Dream Team vs. Redeem Team

I was going to hold my tongue and not make any Team USA comparisons. Then Spain's (and the Memphis Grizzlies') center Marc Gasol had to mess around and say this:


"On a bad day for the '92 team, the current team would lose by just 15 or 20 points against them"

That's ridiculous, on a bad day for the '92 team, Larry Bird and John Stockton play heavy minutes. Why is that a bad thing? Well, at 35, Larry Bird was the oldest member of the Dream Team and only played in 2 of the 8 games at the Olympics. John Stockton was 30 and there's no way he would be able to stay in front of ANY guard on the 2012 roster. There's absolutely no way that the '92 team wins by 15 to 20 points on a bad day. Gasol is just speaking in hyperbole, I'll drop the exaggeration for an understatement. I know a team that the '92 team would have trouble with on a GOOD day for them. And it's not the 2012 team. It's another Team USA roster with a catchy name, the 2008 Redeem Team. That's right folks, I'm going there. Sit down, grab some popcorn, 'cause you gon learn today! 

(Aside: I'm comparing the 1992 and 2008 teams on the court. Not their basketball legacies. Or their cultural impact. Just the on-the-court product. The 1992 team wins those other comparisons in a landslide.)

Reason #1: Age

 Dream Team Roster

Redeem Team Roster

Average age of the 1992 team: 29, 5/12 players older than 30 (Bird, Stockton, Drexler, Ewing, Johnson)

Average age of the 2008 team: 26, 1/12 players older than 30 (Kidd)

The difference in average age for these teams is just 3 years, but that is a world of difference in sports. Most athletes peak between the age of 26 and 29. That means that the 2008 team is loaded with players that were beginning their statistical prime while the 1992 team was stacked with guys that were never going to contribute the way they used to (that's how you end up with Larry Bird only playing 2 games). Both teams would have to end up playing their benches and I’m not frightened when I look down the Dream Team bench. The Redeem team is more likely to give up their seat in public transportation to some of the old guys on the 1992 team than worry about their crossover.

Reason #2: Better international competition

In 1992, the Dream Team ran roughshod over their competition. They won their 8 games by an average of 43.8 points. And after watching the NBA TV documentary on the Dream Team, the scores were not indicative of the gulf in talent between Team USA and the rest of the world. (I think the gap between Tom Hanks and Paul Walker might be close. Maybe Julia Roberts and Snooki?)

The rest of the world learned that day. Since that summer in Barcelona, basketball federations in Argentina, Brazil, Spain, and France built elite programs. Globally, the quality of play improved dramatically. By the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Argentina was competitive enough to defeat Team USA, marking the first time that a team of professionals had failed to win the gold medal in 4 attempts.

The 2008 Redeem Team was born from the failures of the 2004 team and the triumph of international competition.  In 1992, the NBA had 21 international players (5% of all players); currently, there are 84 international players (19% of all players). The Redeem Team faced an overall quality of competition that toughened them in a way that the Dream Team would have never experienced.

Onions! verdict:

Team age and quality of opponents are sizable advantages for the Redeem Team. The 1992 version of several Dream Team players is an older shell of the legacies that we remember so fondly (Bird and Magic never won a playoff series after the 1991 season). Yeah, names like Michael Redd, Carlos Boozer, and Tayshaun Prince won’t end up in the hall of fame. But that’s not what a game between the Dream Team and the Redeem Team would boil down to. Young legs, better depth, and a more competitive international culture would put the Redeem team in position to take down the Dream Team. Book it

Unprecedented Pennalty

Wow. Where to begin? The NCAA went H.A.M on Penn State and in typical NCAA fashion, it went way too far. I know this punishment for the Jerry Sandusky scandal isn't the death penalty, but it's beyond harsh. Let’s start out with the punishment:

• $60 million fine
• Four-year postseason football ban
• Five-year probation for athletic department
• Four-year scholarship reduction (10 initial; 20 total)
• Vacating wins from 1998-2011 (112 wins)

And from the Big 10 conference, Penn State received (among others) these punishments:

• Four-year ban from Big 10 championship game
• Reallocating Penn State’s forfeited share of conference bowl revenue. Approximately $13 million will go to Big 10 community charities dedicated to protecting children.

I included these two sanctions by the Big 10 conference as an example of perfectly reasonable ways to punish both the university and the football program, without arbitrarily trying to revise the past or excessively hurting current and future student-athletes. That second punishment by the conference gets a round of applause.The Big 10 came up with this Solomon like decision and they can’t even count!

I’m on board with the first four NCAA penalties. Money talks, so that $60 million fine is the only way to get the attention of a University with a $1.7 billion endowment. Secondly, the postseason ban for the football program is a must. Penn state can’t stand to potentially make millions of dollars in extraneous postseason competition while under punishment. OK, moving on.

I didn't even blink twice when I saw probation for the athletic department and scholarship reductions. A central issue in the Sandusky scandal is poor institutional oversight by PSU and these penalties are punitive oversight measures. Yawn, what’s next?  Vacating wins from 1998-2011. You cannot be serious!  I don’t understand vacating wins as a punishment. How do you read a record book with vacated wins, especially one with 112 vacated wins? Like this? It just doesn’t make sense

The vacated wins means that the last football game Joe Paterno officially won was November 22, 1997 instead of October 29, 2011. They mean that instead of ending his career with most wins all-time (409), Joe Paterno is now 12^th in career wins (298). The farce of the vacated wins punishment is that they don’t make Penn State return the MONEY that they won from these wins (ticket sales, concessions, conference bowl revenue, etc.). Altering record books pales in comparison to altering pocketbooks.

Players from 1998-2011 are also hurt by the vacated wins and none of them knew about the Sandusky scandal or the university’s cover-up. Adam Taliaferro, a former PSU football player that successfully rehabbed from a spinal injury he sustained in a 2000 game, tweeted: “NCAA says games didn't exist... I got the metal plate in my neck to prove it did..I almost died playing 4 PSU..punishment or healing?!? #WeAre.”

Taliaferro is a current member of PSU board of directors; obviously, he and hundreds of teammates will have an issue with the vacated wins when they put themselves at physical risk to have a grand total of zero wins in 13 years of football sorta-kinda-but-not-really played.

What do you think about the NCAA’s sanctions? Take the poll to the right

Linsanity lands in Space City

On Wednesday, the New York Knicks declined to match the Houston Rockets' offer sheet for Jeremy Lin. Today, the internet is still trying not to collapse under the weight of all the controversy this decision created.

Where does Onions! stand on all this? It’s easy, the Knicks made a mistake by letting Lin go.

Let’s run down the most comment arguments against resigning Lin.

Argument 1: Lin’s new contract is “ridiculous”.

The Rockets offered Lin a 3 year, $25 million contract with a balloon payment in the third year. During his final year of this contract, Lin is scheduled to make $14.8 million in salary. If the Knicks are the team paying him that salary, he would cost the team $45 million on the salary cap (this is because the new Collective Bargaining Agreement becomes very punitive against teams like the Knicks that are over the salary cap in the 2014-2015 season).

Is Lin's contract (and year 3 in particular) actually ridiculous? Only in a vacuum where you evaluate players solely on the basketball skill that they bring to the court. Very few players in the HISTORY of the league could demand $45 million in one year (remember the total cap number) and Jeremy Lin certainly isn’t one of them. But Lin’s off the court financial impact more than compensates for his salary over the lifetime of his contract. Linsanity was responsible for Madison Square Garden and Time Warner Cable negotiating a new TV contract, added almost $600 million in market capitalization to Madison Square Garden, tripled ticket prices, and resulted in the second best selling jersey in the NBA. All this despite the fact that Lin didn't start playing until halfway through the season!

Also, it’s not a coincidence that the Rockets, a team familiar with marketable Asian basketball players (see: Yao Ming) attempted to pry Lin away from the Knicks. After almost a decade with Yao Ming in a Rockets' uniform, Rockets' management should know what to expect as they try to monetize Linsanity in the U.S. and abroad.

Argument 2: Not resigning Lin was a basketball decision about a guy that the Knicks weren’t truly sold on.

Whatever you think of his numbers during Linsanity (Lin averaged 24.6 ppg/9.2 apg/48.2% fg in 10 games before Carmelo Anthony returned from injury. After Anthony returned, Lin averaged 14.6 ppg/5.9 apg/43.2% fg in 16 games) the Knicks current pu-pu platter of options at point guard undermines that argument Lin was not a good basketball fit. New arrival Raymond Felton is on pace to become the first 300 lb point guard ever and at 39, Felton's new backup, Jason Kidd doesn’t need to be at the wheel of an offense (or a vehicle)

Argument 3: Lin betrayed the Knicks.

This argument claims that Lin took the Knicks for granted after the opportunity they gave him. For a guy that was hours away from returning to the NBA’s Development league, Lin could've shown how grateful he was to the Knicks by resigning. But why did the Knicks allow Lin to go and test the waters of free agency if they felt so loyal to him? Loyalty is a two-way street. Letting Lin go on the open market was not an act of loyalty by the Knicks. After all, the Knicks were hours away from letting Lin go. The Knicks should've locked Lin up to an extension if they thought he was an asset, otherwise you never know what will happen in free agency.

Onions! verdict:

Jeremy Lin is an improving, young 23 year-old point guard that generates tremendous fan interest. He basically costs the Knicks nothing (and probably generates them money) when you consider his tremendous off-court marketability. Ultimately, the Knicks are a better basketball product on and off the court with Jeremy Lin on their roster. Too bad for Knicks fans that their management can’t see this.