PDA

View Full Version : Only the top 2?



JMiller
July 2nd, 2008, 12:02 PM
In the freestyle relay(s), the top 6 goes to the Olympics.
Yet, all the other events it is only the top 2.

That should change. Every athlete that makes the qualifying time should go to the Olympics. Look at the men's 100 back, the top 6 at the 2008 US trials swam faster than the 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist. Surely the 5th swimmer could have a better performance in the "big" pool.

Sending only 2 in each event "waters" down the potential performances at the Olympics, ultimately making the semi-finals less competitive. (other phrases could be used) The bottom line is, the top 16 at the Olympics should represent the fastest in the world.

knelson
July 2nd, 2008, 12:19 PM
I can see your point, but I disagree. I like that each country sends their best TEAM to the Games, and that team is limited in number.

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 12:22 PM
I can see your point, but I disagree. I like that each country sends their best TEAM to the Games, and that team is limited in number.

What is the definition of best? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I don't know if this is true so someone with knowledge help me but I heard (at some point) that the Olympic cuts were easier than the US Trials Cuts. That would seem plausible to me give some of the really pathetic swimming in the early rounds of the Olympics.

JMiller
July 2nd, 2008, 12:32 PM
Each country could still have a fast standard, etc, but when the top six have the potential to medal?


What is the definition of best? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I don't know if this is true so someone with knowledge help me but I heard (at some point) that the Olympic cuts were easier than the US Trials Cuts.

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 12:38 PM
Each country could still have a fast standard, etc, but when the top six have the potential to medal?

I don't understand your point. The US leaves a lot of super fast swimmers at home. But, we take the best of the best to maximize our potential with the rules as they are written.

JMiller
July 2nd, 2008, 12:42 PM
Rules are written, a reflection of the past, even though the future continues to change.


I don't understand your point. The US leaves a lot of super fast swimmers at home. But, we take the best of the best to maximize our potential with the rules as they are written.

LindsayNB
July 2nd, 2008, 12:47 PM
There is a trade-off between team competition and team size. The larger the team the larger advantage that larger countries have.

knelson
July 2nd, 2008, 12:55 PM
Back in the '70s each country was allowed three swimmers in each event. This was changed to two, in large part anyway, due to the U.S. team's dominance. The U.S. was going 1-2-3 too many times for the Olympic Commitee's taste, apparently.

Part of what makes being a U.S. Olympian so special is how incredibly difficult it is to make the team. I wouldn't mind going back to the three people per event rule, but I wouldn't like changing it to the "fastest X swimmers per event, regardless of country."

Jazz Hands
July 2nd, 2008, 01:02 PM
What is the definition of best? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I don't know if this is true so someone with knowledge help me but I heard (at some point) that the Olympic cuts were easier than the US Trials Cuts. That would seem plausible to me give some of the really pathetic swimming in the early rounds of the Olympics.

That's not quite true, but it's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics#Qualifying_Cr iteria

Let's look at the men's 50 free as an example. The Olympic B standard is 23.13. Any country with one swimmer that fast could send him to Beijing. The A standard is 22.35. A country with two swimmers meeting that time could send both of them. Some countries, like Britain, choose to send only swimmers who meet the A standard.

The American trials cut in the 50 is 23.49. A little bit slower than the B cut. The slower swimmers you see in the Olympics are probably the one standard-free entry per gender allowed to each country. A lot of them do the 50 and 100 free.

LindsayNB
July 2nd, 2008, 01:04 PM
It would be interesting to see stats on how many countries are able to make the full two swimmers per event plus relays.

Kind of reminds me of the team scoring at nationals debates. :bolt:

Blackbeard's Peg
July 2nd, 2008, 01:05 PM
each team is allowed to put two people into each individual event. how they determine which two is up to each country's governing body. we send the top two finishers as determined by the olympic trials meet.

I believe we've discussed this under a separate topic previously. I agree that it doesn't seem right that the top x swimmers in the olympics are not necessarily going to be the same top x swimmers in the world rankings, but the system today works, and any changes to this raise a lot of questions...

how many top swimmers? 5? 10? if 5, why not 10? etc...
how are the top determined? by whom?
what times are used? from what meets? what dates? do prelims/semifinal times count?

At current, changing this rule stands to give considerable benefit the US (aka Lochte in the 100 back). We have a huge talent pool from which we pull - already a huge advantage

aquaFeisty
July 2nd, 2008, 01:06 PM
I would like to see the limit go back to 3...

Two reasons:
1. USA does not have the world dominance it had in the 70s when the rule was applied
2. Track and field, which is similar to swimming in how it is 'run' at the Olympic venues (with prelims/finals, heats, several relatively short events, etc) is allowed 3.

If the limit of 2 stands for swimming, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a limit of 2 for track and field too.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 01:17 PM
Back in the '70s each country was allowed three swimmers in each event. This was changed to two, in large part anyway, due to the U.S. team's dominance. The U.S. was going 1-2-3 too many times for the Olympic Commitee's taste, apparently.

Kirk, there is nothing wrong with this. As a non-American born person, and a perennial supporter of the underdog I think it's good that it shouldn't be 1,2,3 for any country in any event. Granted it may be interesting and a pride issue for the USA crowd but it begins to bore everyone else.

Undoubtedly the USA has a fantastic pool of talent in all sports, but the idea of the games is (supposedly) about coming together and putting the politics and nationalism aside. It's also supposed to be for amateurs but that's another can of worms.

I think the participation and inclusion is the lofty goal here. Do you really care if someone grabs the bronze, and becomes a hero in their country, instead of it going to another American swimmer? I may be different to others but I like to see new team/people win things. It doesn't change who may be the best, greatest, fastest etc...it's just good to see atleast in the context of the Olympic games.

To be honest, I think the decathalon IS the Olympics. 1 person doing 10 events that test all round athletic ability. Hey, that's just me though.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 01:19 PM
If the limit of 2 stands for swimming, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a limit of 2 for track and field too.

Absolutely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

LindsayNB
July 2nd, 2008, 01:23 PM
...the idea of the games is (supposedly) about coming together and putting the politics and nationalism aside.

I would have to question that, it looks to me like nationalism is a big part of the Olympics.


USA does not have the world dominance it had in the 70s when the rule was applied

Uh, outside of the boycott year which Olympics did the USA not dominate swimming?

aquaFeisty
July 2nd, 2008, 01:34 PM
Guess I should have clarified... the USA men's doesn't have the level of dominance it had in the 70s. The 2-person rule was implemented after the 1976 Olympics in which the US men won all but 1 gold medal, all but 1 silver medal and completely swept 4 events.

Glenn
July 2nd, 2008, 01:34 PM
SwimStud,

I'd like to see less emphasis on country and more emphasis on fast swimming. Isn't that what the Olympics is about? The best of the best! I would like to actually see less flag waving. How about just the fastest runners, rowers, cyclists, best weight lifters, fencers, equestrians, softball players etc. Other countries dominate the "lesser" sports. Let's celebrate sport as opposed to country. So what if the US gets 1-2-3 in the 100 back, the Bulgarians will do the same in weight lifting.........good for them.

I know..............it will never happen.

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 01:39 PM
Holy cow, me and commie agree. Nationalism is as much part of the Olympics in the 20th and 21st century as the sports themselves. I'd hazard a guess that some of the top sports moments of all time, having impact well beyond sports, have happened at the Olympics.

I'm really sorry it bores other countries that they stink and we are great. That should be motivation enough but it's far easier to reduce the number of slots than actually build a program that is competitive. I would think that you'd rather beat the best and be a hero than chump your way into it by locking a US swimmer out.

It's often said the US Olympic trials have far greater talent top to bottom than the games themselves.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 01:44 PM
I would have to question that, it looks to me like nationalism is a big part of the Olympics.


Just to clarify, I don't mean patriotism, which is supporting one's country with pride. I mean nationalism which is a bit more arrogant and self righteous, and with a lack of respect to others, and their rights/beliefs. Which was a large factor in two world wars.

I don't mean that snippy, just to define where I see partiotism and nationalism.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 01:49 PM
SwimStud,

I'd like to see less emphasis on country and more emphasis on fast swimming. Isn't that what the Olympics is about? The best of the best! I would like to actually see less flag waving. How about just the fastest runners, rowers, cyclists, best weight lifters, fencers, equestrians, softball players etc. Other countries dominate the "lesser" sports. Let's celebrate sport as opposed to country. So what if the US gets 1-2-3 in the 100 back, the Bulgarians will do the same in weight lifting.........good for them.

I know..............it will never happen.

If it could be done that way Glenn, then yes I'd be in favour of that. That said, the records show who swims at what speed and the US is blessed to have such a varsity level arena to see the best go head to head....even a few non Americans sneak in there too ;)

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 01:49 PM
Nationalism is taking off your hat and standing for the National Anthem. Patriotism is wearing Union Jack underwear.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 01:53 PM
It's often said the US Olympic trials have far greater talent top to bottom than the games themselves.

Happens all the time.
The world cup is a great example, teams from Europe and South America are eliminated at the expensive of a more diverse international tournament. If we followed the "1,2,3 Model" then we could keep it between, Europe and South America every fours years and save on the policing!

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 01:55 PM
Nationalism is taking off your hat and standing for the National Anthem. Patriotism is wearing Union Jack underwear.

Half the people I see heere in the NAtional Anthem place there hand over their hearts...er, that's like, for the pledge....they teach you that at immigrant school!

It's the Union Flag you heathen! A "Jack" is part of the pole...like the one you need to pull out.

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 01:56 PM
Yeah, if you did that you could also save on the TV revenue also, cause a whole boatload of it would be missing from US broadcasters.

Union Jack or Union Flag, it's all the same, two days from now we celebrate the arse whooping we put on you and your hagis eating ways and brown teeth!

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 01:59 PM
Yeah, if you did that you could also save on the TV revenue also, cause a whole boatload of it would be missing from US broadcasters.

The World Cup? Are you on HGH or something? The US don't even broadcast all of their national teams games.

If you mean the Olympics, maybe less money would be a good thng...and less Bob Costas...a sliver lining if ever I see one!

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 02:01 PM
Yeah, if you did that you could also save on the TV revenue also, cause a whole boatload of it would be missing from US broadcasters.

Union Jack or Union Flag, it's all the same, two days from now we celebrate the arse whooping we put on you and your hagis eating ways and brown teeth!

Here we are then at Nationalism...

Haggis: I get the feeling you'd know more about a Sheeps intestines than I...


...besides brown teeth are still teeth...just how do you manage to eat chewing tobacco that side of the Mason Disco line?

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 02:02 PM
Really, are you kidding? You don't think ABC and ESPN don't sweeten the pot substantially?

Iwannafly
July 2nd, 2008, 02:05 PM
Undoubtedly the USA has a fantastic pool of talent in all sports, but the idea of the games is (supposedly) about coming together and putting the politics and nationalism aside.

Except for soccer, where we have to import our playboy talent from the UK. I'll admit he's a bit washed up though!:toohurt:


If it could be done that way Glenn, then yes I'd be in favour of that. That said, the records show who swims at what speed and the US is blessed to have such a varsity level arena to see the best go head to head....even a few non Americans sneak in there too ;)
There's no 'u' in favor. Crazy Brits! You know I'm just kidding Stud!

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 02:06 PM
Really, are you kidding? You don't think ABC and ESPN don't sweeten the pot substantially?

Honestly I don't know the numbers; they may add a substantial amount, but it won't make or break the WC.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 02:09 PM
Except for soccer, where we have to import our playboy talent from the UK. I'll admit he's a bit washed up though!:toohurt:


There's no 'u' in favor. Crazy Brits! You know I'm just kidding Stud!

Dude, the US top players aren't bad, they are in the best leagues.
Probably lack depth. The MLS is not a great display of US talent, it has some but the Prem has the better guys.
PS I'm on an all sugar and haggis diet for LCM you will not want to be swimming down wind in the 200BR so I suggest you train hard bud ;)

Anyhow we've diverged and soon "His Champfulness" will be berating me for daring to comment on a thread he started.

KeithM
July 2nd, 2008, 02:12 PM
There is a trade-off between team competition and team size. The larger the team the larger advantage that larger countries have. Well we got our butts kicked by the convicts in 1956. But it won't happen again.

I probably shouldn't say "we" since I wasn't there swimming. I wasn't alive. "They" got their butts kicked. It's only "we" if we win. ;)

pwolf66
July 2nd, 2008, 02:13 PM
SwimStud,

I'd like to see less emphasis on country and more emphasis on fast swimming. Isn't that what the Olympics is about? The best of the best! I would like to actually see less flag waving. How about just the fastest runners, rowers, cyclists, best weight lifters, fencers, equestrians, softball players etc. Other countries dominate the "lesser" sports. Let's celebrate sport as opposed to country. So what if the US gets 1-2-3 in the 100 back, the Bulgarians will do the same in weight lifting.........good for them.

I know..............it will never happen.

So this is adjuticated HOW? How do you determine the fastest X unless they all compete at the same time, in the same place under the same conditions. Jeez, what a nightmare. The Olympics are _supposed_ to be about all the countries in the world (um, 5 rings, 5 continents?) getting together and competing in athletic endeavors. If you want to see the best in the world, there's the World Cup, etc...

This is the best that each country has to offer and if the USA's 10th best is better than Upper Slobovia's 2nd best, that doesn't make a hill of beans difference under the Olympic goal. While it may not be 'fair' to USA's 3rd thru 10th place swimmers, it sure as heck isn't 'fair' to Upper Slobovia's 2nd best swimmer to finish a minimum of 12th. There has to be some sort of common standard to prevent 'inequality' as difficult as that may be to prevent.

While I think it should go back to top-3 from each country, I think more than that creates too much 'inequality'

LindsayNB
July 2nd, 2008, 02:17 PM
It would be interesting to eliminate nationality altogether i.e. let the top swimmers compete and eliminate the national team concept, and the corresponding medal counts. But my guess is that without the national aspect to it very few people would know who to cheer for or really care about the whole thing. The majority of people wouldn't know who to cheer for if you didn't label the athletes by country, and would probably care about swimming at the Olympics, and most other Olympic sports, about the same amount they care about swimming between Olympics.

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 02:19 PM
Honestly I don't know the numbers; they may add a substantial amount, but it won't make or break the WC.

Here you go Stud -

Calling it "the biggest TV deal in a single country in FIFA's history," world governing body FIFA announced a $425 million deal for World Cup television rights in the United States from 2007 to 2014.

Under the agreement, the 2010 and 2014 World Cups, the 2007 and 2011 Women's World Cups, and the 2009 and 2013 Confederations Cups will be broadcast in English in the U.S. by the Walt Disney Company-owned ABC and ESPN networks, and in Spanish by Univision.

In a joint bid, ABC\ESPN paid $100 million for the rights package for the broadcast rights in English, while Univision paid $325 million for the Spanish-language rights.

So, it might not break it, but it sure as heck made it.

ande
July 2nd, 2008, 02:24 PM
it used to be 3
think it was to avoid a US sweep
wasn't the change between 80 & 84 or was it 76 & 80

too bad diving got lumped into the same deal

track allows 3 competitors per event

ande


In the freestyle relay(s), the top 6 goes to the Olympics.
Yet, all the other events it is only the top 2.

That should change. Every athlete that makes the qualifying time should go to the Olympics. Look at the men's 100 back, the top 6 at the 2008 US trials swam faster than the 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist. Surely the 5th swimmer could have a better performance in the "big" pool.

Sending only 2 in each event "waters" down the potential performances at the Olympics, ultimately making the semi-finals less competitive. (other phrases could be used) The bottom line is, the top 16 at the Olympics should represent the fastest in the world.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 02:30 PM
Here you go Stud -

Calling it "the biggest TV deal in a single country in FIFA's history," world governing body FIFA announced a $425 million deal for World Cup television rights in the United States from 2007 to 2014.

Under the agreement, the 2010 and 2014 World Cups, the 2007 and 2011 Women's World Cups, and the 2009 and 2013 Confederations Cups will be broadcast in English in the U.S. by the Walt Disney Company-owned ABC and ESPN networks, and in Spanish by Univision.

In a joint bid, ABC\ESPN paid $100 million for the rights package for the broadcast rights in English, while Univision paid $325 million for the Spanish-language rights.

So, it might not break it, but it sure as heck made it.

I'm sure they are happy with the money, but if its gone it will still be the WC, it was before and it would be again. You overestimate the importance of it to everyone else, who would watch it some how, some way without Disney's spondoolas!

Anyhow, that deal is for more than the Men's world cup...I just wish more of the $ made it's way into the hands of those that need it. Enough of the soccer talk, you'll get us into trouble.

Iwannafly
July 2nd, 2008, 03:29 PM
Half the people I see heere in the NAtional Anthem place there hand over their hearts...er, that's like, for the pledge....they teach you that at immigrant school!

It's the Union Flag you heathen! A "Jack" is part of the pole...like the one you need to pull out.

From the US Code, Title 36, Chapter 10:
171. Conduct during playing

During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

You should have studied at immigrant school instead of eating Hagis!:canada:

carlos_fernandez
July 2nd, 2008, 04:10 PM
I would like to see the limit go back to 3...

Two reasons:
1. USA does not have the world dominance it had in the 70s when the rule was applied
2. Track and field, which is similar to swimming in how it is 'run' at the Olympic venues (with prelims/finals, heats, several relatively short events, etc) is allowed 3.
I'd also add the extremely important element of the professionalization of the sport.

We've got pros that are being blocked out of the Olympics by a rule that was written in a vastly different era.


Happens all the time.
The world cup is a great example, teams from Europe and South America are eliminated at the expensive of a more diverse international tournament.
UEFA (Europe) typically has 6-8 teams that are fantastic, a couple of teams that are ok and then 1-4 DUDS!!

Poland, Serbia, Russia, Belgium are just a few of the Euro teams that have tanked at recent world cups.

Conmebol: other than Brazil and Argentina, when was the last time that one of them made the quarterfinals?


The World Cup? Are you on HGH or something? The US don't even broadcast all of their national teams games.
:lmao:

Get informed.


Anyhow, that deal is for more than the Men's world cup...I just wish more of the $ made it's way into the hands of those that need it. Enough of the soccer talk, you'll get us into trouble.
Each Women's WC is worth roughly $10 mill.

Subtract that $20 mill, what are you left with?





You were saying?

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 04:35 PM
Conmebol: other than Brazil and Argentina, when was the last time that one of them made the quarterfinals?


:lmao:

Get informed.


You were saying?

...You were saying?

I think you miss the point of my saying elimnate the rest of the work from the WC. I am all for inclusion. That said some teams do get knocked out in qualifying and a few weaker geographic zones get their allotment. I'm not complaining about it. Just pointing it out, how it works the same as in 2 swimmers per olympics. You have to qualify and the slots are spread around for fairness and enjoyment of the tourney throughout the world. I like the system.

The US do not broadcast all of their national teams games. YOU get informed. I know, because I wanted to watch US vs England last month and it was not shown.

Lastly, I don't care how much $ ESPN throws at Soccer. The World Cup is not dependent upon them. Much less on the US soccer bodies that wanted quarters and bigger goals....ok yeah let's change it.

Back to you...

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 04:38 PM
From the US Code, Title 36, Chapter 10:
171. Conduct during playing

During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

You should have studied at immigrant school instead of eating Hagis!:canada:

i'll have to dig up my immigrant school publication. Then you can take it up with them.

Anyway "up yer kilt!" :bump:

aquageek
July 2nd, 2008, 04:42 PM
Lastly, I don't care how much $ ESPN throws at Soccer. The World Cup is not dependent upon them. Much less on the US soccer bodies that wanted quarters and bigger goals....ok yeah let's change it.

Back to you...

You are really missing the point. Soccer is saturated in Europe, it's not getting any bigger, or only marginally so. The market is the US. Having ESPN/ABC on board is a huge benefit to the WC. The marketing potential for the US is untapped in soccer and if you don't think that is a massive cash cow you are missing, well, then you probably don't turn on your TV during football season to see the $$ out there.

I can guarantee you that when the WC people meet, or any influential soccer group for that matter, their #1 topic is engaging the US better for increased revenue.

I agree the WC is not dependent on the US but it sure is their prime target now.

Oh, and out of curiosity, check out the US investment groups buying up the Premier League teams. Still don't think US $$ is important to soccer?

carlos_fernandez
July 2nd, 2008, 04:44 PM
The US do not broadcast all of their national teams games. YOU get informed. I know, because I wanted to watch US vs England last month and it was not shown.
It was on Galavision.


Lastly, I don't care how much $ ESPN throws at Soccer. The World Cup is not dependent upon them.
$400+ million is a nice chunk of change for any organization.

Take away that money, and FIFA would be hurting.


Much less on the US soccer bodies that wanted quarters and bigger goals....ok yeah let's change it.
That generation of American execs was from the 80's and mid-90's and they were trying to address the attitudes seen in the Euro Cup thread in the not swimming related forum.

That's a very different generation.

NOW that for-profit soccer has made its mark in the US, ESPN, MLS and The Powers That Be recognize that there's a market here in the US for the sport.

Hell. The fact that we're arguing about this on a swimming board during the US Olympic Trials and right after the first ever broadcast of the Euro Cup in the history of US broadcast tv should give you an idea of the fact that those attitudes are a thing of the past.

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 04:49 PM
You are really missing the point. Soccer is saturated in Europe, it's not getting any bigger, or only marginally so. The market is the US. Having ESPN/ABC on board is a huge benefit to the WC. The marketing potential for the US is untapped in soccer and if you don't think that is a massive cash cow you are missing, well, then you probably don't turn on your TV during football season to see the $$ out there.

I can guarantee you that when the WC people meet, or any influential soccer group for that matter, their #1 topic is engaging the US better for increased revenue.

I agree the WC is not dependent on the US but it sure is their prime target now.

Oh, and out of curiosity, check out the US investment groups buying up the Premier League teams. Still don't think US $$ is important to soccer?

No I get the point. Not saying that the money isn't an attraction for the leagues and the comps. US interests are buying up the prem teams (as are many different conglomerates) but not everyone is happy about it.

They're even trying to add 1 more game to the Prem season now and play it somewhere else in the world. Managers are not happy, fans are decidely not happy.

I forgot what your point of it was orignally but, even without the ESPN funds, the WC would still go on. My sadness is that the money is not getting to the grass roots folks in soccer to develop talent and nurture smaller clubs.

Glenn
July 2nd, 2008, 04:58 PM
Hulk,

In order to get the best of the best have Olympic cuts as we do now. If country x has 20 swimmers that can make the cut so be it. If country Y has no one to make the cut in 200 fly, so be it. If the final of the 200 free is 8 Americans or 8 Chinese so be it. The Olympics is about sport.

We also forget that there are 28 Olympic sports in the summer games. The networks (at least here) almost exclusively show sports that feature US participants. Occasionally they will show a tear jerker about some bloke in the wilds of _________. What do we see or know about field hockey, handball, canoe, judo, archery, modern pentathlon, sailing, shooting. People may say, well I don't care about those sports. Well, I say the Olympics is a celebration of sport and these people who are training also deserve to be recognized.

That said, as a swimmer, I am very glad to see the amount of swimming shown. But I also wouldn't mind seeing the skill of the "lesser" sports.

Anyway, what do they show for the Olympics on TV in Upper Slobovia?

fanstone
July 2nd, 2008, 05:01 PM
Hear, hear! Haggis is the national dish of Scotland, not England. Stud is English, he likes Yorkshire Pudding, and other stuff. I cooked Haggis once and only myself and my dog (with some prodding from me) ate the stuff. Geek cannot poke fun food wise because where our relatives come from, Haggis is pretty tame. If you are going to place athletes based on the best, not the countries' best, then let the hillbillies race the Nascar, the Brazilians can take care of the Indy (yeah, get rid of those Andrettis), give the Canadians hockey, let the east europeans run the gymnastics (well, there is that Japanese guy, but ditch him), soccer can be played by Brazil and maybe a couple of players from Argentina, none from England...

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 05:03 PM
...soccer can be played by Brazil and maybe a couple of players from Argentina, none from England...

Haha...we have our moments...

SwimStud
July 2nd, 2008, 05:08 PM
It was on Galavision.

So I should have to subscribe to yet one more cable channel to watch the national team play in an international match? You know what my piont is, is should be central. It certainly wasn't on any cable PPV or otherwise on my system, I checked through.
Admitted, you probably have to have Sky TV in England or go to the pub. But between ESPN, MSG, FSN, Soccerchannel... you think one of them could have shown it?

I didn't say FIFA wouldn't miss the cash, but they managed before. It would not be the end of the World Cup.

JMiller
July 2nd, 2008, 09:54 PM
If you make the standard, you should get to go. All countries would still participate, but does it matter if you're 18th or 34th, you went to the Olympics, that's the point. This way the top 16 would actually represent the best in the world, and the top 3 would be the absolute best.

aquageek
July 3rd, 2008, 08:43 AM
If you make the standard, you should get to go.

And the Olympics would last 6 months.

JMiller
July 3rd, 2008, 11:53 AM
The 2nd standard is very fast. Those swimmers deserve to go.


And the Olympics would last 6 months.

smontanaro
July 3rd, 2008, 11:56 AM
Personally, I think they should make everyone get there like the ancient Olympics. Put down your plows, swords and shields and walk or ride your horse to the Games. If you make it, you get to compete.

Skip

art_z
July 3rd, 2008, 11:59 AM
The 2nd standard is very fast. Those swimmers deserve to go.

If they deserve to go they should compete for a country that they can make the team. If they come in 16th at our trials, whats the point of them going to the Olympics just to come in 25th there, just to say that they went? Doesn't that sort of dilute the the honor of going to the Olympics? It sort of reminds me of the old YMCA age group nationals credo "Everybody swims, everybody wins". Guess what, they don't.

aquageek
July 3rd, 2008, 12:03 PM
No one deserves to go. You earn the right to go.

SwimStud
July 3rd, 2008, 12:03 PM
Personally, I think they should make everyone get there like the ancient Olympics. Put down your plows, swords and shields and walk or ride your horse to the Games. If you make it, you get to compete.

Skip

Yeah Skip...not so keen on naked Greco-Roman wrestling though...

JMiller
July 3rd, 2008, 12:31 PM
Same difference.


No one deserves to go. You earn the right to go.

3strokes
July 3rd, 2008, 01:29 PM
Personally, I think they should make everyone get there like the ancient Olympics. Put down your plows, swords and shields and walk or ride your horse to the Games. If you make it, you get to compete.

Skip


Naked, of course.