Would the Pistons have won the gold?

[rtrombone]

I don't think there's any denying that a team composed of the very best NBA players (Shaq, Duncan, KG, T-Mac and Kobe) would have fared much better than the squad the U.S. sent. Nobody could handle Duncan inside; the problem was that he was on the bench so much because of foul trouble. Shaq and KG would've given the U.S. two more options down low. The three of them couldn't all get into foul trouble, could they?

Besides Duncan's foul trouble, the big problem with the U.S. was their horrific defense. I mean what the hell, the game is as long as a college game but a team like Spain scores over 90 points while missing most of their 3-pointers? Did you see how many layups both Spain and Argentina made?

How would the Pistons have done? One thing's for sure: teams would've had difficulty scoring 80, much less 90 points against them. I think their defense alone would've made them strong contenders. Between Billups, Hamilton and Rasheed they would've come up with enough points.

In a team game, teamwork is more important than individual talent. That's what's so great about sports like football and basketball. One of my friends, who played college football at Cornell, related to me once how his Catholic high school team would annihilate city teams loaded with future D-1 players. None of his teammates was good enough to get a D-1 scholarship, but they were well-coached and played the game the way it's supposed to be played.

In the NCAA tournament, virtually every team is well-coached. Yet you still see small schools regularly upset more talented teams. Most of the time, it's not even that big of an upset. You better believe that UConn, as talented as they were, would've gotten their asses handed to them by any decent mid-major had they been forced into a game after just two weeks of playing together.

It takes MONTHS to install an offense in organized basketball. Defense, too, is very dependent on familiarity with one another.

There was a time when the U.S. could send pretty much anybody and breeze to a gold medal. The talent disparity was that great. That time has passed. But I'm a bigger fan now than ever.

[Michael Davis]

The Pistons would have won the gold easily, I think. I didn't see any of the Olympic games. I can't figure out why this team didn't, especially since they were trying hard after their early losses.

-Michael

[Duke]

You're absolutely right on most of your points.

I guess I'm one of the few that dislikes team sports precisely because of this. I like to associate athletic ability with excellence in athletics, and mental ability associated with excellence in - well things to do with mental ability.

Sports like this seem to just pit one against the other, so one day the academics can say: The mind triumphed!, and the next day stereotypical ill-witted Joe six-pack can say: We kicked your asses!, right before going on a "deyr tekin' er jehbs!" tirade.

I don't like struggles where 2 sides are competing on different levels, playing 2 different games.

For me, if I'm going to strive for excellence in, say, athletics, I'd want to compete against the best in the world at that. If I wanted to be the best theoretical physicist in the world, I'd be measuring myself up against the likes of Hawking. I don't really see what being a better physicist than Dwight Phillips, or a better long jumper than Stephen Hawking says about anything.

If it's a struggle to feel superior to somebody for some reason, then ok, I guess I just don't understand the concept of "sport" as it relates to football. Or maybe I understand it, and just think it's absurd.

I guess I'll agree to disagree about team sports being great. To each their own.

~D