Yesterday, Storming the Floor* posted this interesting little thought experiment: If the men's national basketball team was selected like it was 20 years ago, which college players would be picked? That's a great question (and timely; maybe you heard the Olympics were happening today?), and here's what they came up with:

The rules were simple. We dismissed all of the one-and-done players, and all of the incoming freshmen, and then set about to build a fairly balanced team out of what was left. This is what we came up with:

Backcourt

Ty Lawson, North Carolina: 5'11" Point Guard, Darren Collison, UCLA: 6'1" Point Guard, Nick Calathes, Florida: 6'6" Point Guard, Stephen Curry, Davidson: 6'3" Shooting Guard, James Harden, Arizona State: 6'4" Shooting Guard, Jack McClinton, Miami: 6'1" Shooting Guard

Frontcourt

Raymar Morgan, Michigan State: 6'7" Forward, Damion James, Texas: 6'7" Small Forward, Jarvis Varnado, Mississippi State: 6'9" Forward, Tyler Hansbrough, North Carolina: 6'10" Power Forward, Jordan Hill, Arizona: 6'10" Forward, Blake Griffin, Oklahoma: 6'10" Power Forward, Omar Samhan, Saint Mary's: 6'11" Center

There's a case to be made for Chase Budinger, Kyle McAlarney, and maybe a couple of others, but mostly, STF nailed the roster. I think it's a good selection, and it makes sense all the way around.

But let's take this a step further. Could this team actually do any damage in the Olympics? Could a team of college players compete in the modern games?

The short version: no. Not really. The long version: maybe, but probably still no.

A few things to consider. One: These players, no matter their various skill sets, are eons and eons and eons less talented than the current NBA-populated national team. Words really don't even describe the gulf in talent. It's like the difference between T-Pain and Marvin Gaye. T-Pain is pretty great, and entertaining, but he's a dim light compared to this.

Everyone can probably agree on that. So if the college national team has the same limited practice time as the current men's national team, and the current team struggles with its foreign opponents, it stands to reason the collegians would struggle -- perhaps exponentially so. (That's the transitive property, and I learnt it in skool.)

Two: Things ain't like they used to be. College basketball players used to be among the best in the world; even if they were much worse than NBA players, that still made them among the top .01 percent in the world. No one else played basketball! Now, teams like Argentina, Croatia, Germany, Russia, Spain, teams that never used to have a prayer of beating the U.S, have plenty of successful NBA players on their rosters, and they treat Olympic Competition as a national duty.

Three: The international game is played above the rim, but it also requires balance and savvy. Argentina's lineup is full of sneaky veterans and versatile big men, the kind of team a greenhorn bunch like the U.S. collegians would be almost helpless against. The adjustment to the international game gets a lot of attention; for players without even NBA experience, it would be less an adjusment and more a whirlwind.

Still, the international game is in some ways more similar to the college game than to the NBA.The nebulous values of "playing the right way" and "teamwork" that people tend to ascribe more to college basketball have been cited as the NBA team's international downfall. The collegians could make up some ground on that front. Not much, but some.

And let's not forget that the above team is not filled with a bunch of slouches, either. On paper, they're better than Angola, Australia, China, Croatia, Iran, Russia, and maybe even Germany. A bronze medal wouldn't be out of the question.

But that's the difference -- when the U.S. sends its best players, it picks its All-NBA team, and a gold medal is not just hoped for but expected. If the "Redeem Team" fails to win most of its games by 20 points, people will be upset, and little children will cry, and the fabric of our nation will come into question. Those expectations -- and the team's ability to generate them -- are what sets the college team apart from the real thing.

Well, that and talent. Talent's pretty important too.

*This is the second thing I've linked by STF today, and that's because they're quite good. If you aren't reading, you probably should be.

Related: Peculiarity, College Basketball Media