It actually wasn't anything I was serious about. I think the NBA has always been the best league in the world, and I truly don't think it has ever been close.
I can accept this logic.
However, the USA lost in the 2006 World Championship and the 2004 Olympics.
So for these years then, the NBA was not the best league in the world? Regardless of whether Kobe Bryant was playing or not.
In fact, I would've been willing to bet that the 2004 Olympics, and anything else for that matter, would've been entirely different if we had sent the right players over.
If Kobe Bryant was hurt all season next year (knock on wood), you couldn't suddenly say the Lakers won't be a contender for the 2010-11 season. That's not the way it works.
The NBA, including its players, would be the focus of any continent, basketball-wise, if that continent was given the opportunity. The league is going global for that very reason.
So, knowing that there is no true "World Champion" to beat, and that, technically, the Lakers would have to beat at least one elite team on every continent in the world (and the same goes for all of those teams), it should be no surprise why the NBA is considered the greatest basketball league on Earth, and why any team that tops the rest would be considered "World Champions."