Wow, coming from THE anti-YOF stalker in this BBS, the biggest ******* of the World ******* Championship.
America has been the most powerful nation of the world in the modern time. Last time I checked it's still called the American army, not the World army, even though I must admit we act like one far too often.
uhm, the best players in the world play in the NBA so World Championships is perfectly appropriate. The NBA drafts players from other leagues - clearly establishing a relationship in which the NBA is the superior league. How many good basketball nations don't have their best player in the NBA? Look at the Olympics : Of the top teams - which one's don't have current, future or past NBA players in their lineup?
That logic is faulty. World Championship is usually a term reserved for a competition between athletes or teams representing their nation. For that reason alone already, using the term "World Championship" does not make sense for a team competition, much less if only club teams from one country compete in this competition.
If the best players in the world are all playing in the same league - then the team that wins that league should have every right to call themselves the "World Champions" - because they've beaten the best players in the world.
No, because a world championship is a competition between teams consisting of players from the same nation representing their country by definition, which is not what happens in the NBA.
Your definition, not mine. A World Champion team to me is the best team in the world. Since the best basketball players in the world play in the NBA(and not in the Olympics or World Championships) - then it is not only appropriate to call the NBA champions the "World Champs" - they are the only World Champions in basketball.
You can make up your own definition all day, but it is incorrect, and completely inconsistent with almost any other "world champion" in any other sport you can think of. Calling the winner of the NBA or NFL (or MLB?) "world champions" was purely a marketing move and may have made some sense despite the systematic inconsistency before the rest of the world caught up in terms of quality of play in their leagues, but it is still nonsense. Based on that logic, the Brazilians could call whoever their current national club team champion in soccer is "World Champions", etc. That's just nonsense. It's not my definition vs. yours, it's yours vs. the generally accepted one worldwide.
Uhm, no - not at all. My logic would say that whatever league had the best Portugese, French, german, english, brazilian, argetinian, et al would be the "World Champs". Since that league does not exist - no soccer club team in the world can call themseves world champs. But that league does exist in both Baseball and Basketball - since the NBA and MLB are the only two competitions(in each sport) in which the best athletes in their respective sports compete - why is it not appropriate to not call them "Word Champs"? Because you invented a definition that means you don't have to? What part of "world" and "champion" does my definition not meet? In fact, I argue that the NBA(and MLB) meet that definition FAR better than the Olympics or any other international competition do - because the best basketball and baseball players in the world don't always play in those competitions, but they do play in the NBA and MLB.
It's an American thing, what more needs to be said? A bit ignorant but that seems to be how yanks do things =\ ... No prejudice intended of course.
I did not invent it. If you look at any sport, even basketball, world championships exist and individuals or teams with players from the same nation compete in them, representing their nation. ANY SPORT IN THE WORLD. Is this so hard to understand? Calling the current NBA/MLB/NFL champion "world champion" is a marketing ploy, but does not fit the generally accepted definition of what a world champion is - an individual or a team who wins a title representing their nation! It's fine that you think the best players in the world in the respective sport play in the NBA/NFL/MLB. Probably that is even a true statement (still). But that could change, and who is to determine that anyway? If all the best players in the world played in the NBA, as you claim, a team only consisting of players from that league should easily beat a team like Lithuania whose players (most of them) do not play in that league, right? Oops. In any case, it is systematically incorrect to call a club team consisting of players from different nations and only competing against teams from the same country (or two countries) a "world champion".
You know, I remember when the Rockets won the championships a decade ago, we played the top European club during the summer later. Do they still do that now? That would seem like a reasonable game to play before this whole declaration of being a "world champion". Off the top of my head, the term world champion seems almost always used for a country(i.e. announcers saying "the Americans are the reigning world champions in so-and-so"). I think there's a "world champion" of the little leagues. But that includes a competition between the best US team and the best international team, right? Despite the NBA being the premier league in basketball, this year's Olympics has shown that plenty of great basketball players choose NOT to play in the NBA. I'm still inclined to believe that the Pistons can whip any club team outside the US, but that may not be true for much longer.
But not the best players in the world. Why does a World Champion have to be "representing their nation"? That's not implied anywhere in the two words - World. Champion. The best players in the World in their sport play in the NBA and MLB - they do not play in the "World Championships" or the Olympics. Thus World. The best team in the NBA is the Champions. Thus Champion. World Champion. You can invent all the definitions all you want, but it doesn't change that the best team in the World is the Detroit Pistons, and they beat teams composed of the best players in the world. Huh? It's true now more than it ever has been in both sports.
That's the thing Puedlfor is ignoring when he claims that I "invented" that definition. That's fine, we can agree to disagree, it's not the most important matter in the world (ahem in the USA) to me .
no fricken way the Adelaide Crows are 97 and 97 AFL WOLRD CHAMPIONS and the Brisbane Lions are the 2001, 2002, 2003 AFL WORLD CHAMPIONS and County Clare are 2004 Gaelic Football WORLD CHAMPIONS
The meaning of the phrase is not the simple mathematical addition of the words. NBA is a national league. The world does not participate in it's championship. By that I mean not only the athletes but the fans. A Lithanian fan would care less whether Detroit wins or LA wins. However if you take the football world cup for example, every one in this sports' community will participate and cheer for their teams and decide the "world champion", the champion of the world, of the fans of the world. What happens when people from other countries participate in the NBA "world championship" ??? They are labelled XXX-only fans and got hated. What a great "world championship". It's just stupid marketing on sports relatively few people care about. But bball probably is the second most popular sports of the world, NBA should drop it.
Actually there is a World Club Championship, where the champions of various leagues around the world get together to play each other.
Sam you care if I add this to my sig? I find most of your post on par to how I feel and this is funny as ****
Really? How? Is there any official system to organise the challenge and subsequently produce the generally accepted "world champion"? Theoretically Bill Gates can buy Shaq, Duncan, KG, Kobe and Kidd out of their contracts tomorrow and let them play at his backyard. Can this team officially challenge the NBA champion next year for the title of "World Champion"? Is it going to happen? Extremely unlikely. But the point is the "system" to produce the "world champion". Is the "system" generally accepted by the world? If NBA title holder is the World Champion, then how about winner of the World Championship organised by FIBA. If the "world champion" is decided by the perception that NBA title holder is betten than the world championship title holder, then theoretically Bill Gates "backyards" can OFFICIALLY claim themselves tomorrow they are the world champion? Dont get me wrong, I think NBA title holder is the best team in the world now. But I honestly feel a bit uncomfortable with its self-proclaimed title of "world champion". Just like I think US president may very well be the most powerful person in the world. But u never OFFICIALLY introduce Bush as "the World Most Powerful Person, Mr. George W Bush".
