Olympics: Eliminate Team sports

[even_sven]

@CJJ*

This response is somewhat similar to ones I hear from professional wrestling fans when it’s pointed out the pro wrestling is not a sport. I know we live in a society that routinely churns out brainwashed consumers who think (in the immortal words of Homer Simpson) “it’s better to watch stuff than to do stuff”, but for those of us who don’t think “the human drama of athletic competition” is just a Wide World of Sports cliche, I’d like sporting achievement to have a personal and real meaning beyond what thrills the couch potato channel flipper. If that’s too “crackpot” for you, so be it.

So you don’t feel like an Olympic medal has “personal and real” meaning to an Olympic basketball player?

[RickJay]

@CJJ*

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?

Because they make more money that way, of course. I mean, in all seriousness, that is exactly the #1 reason.

The modern convention of “best four out of seven” to decide a championship was pretty much started in Major League Baseball, and was picked up by the NBA and NHL. But that’s a North American convention; soccer championships in Europe, for instance, are customarily single match contests because, well, they’ve always done it that way.

Anybody chanting “USA! USA!” at the figure skating events you’ve seen?

I’ve heard that, yes.

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?

But Cohen, Kwan (or her replacement) and Meissner are specifically allowed to compete because **Team USA ** was permitted three participants. The reason Canada cannot send two teams is because it would be logistically stupid. You’re reading nationalist intent into a lot of situations with more pedestrian explanations. There are in fact other team Olympic sports where nations can send more than one team - in sports where the teams don’t have 23 members.

There’s also, practically speaking, a desire on the part of the Olympics not to have Canada win gold AND silver in hockey, which is a possibility if you allow nations to send multiple teams; Canada could easily staff two contending teams, just as the USA could possibly win all three basketball medals (despite the 2004 fiasco) or Brazil could win two soccer medals, etc. etc. It would be a PR and ratings disaster for the Olympics to have a Canada versus Canada gold medal game. Why would they want something like that? For the same reason, I’m beginning to question the worthiness of women’s hockey as an Olympic sport; I like the idea of supporting women’s hockey and I hope it succeeds, but if we keep seeing these 12-0 massacres every four years it’s going to get real old real fast.

[RickJay]

@CJJ*

32 teams will compete over a one month period, compared to the 12 invited to, say, Olympic Ice Hockey for the 2 weeks the sport is played. Qualifying for the 2006 World Cup has taken place over the latter half of the past year. In the North American region, for example, six teams played a total of 10 matches apiece to send four of the six into the tournament of 32 in Germany. Turning to the more competitive European region, I believe ~48 teams competed in eight groupings to send (I believe) 14 teams to the finals.

I find this distinction extremely dubious. The World Cup involves 32 teams because it has for years and because it’s logically possible. But the fact remains that Brazil has a chance to win the Cup, and Senegal does not. It’s nice of them to invite Senegal, but you and I know it’s not going to seriously impact the odds of Brazil winning, just as we both know the British national hockey team is not going to threaten Canada or Sweden at the Turin Olympics, were they to be allowed to play.

[ISiddiqui]

@RickJay

But that’s a North American convention; soccer championships in Europe, for instance, are customarily single match contests because, well, they’ve always done it that way.

Slight nitpick. In the earlier rounds of soccer championships, it is usually a home-and-home playoff with the team with the highest aggregate score moves on (if the agg score is tied, it goes to away goals and then a number of different tie breakers).

[ISiddiqui]

@RickJay

I find this distinction extremely dubious. The World Cup involves 32 teams because it has for years and because it’s logically possible. But the fact remains that Brazil has a chance to win the Cup, and Senegal does not. It’s nice of them to invite Senegal, but you and I know it’s not going to seriously impact the odds of Brazil winning, just as we both know the British national hockey team is not going to threaten Canada or Sweden at the Turin Olympics, were they to be allowed to play.

Actually, interestingly enough, it’s only been 32 teams for the last three WC’s (including Germany 2006). FIFA has done that to include more teams around the world and add an international flavor. It was 24 before that (since 1982). And before 1982, the World Cup was 16 teams! I imagine the Olympics have a comparable number of teams in Olympic soccer. So it seems a silly complaint. The number of teams were added, basically, to increase interest in the sport around the world (and money reasons).

[CJJ]

I’ve been truly interested in the various responses on this thread, enough to rethink my original position. I think it is a matter of degrees in deciding how team sports should be organized for the Olympics. I still do not believe team sports where there’s little requirement or incentive for a team to remain relatively intact thru the entire process–qualifying and the finals–are much of an Olympic sport. I also stand by the charge that jingoism increases with team sports, but this was never the main reason I thought these sports should be dropped from the Olympics.

Nevertheless, as RickJay noted, the money associated with some of these team events makes change unlikely. I also appreciate ISiddiqui’s review of World Cup soccer qualifying history. It seems to me FIFA has organized the World Cup very well, and since they also run the qualifying for Olympic soccer, why not just have another World Cup in 2008 and just call it “the Olympics”:)?

[BobT]

FIFA and the Olympics don’t like each other much and there is only soccer in the Olympics quite begrudgingly on FIFA’s part. FIFA likes the World Cup because that is the Golden Goose. The Olympic soccer tournament for men is limited to players 23 and under. (It’s wide open for women since the talent level isn’t as deep.) The IOC would love to have FIFA sanction a wide open tournament for men in the Olympics, but that ain’t gonna happen.

The Olympic Soccer tournament since it has a much shorter time span (two weeks with some matches being played before the Opening Ceremonies) only invites 16 teams. The schedule is pretty brutal. And unlike other Olympic events, the matches aren’t all held in the host city. They are usually spread out through the whole host country with the final rounds in the host city.

[ISiddiqui]

FIFA does the tourney in conjunction with the Olympics already. The Olympics have awarded medals to soccer since 1908 and seems to enjoy having soccer as one of its sports. And it isn’t another “World Cup”, because, like I said, Olympic soccer is basically a U-23 league (though 3 players who are over 23 years old can be on the team).