If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Times of Israel)   Maccabi Tel Aviv defeats Real Madrid to win European basketball championship. Wait, Israel's in Europe?   (timesofisrael.com) divider line 31
    More: Spiffy, Maccabi Tel Aviv, Real Madrid, Tel Aviv, Euroleague Finals, Maccabi, Euroleague, Europe, Europeans  
•       •       •

236 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 May 2014 at 11:36 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-19 11:49:14 AM  
I find it really cool how in most other countries you have the same team organization representing a city/neighborhood in different sports.

Way better than the crappy franchise model.
 
2014-05-19 11:50:09 AM  

MugzyBrown: I find it really cool how in most other countries you have the same team organization representing a city/neighborhood in different sports.

Way better than the crappy franchise model.


Agreed. It means the Lakers can still win the Stanley Cup!
 
2014-05-19 11:51:14 AM  
Isn't it in Europe for WC qualifications also?
 
2014-05-19 11:55:25 AM  
Yep, Israel is "in" Europe as far as lots of organizations are concerned, often because their Arab neighbors won't play nice with them. IIRC they are in the Eurovision Song Contest. Many international companies treat Israel as part of Europe because having executives travel to both Israel and to Arab countries can cause problems (some Arab countries won't even let you in if you have an Israeli visa or passport stamp.)
 
2014-05-19 12:00:58 PM  
I bet the Jews did this!
 
2014-05-19 12:04:40 PM  

MugzyBrown: I find it really cool how in most other countries you have the same team organization representing a city/neighborhood in different sports.

Way better than the crappy franchise model.


Unfortunately, it could never catch on in the US. College sports filled that niche early on.
 
2014-05-19 12:06:23 PM  
Tahiti is not in Europe.
img2.wikia.nocookie.net

// totes not
 
2014-05-19 12:11:47 PM  

czetie: Yep, Israel is "in" Europe as far as lots of organizations are concerned, often because their Arab neighbors won't play nice with them. IIRC they are in the Eurovision Song Contest. Many international companies treat Israel as part of Europe because having executives travel to both Israel and to Arab countries can cause problems (some Arab countries won't even let you in if you have an Israeli visa or passport stamp.)


Yes, to all this.

/ Israeli and subby
 
2014-05-19 12:12:26 PM  

Gonz: MugzyBrown: I find it really cool how in most other countries you have the same team organization representing a city/neighborhood in different sports.

Way better than the crappy franchise model.

Unfortunately, it could never catch on in the US. College sports filled that niche early on.


It fascinating how the American and European sports structures developed during the same time period and ended up being wildly different.
 
2014-05-19 12:16:21 PM  

czetie: Yep, Israel is "in" Europe as far as lots of organizations are concerned, often because their Arab neighbors won't play nice with them. IIRC they are in the Eurovision Song Contest. Many international companies treat Israel as part of Europe because having executives travel to both Israel and to Arab countries can cause problems (some Arab countries won't even let you in if you have an Israeli visa or passport stamp.)


Yeah, regardless of one's opinion(s) on Israel, it's just best for everyone that they get temporary "European" status on certain things, like, "regional" competitions.

Anyone who disagrees just wants to watch the world burn.
 
2014-05-19 12:18:09 PM  
But...but...but...that's not how geography works!!!!!!eleven!!!1
 
2014-05-19 12:32:58 PM  
I refuse to acknowledge this win until they also beat Fake Madrid.
 
2014-05-19 12:33:58 PM  
As a colony, why wouldn't they play in Europe?
 
2014-05-19 01:23:13 PM  
You see this cultural/population dynamic in other places too.

Bermuda, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana are often considered Caribbean.

Australia sometimes is considered Asian for better competition.
 
2014-05-19 01:28:39 PM  
img.fark.net
inconsolable
 
2014-05-19 01:36:46 PM  
Hopefully they have an updated copy of "Famous Jewish Sports Legends" by the next time I need to fly somewhere...

/I still won't have the fish
 
2014-05-19 01:41:25 PM  
they have a habit of occupying the the zone longer than allowed. yet somehow don't get penalized.

/cheaters
 
2014-05-19 01:41:31 PM  
Would you want to be seen as attached to europe or the middle east?
 
2014-05-19 01:57:06 PM  

Foxxinnia: Gonz: MugzyBrown: I find it really cool how in most other countries you have the same team organization representing a city/neighborhood in different sports.

Way better than the crappy franchise model.

Unfortunately, it could never catch on in the US. College sports filled that niche early on.

It fascinating how the American and European sports structures developed during the same time period and ended up being wildly different.


Not really.  It's just population.  Europe's population centers were pretty much fixed by the mid 1800s.  This isn't to say population didn't change or fluctuate, but you pretty much knew there was going to be a significant population clump at such-and-such location come rain or shine, and it would be the biggest clump in the area.  So you knew that sitting in one place was a guaranteed source of fans/money.  On the other hand, the US population centers didn't settle until much later. You could start a team in a decent-sized town, and ten years later it was just an appendage of what used to be some insignificant village.  You could either watch someone else start a team in the now-population-hub while yours dried up - or you could pick up sticks and move to where the fans/money was. So, European clubs became geographically fixed, while American teams became semi-mobile.  And even after population centers have stabilized In the US, the idea that a team can move sticks around.  This is also helped by the artificial scarcity of the professional leagues, since there are fewer teams than there are viable population centers, thus preserving the option to leave.  If there were teams in most of the viable US population centers - even if in second- and third-tier leagues, and with enough media exposure to attract regional fanbases - top-tier US teams wouldn't have the viable option to threaten to leave, and have to consider their current homes long-term permanent bases.
 
2014-05-19 02:41:22 PM  

phalamir: Not really.  It's just population.  Europe's population centers were pretty much fixed by the mid 1800s.  This isn't to say population didn't change or fluctuate, but you pretty much knew there was going to be a significant population clump at such-and-such location come rain or shine, and it would be the biggest clump in the area.  So you knew that sitting in one place was a guaranteed source of fans/money.  On the other hand, the US population centers didn't settle until much later. You could start a team in a decent-sized town, and ten years later it was just an appendage of what used to be some insignificant village.  You could either watch someone else start a team in the now-population-hub while yours dried up - or you could pick up sticks and move to where the fans/money was. So, European clubs became geographically fixed, while American teams became semi-mobile.  And even after population centers have stabilized In the US, the idea that a team can move sticks around.  This is also helped by the artificial scarcity of the professional leagues, since there are fewer teams than there are viable population centers, thus preserving the option to leave.  If there were teams in most of the viable US population centers - even if in second- and third-tier leagues, and with enough media exposure to attract regional fanbases - top-tier US teams wouldn't have the viable option to threaten to leave, and have to consider their current homes long-term permanent bases.


This really doesn't make much sense.

The US has corporate leagues that sell franchises to individuals/corporations.  They're the only teams allowed to compete.

In Europe, the leagues formed more organically from private sports clubs.  theoretically I could start my own soccer club in England through the FA and eventually find myself in the Premier League.
 
2014-05-19 03:00:45 PM  

MugzyBrown: phalamir: Not really.  It's just population.  Europe's population centers were pretty much fixed by the mid 1800s.  This isn't to say population didn't change or fluctuate, but you pretty much knew there was going to be a significant population clump at such-and-such location come rain or shine, and it would be the biggest clump in the area.  So you knew that sitting in one place was a guaranteed source of fans/money.  On the other hand, the US population centers didn't settle until much later. You could start a team in a decent-sized town, and ten years later it was just an appendage of what used to be some insignificant village.  You could either watch someone else start a team in the now-population-hub while yours dried up - or you could pick up sticks and move to where the fans/money was. So, European clubs became geographically fixed, while American teams became semi-mobile.  And even after population centers have stabilized In the US, the idea that a team can move sticks around.  This is also helped by the artificial scarcity of the professional leagues, since there are fewer teams than there are viable population centers, thus preserving the option to leave.  If there were teams in most of the viable US population centers - even if in second- and third-tier leagues, and with enough media exposure to attract regional fanbases - top-tier US teams wouldn't have the viable option to threaten to leave, and have to consider their current homes long-term permanent bases.

This really doesn't make much sense.

The US has corporate leagues that sell franchises to individuals/corporations.  They're the only teams allowed to compete.

In Europe, the leagues formed more organically from private sports clubs.  theoretically I could start my own soccer club in England through the FA and eventually find myself in the Premier League.


Funny and sad part is that most of the world is better at "The American Dream" than America is now.  Open systems with minimal barrier of entry exist in all other sporting institutions around the world.  In America, it's a system of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Everywhere else, If you suck at running your club, they get demoted.  You lose money.  Your fault.
If you're good, you get promoted.  You earn more money.  Good job you.

No possible reward for hard work in America, such as your example of starting an English club from scratch and promoting through to Premier League.

THANKS, OBAMA
 
2014-05-19 03:35:54 PM  

Argyle82: MugzyBrown: phalamir: Not really.  It's just population.  Europe's population centers were pretty much fixed by the mid 1800s.  This isn't to say population didn't change or fluctuate, but you pretty much knew there was going to be a significant population clump at such-and-such location come rain or shine, and it would be the biggest clump in the area.  So you knew that sitting in one place was a guaranteed source of fans/money.  On the other hand, the US population centers didn't settle until much later. You could start a team in a decent-sized town, and ten years later it was just an appendage of what used to be some insignificant village.  You could either watch someone else start a team in the now-population-hub while yours dried up - or you could pick up sticks and move to where the fans/money was. So, European clubs became geographically fixed, while American teams became semi-mobile.  And even after population centers have stabilized In the US, the idea that a team can move sticks around.  This is also helped by the artificial scarcity of the professional leagues, since there are fewer teams than there are viable population centers, thus preserving the option to leave.  If there were teams in most of the viable US population centers - even if in second- and third-tier leagues, and with enough media exposure to attract regional fanbases - top-tier US teams wouldn't have the viable option to threaten to leave, and have to consider their current homes long-term permanent bases.

This really doesn't make much sense.

The US has corporate leagues that sell franchises to individuals/corporations.  They're the only teams allowed to compete.

In Europe, the leagues formed more organically from private sports clubs.  theoretically I could start my own soccer club in England through the FA and eventually find myself in the Premier League.

Funny and sad part is that most of the world is better at "The American Dream" than America is now.  Open systems with minimal bar ...


Someone pointed out in the FA Cup final thread that Hull was playing Swansea in the fourth tier of English football when Arsenal was playing in the FA Cup final in 2005.
 
2014-05-19 03:47:46 PM  

Argyle82: Funny and sad part is that most of the world is better at "The American Dream" than America is now.  Open systems with minimal barrier of entry exist in all other sporting institutions around the world.  In America, it's a system of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Everywhere else, If you suck at running your club, they get demoted.  You lose money.  Your fault.
If you're good, you get promoted.  You earn more money.  Good job you.


I get what you're saying, but it's a stretch.

There's nothing stopping anybody else from forming their own team and league and competing against the NFL.  It's just that the american sports consumer wouldn't support it.
 
2014-05-19 03:49:02 PM  

MugzyBrown: phalamir: Not really.  It's just population.  Europe's population centers were pretty much fixed by the mid 1800s.  This isn't to say population didn't change or fluctuate, but you pretty much knew there was going to be a significant population clump at such-and-such location come rain or shine, and it would be the biggest clump in the area.  So you knew that sitting in one place was a guaranteed source of fans/money.  On the other hand, the US population centers didn't settle until much later. You could start a team in a decent-sized town, and ten years later it was just an appendage of what used to be some insignificant village.  You could either watch someone else start a team in the now-population-hub while yours dried up - or you could pick up sticks and move to where the fans/money was. So, European clubs became geographically fixed, while American teams became semi-mobile.  And even after population centers have stabilized In the US, the idea that a team can move sticks around.  This is also helped by the artificial scarcity of the professional leagues, since there are fewer teams than there are viable population centers, thus preserving the option to leave.  If there were teams in most of the viable US population centers - even if in second- and third-tier leagues, and with enough media exposure to attract regional fanbases - top-tier US teams wouldn't have the viable option to threaten to leave, and have to consider their current homes long-term permanent bases.

This really doesn't make much sense.

The US has corporate leagues that sell franchises to individuals/corporations.  They're the only teams allowed to compete.


In Europe, the leagues formed more organically from private sports clubs.  theoretically I could start my own soccer club in England through the FA and eventually find myself in the Premier League.


Now they do.  But back when the professional teams started, they were ad hoc concerns made by local businessmen.  They later set up the cartels to squeeze out lesser teams and engage in other monopolistic practices, but a cartel did not form and then divvy up teams to cities.  If you go look at how several teams started, they began in some town, and when they realized there was a better market somewhere else, they moved.  Some present teams' mascots and/or nicknames refer to their original town/owner and haven't changed over the years.  The LA Dodgers are named after people trying to avoid streetcars in NYC, for example, and the Chicago Bears used to be in Racine of all places.
 
2014-05-19 03:50:10 PM  
They always won the tip offs
 
2014-05-19 05:40:13 PM  

phalamir: MugzyBrown: phalamir: Not really.  It's just population.  Europe's population centers were pretty much fixed by the mid 1800s.  This isn't to say population didn't change or fluctuate, but you pretty much knew there was going to be a significant population clump at such-and-such location come rain or shine, and it would be the biggest clump in the area.  So you knew that sitting in one place was a guaranteed source of fans/money.  On the other hand, the US population centers didn't settle until much later. You could start a team in a decent-sized town, and ten years later it was just an appendage of what used to be some insignificant village.  You could either watch someone else start a team in the now-population-hub while yours dried up - or you could pick up sticks and move to where the fans/money was. So, European clubs became geographically fixed, while American teams became semi-mobile.  And even after population centers have stabilized In the US, the idea that a team can move sticks around.  This is also helped by the artificial scarcity of the professional leagues, since there are fewer teams than there are viable population centers, thus preserving the option to leave.  If there were teams in most of the viable US population centers - even if in second- and third-tier leagues, and with enough media exposure to attract regional fanbases - top-tier US teams wouldn't have the viable option to threaten to leave, and have to consider their current homes long-term permanent bases.

This really doesn't make much sense.

The US has corporate leagues that sell franchises to individuals/corporations.  They're the only teams allowed to compete.

In Europe, the leagues formed more organically from private sports clubs.  theoretically I could start my own soccer club in England through the FA and eventually find myself in the Premier League.

Now they do.  But back when the professional teams started, they were ad hoc concerns made by local businessmen.  They later set u ...


American sports essentially have a promotion/relegation system too, but it's based on money or the whims of owners instead of just winning.  In the NFL, Baltimore was relegated in the '80s for failing to build a new stadium, and after a couple years in the CFL, they managed to get promoted back up.  In baseball, Montreal was relegated and replaced by Washington.  In the NBA, Seattle was relegated and replaced by Oklahoma City.  Sacramento nearly faced relegation, but they were able to avoid it.  College sports are more messed up, but conference expansion allows schools to get promoted to better leagues as well.

It's certainly not as fair as the European system (not that European sports don't have their own problems), but I do enjoy the relative parity of our leagues... I don't think you'd be able to have a draft if teams could get relegated.  In the US, we definitely have more deserving markets than teams that could fit in a viable league, and it's a shame that not every city gets a shot to compete.
 
2014-05-19 09:40:03 PM  
"American sports essentially have a promotion/relegation system too, but it's based on money or the whims of owners instead of just winning.  In the NFL, Baltimore was relegated in the '80s for failing to build a new stadium, and after a couple years in the CFL, they managed to get promoted back up.  In baseball, Montreal was relegated and replaced by Washington.  In the NBA, Seattle was relegated and replaced by Oklahoma City.  Sacramento nearly faced relegation, but they were able to avoid it.  College sports are more messed up, but conference expansion allows schools to get promoted to better leagues as well. "

You really believe the above?  The "Baltimore" team that played in the CFL bore no connection whatsoever to the "Baltimore" team in the NFL.  None.  Zero.  Different players, coaches, management etc...

The Expos weren't relegated to a lower league like AAA, the franchise was moved to Washington.

Seattle to OKC same thing - moving a franchise to another city.

You don't know what relegation is at all...
 
2014-05-19 09:55:55 PM  

varnigus: [img.fark.net image 640x360]
inconsolable


I mean, a CR7-led Portgual played Israel TWICE in qualification....and couldn't beat them either time, drawing 3-3 in Israel and 1-1 in Portugal, needing a miracle just to draw the Israelis in Israel.
 
2014-05-19 10:57:32 PM  

whither_apophis: They always won the tip offs


You magnificent bastard.
 
2014-05-20 05:06:36 AM  

czetie: IIRC they are in the Eurovision Song Contest.


They are and have won three times. Though being a part of Eurovision isn't the same as being a part of Europe. Any national broadcaster that is a member of the European Broadcasting Union is eligible to enter, including many countries in the Middle East, North Africa and the west of Asia. Morocco entered once. One other country in the Middle East (Lebanon IIRC) entered one year but had to withdraw because thier laws forbade showing Israel's song and the contest rules require participants to show and allow voting for all songs.
 
2014-05-20 06:30:17 AM  

Duane Dibbley: They are and have won three times. Though being a part of Eurovision isn't the same as being a part of Europe.


Certainly, but it is an indication of being "Euro-oriented". And in Israel's particular case, it's just one small piece of the larger story.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report