RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Men's Basketball General Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Olympics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 5:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's interesting. A team like Argentina can come out all psyched up and jump out to a ten point lead, but in the end, the talent gap and superior depth of the US asserts itself and they can't maintain that energy level for an entire game.

Still, they might as well have Sylvia Hatchell coach this team because it looks like the only coaching being done by the US is deciding who plays and when. Otherwise it's just roll 'em out on the floor and let 'em play.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 17685



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 5:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Australia-Spain semi should be fun to watch. I still think the USA men will have an easy time regardless of who their next opponent is.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 6:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This game today has turned into a preview of why the US will win.

They come out, look like crap, the opponent plays out of it's mind for a few minutes, and then the US size, talent, and depth just wears the opponent down

This game flipped pretty quickly from a 10 pt Argentina lead to a US blowout. Final score, 105-78.

Last Olympic game likely for Ginobli and some other Argentina players.


Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18834



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 7:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

miller40 wrote:
The Boomers and Opals switched sides for Rio. This Boomers team is really fun to watch and could make the gold game ... while the Opals bombed out.


Has been such a great display of basketball by the Boomers Very Happy
(and yes - it's about time the men did this after 20 years of the women getting all the results)

Boomers a legit chance of their first ever medal.

Hopefully arch enemies Croatia & Serbia smash the crap out of each other in a 3OT bloodbath Twisted Evil



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4388



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 5:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yesterday's game vs. Argentina was the first game I've been able to see.

Before the game, I saw people talking about how they were worried about Argentina.

For the first 10 minutes, their fears seemed justified. Then reality struck.
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 15411
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 7:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Youth Coach wrote:
Yesterday's game vs. Argentina was the first game I've been able to see.

Before the game, I saw people talking about how they were worried about Argentina.

For the first 10 minutes, their fears seemed justified. Then reality struck.


Australia, Croatia, France Spain are all better then Argentina. So was not really suprised that USA won by a big margin



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 8:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michelle89 wrote:
Youth Coach wrote:
Yesterday's game vs. Argentina was the first game I've been able to see.

Before the game, I saw people talking about how they were worried about Argentina.

For the first 10 minutes, their fears seemed justified. Then reality struck.


Australia, Croatia, France Spain are all better then Argentina. So was not really suprised that USA won by a big margin


Argentina beat Croatia.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 17685



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 9:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And Croatia lost to Serbia last night in the quarterfinals. The men's semis are:

Aug. 19
United States vs. Spain, 2:30pm
Australia vs. Serbia, 6:00pm



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49472



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 10:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hopefully Rubio can put a spike in his trade value



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 15411
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 10:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Hopefully Rubio can put a spike in his trade value


Does his shot look better?

Argentina lost to Spain while Croatia won from Spain.
Argentina lost to Lithuania while Croatia won from Lithuania

I think Croatia is a better team then Argentina



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 12415



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 6:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Argentina was a good matchup for the US because they didn't have enough size, depth or play style to compete. Too much two-man game to have a chance. The way to beat the US men is to have the personnel to go 4-high and 1-low with a lot of motion offense and backcuts. They'll overplay passing lanes and they'll go for pump fakes when they're beaten. They're honestly not a smart team top to bottom (outside of a few players like Klay Thompson and Paul George). In the NBA, you don't have to play 5-man basketball because the 3 point line and the defensive 3-second naturally space the floor. So they're not used to actually defending against basketball the way it was meant to be played. And in a sport with mega-guaranteed contracts, think about it, why should players listen to coaching? In the NBA, any coach only goes as far as the acceptance of the players. Even if Coach K and Boeheim are on the bench. Even if the guy who's regarded as one of the game's best defensive minds (Tom Thibodeau) is on the bench. If two hall of fame coaches and a defensive guru aren't enough to get these guys to play team basketball or defense, then it's the players' fault. That's why there's times they've looked lost against an international style of play. In the US, they don't have to defend this way, and haven't had to going back as far as AAU ball.

These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired. While this is not the best team USA that it could be with certain star players missing, a team composed of Melo, Durant, Klay, Butler, Jordan, etc. should be more than enough to win. There's two surefire hall-of-famers on team USA and several other upper-echelon stars on the team. If their IQ matched their talent they'd win every game by at least 30 points. The fact that some of these games are so competitive when they shouldn't be is certainly symbolic of the state of the NBA today. I refuse to watch it.



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 899



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 2:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote:
Argentina was a good matchup for the US because they didn't have enough size, depth or play style to compete. Too much two-man game to have a chance. The way to beat the US men is to have the personnel to go 4-high and 1-low with a lot of motion offense and backcuts. They'll overplay passing lanes and they'll go for pump fakes when they're beaten. They're honestly not a smart team top to bottom (outside of a few players like Klay Thompson and Paul George). In the NBA, you don't have to play 5-man basketball because the 3 point line and the defensive 3-second naturally space the floor. So they're not used to actually defending against basketball the way it was meant to be played. And in a sport with mega-guaranteed contracts, think about it, why should players listen to coaching? In the NBA, any coach only goes as far as the acceptance of the players. Even if Coach K and Boeheim are on the bench. Even if the guy who's regarded as one of the game's best defensive minds (Tom Thibodeau) is on the bench. If two hall of fame coaches and a defensive guru aren't enough to get these guys to play team basketball or defense, then it's the players' fault. That's why there's times they've looked lost against an international style of play. In the US, they don't have to defend this way, and haven't had to going back as far as AAU ball.

These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired. While this is not the best team USA that it could be with certain star players missing, a team composed of Melo, Durant, Klay, Butler, Jordan, etc. should be more than enough to win. There's two surefire hall-of-famers on team USA and several other upper-echelon stars on the team. If their IQ matched their talent they'd win every game by at least 30 points. The fact that some of these games are so competitive when they shouldn't be is certainly symbolic of the state of the NBA today. I refuse to watch it.


Eh, one man's ceiling, and all that... To me, the WNBA became a lot more fun to watch when they started adopting more of the NBA's rules, especially outlawing zone defenses. That's why I'm glad that these tournaments only happen every four years, and that's why I never watch college basketball, either men's or women's: I don't want anything to do with basketball, the so-called "way it was meant to be played."

That said, man this team is not built correctly. Not so much to do with a lack of "smarts," in my opinion, so much as a lack of roleplayers. This team would actually be more potent with less talent.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 3:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Lowry, Jordan and Thompson played really well today.

Carmelo played like crap.

I don't understand why Barnes and DeRozan have not played more. They're both good and have played well in the Olympics when they've played. Overall don't understand a lot of Krzyzewski's personnel decisions this whole tourney.

But they won and advanced to the gold medal game 82-76. Overall an underwhelming performance.


Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 899



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 3:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree that Barnes should probably be playing more. DeRozan? They already have enough guys in the rotation who can't shoot and don't pass.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
miller40



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1086



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 5:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Boomers pulling an Opals.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 17685



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 6:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well there goes the hope that the Aussies would upset team USA for the gold. Sad



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 17685



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/16 7:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Was really looking forward to an Australia-USA final. Would've been the better match-up. The Aussie just didn't show up today. The USA will steamroll over Serbia(+/-20??).



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 15411
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 3:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bummer that tonight was the night they couldnt hit a shot to save their lives. The Boomers could have made it a very close game against USA Sad



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 10:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired.


I have to disagree. Read some of Zach Lowe's stuff on ESPN (if you don't already), as he reveals the depths and complexities of the NBA. And guys who aren't smart enough to absorb scouting reports and play with intelligence just don't last long.

Sure, this team, with no practice time, can't execute Thibodeau's defensive schemes very well, and yes, a lot of January NBA games are sloppy, but overall, the NBA is by far the best league in the world, from coaching to talent to execution on the floor.

The fact that it's sometimes simplistic is built into the game -- if a player can score one-on-one, there's no need to go to Plan B. (The WNBA is different in that fewer players can score one-on-one, which changes the dynamic substantially.)



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 10:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired.


I have to disagree. Read some of Zach Lowe's stuff on ESPN (if you don't already), as he reveals the depths and complexities of the NBA. And guys who aren't smart enough to absorb scouting reports and play with intelligence just don't last long.

Sure, this team, with no practice time, can't execute Thibodeau's defensive schemes very well, and yes, a lot of January NBA games are sloppy, but overall, the NBA is by far the best league in the world, from coaching to talent to execution on the floor.

The fact that it's sometimes simplistic is built into the game -- if a player can score one-on-one, there's no need to go to Plan B. (The WNBA is different in that fewer players can score one-on-one, which changes the dynamic substantially.)



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 631



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/16 12:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You cannot generalize ALL the NBA as you cannot with the W. Just watch the Warriors, Spurs, and even the Cavs played some good team oriented games. The year the Mavs won it was the same. Just like the Lynx there are teams that have players who make the better decisions which results in team basketball. Unfortunately I agree with those who said this men's team is not built that way, whereas the Women's team is.


NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 12415



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 3:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Quote:
These games are all exhibits of why I consider the NBA unwatchable. The athletic talent is unparalleled but the IQ of the players leaves an extreme amount to be desired.


I have to disagree. Read some of Zach Lowe's stuff on ESPN (if you don't already), as he reveals the depths and complexities of the NBA. And guys who aren't smart enough to absorb scouting reports and play with intelligence just don't last long.

Sure, this team, with no practice time, can't execute Thibodeau's defensive schemes very well, and yes, a lot of January NBA games are sloppy, but overall, the NBA is by far the best league in the world, from coaching to talent to execution on the floor.

The fact that it's sometimes simplistic is built into the game -- if a player can score one-on-one, there's no need to go to Plan B. (The WNBA is different in that fewer players can score one-on-one, which changes the dynamic substantially.)


I think my use of the word intelligence was something of an oversimplification, but it's also not without merit. In my opinion the USA men roughly "out-talent" other men's teams about as much as the USA women do. I'd give the women a slight edge because their 12 deemed the best are playing. But even that doesn't represent the differential between the women blowing teams out in every game and the men barely being able to win half of theirs. The men have also actually been playing together a little longer prior to the Olympics than the women did, so not knowing the defensive schemes with weeks of practice time is not an excuse at all. I didn't see the women getting backdoored to death in half their games or yielding 68% from the field in a half like the men did.

I'm also not buying the argument that this is an ill-conceived team. It shouldn't be. The point guard just won an NBA title. Draymond Green defers and fits in on Golden State. Doing so here isn't an issue for him. DeAndre Jordan is an upper-echelon role player and one of the few playing his role well. Melo and Durant are hall of fame caliber scorers. The problem the men have is that if you take the defensive three second out of the equation and use 5-man systems against them they struggle to know how to react. Sure they can play 1-on-1 in the NBA, The game is tailor-made for it. Defensive help can't stay in the middle and the three point line is nine miles from the basket. If a team has some shooters, penetrations are going to be readily available.

But a lot of it is also ego over intelligence. This article tells everything you need to know about that:

http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2013/9/12/4720808/nba-coaches-hate-bill-laimbeer

Quote:
Before the 2010 NBA draft, many of the league's top decision-makers flew to Minnesota to watch a few prospects work out for the Timberwolves, who had a high pick. As one NBA general manager explains it, the purpose of these sessions is usually twofold: "The team is trying to impress the players as much as the players are trying to impress the team. And everyone with half a brain in the NBA understands this."

Laimbeer was on the court that day, running the workout. He set up one drill, telling the players to outlet the ball to him with a crisp chest pass, then run the lane and finish on the other end. Pretty basic stuff. Once the drill started, though, the players occasionally forgot the whole "outlet the ball" part, and Laimbeer, as he is known to do, called them out in a sarcastic manner. The next time around, the players remembered to outlet the ball but forgot about the chest pass. Laimbeer became visibly agitated by their inability to run the drill correctly. "By the end of the workout, we all thought there might be a fight on the court," one GM remembers. "Why make yourself the center of attention like that? For some executives, that day is all they know about him. And everyone left that gym with the same impression, that Laimbeer doesn't understand how the NBA works."

So, in other words, the way the NBA works is the player doesn't have to listen to the coach, or even know how to do the simplest drill. And in the case of Laimbeer, instead of being applauded for having expectations for players, trying to teach and trying to instill discipline, he's been blackballed from the NBA on the grounds that "he doesn't understand how the league works." I'm not going to applaud players for knowing scouting reports either. That to me is not the bar for intelligence, it's a job requirement that they should know how to do...not something to be patted on the back for. And with the number of blown assignments and bonehead passes I've seen from some of the league's best players in the Olympics, I'm not overwrought with confidence that intelligence necessarily keeps players in the league in every case. I'm sure it does for some. But for others athleticism and the NBA style of play makes for a good cover.

I know some teams play intelligently and I know it's also a matter of ego regarding one-on-one play. But if there's an argument here and also from some of my friends that "well the Cavs, Spurs and Warriors play intelligent ball" then I just have to shake my head. The bar we are setting is that 10% of the teams play intelligently and to be deemed intelligent the players should be able to understand a scouting report. That's an exceedingly low bar. Lebron James got a coach fired this year. A coach who introduced himself to the team by trying to run the team-oriented triangle offense. Now maybe Lebron has a bit of a case, being a pretty smart, team-oriented player in general. But you also have to wonder how commonplace it is that coaches really have any authority at all when players make so much more than the coach. I'm confident that there are players who don't do their due diligence when it comes to scouting reports. If the Olympics are an indicator with some of the best players in the world. it looks pretty commonplace to me with blown assignments galore in half the games. Not to mention I've heard Doug Collins say "need for ball movement" or "team play" or "need better defense" seemingly 100 times in the games I've watched. He's a former Olympian and an NBA coach. I'd say he's probably on to something.

Bottom line, whatever the explanations, Team USA was certainly not 6 points better on talent vs. Spain or 3 points better on talent vs. Serbia. The same point guard just won an NBA title playing with the best player in the world, so I'm not buying that PG is suddenly an issue like some have said. The problem is that Kyrie's deficiencies are magnified in an international game. But he's not alone. Kevin Durant has at times been exceptional in the Olympics. He almost never misses an open shot. He makes many contested ones. But when he puts the ball on the floor it's an adventure. He's just about as likely to pass to the other team as he is likely to pass to a teammate...something that I directly attribute to the more narrow spacing of the international game. The same is true of a number of players on the team as well as of a number of players who could be considered candidates to replace them. That is, if you take their one-on-one opportunities away and they aren't able to break down the defense, a lot of them have no clue what the hell to do next. That's not even taking into account some of the defense we've seen either.

And it's not like teams from the past few Olympics haven't been in close games against teams they've been better than. If it was just this team, I'd buy the "ill-conceived" argument. But I don't think that's it. I just think the NBA players have trouble adjusting to a game that requires they play more of a team game than an individual one. Whether it's intelligence, ego or other factors it's pretty undeniable. They struggle to win some of their games on the international level, with different teams, against teams they should for the most part dominate. It's not happening by accident.

And just to be clear, I know you haven't made all the arguments I cited above. I just decided to write an essay about all the arguments presented. Very Happy



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10955
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

today's final will be the first men's game i've watched.

i hope it holds my interest.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 899



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 11:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote:
I'm also not buying the argument that this is an ill-conceived team. It shouldn't be. The point guard just won an NBA title. Draymond Green defers and fits in on Golden State. Doing so here isn't an issue for him. DeAndre Jordan is an upper-echelon role player and one of the few playing his role well. Melo and Durant are hall of fame caliber scorers. The problem the men have is that if you take the defensive three second out of the equation and use 5-man systems against them they struggle to know how to react. Sure they can play 1-on-1 in the NBA, The game is tailor-made for it. Defensive help can't stay in the middle and the three point line is nine miles from the basket. If a team has some shooters, penetrations are going to be readily available.

Rubbish. Removing the defensive three-second rule makes it easier to defend, not harder. You think it's harder to defend when the center doesn't have to clear the lane, and you don't have to leave your assigned area, because you're playing zone? Miss me with that.

The team is poorly constructed, and to make matters worse, the coach isn't using the talent he does have in an optimal manner. Draymond Green should be starting: he's the only guy on the entire men's team who's first instinct when he gets the ball is to look for the open man, and Krzyzewski doesn't even play him. Kyrie Irving is not a point guard: he's just the shortest guy on the team, and is classified as a point guard by default. Up until the start of the knockout rounds, Krzyzewski was starting five scorers, three of which don't play any defense, and a center who is actually an above-average NBA defender, but who has a specific defensive weakness, one which is easily exploited by the fact the the alleged point guard can't keep his man in front of him.


Quote:
And it's not like teams from the past few Olympics haven't been in close games against teams they've been better than. If it was just this team, I'd buy the "ill-conceived" argument. But I don't think that's it. I just think the NBA players have trouble adjusting to a game that requires they play more of a team game than an individual one.

Well, then, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "ill-conceived" means, in this context, because that's not what it means. Ill-conceived means that there are too many players on the men's team who are only good at doing one thing. It means that there aren't enough players whose skill set lends itself to being effective without the ball in their hands: too many players who lack the ability to play off the ball. It means that there aren't enough players whose skill set complement the other guys on the team: look at DeAndre Jordan, who seems like a great fit for Team USA... he actually is a capable defender, he actually is able to play off the ball, and somehow he still doesn't complement the guys he's playing with. He's a pick-and-roll player, but Kyrie Irving and Kyle Lowry aren't pick-and-roll point guards. Klay Thompson should be a good fit, as a catch-and-shoot player who also plays defense, but what good is having a catch-and-shoot player on the team, if nobody is looking for them on offense? Nobody on this team runs off screens to get open, nobody sets screens to get somebody else open, nobody makes the extra pass. That's not an IQ thing or an ego thing: what you have is ten guys who are accustomed to having teammates do that stuff for them, and don't have enough experience playing in a system where they have to do that for their teammates.

The team is "ill-conceived" because it is not built correctly. You can get away with a "point guard" like Kyrie Irving, when you have another guy in your starting lineup who's going to make all the decisions with the basketball, and all you need Kyrie to do is "get buckets." But Team USA doesn't have one of those, at least not one that Krzyzewski trusts. You also can't send out a starting five that features two guys who are only good at "getting buckets," you need to be more well-rounded.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/16 11:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

To equate the men's Olympic team with an NBA team is unfair, I think.

And to say that only a few teams in the NBA play as a team is also unfair. What about Utah and Portland and Memphis and numerous others? They may not have the talent of Golden State, but they are well-coached, intelligent and play as hard as the 100-game (counting playoffs) NBA schedule will allow.

All those assistant coaches on NBA teams aren't just collecting paychecks. I know a guy who did pro scouting and it took him five or six hours to assemble a report after every game. The options are there for individual and team effort, but the hard truth in basketball is this: Talent rules. Idiots like Gilbert Arenas can be effective because of the nature of the sport, just as Tot Byears was. (I think the fact that there are fewer WNBA teams limits the number of dumb players because competition for roster spots is so difficult.)

Last point, again comparing the NBA to the WNBA, not the Olympic teams: There are 30 NBA teams. What if there were 24 WNBA teams? How smart would the league be then?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Olympics All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin