So are "all sports games" but "not all games are sports"?
I don't know, things like track or swimming are clearly sports but don't quite seem like games. Feels like it depends on the complexity of the objectives and how you're allowed to reach them. Traveling in a straight line as fast as possible just doesn't clear the bar for me.
Tough distinction to draw regardless, but basketball clearly qualifies as both.
EDIT: Reading the OP's question more carefully, I'd say what happens on the court is more of a sport, though it's got elements of both, but what happens behind the scenes seems more like a game (it's not a sport, at least). So maybe it depends on what level you're looking.
Foulweatherfan articulated this far better than I could. TP for you.
D-DUB and Celtics18 posted something similar. (Sorry couldn't use CB's quote feature so I copied and pasted excerpts from their posts.)
D-Dub “
The difference is how we look at the vs. the front office."
Celtics18
"While they aren't playing, folks are more interested in talking about how to improve the team from a front office standpoint." In hindsight I probably should have gone further than just relate the term 'game' to video games or chess. Rather, I should have expanded the definition of 'game' to include the multi-faceted usage such as psychological or devious manipulation of a situation for one's own purpose or gain.
Donogus's post (see below) strikes to the essence of the question I posed.
Donoghus "
Honestly, I think the whole notion is pretty silly myself. Threw that question out there on a whim not really believing it myself. It's all subjective anyways based on the responses we've seen."
If you look at this question in relationship to foulweatheredfan's response, then I don't think the notion is silly at all.
From management side of things basketball has more gamesmanship components than the sport itself. This is probably why I couldn't clearly distinguish the sport of basketball from the games that go on behind the scenes. It's like a circus with all the talk about trades, standings manipulation, salary caps, etc.
This also strikes at the heart of the topic of 'tanking'. (Sorry, I'm sick of this topic too.) What's clear is that there are two standards in the NBA when it comes to the game of basketball. One is from the players' view where everyone is expected to give it their best effort to win every game. That is what 'sports' is all about...giving your best effort to help your team win.
It appears management has a different code of ethics and has much more latitude when it comes to deciding whether to have winning seasons or not. This is quite obvious with the 76's over the past few years and to a lesser degree with most other teams. In many cases management's goal of acquiring better players in the future supersedes the players' sports ethics of winning now.
What's interesting is that we often condone or accept this contradiction of ethics of upper management vs. the individual's perspective. One glaring example is the Chicago Whites Sox scandal where players were accused of throwing games in the World Series. Even today such behavior is not tolerated. Yet, it can be thought to be 'good management' to lose a multitude of games by watering down a team's gene pool in order to lose as many games as possible to get a better draft pick.
This is important because some of us in this group had trouble with the idea of tanking last year. Others, not so. It's clear to me now it depended on how you viewed these contests. If you were sports ethically minded, then you wanted to win now and see how the team would do. If one took the longer time-frame view, then tanking would have been the better choice. And, there was the third camp torn between the two choices. (I was here....but, I've learned
)
Thus, is Celtics Basketball more of a game or more of a sport? It definitely has elements of both, but the degree depends on your vantage point.