PDA

View Full Version : Pros and Cons of International Play



JasonJohnHorn
08-03-2014, 11:34 AM
With the recent injury to Paul George, there seems to be a growing sentiment that international play during the off season is something that teams are going to curtail in the future, but so the cons outweigh the pros?

For young players especially, this is a great way to learn how to win. They get to play with the best players (CP3, KD, LBJ, Kobe) and they get to pick up the habits that make these players great and are submerged in a winning culture.

They likewise keep their game sharp and get to work on their shooting, and might even be able to bring something new back to their team, or even bring some plays back that could help the team.

There has been an issue with some players coming back 'out of shape' (I won't name names here), but international play could help keep these guys in game shape and in pique condition.



The con is that they might get injured or be tired, but really, if the player is good he's going to be playing competitive basketball all summer. They will likely work on conditioning and shooting and play competitively only a couple of times a week, but these guys HAVE to play and exercise to stay in the kind of condition that requires them to play at an elite level, and they frankly can just as easily get injured while running as they can while playing basketball. So the risk of injury or getting tired part way through the season seems like balderdash to me.



For me, the pros far outweigh the cons, but I'm curious what everybody else thinks about this.

Goose17
08-03-2014, 11:39 AM
Players will want to play. A lot consider an Olympic gold medal more prestigious than an NBA chip due to the rarity.

Not much can be done. They want to play.

And I thought about them going back to the non-pro's only thing. Bringing in a big enough audience without the stars would be an issue though.

TrueFan420
08-03-2014, 12:08 PM
Injuries happen... International ball is a good thing. However, I might want my older players passing up on it for rest.

TrueFan420
08-03-2014, 12:10 PM
Players will want to play. A lot consider an Olympic gold medal more prestigious than an NBA chip due to the rarity.

Not much can be done. They want to play.

And I thought about them going back to the non-pro's only thing. Bringing in a big enough audience without the stars would be an issue though.

Can't send boys to play men. This isn't the old days where the rest of the world is really far behind the USA. Our college kids would get killed.

Goose17
08-03-2014, 12:40 PM
Can't send boys to play men. This isn't the old days where the rest of the world is really far behind the USA. Our college kids would get killed.

I actually disagree, it would be more competitive that way and I think the college kids could still compete, especially if no NBA players were playing.

Would be nice to see a non-american country win.

You could always ban ALL professional players from ALL professional leagues.

But again, basketball struggles enough to pull in an audience, removing the stars wouldn't make sense.

Goose17
08-03-2014, 01:05 PM
Can't send boys to play men. This isn't the old days where the rest of the world is really far behind the USA. Our college kids would get killed.

or... I suppose you could always limit it to three NBA players (G,F,C) and one professional bench player lol. That way you can have enough stars to attract people but not as many to make it unbalanced. On top of that you wouldn't play the same guys every world cup, that way teams wouldn't have to worry about their players playing international ball every 2-4 years.


Example;


Spain;

G: Ricky Rubio
G: Sergio Llull
F: Fernando San Emeterio
F: Serge Ibaka
C: Marc Gasol


France;

G: Thomas Heurtel
G: Charles Kahudi
F: Nicolas Batum
F: Boris Diaw
C: Joakim Noah


Australia;

G: Patty Mills
G: Dante Exum
F: ??? (no idea who plays SF for them)
F: David Anderson
C: Aron Baynes


Argentina;

G: Pablo Prigioni
G: Manu Ginobili
F: ?????
F: Luis Scola
C: Juan Pedro Gutiérrez


America;

G: Chris Paul
G: Wayne Selden?
F: Kevin Durant
F: Cliff Alexander?
C: Dwight Howard



lol...

JasonJohnHorn
08-03-2014, 02:30 PM
or... I suppose you could always limit it to three NBA players (G,F,C) and one professional bench player lol. That way you can have enough stars to attract people but not as many to make it unbalanced. On top of that you wouldn't play the same guys every world cup, that way teams wouldn't have to worry about their players playing international ball every 2-4 years.


Example;


Spain;

G: Ricky Rubio
G: Sergio Llull
F: Fernando San Emeterio
F: Serge Ibaka
C: Marc Gasol


France;

G: Thomas Heurtel
G: Charles Kahudi
F: Nicolas Batum
F: Boris Diaw
C: Joakim Noah


Australia;

G: Patty Mills
G: Dante Exum
F: ??? (no idea who plays SF for them)
F: David Anderson
C: Aron Baynes


Argentina;

G: Pablo Prigioni
G: Manu Ginobili
F: ?????
F: Luis Scola
C: Juan Pedro Gutiérrez


America;

G: Chris Paul
G: Wayne Selden?
F: Kevin Durant
F: Cliff Alexander?
C: Dwight Howard



lol...

What about Canada?

PG: Steve Nash/Corey Joseph
SG: Andrew Wiggins/Andy Rautins
SF: Anthony Bennet/Chris Joseph (bring Rick Fox out of retirement)
PF: Tristan Thompson/Andrew Nicholson
C: Kelly Olynyk/Samuel Dalembert/Joel Anthony/Robert Scarce

Mr.B
08-03-2014, 03:46 PM
You guys need to go to ESPN and read what Mark Cuban said about the IOC and International play. He has some really good points!

Hellcrooner
08-03-2014, 04:08 PM
you can get injured oing an scrimage or bowling or playing some basket with your friends in the summer.


the real arrangement that needs to be made is the nba season starting MID september in order that the estra weeks mean MORE time between games, no back to backs AT ALL wich means less stress for the players mor rest and less injurys .

Cheesesteak
08-03-2014, 04:14 PM
Pros:
Shows patriotism. Good for PR.
Get to play with some of the best players in the NBA.
Just flat out fun to watch the US dominate in a sport we are the best at.

Cons:
Basically playing basketball year round, which may take a toll on the body.


What happened to Paul George is very sad, But I don't see it as a gamechanger when it comes to star players participating in International Basketball.

Goose17
08-03-2014, 04:22 PM
you can get injured oing an scrimage or bowling or playing some basket with your friends in the summer.


the real arrangement that needs to be made is the nba season starting MID september in order that the estra weeks mean MORE time between games, no back to backs AT ALL wich means less stress for the players mor rest and less injurys .

Or just shorten the season.

Hellcrooner
08-03-2014, 05:04 PM
Or just shorten the season.
yeah well if i was comissioner i would eliminate the west-east thing and have every team play every other team 2 times 1 home 1 away ( 58) games and then have top 8 teams regardless of conference make the playoffs.

but im not sure owners would like dropping those 24 games ( 12 at home) and the gates earnings.

Chaotic98
08-03-2014, 05:36 PM
You guys need to go to ESPN and read what Mark Cuban said about the IOC and International play. He has some really good points!

Cuban is looking at international play through the eyes of a businessman not as a fan of the game. He'd much rather "risk" the college kids "injuries" in an under 21. 21 year olds who most often do not have a guaranteed contract or an insurance policy, than his own investment, which through his point of view is understandable.

Cuban is viewing the players as the owners' investments that they either reaps or misses out on, which international tourneys are the latter. If George breaks his leg in pre-season, the Pacers are still in the same predicament. Fluke injuries can occur anywhere to anyone

International exposure with the best players grows sports, which in turn grows the talent pool and TV broadcasting contracts. That's why soccer is arguably the most viewed and profitable sport, why baseball has created a World Baseball Classic tournament, why hockey has several tournaments year round, from the under 21, Spengler's cup and a couple more. Basketball is in danger of losing their exposure to the other sports, with hockey arguably catching up in ratings and revenue.

Let the players who want to play, play, not have to seek permissions from their teams.

Mr.B
08-03-2014, 06:57 PM
Cuban is looking at international play through the eyes of a businessman not as a fan of the game. He'd much rather "risk" the college kids "injuries" in an under 21. 21 year olds who most often do not have a guaranteed contract or an insurance policy, than his own investment, which through his point of view is understandable.

Cuban is viewing the players as the owners' investments that they either reaps or misses out on, which international tourneys are the latter. If George breaks his leg in pre-season, the Pacers are still in the same predicament. Fluke injuries can occur anywhere to anyone

International exposure with the best players grows sports, which in turn grows the talent pool and TV broadcasting contracts. That's why soccer is arguably the most viewed and profitable sport, why baseball has created a World Baseball Classic tournament, why hockey has several tournaments year round, from the under 21, Spengler's cup and a couple more. Basketball is in danger of losing their exposure to the other sports, with hockey arguably catching up in ratings and revenue.

Let the players who want to play, play, not have to seek permissions from their teams.
Yea he has always been against pro players playing international ball because if the investment they've made in the players (and he has a right to feel that way) however he also mentioned that the NBA should create their own governing body that represents the players when competing internationally. That way the NBA gets the bulk of the money that these games generate instead of the IOC. That could potentially lead to a higher salary cap which would prevent teams like the Pacers from being completely devastated by losing a player like George. Think about it. If there was more money coming in leading to a higher cap maybe the Pacers could have resigned Stephenson. They wouldn't be in the predicament they're in now. Anyways its just a thought. Cuban thinks outside the box on a lot of things and even though it may sound crazy at first he has some really good ideas on how to protect and improve the game.

goingfor28
08-03-2014, 09:05 PM
You guys need to go to ESPN and read what Mark Cuban said about the IOC and International play. He has some really good points!
Thanks for posting the article

Mr.B
08-03-2014, 09:17 PM
Thanks for posting the article
Internet too difficult to figure out?

JEDean89
08-03-2014, 09:47 PM
since this was the first major team USA injury since 1982, I will sum it up to bad luck. i for one am thrilled kenneth faried is on the team, the last roster all had incredible seasons the year after.

Chaotic98
08-03-2014, 09:49 PM
Yea he has always been against pro players playing international ball because if the investment they've made in the players (and he has a right to feel that way) however he also mentioned that the NBA should create their own governing body that represents the players when competing internationally. That way the NBA gets the bulk of the money that these games generate instead of the IOC. That could potentially lead to a higher salary cap which would prevent teams like the Pacers from being completely devastated by losing a player like George. Think about it. If there was more money coming in leading to a higher cap maybe the Pacers could have resigned Stephenson. They wouldn't be in the predicament they're in now. Anyways its just a thought. Cuban thinks outside the box on a lot of things and even though it may sound crazy at first he has some really good ideas on how to protect and improve the game.

First, Cuban wants the NBA to create their own tournament? That would give the teams the right to decide which players can play and for whom, i.e. age, contracts, etc. The NBA having their own tournament instead of an outside governing body, can lead to so many issues besides who can play. How about political issues like rigged games (NBA had a ref betting on games and saying some refs were told who to let win based on foul calls)? How about softer drug testing? I trust the drug testing of the IOC over most leagues. And many more.

Second, more money and higher caps is not necessarily a good thing for the league or the teams. It means that the max contract will grow and so will the AAV of players who don't deserve it. It won't be the rookies or D leaguers that will benefit, but the one year wonders (Eddy Curry) and the max out older players (Amare), which leads to more bad moves by most teams. Lastly, for people who have complained that Hayward and Parsons were over paid this year, imagine with a higher cap what they could have received and others like them. A lower cap actually creates better parity and less over payments and mistakes from organizations.

Third, a higher cap can also mean that the star players can collude to pull another Lebron, Bosh and Wade in Miami, as they can rationalize that under the old contracts they would have only received X instead of going for the higher Y. It benefits teams with good salesmen, larger markets and no tax cities and states (namely in no particular order, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, LA Lakers, Houston, Chicago, Knicks, Nets, Boston and maybe the Clippers). Basically only a third of the league actually has the potential to benefit from higher caps and superstar signings.

Fourth, higher caps would not have protected Indiana. Lance decided to leave Indiana because Charlotte offered a 2 year contract, Indiana offered him 5 years at the same AAV of 9 mil and the Pacers didn't budge on term length or value. It wasn't a cap issue, more like a stubbornness issue on both sides, and Lance may have felt his time was done when Bird and some of his players called him out in the media after the LBJ ear blow. Indiana also felt no one would have given him the same money over less time.

Lastly, Cuban has a self serving and self interest right to want the NBA to control global tournaments. I'd rather a global governing body who will redistribute profits to the nations participating in tournaments than to redistribute money to the NBA. That way, basketball is able to be better developed in other nations, where the majority of the players who play in this tournament actually play. It is just wrong to reward the 80%+ NBA players in their salary cap that do not play in international tournaments, than to redistribute them to the other players from Argentina, Spain, Australia and the continent of Africa that do play.

goingfor28
08-03-2014, 09:54 PM
Internet too difficult to figure out?
What is internet?

Mr.B
08-03-2014, 09:56 PM
First, Cuban wants the NBA to create their own tournament? That would give the teams the right to decide which players can play and for whom, i.e. age, contracts, etc. The NBA having their own tournament instead of an outside governing body, can lead to so many issues besides who can play. How about political issues like rigged games (NBA had a ref betting on games and saying some refs were told who to let win based on foul calls)? How about softer drug testing? I trust the drug testing of the IOC over most leagues. And many more.

Second, more money and higher caps is not necessarily a good thing for the league or the teams. It means that the max contract will grow and so will the AAV of players who don't deserve it. It won't be the rookies or D leaguers that will benefit, but the one year wonders (Eddy Curry) and the max out older players (Amare), which leads to more bad moves by most teams. Lastly, for people who have complained that Hayward and Parsons were over paid this year, imagine with a higher cap what they could have received and others like them. A lower cap actually creates better parity and less over payments and mistakes from organizations.

Third, a higher cap can also mean that the star players can collude to pull another Lebron, Bosh and Wade in Miami, as they can rationalize that under the old contracts they would have only received X instead of going for the higher Y. It benefits teams with good salesmen, larger markets and no tax cities and states (namely in no particular order, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, LA Lakers, Houston, Chicago, Knicks, Nets, Boston and maybe the Clippers). Basically only a third of the league actually has the potential to benefit from higher caps and superstar signings.

Fourth, higher caps would not have protected Indiana. Lance decided to leave Indiana because Charlotte offered a 2 year contract, Indiana offered him 5 years at the same AAV of 9 mil and the Pacers didn't budge on term length or value. It wasn't a cap issue, more like a stubbornness issue on both sides, and Lance may have felt his time was done when Bird and some of his players called him out in the media after the LBJ ear blow. Indiana also felt no one would have given him the same money over less time.

Lastly, Cuban has a self serving and self interest right to want the NBA to control global tournaments. I'd rather a global governing body who will redistribute profits to the nations participating in tournaments than to redistribute money to the NBA. That way, basketball is able to be better developed in other nations, where the majority of the players who play in this tournament actually play. It is just wrong to reward the 80%+ NBA players in their salary cap that do not play in international tournaments, than to redistribute them to the other players from Argentina, Spain, Australia and the continent of Africa that do play.
I don't think he was talking about creating their own tournament. They would still play in the games as they do now they would just be governed by the NBA instead if the IOC. Obviously the details and specifics haven't been discussed or anything like that.

Chaotic98
08-03-2014, 10:05 PM
I don't think he was talking about creating their own tournament. They would still play in the games as they do now they would just be governed by the NBA instead if the IOC. Obviously the details and specifics haven't been discussed or anything like that.

Actually he did...

"The greatest trick ever played was the IOC convincing the world that the Olympics were about patriotism and national pride instead of money. The players and owners should get together and create our own World Cup of Basketball."

The Players and Owners he's referring to would be the NBA and NBAPA.

JustinTime
08-03-2014, 10:09 PM
Pros:
-It's way better than NBA and the only place you will see an all-star team that tries to win
-Great for developing your players
-Great for the game internationally
-Players actually care about winning

Cons:
Injuries

JustinTime
08-03-2014, 10:13 PM
You guys need to go to ESPN and read what Mark Cuban said about the IOC and International play. He has some really good points!

You know I really hate guys like Cuban they try to make their ideas come across as beneficial to the players when the reality is he's just trying to make more money. A lot of these rich guys seem to have an illnesses when it comes to money. Cuban you have billions of dollars you don't need more **** off.

JustinTime
08-03-2014, 10:18 PM
What about Canada?

PG: Steve Nash/Corey Joseph
SG: Andrew Wiggins/Andy Rautins
SF: Anthony Bennet/Chris Joseph (bring Rick Fox out of retirement)
PF: Tristan Thompson/Andrew Nicholson
C: Kelly Olynyk/Samuel Dalembert/Joel Anthony/Robert Scarce

Tyler Ennis, Nik Stauskas, Dwight Powell

Mr.B
08-03-2014, 10:29 PM
You know I really hate guys like Cuban they try to make their ideas come across as beneficial to the players when the reality is he's just trying to make more money. A lot of these rich guys seem to have an illnesses when it comes to money. Cuban you have billions of dollars you don't need more **** off.
So they're wrong for wanting to protect their investments?

Chaotic98
08-03-2014, 10:46 PM
So they're wrong for wanting to protect their investments?

No, they have the right to protect their interests as owners, but they are wrong to mask it in some altruistic rhetoric to manipulate fans and public perception.

JustinTime
08-03-2014, 11:56 PM
So they're wrong for wanting to protect their investments?

No, I just think there's something wrong with a person who feels they need more when they have so much. Give me a couple million and I'll **** off for the rest of my life. Guys like Cuban on the other-hand feel they need more than the multiple billions they already have I really don't get or understand the motivation for that greed because I would have been satisfied long before I got that much.

Mr.B
08-04-2014, 12:05 AM
No, I just think there's something wrong with a person who feels they need more when they have so much. Give me a couple million and I'll **** off for the rest of my life. Guys like Cuban on the other-hand feel they need more than the multiple billions they already have I really don't get or understand the motivation for that greed because I would have been satisfied long before I got that much.
That's basically every billionaire on the planet. That's how they became billionaires. Unless they inherited it of course.