COMMENTARY : U.S. Can Prosper Without Pros

In case you missed it: We lost again. At the Goodwill Games. In basketball. The U.S. men’s team lost twice, in fact, to the Soviets in a qualifying round and to Yugoslavia in the championship game.

We never win anymore. We didn’t win at the Olympics in 1988. We didn’t win at the Pan American Games in 1987. We are not favored at the World Championships in Argentina. The line you hear often these days is: The rest of the world finally has caught up.

People who say that either (a) work for a TV network that needs good ratings, or (b) need to visit their eye doctor.

The rest of the world has not caught up. Not nearly. Their best players have caught up with our best amateurs, or whatever you call our college players. But our best players still are slam-dunks ahead.

Our best are in the National Basketball Association, of course, and a reasonable collection of them would beat any team from any country by 30 points. The Charlotte Hornets, the NBA’s worst, could win Olympic gold.

Our best against anyone else’s is a gross mismatch, not even worth watching. We’re going to see it soon, though. We’re going to see NBA stars in the Olympics beginning in 1992.

FIBA, the organization that runs basketball worldwide, last year voted to legalize pros. The change was aimed at the NBA, and the other countries pushed for it; fearful of reaching a plateau in their improvement, they wanted to play the best -- even if it means getting hammered.

Charles Barkley and Karl Malone are thinking of playing in 1992. Magic Johnson may want in, too. Without trying hard, we could field a team that wins every game by 50.

One thing is certain: We’ll win the gold this time. If you think it sounds fun, you probably think the last Super Bowl was a great game. You probably think we kicked butt in Grenada. You probably watch car races for the crashes.

It doesn’t sound interesting to me. So we stack the deck and win. Big deal. Would it be fun to watch Mike Tyson knock out a middleweight? The Washington Redskins beat a team of college all-stars? If Secretariat had raced the Budweiser Clydesdales -- now there’s an image -- would anyone have cared?

We didn’t have to let NBA players in, and shouldn’t have -- not yet, at least. There will be a time when it’s right, when the rest of the world belongs on the same floor. But it’s too soon.

You’re looking at 20 years of blowouts, minimum. The only thing that might prevent it is if the NBA players get bored after a few golds and go back to taking the summer off.

Apparently, no one at USA Basketball, the national team’s parent organization, thought there was merit to the idea of -- don’t gasp at this novel suggestion -- actually tackling the problem, learning from our losses and trying to improve with college players.

It is what we should have done. Our collegians belong on the floor against everyone’s best. The matchup is competitive, close to even. Just because we have not won lately doesn’t mean we should quit trying. We’ve panicked at the first hint of crisis.

The truth is that, with some time, hard work and a few changes in the current system, we probably could continue to win.

Our players clearly have not yet grasped all the nuances of the international game, in which jostling is not a macho war and three-pointers are as important as establishing inside position. If we ever got that straight, we’d do better.

We also would have to do a better job of picking the team. One of these days, maybe, we will use a coach who understands that you need outside shooters.

But, no, we don’t want to work that hard or admit mistakes. By allowing NBA players in, we are, in essence, claiming that these losses were not our fault. We’re blaming it on the fact that these other countries have older, more mature players. What a joke.

These other countries need older, more mature players to make it a game; they don’t have a chance otherwise, their players lacking the athleticism and instincts of U.S. high schoolers. I may scream if I hear another U.S. coach complain about physical disadvantages after losing to plodding Yugoslavians.

Let’s be honest. These other teams play well together; ours do not. It isn’t just because ours don’t have enough time together. John Thompson’s Olympic team drilled for months and still lost to the Soviets.

Our teams play selfishly, with few passes. And our players just don’t get very excited about playing internationally. It ranks no higher than third on their priority list, behind making the Final Four and making it in the NBA (not necessarily in that order).

They care, sure, particularly in the Olympics, but they aren’t playing for money and don’t give their most studied, intense effort. Consider David Robinson, who daydreamed through the 1988 Olympics and now is a superstar after a year in the NBA.

Our players also -- and there’s no kind way to put this -- choke. The current U.S. team lost to the Soviets in the Goodwill Games but beat them by 25 in an exhibition last weekend. The Soviets know when to play well.

Resorting to NBA players was the easy answer, but not the right one. We could hire a full-time national coach, one who preached a fast, attractive style that coaxed more out of the players. P.J. Carlesimo comes to mind. We could pay the players -- the money would be theirs when they turn pro -- for winning gold medals. That would get their attention.

If you paid the coach a good salary and gave him a chance to work with his players for more than a few weeks, you would see better results. And you certainly would see more interesting games than you will in 1992, when Charles Barkley massacres the world.

And, hey, if you don’t like any of those ideas, what about letting the National Collegiate Athletic Association champion represent the country? Think the Soviets could come within 20 points of Nevada-Las Vegas? Forget it, comrade.