rules. And doesn't really have time to get accustomed. The best five that USAB can put on the court is subject to change, from year to year. And, like I've mentioned in another thread, the United States is the only country that plays basketball, in the world, that thinks that it's club league championship is a bigger deal than the Olympics, or the FIBA World Cup... but that's not a function of the athletes being "entitled," it's just different priorities. As far as this goes:


We definitely don't see eye-to-eye on the notion of athletes competing in multiple Olympics being the better way to go. But, at least with other countries, you can make the argument, "Well, who else are they going to send?" Spain is still sending Rudy Fernandez's old ass to the Olympics, because they have to: he's thirty-six years old, and he's still the best guard they've got. And his backup is almost as old as he is. There's no virtue or nobility involved in him still playing for the NT.


What, basketball? That'd just be more of what we have, now, except with more frequent losses, and larger margins of defeat. And, there's still be no continuity, because the players would literally age out of playing for USAB. And, are we going to be the only country not sending our best? What would be compelling about that?

I guess my point in all of this is I just want it to feel like it means more for the US guys like it does to the rest of the world, and I want some kind of team chemistry that we haven't had in a while. Doing it with a U23 with 2-3 senior captains - incidentally that would be tournament wide and not a US only thing - but let's just pretend for now it was a US only thing, these players could play together for ~2 years in the build up and hopefully be a more cohesive team.

Let's say the US fails to medal this year, you can bet that suddenly 2024 is going to be another all hands on deck win at all costs effort. I think that's why I say there is a sense of entitlement.

I do realize that the domestic league title vs. Olympic/FIBA gold is only a thing for American based players and we will probably never play with that same amount of pride, but something to just put a little more skin in the game would be great. Even if it meant that we didn't put a "dream team" out every contest but just having the coach be a full time position and playing games a little more regularly than just 2 weeks before the tournament. There has to be a way to make the US men's team feel more like a real team and not something that can just be turned on and off.

I'm just not understanding how you're making the leap from, "These guys are so much better than everybody, that it's not interesting," to "These guys are the bad guys."

That's not the leap I'm making. I don't really think it is a good topic for this forum, I'd prefer to just leave it at that.

 

[Löwenherz]

McCallum replacing Chiles on Bars and Beam in Finals.

A lot of Team USA’s chances for a third straight team gold are going to be on her shoulders now.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I guess my point in all of this is I just want it to feel like it means more for the US guys like it does to the rest of the world, and I want some kind of team chemistry that we haven't had in a while. Doing it with a U23 with 2-3 senior captains - incidentally that would be tournament wide and not a US only thing - but let's just pretend for now it was a US only thing, these players could play together for ~2 years in the build up and hopefully be a more cohesive team.

That's never going to happen. And there's no format change that you can make to international basketball that could conceivably make that happen. Like, seriously, what it would take to make that happen is a bunch of contraceptives, and a time machine: you would literally have to go back in time, to before the NBA became the best basketball league in the world, and stop the best American players from being born, so that it never becomes the best basketball league in the world. Either that, or you would have to go back far enough to change the entire socioeconomic and political climate of the United States, to the point that African-Americans no longer looked to athletics as their best chance to escape poverty.

As long as the NBA is the best basketball league in the world, there are virtually no American-born basketball players that are going to value playing anywhere that's not the NBA, as much as they value playing in the NBA. You also have to consider that, because of factors that have little to do with sports, the best basketball players in this country tend to have a very different view of nationalism/national "pride" than basketball players from other countries of origin.

Let's say the US fails to medal this year, you can bet that suddenly 2024 is going to be another all hands on deck win at all costs effort. I think that's why I say there is a sense of entitlement.

I don't believe that. I'm not really sure why you believe it. But, I guess it depends on what you mean by "all hands"? Like, the best American-born player under 30, right now, is Anthony Davis. I don't expect Anthony Davis to be in Paris, whether USAB medals in Tokyo, or not. And there's little-to-no chance that any elite player older than him is going to Paris in 2024, whether USAB medals in Tokyo, or not. What needs to be acknowledged is that, in 2008, when it was "all hands on deck," as you put it, all of the best American-born players were still under thirty years old: even Kobe didn't turn 30, until the week after the Olympics. In 2024, the best American-born players (in some order) will probably still be Anthony Davis, James Harden, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Damian Lillard, Kawhi Leonard and Kevin Durant, the youngest of which will be the 31 year-old Davis... And they ain't goin'. In 2024, the best American-born players under 30 will probably be some combination of Jayson Tatum, Trae Young, Devin Booker, Zion Williamson, Brandon Ingram, Ja Morant, Donovan Mitchell and Bam Adebayo. I mean, some of those guys might level up between now and then but, if you had to call it right now, is that your idea of "All Hands On Deck"?

And I'm still not seeing how you get "entitled" out of, "We've got to send our best, in order to win." That's, like, the opposite of entitlement.

I do realize that the domestic league title vs. Olympic/FIBA gold is only a thing for American based players and we will probably never play with that same amount of pride, but something to just put a little more skin in the game would be great. Even if it meant that we didn't put a "dream team" out every contest but just having the coach be a full time position and playing games a little more regularly than just 2 weeks before the tournament. There has to be a way to make the US men's team feel more like a real team and not something that can just be turned on and off.

I'm not connecting the dots, here: I don't see how any of your proposed solutions would put any more "skin in the game"? Short of making committing to USAB a barrier for entry into the NBA, I can't see any way to make that happen. I agree that having continuity amongst the coaching staff would help, too, but the problem with that is, most of the coaches view the NBA/FIBA dichotomy the same way that the players do. I really don't believe that a U23 team is a solution, either: the really good players might play a couple of years, but that's still not going to solve the continuity problems. You know what could, though? Make a full time Senior NT out of ex-NBA guys: guys who didn't have super-long careers, but made enough money that they could devote themselves to playing for USAB, full time. Let those guys play together, under FIBA rules, 25-30 games a year, for three years in a row, and then let's see how many countries in the world can beat them?

 

[dude12]

McCallum replacing Chiles on Bars and Beam in Finals.

A lot of Team USA’s chances for a third straight team gold are going to be on her shoulders now.

Can Biles be Biles again? Faltered her last 2 times out. And I’m talking about performing to her standards not everyone else cause even when she falters, she’s the best but if she goes nuclear, then it’s a good chance USA gets gold.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

That's never going to happen. And there's no format change that you can make to international basketball that could conceivably make that happen. Like, seriously, what it would take to make that happen is a bunch of contraceptives, and a time machine: you would literally have to go back in time, to before the NBA became the best basketball league in the world, and stop the best American players from being born, so that it never becomes the best basketball league in the world. Either that, or you would have to go back far enough to change the entire socioeconomic and political climate of the United States, to the point that African-Americans no longer looked to athletics as their best chance to escape poverty.

As long as the NBA is the best basketball league in the world, there are virtually no American-born basketball players that are going to value playing anywhere that's not the NBA, as much as they value playing in the NBA. You also have to consider that, because of factors that have little to do with sports, the best basketball players in this country tend to have a very different view of nationalism/national "pride" than basketball players from other countries of origin.


I don't believe that. I'm not really sure why you believe it. But, I guess it depends on what you mean by "all hands"? Like, the best American-born player under 30, right now, is Anthony Davis. I don't expect Anthony Davis to be in Paris, whether USAB medals in Tokyo, or not. And there's little-to-no chance that any elite player older than him is going to Paris in 2024, whether USAB medals in Tokyo, or not. What needs to be acknowledged is that, in 2008, when it was "all hands on deck," as you put it, all of the best American-born players were still under thirty years old: even Kobe didn't turn 30, until the week after the Olympics. In 2024, the best American-born players (in some order) will probably still be Anthony Davis, James Harden, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Damian Lillard, Kawhi Leonard and Kevin Durant, the youngest of which will be the 31 year-old Davis... And they ain't goin'. In 2024, the best American-born players under 30 will probably be some combination of Jayson Tatum, Trae Young, Devin Booker, Zion Williamson, Brandon Ingram, Ja Morant, Donovan Mitchell and Bam Adebayo. I mean, some of those guys might level up between now and then but, if you had to call it right now, is that your idea of "All Hands On Deck"?

And I'm still not seeing how you get "entitled" out of, "We've got to send our best, in order to win." That's, like, the opposite of entitlement.



I'm not connecting the dots, here: I don't see how any of your proposed solutions would put any more "skin in the game"? Short of making committing to USAB a barrier for entry into the NBA, I can't see any way to make that happen. I agree that having continuity amongst the coaching staff would help, too, but the problem with that is, most of the coaches view the NBA/FIBA dichotomy the same way that the players do. I really don't believe that a U23 team is a solution, either: the really good players might play a couple of years, but that's still not going to solve the continuity problems. You know what could, though? Make a full time Senior NT out of ex-NBA guys: guys who didn't have super-long careers, but made enough money that they could devote themselves to playing for USAB, full time. Let those guys play together, under FIBA rules, 25-30 games a year, for three years in a row, and then let's see how many countries in the world can beat them?

My goal here is not recreating the dream team or the best collection of all star individuals, it's to build the best team over each cycle. Enter more frequent international contests. Define a pool of players like 18 guys from the 2018-2022 and 6 at large guys who can be more veteran leadership. Have this pool of players play regularly as Team USA the two years leading up to the Olympics (or an alternate trophy if that makes more sense to pursue).

Have a team director and a head coach that aren't moonlighting their college or NBA gig.

It seems like this would be a way to enhance young player's star potential coming into their second or third contracts. Yes it's a different philosophy but I'm not sure why it precludes NBA competition or anything else. It's simply a matter of creating a vision and executing it for what Team USA can be.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

My goal here is not recreating the dream team or the best collection of all star individuals, it's to build the best team over each cycle. Enter more frequent international contests. Define a pool of players like 18 guys from the 2018-2022 and 6 at large guys who can be more veteran leadership.

They already have that. And, like, the top ten players (besides Durant) decided not to go. And I don't believe that the reasons why they decided not to go have anything to do with a sense of entitlement.

Have this pool of players play regularly as Team USA the two years leading up to the Olympics (or an alternate trophy if that makes more sense to pursue).

Define "regularly." The reason why I suggested fielding a senior NT of ex-NBA guys is because I genuinely believe that you're not going get a large portion of the best American-born NBA players to consistently give up their summers for multiple years in a row.

Have a team director and a head coach that aren't moonlighting their college or NBA gig.

If it were as easy as USAB willing this into existence, they'd be doing it, already.

It seems like this would be a way to enhance young player's star potential coming into their second or third contracts. Yes it's a different philosophy but I'm not sure why it precludes NBA competition or anything else. It's simply a matter of creating a vision and executing it for what Team USA can be.

You are describing a system that has been in place since 2006, and it has resulted in the same teams that you accuse of being entitled.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

They already have that. And, like, the top ten players (besides Durant) decided not to go. And I don't believe that the reasons why they decided not to go have anything to do with a sense of entitlement.


Define "regularly." The reason why I suggested fielding a senior NT of ex-NBA guys is because I genuinely believe that you're not going get a large portion of the best American-born NBA players to consistently give up their summers for multiple years in a row.


If it were as easy as USAB willing this into existence, they'd be doing it, already.


You are describing a system that has been in place since 2006, and it has resulted in the same teams that you accuse of being entitled.

But this system doesn't exist currently because the head coach has always been some guy moonlighting. It was Coach K and it was Pop I don't recall who else in between. You have assistant coaches from all over who don't seem to have much in common with each other either. That to me is the single biggest thing that needs to change. Its an offseason prestige gig and not a full time serious endeavor. To me that's the first thing to correct and it should sort out top down.

But I think you are hung up on my use of entitlement.

In my mind, the entitlement comes from the way they seem to enter/exit the program without commitment. Maybe I am getting caught up in a COVID altered timeline but I seem to remember lots of guys dropping out of these things a week before a tournament in the past. It's my understanding that Isiah Thomas is still salty about not being selected for 1992. That's the kind of thing I want to see with players and I don't think we do. If you get the call and don't answer you don't get called again.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

But this system doesn't exist currently because the head coach has always been some guy moonlighting. It was Coach K and it was Pop I don't recall who else in between. You have assistant coaches from all over who don't seem to have much in common with each other either. That to me is the single biggest thing that needs to change. Its an offseason prestige gig and not a full time serious endeavor. To me that's the first thing to correct and it should sort out top down.

The system exists, with respect to the players. To the extent that it doesn't exist for the coaches, I have already explained why: any coach good enough for the job is going to have better options than coaching USAB full-time.

But I think you are hung up on my use of entitlement.

Why shouldn't I be? It's a word that's used pejoratively, 99 percent of the time, when talking about professional athletes, in general, and NBA players, in particular. It's use, in this context, offends me.

In my mind, the entitlement comes from the way they seem to enter/exit the program without commitment. Maybe I am getting caught up in a COVID altered timeline but I seem to remember lots of guys dropping out of these things a week before a tournament in the past.

I would say that your memory is ahistorical, but it's far too late in my evening for me to go through the work of fact-checking that statement.

It's my understanding that Isiah Thomas is still salty about not being selected for 1992.

Isiah Thomas is salty because he felt like he was disrespected by his peers (and he was, but they felt like he disrespected them, first, and it was payback). He didn't want to be the only elite player of his generation without an Olympic medal: it's literally the only hole in his résumé.

That's the kind of thing I want to see with players and I don't think we do. If you get the call and don't answer you don't get called again.

They did answer. And then, something else took precedence. If they don't get the call again, I doubt that they'll be overly broken up about it.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I really don't believe that a U23 team is a solution, either: the really good players might play a couple of years, but that's still not going to solve the continuity problems. You know what could, though? Make a full time Senior NT out of ex-NBA guys: guys who didn't have super-long careers, but made enough money that they could devote themselves to playing for USAB, full time. Let those guys play together, under FIBA rules, 25-30 games a year, for three years in a row, and then let's see how many countries in the world can beat them?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would be such a great team. I actually went to the effort to put one together to see what it would look like. My criteria for selecting players was as follows:

American (as far as I know)
Played in the NBA in '17-'18 (three years ago), but never after
Made at least $10M in their career
Is no older than 37 this year

I only found 20 players that fit those criteria, and here's the team I put together, with basketball ages as of now:

PG Jarrett Jack (37), Mario Chalmers (34), Brandon Jennings (31)
SG Arron Afflalo (35), Jordan Crawford (32)
SF Luke Babbitt (31), Shabazz Muhammad (28)
PF Darrell Arthur (32), Derrick Williams (29), Trevor Booker (33)
C Cole Aldrich (32), Marreese Speights (33)

Not making the cut
Kendrick Perkins (36)
Al Jefferson (36)
Josh Smith (35)
Kyle Singler (32)
Ramon Sessions (34)
Aaron Brooks (36)
Tariq Black (29)
Brandan Wright (33)

Perhaps some of the guys I have on the team are actually injured, I don't have a recollection of that. Perhaps some of the guys not making the cut (except Perkins, have you seen him these days?) would actually be better, but that team is pretty old, and I don't know if it's that strong.

Of course, I didn't look for players who last played in '16-'17 or even '15-'16 who might be hanging around, but they're going to be diminishing due to age, and I think we get an idea of the quality of player we can expect.

I just have trouble squinting and making that a gold medal team, even with three years of practice under their belts.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The only real obstacle to that team is fit: most of those guys don't fit together. Either way, I think that you're either grossly underestimating how important cohesion is to developing a team that can compete in FIBA, or grossly overestimating the talent of some of these other countries. Spain is the #2 ranked country in the world, according to FIBA world rankings. They're still starting Victor Claver, man.


Victor.


Claver.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The system exists, with respect to the players. To the extent that it doesn't exist for the coaches, I have already explained why: any coach good enough for the job is going to have better options than coaching USAB full-time.

If it paid right it could(would?) work. I think it's probably a better gig for a really high college level coach, and in that sense it's an easier gig than recruiting and dealing with one and dones and NCAA investigations. Prestige would be as high a level, and if it included a pipeline of players that started at the high school levels the way we treat soccer it would be interesting.

Obviously the goal is building a team that can consistently win golds but also one that is fun to root for and isn't embarrassing when they lose. I still believe that a US team of lesser players that is a more consistent team is better off than just the best 12 individual guys you can get to suit up. A team with a consistent identity, style and system.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The only real obstacle to that team is fit: most of those guys don't fit together.

We're arguing and yet this is mostly where I am going with the full time coach and a system that is focused on more committed buy ins.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If it paid right it could(would?) work.

"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, in that statement.

I think it's probably a better gig for a really high college level coach, and in that sense it's an easier gig than recruiting and dealing with one and dones and NCAA investigations. Prestige would be as high a level, and if it included a pipeline of players that started at the high school levels the way we treat soccer it would be interesting.

I think that you have a perception of the "prestige" of the "gig," that is not rooted in realism.

Obviously the goal is building a team that can consistently win golds but also one that is fun to root for and isn't embarrassing when they lose. I still believe that a US team of lesser players that is a more consistent team is better off than just the best 12 individual guys you can get to suit up. A team with a consistent identity, style and system.

1. There is nobody that we can send to the Olympics, that it wouldn't be embarrassing, if we lose. You just don't want to root for pros in the Olympics. And, that's fine, but I wish that you'd stop hiding behind words like "compelling," and "real team."
2. We aren't too far apart on the bolded point. I just don't believe that we can do that with kids.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, in that statement.


I think that you have a perception of the "prestige" of the "gig," that is not rooted in realism.

1. There is nobody that we can send to the Olympics, that it wouldn't be embarrassing, if we lose. You just don't want to root for pros in the Olympics. And, that's fine, but I wish that you'd stop hiding behind words like "compelling," and "real team."
2. We aren't too far apart on the bolded point. I just don't believe that we can do that with kids.

Whoah - that's not true at all. And I'm not sure about the part before either, if it was part of a long term plan to get us to a consistent team I could accept some short term growing pains.

The part where it is embarrassing no matter what when we lose, that's a larger sense of American entitlement, not on the player's behalf, but part of the problem. That we believe if we try, we win. If we didn't win it's because we didn't try. My whole issue is not that we aren't trying but that we are trying the wrong way. Throwing out the best players you can get to sign up who feel like it at that time without a larger purpose/identity.

Back to the coach thing, why if you were Mark Few today or John Calipari 25 years ago or Pitino after 97 - especially Pitino who seemed to have some belief he could be the next Red - Or maybe Phil Jackson coming off the Lakers gig, or Steve Kerr next year ... You don't think it could be made worth their while?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

<snip>

Forgot to add: I think that you and I are guilty of making the same mistake, when assessing your list of guys: we're basing our opinion on their potential for success in international play, on their NBA careers. Let me just reiterate that the second-best team in the world starts Victor Claver. Rudy Fernandez was mid as hell in the NBA: he's the Spanish Dwyane Wade, under FIBA rules. Who's to say that Luke Babbitt wouldn't be the Peja Stojakovic of America, under international rules?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Back to the coach thing, why if you were Mark Few today or John Calipari 25 years ago or Pitino after 97 - especially Pitino who seemed to have some belief he could be the next Red - Or maybe Phil Jackson coming off the Lakers gig, or Steve Kerr next year ... You don't think it could be made worth their while?

Uhhh... no. Not only no, but hell no.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Uhhh... no. Not only no, but hell no.

Why not? If the money was there, it would be an easier gig? Even with the responsibility of being a technical director and overseeing development from like 16 and up? You could be seen as having a hand up in every great domestic player to come through? I really think a legacy could be made there. And if the money was right.

 

[Tetsujin]

Well my interest in the Olympics has officially waned.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Forgot to add: I think that you and I are guilty of making the same mistake, when assessing your list of guys: we're basing our opinion on their potential for success in international play, on their NBA careers. Let me just reiterate that the second-best team in the world starts Victor Claver. Rudy Fernandez was mid as hell in the NBA: he's the Spanish Dwyane Wade, under FIBA rules. Who's to say that Luke Babbitt wouldn't be the Peja Stojakovic of America, under international rules?

To be honest, I don't really think I'm qualified to assess potential for success on the international stage. So you could be right - maybe Babbitt really gets it done in the same way that Carmelo went pure beast mode in the Olympics a couple of times (though he surely had a higher baseline to start from). But if you asked me whether I'd like to put together a team like the above, or whether I'd try to run it with a thrown-together team including Durant, Lillard, Booker, LaVine, Tatum, Middleton, Adebayo and Holiday - I'd have to go with the latter. And I think that the former would be a very hard sell on paper (hey, maybe it turns out to be a better team, but on paper a hard, hard sell) to the American fanbase.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Well my interest in the Olympics has officially waned.

 

[Tetsujin]

View attachment 10606

That Tokyo heat can seriously make anyone into a fool.

 

[PurpleHaze]

That Tokyo heat can seriously make anyone into a fool.

True, but Osaka lost indoors. AP | TOKYO: "Osaka, who lit the Olympic cauldron in Friday's opening ceremony, won her opening two matches in straight sets following a two-month mental-health break. But conditions were different Tuesday with the roof closed because it was raining outside."

 

[Tetsujin]

True, but Osaka lost indoors. AP | TOKYO: "Osaka, who lit the Olympic cauldron in Friday's opening ceremony, won her opening two matches in straight sets following a two-month mental-health break. But conditions were different Tuesday with the roof closed because it was raining outside."

I know

 

[Löwenherz]

I’m so proud of Lee, Chiles, and McCallum, fighting to earn the silver after Biles went out.

Was always the sum of all fears that I dared not even give voice to during the pre-Olympics hype of Biles GOAT status and early coronation as the all-time medals holder. So many times I wanted to include the overused asterisk phrase *barring injury* when rattling off all the greatness I knew she was capable of accomplishing.

Going in to Tokyo, Biles coming home with 6 golds was very realistic. Now she’s setting for a single silver.

Damn, this sucks.

EDIT: Reading Biles is day-to-day and could be ready to go for the all-around. Also, getting mixed information about how much of her withdrawal was due to a physical injury vs a mental/emotional breakdown.

Either way, we love you Simone.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Why not?

I think that you have a perception of the "prestige" of the "gig," that is not rooted in realism.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I’m so proud of Lee, Chiles, and McCallum, fighting to earn the silver after Biles went out.

Remarkable achievement by the rest of the USA women to win the silver, without the GOAT. Well done!

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's not the leap I'm making. I don't really think it is a good topic for this forum, I'd prefer to just leave it at that.

I don't know, man. I respect that you have your reasons for not wanting to elaborate, but I am of the mindset that, sometimes it's useful to take a couple of steps back, take a real good look at your "allies" on an issue, and ask yourself, "Are these the sort of people that I would want the people I love and respect to know that I am in allegiance with, on any other issue?" Just speaking for myself, I know that, in the past, I have felt the need to reconsider my opinion on an issue, depending on who was agreeing with me.

Anyway, I was obviously asleep during the USA/AUS match, and I woke up to an article with the headline of, "Australia holds USA scoreless." And then, I read the article, and thought to myself, "Well, that seems like a weird and suspiciously deliberate way to say, 'USA advances to knockout round, after draw with Australia,' especially when Australia needed a win way more than USA did."

 

[dude12]

I’m reading Biles withdrew because she mentally wasn’t up for it. Not completely sure if true but it was in USA Today. If true, I don’t understand. Did she quit because that is how I interpret it.