Term Limits for the Olympic team

[ndmb]

What is ridiculous and insane is how you suddenly jumped right to a pool of 200. The current pool of players for the World Cup is set at 29. 15 random ping pong balls chosen from a pool of 29 would be entirely practical & might remove some of the subjectivity.

What UConnNick suggested and what you suggested are exactly the same, you just draw the line at different parts of the bell curve. What he posted is a logical extreme of the flawed reasoning that choosing players by chance would somehow lead to teams that were as good as teams where the selection committee made attempt to determine the best players.

 

[Bigboote]

I can see an argument that it's better for the future to get some younger players some international experience in lower-stakes tournaments, but this author's argument that others simply deserve a turn shouldn't be used when talking about grownups.

 

[LadyVols9]

ladies and gents, we need to have a moment of brutal honesty. TEAM USA has always been political and is even more so now. coaches need to rotate and term limits need to happen.

 

[Plebe]

The obvious solution is that both coaches and players should be selected at random from among people who have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[hoophuskee]

ladies and gents, we need to have a moment of brutal honesty. (1) TEAM USA has always been political and is even more so now. (2) coaches need to rotate and (3) term limits need to happen.

1-- Okay.
2-- Sure.
3-- Okay- Sure - here is some brutal honesty for you. Term limit for players? Laughable. It's so laughable that it forces one to have a 2nd thought regarding the author's points of 1 and 2. How about pettiness and jealousy for those that suggest term limits? OFC not all that suggest. It's just so silly it's not worthy of a split second mention. Instead of dealing with the political situation or coach situation -- you penalize the players because "they've been too good and won too much?" I can't stop laughing at the complete absurdity.

 

[tomcat]

I don't watch Olympic coverage much, but I generally watch the women's basketball, at least a little. Count me among those who think this is a wonderful idea. There are only a dozen or so spots on the roster, and whenever a team is "picked," we all can predict, with near certainty, the vast majority of players who will be on it. So here's what happens: For all but maybe 16 players or so, there is absolutely zero chance or making the team, and for three or four others, you can make it only if you manage to beat out a superstar (hoping, all the while, that she's gotten past her prime and you can out-quick her). Maybe that's the way it's supposed to be, but I'm not so sure.

What if he accepted way of doing things would be two-and-done? Those completing their second Olympics would retire gracefully, with all the honors from fans of a grateful nation. Each time a team was chosen, there would be lots of strong competition for however many spots were open, so a stronger, more motivated bench would be available.

I am not saying this would make for a higher quality team. I am all but certain it would not. But it would put a lot of new faces in front of Olympic fans and would probably make coaching this new combination of players more challenging. The downside is that for some other countries that now can field a really good first-string team, retiring their stars would deplete the ranks.

Please note that this idea has nothing to do with politics or giving players a turn (really?) or feeling that there are too many players from one team on the roster (I'm a UConn fan. How could I think that?). It probably stems from the fact that I am one of those dinosaurs who believe that when it comes to basketball and hockey and yes, any other sport where professional players are allowed to represent their country in Olympic competition, it was far better when only amateurs were allowed. Was the quality of play as good? Mostly no. Was the competition better? I for one think so. Was it more interesting? Go back to the "Miracle on Ice" days and tell me all those great back-stories about all the players weren't fascinating. They were people no one had heard of, and partly because they were unknown, they became real heroes. Diana Taurasi, say, may excel in the Olympics, but I don't think many people would consider her level of excellence to be heroic.

However, I do sort of like the Holiday Inn Express idea.

 

[ThisJustIn]

it was far better when only amateurs were allowed.

Would welcome your definition of "amateurs" re: the Olympics.

 

[SVCBeercats]

Yes, term limits. I don't care if it's a LV or a UCONN player. we have enough talent for limits. more than a select group of players should be able to represent our country. there is enough talent and gold to go around.

Communist sports?! Did you notice when communist USSR dominated the Olympics they sent the same WINNERS time and time again. Heck, they didn't even follow your communist approach to USA basketball.

 

[tomcat]

it was far better when only amateurs were allowed.

Would welcome your definition of "amateurs" re: the Olympics.

Point taken, but we could start with "not people making six or seven figure salaries a year playing their Olympic sport," or something like that." Were things far from perfect back then, Hell, yes. So now we see which professional players, when tossed together as a team, can beat which other professional players. That may be interesting, at least to some folks, but I suspect it's nothing like what the Olympics are supposed to be. Or, at least, WERE supposed to be.

 

[SVCBeercats]

ladies and gents, we need to have a moment of brutal honesty. TEAM USA has always been political and is even more so now. coaches need to rotate and term limits need to happen.

Yeah! It was pure politics selecting Taurasi, Bird, Catchings, Augustus, Moore, Fowles, McCoughtry, Charles, Whalen, Stewart, Delle Donne, and Griner. These are the winningest of the winners and you want to give some poor college kid a shot just because it is their turn. Poor babies! If they can play like Stewart, I'm all for it. You do understand how good she is ... don't you? Why not go back to the USA only sends amateurs to the Olympics and enjoy watching the USA teams lose to the other nations' professionals? Yeah, the USA men's Dream Team should have never happened. Should have send all college kids. Heck, the Dream Team's opponents could not wait to lose so they get their picture taken with the Dream Team. So they could show people these are the giants of basketball that kicked our collective behinds and we loved every moment of it. AND we got our picture taken with them! Autographed no doubt. Reread the aforementioned names. Yeah, the giants of women's basketball. "But we don't care. Their turn is up." It is up when they are beat out for their position. If a young player can do this, put them on the team, post haste.

Is USA Basketball perfect? No, nothing is perfect. Is the world unfair? Yep, sure is. Perhaps these kids need to learn this lesson early in life. Have a good cry or two or three and move on with life and learn how to deal with it. Such as practicing to become as good as the aforementioned players so they can EARN a place on the USA Olympic and World Championship teams.

 

[SVCBeercats]

However, I do sort of like the Holiday Inn Express idea.

You make as much sense as the Holiday Inn Express commercials which are meant to be ludicrously funny. Or did you miss this point like you missed the point of competition?

 

[mhshuskies]

It's not that the roster is dominated by UConn players. It's that the roster has been dominated by the same players for a long time. Whalen & Augustus would be two non-UConn examples. I wish some of them would retire from international play though they should by no means feel obliged to.

Bird and Taurasi are legitimate living legends but if they are on the team again in 2020...

I feel like we're getting to a point where a whole generation of guards has been completely blocked from the national team. You could say it's up to them to be better and force their way into the team. But Vandersloot has been better (statistically, at least) than Whalen and Bird in recent seasons and eventually saw the writing on the wall and started playing for Hungary. Diggins didn't get picked for 2014 worlds after an all-WNBA season.

It's a lot harder to get a spot on the team than to keep it. It seems like favoritism hiding behind the guise of "experience".

If it’s all about winning a championship, shouldn’t demonstrated ability to WIN championships be at least part of the analysis in player selection? If Diggins was selected over Taurasi or Bird and similar choices as you suggest, then we would have had to hear “we won bronze and we would have won the championship if not for the teams that won silver and gold”.

 

[CocoHusky]

If it’s all about winning a championship, shouldn’t demonstrated ability to WIN championships be at least part of the analysis in player selection?

Absolutely not!

 

[UConnCat]

If it’s all about winning a championship, shouldn’t demonstrated ability to WIN championships be at least part of the analysis in player selection? If Diggins was selected over Taurasi or Bird and similar choices as you suggest, then we would have had to hear “we won bronze and we would have won the championship if not for the teams that won silver and gold”.

Yes and it is.

 

[Orangutan]

If Diggins was selected over Taurasi or Bird and similar choices as you suggest, then we would have had to hear “we won bronze and we would have won the championship if not for the teams that won silver and gold”.

Unless Danielle Adams started playing for Spain without me noticing, we'd be fine.

 

[HuskyNan]

I can see an argument that it's better for the future to get some younger players some international experience in lower-stakes tournaments, but this author's argument that others simply deserve a turn shouldn't be used when talking about grownups.

So basically, a player should be selected for the 2020 Olympics to gain experience for the 2024 Olympics then be eliminated from future teams? Wouldn't there perpetually be about half the team that's inexperienced, assuming the other half of the team played in the prior Olympiad? I'm not liking that idea. More than one player has had a deer-in-the-headlight look their first time in the Games.

 

[BigBird]

So basically, a player should be selected for the 2020 Olympics to gain experience for the 2024 Olympics then be eliminated from future teams? Wouldn't there perpetually be about half the team that's inexperienced, assuming the other half of the team played in the prior Olympiad? I'm not liking that idea. More than one player has had a deer-in-the-headlight look their first time in the Games.

Agreed. We should send our best. What’s complicated about that?

 

[BigBird]

ladies and gents, we need to have a moment of brutal honesty. TEAM USA has always been political and is even more so now. coaches need to rotate and term limits need to happen.

Political? No. Subjective? Yes. But I’d rather have a truly expert committee that makes the selections, as opposed to some silly rotation scheme that amounts to a participation trophy for adults.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Define truly expert committee.

 

[Bigboote]

So basically, a player should be selected for the 2020 Olympics to gain experience for the 2024 Olympics then be eliminated from future teams? Wouldn't there perpetually be about half the team that's inexperienced, assuming the other half of the team played in the prior Olympiad? I'm not liking that idea. More than one player has had a deer-in-the-headlight look their first time in the Games.

I'm not talking about Olympics, but being invited to training camps (yes, I realize there are 29 in the camp and only 12 or so on the traveling team, but we're also talking about little investment in future guards), or, better yet, a model like international soccer, where there a re friendlies and tournaments every year. The US soccer WNT had very few Olympic or World Cup veterans for most of this calendar year. In that case there's been a lot of grumbling about not enough of the Olympic and World Cup veterans and US Soccer's response has been investment in the future.

I don't even know -- are there other tournaments, friendlies, etc. in international basketball, or are pro leagues prevalent enough that there's just no time?

 

[HoopsFan21]

Define truly expert committee.

Any committee that includes Geno of course.

 

[ThisJustIn]

I don't even know -- are there other tournaments, friendlies, etc. in international basketball, or are pro leagues prevalent enough that there's just no time?

Some of the things USA bball has had to navigate over the last few years:

The WNBA calendar
The international calendar
FIBA/Olympic calendar
Year-round play
Injuries/life hiccups
NCAA requiring *gasp* x-number of credits completed by certain times.
Short practice times
Limited "tryout" times
The difference between the US and international game
A pool of willing/competent head coaches
Conspiracy theories

There's also a history of valuing loyalty and commitment. They also rarely (if ever), tell stories out of school. I've only heard one...

In more recent years, there's been a lot of talk about the team needed to "know each other" because of the short practice time. I don't know if there's a better way to pick teams w/out opening up the whole process to public scrutiny. The opinion of fans is bound to be partisan. Scrutiny by recruiter/coaches is bound to be suspect.

Ultimately, I believe serving on the National team is a privilege, not a right. My sense is players have earned a spot via physical talent and personal "virtue." And I'm good with that.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Yeah! It was pure politics selecting Taurasi, Bird, Catchings, Augustus, Moore, Fowles, McCoughtry, Charles, Whalen, Stewart, Delle Donne, and Griner. These are the winningest of the winners and you want to give some poor college kid a shot just because it is their turn. Poor babies! If they can play like Stewart, I'm all for it. You do understand how good she is ... don't you? Why not go back to the USA only sends amateurs to the Olympics and enjoy watching the USA teams lose to the other nations' professionals? Yeah, the USA men's Dream Team should have never happened. Should have send all college kids. Heck, the Dream Team's opponents could not wait to lose so they get their picture taken with the Dream Team. So they could show people these are the giants of basketball that kicked our collective behinds and we loved every moment of it. AND we got our picture taken with them! Autographed no doubt. Reread the aforementioned names. Yeah, the giants of women's basketball. "But we don't care. Their turn is up." It is up when they are beat out for their position. If a young player can do this, put them on the team, post haste.

Is USA Basketball perfect? No, nothing is perfect. Is the world unfair? Yep, sure is. Perhaps these kids need to learn this lesson early in life. Have a good cry or two or three and move on with life and learn how to deal with it. Such as practicing to become as good as the aforementioned players so they can EARN a place on the USA Olympic and World Championship teams.

There's at least one glaring omission from that winningest of winners list in my mind. Nneka went to a Final 4 every year she was in college, has helped lead her team to two straight WNBA Finals and got one Championship, has a league MVP to her name. She absolutely belongs next to all of those other players. Delle Donne hasn't actually won anything outside of the Olympic team, and Griner's WNBA legacy is lacking at this point (one Championship but otherwise Phoenix has been underachieving her entire career--that's gotta be at least a little bit of a knock on Taurasi as well). A few other of those players haven't come close to sniffing a WNBA Championship. You can't base everything off of their college success.

 

[Plebe]

There's at least one glaring omission from that winningest of winners list in my mind. Nneka went to a Final 4 every year she was in college, has helped lead her team to two straight WNBA Finals and got one Championship, has a league MVP to her name. She absolutely belongs next to all of those other players. Delle Donne hasn't actually won anything outside of the Olympic team, and Griner's WNBA legacy is lacking at this point (one Championship but otherwise Phoenix has been underachieving her entire career--that's gotta be at least a little bit of a knock on Taurasi as well). A few other of those players haven't come close to sniffing a WNBA Championship. You can't base everything off of their college success.

Delle Donne played at Delaware. I think carrying Delaware to its only ever Sweet 16 is the rough equivalent of Nneka helping lead Stanford to the Final Four, when you consider the talent they were surrounded by. By the same token, Nneka has also been surrounded by a much better WNBA team than Delle Donne. I'm not knocking Nneka and I've already said I think she should be on the national team, but players shouldn't be penalized just because they haven't had the fortune of playing on the greatest teams.

 

[willtalk]

It's not that the roster is dominated by UConn players. It's that the roster has been dominated by the same players for a long time. Whalen & Augustus would be two non-UConn examples. I wish some of them would retire from international play though they should by no means feel obliged to.

Bird and Taurasi are legitimate living legends but if they are on the team again in 2020...

I feel like we're getting to a point where a whole generation of guards has been completely blocked from the national team. You could say it's up to them to be better and force their way into the team. But Vandersloot has been better (statistically, at least) than Whalen and Bird in recent seasons and eventually saw the writing on the wall and started playing for Hungary. Diggins didn't get picked for 2014 worlds after an all-WNBA season.

It's a lot harder to get a spot on the team than to keep it. It seems like favoritism hiding behind the guise of "experience".

I think you articulated the point very well. The issue has nothing to do with any school or any particular group of players. I stated in my post on the other thread that ultimately it has little to do with Chelsea Gray or Parker, rather they are just two examples of an inconsistency and a lack of accountability that seems inherent withing the USA selection committee. Your last sentence pretty much states what the problem is.

There are probably people posting on this and the other thread that are motivated by other agenda's rather than just fairness. Still I am sure that some are at least motivated by that.

It is also never a good idea to become reactionary. The idea about giving everyone an equal shot at making the team should not be confused with giving everyone a shot at participating in the Olympic games themselves. I for one would be satisfied with allowing everyone an equal opportunity to make the team and not being so exclusionary in respect to who is invited and who is not.

The people who do the picking are always going to have a degree of bias ( or preferences ) in respect to what they value and that is why it is important to rotate those that pick so that any one mind set does not get to firmly entrenched. I mean who voted them in in the first place? If they represent the USA it should not be an entitlement position for life.