I get the merits of both sides of this question, so I have attempted to refrain from voicing an opinion. I even did my best to remain neutral on the topic and refraining from seeing the video has helped along the way. It seems as though those who have seen the tape (or even worse, saw it live) are more inclined towards the "no more pro's" side of this question. However, to question if pro's should play is not new, it just simply had no real injuries to make it a balanced debate.
Now it does, and the question we asked years ago is finally a debate that actually begins with the open tib-fib (tibia and fibula) fracture of George. Whether that is unfair to those who said, "I told you so" is hard to ascertain. Did the anti-pro Joe's lose the power of their conviction in recent years given the noteworthy silence from those who vociferously complain now, or was the lack of any serious injury allowing the pro-pro's side to ignore the obvious risk and drown out the voices of those who mentioned it? Most truth's lie in the middle of opposing ideas because accepted truth becomes that which wise men agree upon. No one can deny that Olympic level competition is rather risky and does not offer a direct income. Players who play, risk their own millions as well as millions for the teams and cities that they compete for. On the other hand, it is the unpaid sports that they've played in the years leading up to the NBA that determines if you are worthy of a long term income in this specialized world. For champions, it is all of the unpaid effort that the camera never captures that makes the difference between them and everyone else. What if Paul George had injured himself during some other non-paying moment in his career? Would it be time for the pro-athlete protective bubble company to start doubling up on manufacturing? Emergency room workers who typically see this type of injury see it from motorcycle wrecks and mountain climbing accidents, and USA basketball has 22 years without incident, so even the rarity is compelling.
Colorado sports fans will recall a time when John Elway was a topic of debate because he liked skiing, but Bronco fans, and Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, were torn over whether or not our million dollar arm should be jeopardized by a nasty mogul. At what point does even living (shoveling snow or climbing stairs) cross over into an unworthy risk? The fact that the NBA players didn't always take part in such risks gives credence to the exorbitant cost of doing it. America didn't bring on the pro hoopers until we could no longer roll over the world using only college kids. Those who supported the change didn't have risk aversion before the pro's took over international play and probably don't have it now. They simply got tired of losing at our own damn game. The risk aversion conversation began with the first Dream Team, but now, every player gets asked about the risk that they put their NBA careers under by playing on the national team.
These decisions are made by intelligent men who decide on much harder things everyday than whether or not it is safe to play the game that they've played (for free) all of their lives and have now chosen as a career. To suggest that they need anyone to sound in on such a decision is peculiar to say the least. MY BIG ISSUE with this debate is the statement it makes towards every player who once did this job and every player who might assume this job if the NBA players are no longer allowed to play. Would we be happier if the leg that snapped right before our eyes was some regular dude? Would we watch that leg shatter and declare, "I am glad that wasn't LeBron or someone important"?
A couple of years ago, back when I used to offer open gym for middle school kids followed by open gym for older players, we had one of OUR regular dudes snap his foot and ankle in Paul George fashion. Several of the younger players, including my 8th grade daughter, witnessed the injury. She was still new to the game and was hardly experienced in traumatic sports injuries. Since that time, she has also seen an athlete collapse at court side due to a weak heart that would be replaced within a year of the incident. Her collective experiences have baptized her in the realm of sports realities, yet she still enjoys the challenge and the risk of competition.
Part of the reward of life, and of basketball, is overcoming risk and challenges to stand victorious in the end. Paul George faced the risk and took a blow as a result. Prognosis is good for his physical recovery, but the true challenge with these type of things is 90% mental and 10% physical. Whether you are the victim of a sports injury or just a witness to one, the mental recovery is for real. Recovery involves overcoming the question; can I rise above a level that will subdue an opponent who is willing to endure the same risks (or more) that I must overcome?
At the risk of losing our stature in the world of basketball, America must either embrace the challenge or run from the risk. I personally do not see the millions that we could save the Indiana Pacers as an equal trade off for the competitive dignity that international competition embodies. I won't begin to mention the indirect gains that the league enjoys as a result of the exposure (oh....too late). Even the injury itself might be providing unsolicited, but valuable exposure to the league as we speak.
America may never win the World Cup of soccer competition because we simply do not have the talent equal to that of the world teams. However, if by some miracle America were to win the World Cup someday, I hope its not after the best teams and players have opted to stay away for monetary reasons. Just saying that out loud makes me realize that only American's would ever dream of such an idea. Every other country seems to embrace the risk and the challenge of international competition as part of the life.
Life is always a risky game, no matter how you play it.
No comments:
Post a Comment