Monday, August 30, 2004
By Chad Ford
ESPN Insider
David Stern is not a happy man.
Since 1992, once every four years, average Americans (and general sports columnists) begin caring about NBA basketball. The Olympics are (or should that be were?) one of the NBA's most valuable tools to promote the league and its players world wide.
What Americans and the rest of the world saw this year was what most of us hardcore fans saw in 2002 at the World Championships in Indianapolis.
The world hasn't just caught up. The U.S. is now somewhere in its rear-view mirror.
Stern
Sixth place at the World Championships (an event most national teams rank ahead of the Olympics in prestige.). Third place in the Olympics. These losses aren't flukes. Nor are they evidence of an American apocalypse.
In a world where America-bashing has become an art form -- the ability to roast the NBA along with the rest of America is icing on the cake for most non-U.S. basketball fans and observers.
I've spent a considerable amount of time over the past two and half years watching basketball around the globe. It seems like every friend I've met along the way, whether it be in Africa, the Middle East, South America or Europe, called this weekend to remind of something I already know.
Goliath can be dropped with a bounce pass and wide open jumper.
Most Americans have caught the same fever. Blame the millionaires. The dunks. The cornrows. The high school kids. The college kids. The NBA coaches. The college coaches. Even the AAU coaches. Throw Nike, adidas and Reebok in there for good measure (despite the fact they run more well-coached developmental camps than do the NBA or NCAA).
"The NBA sucks!" I've heard more than one friend tell me this weekend. Of course they say it while wearing an Allen Iverson jersey, Air Jordans on their feet and holding a bottle of LeBron-flavored Powerade.
Everyone is missing the real culprit here in the rush to play Dr. Phil. Meanwhile, the real enemy is slinking away in the shadows.
Blame Argentina. Blame Lithuania. Blame Italy, Puerto Rico and Serbia. They all have conspired for more than a decade to steal the U.S.'s throne. After years of planning, practice and hard work, they've figured out how to get it done.
I traveled to Serbia shortly after the Yugoslavian national team had defeated the U.S. to bring home the gold at the 2002 World Championships. I wanted to understand how such a small, war-torn country kept producing terrific basketball players. Within hours of arriving in the ravaged nation, I knew the team's victory was anything but a fluke.
Remember in the first Rocky, when Apollo Creed's manager is watching TV and catches a local newscast of Rocky Balboa working out in a meat factory? Rocky is using a side of beef as a punching bag. The look on his manager's face when he realizes Rocky doesn't look at the fight as an exhibition match, but as a war, is classic. I must have looked the same way when I walked into that cold gym in Belgrade in December, 2002.
The scene at the gym is reminiscent of anything you'd catch at a playground in New York City. Graffiti litters the walls of the dilapidated gym. Kids shoot baskets outside through hoops with no nets. Metal bars line every window. The gym is surrounded on each side by Belgrade's toughest housing projects. Broken-down cars line the sides of the road. Wary eyes watch our every move as we pull up to the gym.
When we walk in, the room grows unusually quiet. The silence lasts just a moment, but it is palpable. So is the look on many faces. I felt for a minute like we were in Rocky III, walking with Apollo Creed into an inner city gym in Los Angeles and feeling the fighters' pause and fix us with that fierce gaze, just for a few seconds. That's the only way I can describe the scene. It was the eye of the tiger. These kids were hungry. And they immediately recognized that something foreign had intruded on their isolated world.
The play is unbelievable. The kids, all 15, 16 and 17 years old, are huge. There are 6-4 point guards dishing to 6-11 three-men. Seven-footers are jockeying for position in the post. The kids are too big to play there. They look like NBA greats playing on an elementary school gym. None of them is old enough to grow facial hair. All of them have games far beyond what we see from U.S. teenagers.
The trademarks of Yugoslavian basketball were all present, even on the junior team. The kids rarely missed an open jumper, and every player on the court could see the floor and make the correct pass.
At that moment I knew America's loss at the World Championships was not an accident. The U.S. was in trouble.
While someone could write a whole dissertation on what U.S. basketball has done wrong and how it needs to fix the process, that's the least of Stern's worries.
The Olympics come and go once every four years. No one in America cares about the World Championships. America's failure to take home the gold may sting. But the memory of it will quickly fade.
Nationalism and sport don't mix in America the way they do in the rest of the world. We care less. To Americans, the Olympics are a two-week diversion every fourth summer. To much of the rest of the world, they are a defining moment in culture. With all of the terrible economic and political upheaval taking place in Argentina, dual golds in basketball and soccer act as a balm to the pain of every day life.
The NBA, on the other hand, is with us seemingly 24/7. A real possibility exists that the backlash from America's Olympic defeats may come back to bite Stern and the rest of the league in the butt.
Twelve years ago, the Olympics were seen as marketing bonanza for the league. Now Stern & Co. are in damage control.
Some of the NBA's most marketable stars have walked away with chinks in their armor. A hall of fame coach who preached playing the "right way" all the way to an NBA title, looked tired and out of his league. The idea that the NBA champ Pistons are the "world champions" has become downright laughable.
Stern knows he can't get away with doing nothing. Too many people, over the course of the past few weeks, fell in love with the crisp passing, backdoor cuts, sharp shooting and fluid motion that the international game provides. Selling the slow-down, defensive-orientated, dunk-heavy, one-on-one isolation game that the NBA extols will never be tougher.
The rest of the world is catching up with the NBA athletically. As far as fundamentals go, however, America is losing by a mile.
"I do not think that we have a lack of talent," Stern told reporters on Saturday. "On the contrary, we've got to do a better job of teaching our youngsters the basics. This is a shared responsibility between the league, the coaches and the players themselves."
How does the league live up to that responsibility? Insider breaks down a few things the NBA must do to regain American hoops dominance.
Change the rules
One of Team USA's biggest problems is its unfamiliarity with international rules. As I wrote two weeks ago, the international game and the NBA game are further apart than most Americans realize.
The international game emphasizes ball movement, perimeter shooting and zone defense. The NBA emphasizes power, athleticism and one-on-one play, both offensively and defensively. Americans have been frustrated by the international referees and how they call the games. But the rules of the international game are meant to support the international style, just as the NBA's rules support the style of game the league wants to present its fans.
That's why NBA officials still let players travel on virtually every possession -- it makes for better one-on-one play. In Europe, anything beyond one step is a travel. Why? Trying to beat your man off the dribble takes away from the team game.
The same holds true for the trapezoid lane. In international play, big men are forced to develop better shooting and ball-handling skills, in part, because the lane is wider. They cannot catch the ball on the block, lower a shoulder into their defender, and then rise for a huge dunk. The basket is just too far away. For international big men to succeed, they must develop their jumpers, footwork and passing skills.
Shaquille O'Neal is the most famous example of the bruising, unrefined American big man.
In the NBA, our big guys are so big and so athletic, they believe they can overpower anyone. While there are players like Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan who don't fit this mold, too many NBA bigs aren't capable of doing anything other than bullying their way to the basket. I don't know one fan who likes to watch the big guys do it. I'm not even sure the rules (the NBA ones, that is) even allow it.
Still, the refs let them get away with it, and what you get is boredom. Shaquille O'Neal is one of the most dominant bruisers to ever play the game. But he had the talent to be one of the greatest players to ever play the game had his coaches and the refs forced him to do something besides play a wrecking ball in the lane.
The NBA should also consider moving the 3-point line in three feet to the international standard. Now that the league allows zone defenses, the line is too far away for most good shooters (even the international ones) to break it. The international line is 20 feet, 6¼ inches. The NBA line is 23-feet-9 from the bucket. That's a huge difference. With the line closer, it will encourage more players to practice shooting and making the 3.
As it stands now, only a few specialists can really hit the NBA 3 with any precision. Moving it closer might make things too easy for Ray Allen and Michael Redd. But since when have you heard fans clamoring for less shooting or scoring?
From 1994 to 1997 the NBA shortened the 3-point line in an attempt to increase scoring. But the experiment, for the most part, failed. However, at that point, zone defenses were still illegal in the league. Now that teams can play zone, the move makes more sense.
Even Larry Brown, who hates the 3-point shot, thinks the league should consider moving the line in to the international standard.
"I think, the way I look at it, it [the NBA 3-point line] almost encourages bad shots," Brown said in January, well before Team USA's defeat. "The only thing I do like about it is I think it discourages zones if we would ever move (the three-point line) to international rules. I didn't think our game was invented that way, to play zone. I think in international rules it's either 20 feet, 6 inches or 20 feet, 9 inches. You don't see a lot of teams zoning (internationally) because the shot's a lot closer."
The NCAA rules committee recommended making most of these changes in 2003, but the NCAA executive committee shot them down. If the league made the first move, the colleges and high schools would follow. Playing their rules would certainly increase our familiarity with international basketball without taking anything people love away from the NBA game.
Give coaches some power
Why are international players so fundamentally sound? Do they possess some sort of special work ethic that American players don't? Some do, especially ones from war-torn areas who use basketball as a way to get out of a bad situation. However, most European or South American young players have the same issues Americans do.
What's different is that international coaches still weild more power than their players. That gives them authority to make players practice, to bench them when they don't play the "right way" and to control their basketball development in a way American coaches only dream of.
NBA coaches have lost almost all of their moral authority. Eighteen coaches lost their jobs in the span of one year last season. Stephon Marbury has played for nine coaches in his NBA career. And you wonder why he doesn't know how to fight through a screen?
College coaches still retain some control, but that's dwindling, too. The pressure to win has become so overwhelming at most schools that coaches are now playing players sooner and teaching less than they ever have before. They have no choice. Players will leave for the NBA (and the league will take them) if they don't feel they're getting enough love. A few losing seasons, especially at an elite school, even if it's done in an attempt to make the players better, will usually get you a pink slip.
How sad is that? Colleges, whose sole purpose on the planet should be to educate young people, are firing university employees who are trying to do just that, in the name of the almighty dollar.
The AAU coaches who control most of the young blue-chip prospects are a joke. They're just hoping for a free ride if one of their kids hits it big.
"Youth coaches want to win," said Donnie Nelson, Mavs president of basketball operations and an assistant coach to the Lithuanian team. "So they stick their big man inside. They don't develop his skill. They don't put him outside, so he doesn't learn anything."
“
You can't be an individual over here (in Europe). They beat that out of you. We've learned how to play the team game. ”
— Scoonie Penn
International coaches receive prestige and honor from taking raw players and turning them into well-rounded team players who can serve the national team down the road. American coaches get kicked to the curb unless they win -- player development be damned.
International coaches run their players through a minimum of four hours of practice every day. At least two hours of that practice, even for seasoned veterans, are drills meant to enhance fundamentals like shooting, passing and dribbling.
Scoonie Penn, who's played in college, the NBA and internationally, claims American practices are a joke compared to what he's put through every day in Croatia.
"It's intense," Penn said. "The practices are two times as intense as what you go through in the NBA. We spend a lot more time on fundamentals over here. ... You can't be an individual over here. They beat that out of you. We've learned how to play the team game."
Stern can't do anything about the AAU coaches or college coaches, but he can do something about the climate of fear most coaches face in the NBA. With the collective bargaining agreement about to end, Stern should fight for rules that make training camps longer, guaranteed player contracts shorter (thus allowing teams to fire the player instead of the coach), and rookie contracts for high school players longer (to give teams more time to develop them).
In that vein, Stern also have to fight for a minor league system that gives the league more control over player development.
Develop a minor league
Several commentators have used the American defeat as yet another call for an NBA age limit or to curb the flood on young players headed to the league each year.
Given the problems with coaching at the college level, is that really the answer? It isn't like a team of college seniors would've made the difference. Given the troubled state in which the college game now sits, does Stern and the rest of the NBA really want to rely on the NCAA to fix this problem?
I've been stumping for something radically different all year. The NBA should start offering an alternative for those kids who don't want to play in college and instead have the talent and desire to turn pro younger -- a true minor league that focuses solely on developing fundamentals and basketball skills.
Many GMs support a system in which each NBDL team serves as a farm team for NBA teams.
Each NBA team would send young players to a designated NBDL team, along with an assistant coach to monitor the players' development. If the NBDL expands to 15 teams, two NBA teams would share each NBDL team.
If the player was a first-round pick, he'd continue to be paid at the rookie wage scale. If the player was a second-round pick or free agent, he would have a split contract that paid him different amounts depending on whether he was in the NBA or NBDL.
Teams retain the rights to all of their players and could recall them at any time.
The move likely would coincide with the expansion of the NBA draft to more than the current two rounds. If teams have a place to put players for whom they don't have roster spots, they could theoretically own the rights to more players. Some GMs believe such a system actually would curb the flow of young players into the league. If a teenager knew there was a chance he could be stuck in the D league for a few years, college or international play may be more appealing.
Stern told Insider in April that he's for such a move. NBA teams don't have the roster spots or the facilities to handle the influx of young players who are heading into the league. Too many of them are forced to sit on the ends of a bench, missing out on valuable playing time.
Many would argue this is why Stern should push for an age limit, forcing kids to head to and stay in college for a few years. But that's not how the rest of the world approaches these things.
(Aside: Even more absurd are the rules that prohibit high school and college players from working out or playing with NBA teams. Every club I saw in Europe had a youth team that developed young talent. The kids got an opportunity to play every day, learn from the top coaches in Yugoslavia and then, at times, to practice with the senior team. Relationships are built; players learn from the best and ultimately realize their potential much sooner than American players do. Can you imagine any other university program that discourages its undergraduates from creating relationships with the most talented people in their chosen profession?)
In Europe, and throughout most of the rest of the world, players are allowed to turn pro as young as 15. Most basketball federations feel the best way to ensure a talented player achieves his potential is to take the player at a young age and have him working with the top coaches and top players that the country has to offer.
This allows international teams plenty of time to work on fundamentals and develop skills in the players. By the time the player turns 18 or 19, he should be ready to contribute to the first team.
Before Americans start gagging at the idea, it's probably a good time to point out that those cute American gymnasts you were cheering for in the Olympics do the exact same thing. Ditto for our swimmers, divers, tennis players and a host of other American Olympians.
I'm not advocating the NBA draft players when they are 15 or encourage them to give up college, if that's what they want. But the league is going to have to deal with the fact that it is getting younger and younger. An age limit would correct some of our problems. But a minor league system stocked with the best coaches, facilities and educators that our country has to offer is a better solution.
Keep fllooding NBA with international players and personnel
The NBA now employs roughly 70 to 80 international players. Many of them have moved out of the traditional "supporting cast" role that international players have played for years and turned into stars.
Manu Ginobili, Pau Gasol, Yao Ming and Carlos Arroyo were dominant in the Olympics, squelching the idea that the NBA has gone completely to hell.
While their influence on the league is still relatively minor, it continues to grow. As it does, the NBA game adapts its rules to accommodate them. The allowance of zone defenses was, in part, an attempt by the league to make it more international friendly. A player's individual defensive deficiencies can be hidden with a great team defense.
Teams like the Kings and Mavs have deliberately featured international players and adapted a style of play more conducive to their strengths. While neither team has won a title, both teams are winners, and just as importantly, are fun to watch.
The Spurs and Jazz have starting fives with a majority of international players. The Pistons, though not filled with international stars, have been collecting players who would excel at the international game. Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Rasheed Wallace and Tayshaun Prince would all excel at the international game because of their versatility, ability to shoot the ball and strong fundamentals.
As the international players continue to flood the league, the style of game will change, and American players will be forced to adapt. I believe America still has the most raw basketball potential of any country in the world. If young American players begin to believe they must learn how to dribble and shoot to make it in the NBA, they'll develop those skills too. No one likes to lose jobs from overseas.
In the meantime, why aren't NBA GMs and coaches, who openly complain about the lack of fundamentals on their teams, starting to bring over veteran international players who have proved themselves on the big stage?
Veteran international players like Sarunas Jasikevicius, Fabrico Oberto, Luis Scola (whose rights are owned by the Spurs), Gianluca Basile, Lazaros Papadopoulous, Arvydas Macijauskas, Matt Nielson and Pero Cameron belong in the NBA.
While none of them have star potential in the NBA, all of them could be excellent role players who provide shooting, leadership or size in a league that is desperate for all three.
We should also be doing our best to tap a growing network of top international coaches and executives. The NBA has been flirting with international coaches like Ettore Messina and Svetislav Pesic for years. Ditto for Benetton GM Maurizio Gherardini. They might not be able to help out our national team, but they could provide valuable insight into how to incorporate the best of what the international game has to offer with the strengths of the NBA.
Two worlds, one game
There's a reason why international players are pushing their way past their American counterparts -- they are paying attention.
I've been amazed at the knowledge of the game international players possess. They understand the knocks that Americans have made on international players for years (too soft, no defense, lack of passion) and have made big efforts to eliminate them from their games.
Their practices are hard. The play in Europe is getting more physical. The kids are lifting weights now. The big kids are deliberately spending more time on their low-post games to become more versatile. There is a conscious effort over there to adapt their games to the NBA's style of play while, at the same time, keeping the core strengths of the international game intact.
And on the U.S. side of the pond, there is a conscious attempt by some NBA coaches to adopt a team style of basketball that rejects the individualist, isolationist style of play that has dominated the NBA for too long, for a more team-oriented, fundamentally sound, inside-outside attack that has long been a staple of international basketball.
Merge the two worlds together. Catch the vision. The borders are dissolving. The swells are rising. A new basketball world order is emerging. The revolution is here.
David Stern's chance to embrace it is now.
By Chad Ford
ESPN Insider
David Stern is not a happy man.
Since 1992, once every four years, average Americans (and general sports columnists) begin caring about NBA basketball. The Olympics are (or should that be were?) one of the NBA's most valuable tools to promote the league and its players world wide.
What Americans and the rest of the world saw this year was what most of us hardcore fans saw in 2002 at the World Championships in Indianapolis.
The world hasn't just caught up. The U.S. is now somewhere in its rear-view mirror.
Stern
Sixth place at the World Championships (an event most national teams rank ahead of the Olympics in prestige.). Third place in the Olympics. These losses aren't flukes. Nor are they evidence of an American apocalypse.
In a world where America-bashing has become an art form -- the ability to roast the NBA along with the rest of America is icing on the cake for most non-U.S. basketball fans and observers.
I've spent a considerable amount of time over the past two and half years watching basketball around the globe. It seems like every friend I've met along the way, whether it be in Africa, the Middle East, South America or Europe, called this weekend to remind of something I already know.
Goliath can be dropped with a bounce pass and wide open jumper.
Most Americans have caught the same fever. Blame the millionaires. The dunks. The cornrows. The high school kids. The college kids. The NBA coaches. The college coaches. Even the AAU coaches. Throw Nike, adidas and Reebok in there for good measure (despite the fact they run more well-coached developmental camps than do the NBA or NCAA).
"The NBA sucks!" I've heard more than one friend tell me this weekend. Of course they say it while wearing an Allen Iverson jersey, Air Jordans on their feet and holding a bottle of LeBron-flavored Powerade.
Everyone is missing the real culprit here in the rush to play Dr. Phil. Meanwhile, the real enemy is slinking away in the shadows.
Blame Argentina. Blame Lithuania. Blame Italy, Puerto Rico and Serbia. They all have conspired for more than a decade to steal the U.S.'s throne. After years of planning, practice and hard work, they've figured out how to get it done.
I traveled to Serbia shortly after the Yugoslavian national team had defeated the U.S. to bring home the gold at the 2002 World Championships. I wanted to understand how such a small, war-torn country kept producing terrific basketball players. Within hours of arriving in the ravaged nation, I knew the team's victory was anything but a fluke.
Remember in the first Rocky, when Apollo Creed's manager is watching TV and catches a local newscast of Rocky Balboa working out in a meat factory? Rocky is using a side of beef as a punching bag. The look on his manager's face when he realizes Rocky doesn't look at the fight as an exhibition match, but as a war, is classic. I must have looked the same way when I walked into that cold gym in Belgrade in December, 2002.
The scene at the gym is reminiscent of anything you'd catch at a playground in New York City. Graffiti litters the walls of the dilapidated gym. Kids shoot baskets outside through hoops with no nets. Metal bars line every window. The gym is surrounded on each side by Belgrade's toughest housing projects. Broken-down cars line the sides of the road. Wary eyes watch our every move as we pull up to the gym.
When we walk in, the room grows unusually quiet. The silence lasts just a moment, but it is palpable. So is the look on many faces. I felt for a minute like we were in Rocky III, walking with Apollo Creed into an inner city gym in Los Angeles and feeling the fighters' pause and fix us with that fierce gaze, just for a few seconds. That's the only way I can describe the scene. It was the eye of the tiger. These kids were hungry. And they immediately recognized that something foreign had intruded on their isolated world.
The play is unbelievable. The kids, all 15, 16 and 17 years old, are huge. There are 6-4 point guards dishing to 6-11 three-men. Seven-footers are jockeying for position in the post. The kids are too big to play there. They look like NBA greats playing on an elementary school gym. None of them is old enough to grow facial hair. All of them have games far beyond what we see from U.S. teenagers.
The trademarks of Yugoslavian basketball were all present, even on the junior team. The kids rarely missed an open jumper, and every player on the court could see the floor and make the correct pass.
At that moment I knew America's loss at the World Championships was not an accident. The U.S. was in trouble.
While someone could write a whole dissertation on what U.S. basketball has done wrong and how it needs to fix the process, that's the least of Stern's worries.
The Olympics come and go once every four years. No one in America cares about the World Championships. America's failure to take home the gold may sting. But the memory of it will quickly fade.
Nationalism and sport don't mix in America the way they do in the rest of the world. We care less. To Americans, the Olympics are a two-week diversion every fourth summer. To much of the rest of the world, they are a defining moment in culture. With all of the terrible economic and political upheaval taking place in Argentina, dual golds in basketball and soccer act as a balm to the pain of every day life.
The NBA, on the other hand, is with us seemingly 24/7. A real possibility exists that the backlash from America's Olympic defeats may come back to bite Stern and the rest of the league in the butt.
Twelve years ago, the Olympics were seen as marketing bonanza for the league. Now Stern & Co. are in damage control.
Some of the NBA's most marketable stars have walked away with chinks in their armor. A hall of fame coach who preached playing the "right way" all the way to an NBA title, looked tired and out of his league. The idea that the NBA champ Pistons are the "world champions" has become downright laughable.
Stern knows he can't get away with doing nothing. Too many people, over the course of the past few weeks, fell in love with the crisp passing, backdoor cuts, sharp shooting and fluid motion that the international game provides. Selling the slow-down, defensive-orientated, dunk-heavy, one-on-one isolation game that the NBA extols will never be tougher.
The rest of the world is catching up with the NBA athletically. As far as fundamentals go, however, America is losing by a mile.
"I do not think that we have a lack of talent," Stern told reporters on Saturday. "On the contrary, we've got to do a better job of teaching our youngsters the basics. This is a shared responsibility between the league, the coaches and the players themselves."
How does the league live up to that responsibility? Insider breaks down a few things the NBA must do to regain American hoops dominance.
Change the rules
One of Team USA's biggest problems is its unfamiliarity with international rules. As I wrote two weeks ago, the international game and the NBA game are further apart than most Americans realize.
The international game emphasizes ball movement, perimeter shooting and zone defense. The NBA emphasizes power, athleticism and one-on-one play, both offensively and defensively. Americans have been frustrated by the international referees and how they call the games. But the rules of the international game are meant to support the international style, just as the NBA's rules support the style of game the league wants to present its fans.
That's why NBA officials still let players travel on virtually every possession -- it makes for better one-on-one play. In Europe, anything beyond one step is a travel. Why? Trying to beat your man off the dribble takes away from the team game.
The same holds true for the trapezoid lane. In international play, big men are forced to develop better shooting and ball-handling skills, in part, because the lane is wider. They cannot catch the ball on the block, lower a shoulder into their defender, and then rise for a huge dunk. The basket is just too far away. For international big men to succeed, they must develop their jumpers, footwork and passing skills.
Shaquille O'Neal is the most famous example of the bruising, unrefined American big man.
In the NBA, our big guys are so big and so athletic, they believe they can overpower anyone. While there are players like Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan who don't fit this mold, too many NBA bigs aren't capable of doing anything other than bullying their way to the basket. I don't know one fan who likes to watch the big guys do it. I'm not even sure the rules (the NBA ones, that is) even allow it.
Still, the refs let them get away with it, and what you get is boredom. Shaquille O'Neal is one of the most dominant bruisers to ever play the game. But he had the talent to be one of the greatest players to ever play the game had his coaches and the refs forced him to do something besides play a wrecking ball in the lane.
The NBA should also consider moving the 3-point line in three feet to the international standard. Now that the league allows zone defenses, the line is too far away for most good shooters (even the international ones) to break it. The international line is 20 feet, 6¼ inches. The NBA line is 23-feet-9 from the bucket. That's a huge difference. With the line closer, it will encourage more players to practice shooting and making the 3.
As it stands now, only a few specialists can really hit the NBA 3 with any precision. Moving it closer might make things too easy for Ray Allen and Michael Redd. But since when have you heard fans clamoring for less shooting or scoring?
From 1994 to 1997 the NBA shortened the 3-point line in an attempt to increase scoring. But the experiment, for the most part, failed. However, at that point, zone defenses were still illegal in the league. Now that teams can play zone, the move makes more sense.
Even Larry Brown, who hates the 3-point shot, thinks the league should consider moving the line in to the international standard.
"I think, the way I look at it, it [the NBA 3-point line] almost encourages bad shots," Brown said in January, well before Team USA's defeat. "The only thing I do like about it is I think it discourages zones if we would ever move (the three-point line) to international rules. I didn't think our game was invented that way, to play zone. I think in international rules it's either 20 feet, 6 inches or 20 feet, 9 inches. You don't see a lot of teams zoning (internationally) because the shot's a lot closer."
The NCAA rules committee recommended making most of these changes in 2003, but the NCAA executive committee shot them down. If the league made the first move, the colleges and high schools would follow. Playing their rules would certainly increase our familiarity with international basketball without taking anything people love away from the NBA game.
Give coaches some power
Why are international players so fundamentally sound? Do they possess some sort of special work ethic that American players don't? Some do, especially ones from war-torn areas who use basketball as a way to get out of a bad situation. However, most European or South American young players have the same issues Americans do.
What's different is that international coaches still weild more power than their players. That gives them authority to make players practice, to bench them when they don't play the "right way" and to control their basketball development in a way American coaches only dream of.
NBA coaches have lost almost all of their moral authority. Eighteen coaches lost their jobs in the span of one year last season. Stephon Marbury has played for nine coaches in his NBA career. And you wonder why he doesn't know how to fight through a screen?
College coaches still retain some control, but that's dwindling, too. The pressure to win has become so overwhelming at most schools that coaches are now playing players sooner and teaching less than they ever have before. They have no choice. Players will leave for the NBA (and the league will take them) if they don't feel they're getting enough love. A few losing seasons, especially at an elite school, even if it's done in an attempt to make the players better, will usually get you a pink slip.
How sad is that? Colleges, whose sole purpose on the planet should be to educate young people, are firing university employees who are trying to do just that, in the name of the almighty dollar.
The AAU coaches who control most of the young blue-chip prospects are a joke. They're just hoping for a free ride if one of their kids hits it big.
"Youth coaches want to win," said Donnie Nelson, Mavs president of basketball operations and an assistant coach to the Lithuanian team. "So they stick their big man inside. They don't develop his skill. They don't put him outside, so he doesn't learn anything."
“
You can't be an individual over here (in Europe). They beat that out of you. We've learned how to play the team game. ”
— Scoonie Penn
International coaches receive prestige and honor from taking raw players and turning them into well-rounded team players who can serve the national team down the road. American coaches get kicked to the curb unless they win -- player development be damned.
International coaches run their players through a minimum of four hours of practice every day. At least two hours of that practice, even for seasoned veterans, are drills meant to enhance fundamentals like shooting, passing and dribbling.
Scoonie Penn, who's played in college, the NBA and internationally, claims American practices are a joke compared to what he's put through every day in Croatia.
"It's intense," Penn said. "The practices are two times as intense as what you go through in the NBA. We spend a lot more time on fundamentals over here. ... You can't be an individual over here. They beat that out of you. We've learned how to play the team game."
Stern can't do anything about the AAU coaches or college coaches, but he can do something about the climate of fear most coaches face in the NBA. With the collective bargaining agreement about to end, Stern should fight for rules that make training camps longer, guaranteed player contracts shorter (thus allowing teams to fire the player instead of the coach), and rookie contracts for high school players longer (to give teams more time to develop them).
In that vein, Stern also have to fight for a minor league system that gives the league more control over player development.
Develop a minor league
Several commentators have used the American defeat as yet another call for an NBA age limit or to curb the flood on young players headed to the league each year.
Given the problems with coaching at the college level, is that really the answer? It isn't like a team of college seniors would've made the difference. Given the troubled state in which the college game now sits, does Stern and the rest of the NBA really want to rely on the NCAA to fix this problem?
I've been stumping for something radically different all year. The NBA should start offering an alternative for those kids who don't want to play in college and instead have the talent and desire to turn pro younger -- a true minor league that focuses solely on developing fundamentals and basketball skills.
Many GMs support a system in which each NBDL team serves as a farm team for NBA teams.
Each NBA team would send young players to a designated NBDL team, along with an assistant coach to monitor the players' development. If the NBDL expands to 15 teams, two NBA teams would share each NBDL team.
If the player was a first-round pick, he'd continue to be paid at the rookie wage scale. If the player was a second-round pick or free agent, he would have a split contract that paid him different amounts depending on whether he was in the NBA or NBDL.
Teams retain the rights to all of their players and could recall them at any time.
The move likely would coincide with the expansion of the NBA draft to more than the current two rounds. If teams have a place to put players for whom they don't have roster spots, they could theoretically own the rights to more players. Some GMs believe such a system actually would curb the flow of young players into the league. If a teenager knew there was a chance he could be stuck in the D league for a few years, college or international play may be more appealing.
Stern told Insider in April that he's for such a move. NBA teams don't have the roster spots or the facilities to handle the influx of young players who are heading into the league. Too many of them are forced to sit on the ends of a bench, missing out on valuable playing time.
Many would argue this is why Stern should push for an age limit, forcing kids to head to and stay in college for a few years. But that's not how the rest of the world approaches these things.
(Aside: Even more absurd are the rules that prohibit high school and college players from working out or playing with NBA teams. Every club I saw in Europe had a youth team that developed young talent. The kids got an opportunity to play every day, learn from the top coaches in Yugoslavia and then, at times, to practice with the senior team. Relationships are built; players learn from the best and ultimately realize their potential much sooner than American players do. Can you imagine any other university program that discourages its undergraduates from creating relationships with the most talented people in their chosen profession?)
In Europe, and throughout most of the rest of the world, players are allowed to turn pro as young as 15. Most basketball federations feel the best way to ensure a talented player achieves his potential is to take the player at a young age and have him working with the top coaches and top players that the country has to offer.
This allows international teams plenty of time to work on fundamentals and develop skills in the players. By the time the player turns 18 or 19, he should be ready to contribute to the first team.
Before Americans start gagging at the idea, it's probably a good time to point out that those cute American gymnasts you were cheering for in the Olympics do the exact same thing. Ditto for our swimmers, divers, tennis players and a host of other American Olympians.
I'm not advocating the NBA draft players when they are 15 or encourage them to give up college, if that's what they want. But the league is going to have to deal with the fact that it is getting younger and younger. An age limit would correct some of our problems. But a minor league system stocked with the best coaches, facilities and educators that our country has to offer is a better solution.
Keep fllooding NBA with international players and personnel
The NBA now employs roughly 70 to 80 international players. Many of them have moved out of the traditional "supporting cast" role that international players have played for years and turned into stars.
Manu Ginobili, Pau Gasol, Yao Ming and Carlos Arroyo were dominant in the Olympics, squelching the idea that the NBA has gone completely to hell.
While their influence on the league is still relatively minor, it continues to grow. As it does, the NBA game adapts its rules to accommodate them. The allowance of zone defenses was, in part, an attempt by the league to make it more international friendly. A player's individual defensive deficiencies can be hidden with a great team defense.
Teams like the Kings and Mavs have deliberately featured international players and adapted a style of play more conducive to their strengths. While neither team has won a title, both teams are winners, and just as importantly, are fun to watch.
The Spurs and Jazz have starting fives with a majority of international players. The Pistons, though not filled with international stars, have been collecting players who would excel at the international game. Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Rasheed Wallace and Tayshaun Prince would all excel at the international game because of their versatility, ability to shoot the ball and strong fundamentals.
As the international players continue to flood the league, the style of game will change, and American players will be forced to adapt. I believe America still has the most raw basketball potential of any country in the world. If young American players begin to believe they must learn how to dribble and shoot to make it in the NBA, they'll develop those skills too. No one likes to lose jobs from overseas.
In the meantime, why aren't NBA GMs and coaches, who openly complain about the lack of fundamentals on their teams, starting to bring over veteran international players who have proved themselves on the big stage?
Veteran international players like Sarunas Jasikevicius, Fabrico Oberto, Luis Scola (whose rights are owned by the Spurs), Gianluca Basile, Lazaros Papadopoulous, Arvydas Macijauskas, Matt Nielson and Pero Cameron belong in the NBA.
While none of them have star potential in the NBA, all of them could be excellent role players who provide shooting, leadership or size in a league that is desperate for all three.
We should also be doing our best to tap a growing network of top international coaches and executives. The NBA has been flirting with international coaches like Ettore Messina and Svetislav Pesic for years. Ditto for Benetton GM Maurizio Gherardini. They might not be able to help out our national team, but they could provide valuable insight into how to incorporate the best of what the international game has to offer with the strengths of the NBA.
Two worlds, one game
There's a reason why international players are pushing their way past their American counterparts -- they are paying attention.
I've been amazed at the knowledge of the game international players possess. They understand the knocks that Americans have made on international players for years (too soft, no defense, lack of passion) and have made big efforts to eliminate them from their games.
Their practices are hard. The play in Europe is getting more physical. The kids are lifting weights now. The big kids are deliberately spending more time on their low-post games to become more versatile. There is a conscious effort over there to adapt their games to the NBA's style of play while, at the same time, keeping the core strengths of the international game intact.
And on the U.S. side of the pond, there is a conscious attempt by some NBA coaches to adopt a team style of basketball that rejects the individualist, isolationist style of play that has dominated the NBA for too long, for a more team-oriented, fundamentally sound, inside-outside attack that has long been a staple of international basketball.
Merge the two worlds together. Catch the vision. The borders are dissolving. The swells are rising. A new basketball world order is emerging. The revolution is here.
David Stern's chance to embrace it is now.
I see another NBA trainwreck occuring at the next Olympics, too. 
