Olympics: Eliminate Team sports

Cafe Society
1

Now that the Olympics are about to begin, I thought I’d revive an argument in this forum that I often have with my sports friends; namely, that the Olympics as presently staged should not include team sports. First, a few terms:

[ul]
[li]By team sport, I mean sports in which competitors compete (1) as groups of 2 or more individuals, and (2) in head-to-head meetings each against a single opponent.[/li][li]The ‘head-to-head’ condition means that, theoretically, not all competitors could compete against all others simultaneously. A track relay race, for example, could theoretically have every team running in a single race (provided you had a track with ~100 lanes), and so doesn’t count as a ‘team’ sport. Similarly, team gymnastics is limited by the number of apparati (e.g. only one balance beam, pommel horse, etc.), but there is nothing theoretically intrinsic to gymnastics competition that requires this.[/li][li]A hockey game, on the other hand, cannot involve more than two hockey teams, so a series of games are required against varying opponents to determine a champion. The same ‘head-to-head’ condition applies to a sport like boxing, but this is mitigated by the fact that boxing competitors are individuals.[/li][/ul]

My reasons for thinking team sports (as I’ve defined them above) should not be part of the Olympics are as follows:

[ul]
[li]Fair competition in team sports appears to require a large number of competitive events; the better team quite often does not win a particular match. In the U.S., entire seasons are devoted to determining playoff competitors, and while the playoffs themselves are often exciting, nobody thinks the entire season should be determined by a single-elimination tournament involving every team.[/li][li]The number of competitive events is larger than can be accomodated by a typical Olympiad. Part of this is the sheer number of games, which in practice is larger than in individual head-to-head style sports. Also, fairness dictates that some rest period be granted between games, and this period is substantially longer for team sports than individual sports tournaments (when’s the last time you saw a major basketball tournament require teams to play two games a day? Fencers, on the other hand, run through six rounds in an event in a single day).[/li][li]Players in team sports do not seem to have skills that lend themselves to related athletic events. I’m not questioning the athleticism of team sport athletes; rather, that the ability to be good at a particular team sport doesn’t seem to translate to other athletic events, even for skills useful in that team sport. The best team sports players are often not world-class in any one skill, but in a combination of skills; they’re more comparable to decathletes than single-skill world record holders.[/li][li]Team sports require a set of reserves who only contribute if there is an injury to a ‘starter’. Conceivably, a player on a gold-medal team who never played a second of game-time could receive a medal. I’m not saying these players don’t contribute to their team, but strictly as a matter of competitive effort directly applied to a game, these guys contribute to the same level as, say, trainers and other team support personnel, who do not receive (I believe) gold medals.[/li][li]In the US at least, the best players often do not compete in the Olympics; they fear an injury that could jeopardize a professional career. If a number of the best players are purposefully avoiding the Olympics, a gold medal in the event loses much of its meaning.[/li][li]Many of the competing teams are built only for the Olympics, and the short time of the Olympic tournament means these teams have less of the cohesiveness we normally associate with teams. The only thing many of these teams have in common is the name of the country on the uniform (is citizenship even a requirement for players on a nation’s team?)[/li][li]More than individual sports–where the accomplishments of the athlete are more easily ascribed to a player’s ability–team sports encourage an ugly national jingoism that seems contrary to the presumed spirit of Olympic competition. Sure it’s cool that the US hockey team beat the Russians in 1980, but I don’t think this victory necessarily validated a triumph of American values over communism (a common thought at the time).[/li][/ul]

In total, I find these sufficient reason to just drop team competition from the current Olympic format. I’d love to hear other opinions on my reasoning, so I’m opening this thread to the entire forum…

2

This applies equally well to individual sports. The current world record for the 100m dash was set at a race in 2005. The same runner finished second at Athens.

Why the focus on specialism? Why is being excellent at a very precise skill more worthy of the Olympics than sports which cover a broad range of skills?

And this doesn’t happen in individual sports? Try checking the paper during the Olympics – you’ll see countries ranked by number of medals won.

3

I think most of your arguments fall into the “yeah, but so what” category. Indidvidual Track & Field performances vary the same way a team’s performance does. The world record holder may not win at the Olympics.

I would also point out that the 1980 hockey victory was kind of a victory of American values, at least as they applied to the Olympics. That was when the Olympics were “amateur.” The Russian team had been playing together for years, though. IIRC, they were all in the Army, and their MOS was “Hockey Player.” The Americans, on the other hand, were all college players. One group was violating the spirit of the amateurism rules; the other was not.

4

What we’re talking about here is upsets. I believe upsets in individual sports are far rarer than in team sports; in fact the fairness of team sport tournaments hinges on whether or not a team is allowed to recover for “one bad game” (the US NCAA basketball tournament is the most visible exception, but even here that competition is the culmination of 3-4 months worth of regular season basketball in which teams are often upset; no one would think just playing the tournament at the start of the season over a three week period–similar to how Olympic competition is staged–is fair). On the other hand, single elimination tournaments for an individual sport like Tennis (leaving aside pairs tennis for a moment) is routine, and tehse tournaments are routinely considered a fair way to judge tennis talent.

Asafa Powell’s different performance at the 2004 Olympics versus his world record time at the 2005 Tsiklitiria Super Grand Prix is irrelevant; I never said athletic ability in either individuals or teams can’t change over a long-enough period of time. “Best in the World” means “Best in the World at a particular moment in time”. In fact, this is yet another reason for eliminating team sports: The skill level of a team will vary much more over the longer period required to fairly evaluate that skill level (in essence, determine who’s best) than it would in individual sports.

Because it illustrates the fact that there is no way to judge the quality of a basketball player other than to have him participate on a basketball team. We don’t say that the best team in the world has the X best players; in fact it is easy to find examples where players on a gold-medal team were no even close to the best in the world (Christian Laettner, anyone?). Why then have a competition which by its very design awards gold medals to mediocrity?

Again, I’m talking specifically about the Olympic method for determining gold medalists in team sports. I’m not saying that, e.g., Aaron Rowand (CF for the world champion White Sox baseball team) doesn’t deserve to be labeled a champion because he is clearly not the best CF in the game; the MLB method of determining a champion is fundamentally different from the short Olympic tournament style.

BTW if there was an Olympic event for one-on-one basketball play, that would be a different matter. Perhaps it’s a good idea to recommend such a sport to the IOC.

Sadly it does happen in individual sports. I simply believe it is more prevalent in team sports, maybe because (speculating) they are more conducive to spectating, but I think its because spectators more naturally identify with a team from their nation/state/city than with individual athletes.

So does the entire Olympics. But to be more pertinent, setting up and maintaining venues for team sports involves a large commitment of resources than individual sports. This is why, e.g., the IOC today decided to drop Baseball and Softball from the 2012 games (they’re already out for 2008); London would have to build a facility for baseball that wouldn’t get much other use (witness the Olympic Baseball Centre built for the 2004 games: Two stadia built at the Hellenico Olympic Complex outside Athens that are used today only for the occasional small outdoor music concert).

You’ve pretty much summed up what I mean by “jingoism”. The idea that the US won the tournament because American values value the spirit of the rules more than the letter of the law is difficult to support.

The Soviets team was a powerhouse; they defeated a team of NHL all-stars the previous year, shuting them out in the final game of the series. But the romantic notion that a bunch of college scrubs felled the world’s greatest team through sheer pluck and determination is misguided. Coach Herb Brooks spent a year-and-a-half nurturing the team. He held numerous tryout camps, which included psychological testing, before selecting a roster from several hundred prospects. The team then spent four months playing a grinding schedule of exhibition games across Europe and North America; five of his players would later have impressive NHL careers. Yes, the Americans were underdogs, but they were a competitive underdog; many prognosticators though they could medal at the games.

5

You say this like it means something. So what? Does that make Michael Jordan less of a great basketball player? No. You’re defining things as important that are not important. Or at least, aren’t to anyone but you. Ergo, the solution is just to not watch the team sports.

Anyway, in the '04 Olypmics, the two most exciting sports were team table tennis and beach volleyball. They not only demonstrated athleticism and skill but it was impossible to watch most matches calmly in your seat (despite not actually giving a shit about who actually won). Any rubric which would exclude these sports from competition is one I cannot get behind.

–Cliffy

6

I’ve pointed out several reasons why team sport competition as staged in the Olympics does not seem to reward the best competitors in that sport. I’m defining the importance of that based on the Olympic charter, a charter that promotes, among other things, “the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.” To summarize, I do not believe team events as they are generally staged in the Olympics meet this ideal.

Changing the way the Olympics stage team sports is an excellent option-- something like a World Cup format for example, where teams play in sanctioned international competition for months prior to the final World Cup events.

Finally, I acknowledge that compared the scope of questions usually posted on this board–covering politics, religion, and social issues–this question is not even close. I agree that my particular problems with team sports in the Olympics can be solved by just not watching, just as your particular problems with this topic can be solved by just not posting.

They probably were exciting (though there are other factors at work I think in the scantily-clad sport of beach volleyball). I’ll also concede my argument is less effect
with these team sports, and that my objections may be a matter of degree based on the presumed cohesiveness of a particular team and the ability to judge whether head-to-head competition in a limited amount of time is a fair way to judge who’s best.

7

As primarily a team sport fan I wouldn’t miss the Olympics at all if they folded up shop tomorrow, Having said that, team sport results of team sport tournaments conducted over a two week period every four years are probably much more random then the results would be if the competitors played the typical 3-4 month regular season of team sports. The Olympics pretend that the winner of the games is the best, not just the luckiest or the one who got hot for 2 weeks at the right time.

If we have to have the Olympics - and again I say do away with them altogether - I’d like them more as competitions between individuals rather than as teams pretending to be representing countries.

8

On reflection, this thread might be better suited to Cafe Society; I’ve ping a mod to move this…

9

Unless you have a cite, there’s simply no reason to believe this is true.

But that’s not how the Olympics are run at all. The Olympics are in fact MORE fair than the NCAA tournament, since their team events are generally not just single elimination systems. The Olympics DO, despite your implication that they don’t, have a long and involved process of weeding out most of the teams - it happens before the opening ceremonies, during the various stages of qualification. That’s why you aren’t going to see Team Korea play hockey in Turin.

Gosh, why? That’s considered “Fair” only because it’s the only way tennis has ever been run. It doesn’t strike me as being any fairer than single elimination tournaments in team sport.

Again, without any sort of objective evidence, there’s no particular reason to believe this. The absolute, no questions asked, #1 most popular sport at the Winter Olympics is figure skating, which is half made up of individual events; the most famous Winter Olympians of all time number many figure skaters, such as Brian Boitano and Katarina Witt. The national pride invested in those competitions is remarkably fierce.

And what event at the Summer Games is bigger than the 100m dash?

The IOC already cut baseball and softball beginning in 2012; they are not out of the 2008 games. The recent decision was merely to reaffirm the 2012 cut.

10

Off to Cafe Society at the request of the OP.

11

In fact, there’s a good, logical reason to believe the opposite.

A single player on the favoured team having a bad day probably won’t lead to an upset (it can, but it probably WON’T) - the rest of the team can pick up the slack and an alternate can be switched in.

The favoured contestant in a solo competition having a bad day will likely lead to an upset, since there’s no team to pick up his slack, or alternate to take his place.

12

Well, you I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My fault, most likely, so I’ll try again. The Soviet Union’s hckey team was made up of players who had been playing “amateur” hockey for years. Most of the team had played in the 76 Olympics. A couple had played in '72. Nowadays, we shrug at this. Back then, it was clearly a violation of the spirit of the amateur rules. All of the Americans were actually amateurs. They played hockey in college. They were in the NHL for the 84 Olympics (and therefore ineligible), and in high school for the 76 Olympics. It’s true they weren’t “scrubs.” They were a great team of amateurs who beat a better team of professionals.

13

Sorry, but I’m going to have to call BS on this.

The US team lost 10-3 against the Russians a few weeks before the Olympic games. They were seeded 7th out of 12 teams. That doesn’t speak of a ‘competitive underdog’ or one that people thought could medal (I wonder if one, let along ‘many’, thought the US would medal at the 1980 games).

As for being ‘competitive underdogs’, the day before the match, Dave Anderson, a New York Times columnist said: “Unless the ice melts, or unless the United States team or another team performs a miracle, as did the American squad in 1960, the Russians are expected to win the Olympic gold medal for the sixth time in the last seven tournaments.”

There is a reason it was called the “Miracle on Ice”. It wasn’t hyperbole.

14

I’m in favor of it, though my reasons are much more aesthetic. My favorite events are those such as track and field, swimming and diving, weightlifting, men’s (and some women’s) gymnastics, wrestling, boxing, and so on. I want to see exhibitions of pure athletic skill – strength, speed, agility, and endurance – and the beauty of a finely-honed human body in motion, not how well five basketball players can put a ball through a hoop.

And we should ditch the winter olympics, too.

15

Says the guy who clearly hasn’t seen a zone defense in action or a perfectly excuted alli oop. There’s more to basketball than a bunch a guys running around chucking a ball at a hoop.

16

And the Winter Games are FAR better than the Summer Games, so he’s wrong on that count as well! :stuck_out_tongue:

17

I’ve seen 'em. I don’t deny that one must be exceptionally fit to compete in team sports at the Olympic level. It’s just that winning at team sports relies just as much on strategy and teamwork as it does on physical prowess, and I’m primarily interested in the latter.

Ahem. Bundled-up bobsledders vs. visible (and delectable) muscularity? I rest my case.

18

I watch for sport. If I wanted to see muscles, I’d be watching bodybuilding. No thanks.

19

I’lI agree it was an improbable victory–although Brooks himself was talking bronze prior to the Olympics and the Americans (despite the seeding) were essentially playing on home ice.

The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is how such events lead to jingoism. The Americans won because they played harder and picked up more lucky breaks (that too is a part of team sports), not because capitalism is inherently better than communism.

20

I mean of course that upsets in single matches are more prevalent in team competitions that individual ones. “Upset” may perhaps be too strong a term; in short the better team loses games far more often than the better individual player. If not, why do many team sports (baseball, basketball, hockey) play series of games in their playoff rounds as opposed to single elimination? They do it because to many factors other than athleticism determine the outcome of individual games; the hope is that over a 5 or 7 game series the luck evens out.

True, a sport like Olympic hockey is not judged by a single-elimination tournament. In this year’s Olympics, 12 teams have berths to Torino; these are divided into groups of 6, and each team is guaranteed 5 games. The top 2 in each group advance to single-elimination medal rounds.

The method of choosing these 12 teams is not as long and involved as you think. First of all, the host nation receives an automatic berth. Eight teams are chosen based on international standings at the end of 2004–and yes the yearly IIHF championship tournament heavily influences these standings–while three others can play-in by winning certain sanctioned tournaments. But how stable are these teams? About half the players on the 2004 USA hockey team are on the current Olympic roster (be warned–doc file). I guess I have to wonder just how coherent these teams are; are we really just “rooting for laundry”, as Jerry Seinfeld used to say?

Anybody chanting “USA! USA!” at the figure skating events you’ve seen? Also, if the teams in team sports aren’t meant to be identified with paticular nations, why does only one team from each nation compete? Three American women (Sasha Cohen, Michelle Kwan, and Kim Meissner) are competing for the US in figure skating. Given the popularity of hockey in Canada, why aren’t their, say, two teams from Canada in the Olympics?

Figure skating is the most popular Winter Olympic sport. To underscore the point that team sports promote a greater jingoism, I’m sure many Americans remember individual athletes like Brian Boitano and Katarina Witt, though I wonder how commonly known their nationalities are. On the contrary, everybody knows who won Ice Hockey gold at the 1980 games, but how many can name a single player from the “Miracle on Ice” 1980 US Olympic team?

Absolutely correct; my mistake (and I claim to be a baseball fan:))