Why are the olympics offered as sports options at American schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:China has a national program that screens toddlers for talent and then deveelops it till their olympic debut. I think the US isnt that pressed.

They still only are "Mama huhu" (so so in Mandarin) given their total population. I'm not convinced that is an optimal strategy and is highly likely to be corrupt. Much in the way elite Chinese families buy portfolios, because there are no standardized tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO The Olympics are way to euro centric. Why don't the European teams compete as the "Eurozone" or something. Or conversely why can't we send a delegation for each state.

The problem is that for Americans there are very few Olympians. Our swim club had someone that passed the time trials, but didn't get a spot for example.

I personally would prefer to see the Olympics receive less attention. Why don't cities have sport swim teams that compete with each other? For example.

In the world thought there are only a few money sports, soccer, NFL, basketball, cricket maybe tennis or ice hockey.

Which basically means yeah everything else is a country club sport. No, I don't want to sponsor country club kids to go to the Olympics.

How are they euro-centric?

It's difficult to explain in so many words but consider the history of the Olympics when it was started who started it and what the early games consist of. Oh let's watch the Swiss volley ball team. Europe is a collection of small countries and gets to send more competitors than they actually deserve. I stated it above. There are many Americans that qualify but don't get to go.

The Greek basketball, Serbian basketball.... etc. Why can't we send Golden State the Mavericks and the Celtics? That would be interesting. We could sweep the metals.

Than they deserve? So you think less populated countries should send fewer athletes? For example, tiny countries only deserve to send one if any, but China has four times the population of the USA so it deserves to send four times the number of athletes.

The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, has a lucrative college sports system that fosters and develops talent, and has a large population that provides a great talent pool. That is a huge advantage over small countries but you still think their athletes don’t deserve the chance to compete. Sorry Slovakia, you don’t deserve your one Olympic medal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO The Olympics are way to euro centric. Why don't the European teams compete as the "Eurozone" or something. Or conversely why can't we send a delegation for each state.

The problem is that for Americans there are very few Olympians. Our swim club had someone that passed the time trials, but didn't get a spot for example.

I personally would prefer to see the Olympics receive less attention. Why don't cities have sport swim teams that compete with each other? For example.

In the world thought there are only a few money sports, soccer, NFL, basketball, cricket maybe tennis or ice hockey.

Which basically means yeah everything else is a country club sport. No, I don't want to sponsor country club kids to go to the Olympics.

How are they euro-centric?

It's difficult to explain in so many words but consider the history of the Olympics when it was started who started it and what the early games consist of. Oh let's watch the Swiss volley ball team. Europe is a collection of small countries and gets to send more competitors than they actually deserve. I stated it above. There are many Americans that qualify but don't get to go.

The Greek basketball, Serbian basketball.... etc. Why can't we send Golden State the Mavericks and the Celtics? That would be interesting. We could sweep the metals.

Than they deserve? So you think less populated countries should send fewer athletes? For example, tiny countries only deserve to send one if any, but China has four times the population of the USA so it deserves to send four times the number of athletes.

The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, has a lucrative college sports system that fosters and develops talent, and has a large population that provides a great talent pool. That is a huge advantage over small countries but you still think their athletes don’t deserve the chance to compete. Sorry Slovakia, you don’t deserve your one Olympic medal.

I don't think at the tip top level the process would be all that different. EG Gold goes to the best in the world. Not saying if the US could send more, we would get more metals.

The thing is it's just not as interesting to Americans, if they don't get to go even if they can beat every person in Slovakia. It just isn't as an attractive endeavor. Sorry, but Europe can't get it together to have one country, so you have to sit out. You train since you were five make Olympic qualifying times, but don't get to go. That one year that they have it.

Sports where that is the only goal are specious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO The Olympics are way to euro centric. Why don't the European teams compete as the "Eurozone" or something. Or conversely why can't we send a delegation for each state.

The problem is that for Americans there are very few Olympians. Our swim club had someone that passed the time trials, but didn't get a spot for example.

I personally would prefer to see the Olympics receive less attention. Why don't cities have sport swim teams that compete with each other? For example.

In the world thought there are only a few money sports, soccer, NFL, basketball, cricket maybe tennis or ice hockey.

Which basically means yeah everything else is a country club sport. No, I don't want to sponsor country club kids to go to the Olympics.

How are they euro-centric?

It's difficult to explain in so many words but consider the history of the Olympics when it was started who started it and what the early games consist of. Oh let's watch the Swiss volley ball team. Europe is a collection of small countries and gets to send more competitors than they actually deserve. I stated it above. There are many Americans that qualify but don't get to go.

The Greek basketball, Serbian basketball.... etc. Why can't we send Golden State the Mavericks and the Celtics? That would be interesting. We could sweep the metals.

Than they deserve? So you think less populated countries should send fewer athletes? For example, tiny countries only deserve to send one if any, but China has four times the population of the USA so it deserves to send four times the number of athletes.

The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, has a lucrative college sports system that fosters and develops talent, and has a large population that provides a great talent pool. That is a huge advantage over small countries but you still think their athletes don’t deserve the chance to compete. Sorry Slovakia, you don’t deserve your one Olympic medal.

I don't think at the tip top level the process would be all that different. EG Gold goes to the best in the world. Not saying if the US could send more, we would get more metals.

The thing is it's just not as interesting to Americans, if they don't get to go even if they can beat every person in Slovakia. It just isn't as an attractive endeavor. Sorry, but Europe can't get it together to have one country, so you have to sit out. You train since you were five make Olympic qualifying times, but don't get to go. That one year that they have it.

Sports where that is the only goal are specious.

I really don’t understand what you are saying. So it should just be a competition between continents? Why are you focused on Europe? Plenty of smaller countries in the world, many with athletes who beat their American counterparts. You want to reduce high level competition? Make NZ and Australia send fewer athletes too even though they proportionately won more medals than the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO The Olympics are way to euro centric. Why don't the European teams compete as the "Eurozone" or something. Or conversely why can't we send a delegation for each state.

The problem is that for Americans there are very few Olympians. Our swim club had someone that passed the time trials, but didn't get a spot for example.

I personally would prefer to see the Olympics receive less attention. Why don't cities have sport swim teams that compete with each other? For example.

In the world thought there are only a few money sports, soccer, NFL, basketball, cricket maybe tennis or ice hockey.

Which basically means yeah everything else is a country club sport. No, I don't want to sponsor country club kids to go to the Olympics.

How are they euro-centric?

It's difficult to explain in so many words but consider the history of the Olympics when it was started who started it and what the early games consist of. Oh let's watch the Swiss volley ball team. Europe is a collection of small countries and gets to send more competitors than they actually deserve. I stated it above. There are many Americans that qualify but don't get to go.

The Greek basketball, Serbian basketball.... etc. Why can't we send Golden State the Mavericks and the Celtics? That would be interesting. We could sweep the metals.

Than they deserve? So you think less populated countries should send fewer athletes? For example, tiny countries only deserve to send one if any, but China has four times the population of the USA so it deserves to send four times the number of athletes.

The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, has a lucrative college sports system that fosters and develops talent, and has a large population that provides a great talent pool. That is a huge advantage over small countries but you still think their athletes don’t deserve the chance to compete. Sorry Slovakia, you don’t deserve your one Olympic medal.

I don't think at the tip top level the process would be all that different. EG Gold goes to the best in the world. Not saying if the US could send more, we would get more metals.

The thing is it's just not as interesting to Americans, if they don't get to go even if they can beat every person in Slovakia. It just isn't as an attractive endeavor. Sorry, but Europe can't get it together to have one country, so you have to sit out. You train since you were five make Olympic qualifying times, but don't get to go. That one year that they have it.

Sports where that is the only goal are specious.

I really don’t understand what you are saying. So it should just be a competition between continents? Why are you focused on Europe? Plenty of smaller countries in the world, many with athletes who beat their American counterparts. You want to reduce high level competition? Make NZ and Australia send fewer athletes too even though they proportionately won more medals than the US?

Just isn't very interesting to Americans. I mean why is there not interstate competition for swimming. That would be interesting.

[Anonymous]

My cousin competed at the Olympics this year in track. She started in high school and continued in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO The Olympics are way to euro centric. Why don't the European teams compete as the "Eurozone" or something. Or conversely why can't we send a delegation for each state.

The problem is that for Americans there are very few Olympians. Our swim club had someone that passed the time trials, but didn't get a spot for example.

I personally would prefer to see the Olympics receive less attention. Why don't cities have sport swim teams that compete with each other? For example.

In the world thought there are only a few money sports, soccer, NFL, basketball, cricket maybe tennis or ice hockey.

Which basically means yeah everything else is a country club sport. No, I don't want to sponsor country club kids to go to the Olympics.

How are they euro-centric?

It's difficult to explain in so many words but consider the history of the Olympics when it was started who started it and what the early games consist of. Oh let's watch the Swiss volley ball team. Europe is a collection of small countries and gets to send more competitors than they actually deserve. I stated it above. There are many Americans that qualify but don't get to go.

The Greek basketball, Serbian basketball.... etc. Why can't we send Golden State the Mavericks and the Celtics? That would be interesting. We could sweep the metals.

Than they deserve? So you think less populated countries should send fewer athletes? For example, tiny countries only deserve to send one if any, but China has four times the population of the USA so it deserves to send four times the number of athletes.

The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, has a lucrative college sports system that fosters and develops talent, and has a large population that provides a great talent pool. That is a huge advantage over small countries but you still think their athletes don’t deserve the chance to compete. Sorry Slovakia, you don’t deserve your one Olympic medal.

I don't think at the tip top level the process would be all that different. EG Gold goes to the best in the world. Not saying if the US could send more, we would get more metals.

The thing is it's just not as interesting to Americans, if they don't get to go even if they can beat every person in Slovakia. It just isn't as an attractive endeavor. Sorry, but Europe can't get it together to have one country, so you have to sit out. You train since you were five make Olympic qualifying times, but don't get to go. That one year that they have it.

Sports where that is the only goal are specious.

I really don’t understand what you are saying. So it should just be a competition between continents? Why are you focused on Europe? Plenty of smaller countries in the world, many with athletes who beat their American counterparts. You want to reduce high level competition? Make NZ and Australia send fewer athletes too even though they proportionately won more medals than the US?

Just isn't very interesting to Americans. I mean why is there not interstate competition for swimming. That would be interesting.

Wouldn’t that be uninteresting for precisely the reason you say the Olympics aren’t interesting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO The Olympics are way to euro centric. Why don't the European teams compete as the "Eurozone" or something. Or conversely why can't we send a delegation for each state.

The problem is that for Americans there are very few Olympians. Our swim club had someone that passed the time trials, but didn't get a spot for example.

I personally would prefer to see the Olympics receive less attention. Why don't cities have sport swim teams that compete with each other? For example.

In the world thought there are only a few money sports, soccer, NFL, basketball, cricket maybe tennis or ice hockey.

Which basically means yeah everything else is a country club sport. No, I don't want to sponsor country club kids to go to the Olympics.

How are they euro-centric?

It's difficult to explain in so many words but consider the history of the Olympics when it was started who started it and what the early games consist of. Oh let's watch the Swiss volley ball team. Europe is a collection of small countries and gets to send more competitors than they actually deserve. I stated it above. There are many Americans that qualify but don't get to go.

The Greek basketball, Serbian basketball.... etc. Why can't we send Golden State the Mavericks and the Celtics? That would be interesting. We could sweep the metals.

Than they deserve? So you think less populated countries should send fewer athletes? For example, tiny countries only deserve to send one if any, but China has four times the population of the USA so it deserves to send four times the number of athletes.

The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, has a lucrative college sports system that fosters and develops talent, and has a large population that provides a great talent pool. That is a huge advantage over small countries but you still think their athletes don’t deserve the chance to compete. Sorry Slovakia, you don’t deserve your one Olympic medal.

I don't think at the tip top level the process would be all that different. EG Gold goes to the best in the world. Not saying if the US could send more, we would get more metals.

The thing is it's just not as interesting to Americans, if they don't get to go even if they can beat every person in Slovakia. It just isn't as an attractive endeavor. Sorry, but Europe can't get it together to have one country, so you have to sit out. You train since you were five make Olympic qualifying times, but don't get to go. That one year that they have it.

Sports where that is the only goal are specious.

I really don’t understand what you are saying. So it should just be a competition between continents? Why are you focused on Europe? Plenty of smaller countries in the world, many with athletes who beat their American counterparts. You want to reduce high level competition? Make NZ and Australia send fewer athletes too even though they proportionately won more medals than the US?

Just isn't very interesting to Americans. I mean why is there not interstate competition for swimming. That would be interesting.

Wouldn’t that be uninteresting for precisely the reason you say the Olympics aren’t interesting?

No, the audience appears to be particularly dense here.

The problem is the number of Americans participating in the Olympics is so small relative to the size of the population, and many qualified are excluded. Vanishingly small. More teams more people involved would mean would solve that problem. At least for some regions in the US. It means something when someone in your town makes it. Oh, we had an Olympic qualifier, but he didn't get to go. Try again in another four. Wah Wah Olympics suck. Take the NBA it has a robust league, no one really cares that much about the gold metal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO The Olympics are way to euro centric. Why don't the European teams compete as the "Eurozone" or something. Or conversely why can't we send a delegation for each state.

The problem is that for Americans there are very few Olympians. Our swim club had someone that passed the time trials, but didn't get a spot for example.

I personally would prefer to see the Olympics receive less attention. Why don't cities have sport swim teams that compete with each other? For example.

In the world thought there are only a few money sports, soccer, NFL, basketball, cricket maybe tennis or ice hockey.

Which basically means yeah everything else is a country club sport. No, I don't want to sponsor country club kids to go to the Olympics.

How are they euro-centric?

It's difficult to explain in so many words but consider the history of the Olympics when it was started who started it and what the early games consist of. Oh let's watch the Swiss volley ball team. Europe is a collection of small countries and gets to send more competitors than they actually deserve. I stated it above. There are many Americans that qualify but don't get to go.

The Greek basketball, Serbian basketball.... etc. Why can't we send Golden State the Mavericks and the Celtics? That would be interesting. We could sweep the metals.

Than they deserve? So you think less populated countries should send fewer athletes? For example, tiny countries only deserve to send one if any, but China has four times the population of the USA so it deserves to send four times the number of athletes.

The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, has a lucrative college sports system that fosters and develops talent, and has a large population that provides a great talent pool. That is a huge advantage over small countries but you still think their athletes don’t deserve the chance to compete. Sorry Slovakia, you don’t deserve your one Olympic medal.

I don't think at the tip top level the process would be all that different. EG Gold goes to the best in the world. Not saying if the US could send more, we would get more metals.

The thing is it's just not as interesting to Americans, if they don't get to go even if they can beat every person in Slovakia. It just isn't as an attractive endeavor. Sorry, but Europe can't get it together to have one country, so you have to sit out. You train since you were five make Olympic qualifying times, but don't get to go. That one year that they have it.

Sports where that is the only goal are specious.

I really don’t understand what you are saying. So it should just be a competition between continents? Why are you focused on Europe? Plenty of smaller countries in the world, many with athletes who beat their American counterparts. You want to reduce high level competition? Make NZ and Australia send fewer athletes too even though they proportionately won more medals than the US?

Just isn't very interesting to Americans. I mean why is there not interstate competition for swimming. That would be interesting.

Wouldn’t that be uninteresting for precisely the reason you say the Olympics aren’t interesting?

No, the audience appears to be particularly dense here.

The problem is the number of Americans participating in the Olympics is so small relative to the size of the population, and many qualified are excluded. Vanishingly small. More teams more people involved would mean would solve that problem. At least for some regions in the US. It means something when someone in your town makes it. Oh, we had an Olympic qualifier, but he didn't get to go. Try again in another four. Wah Wah Olympics suck. Take the NBA it has a robust league, no one really cares that much about the gold metal.

Do you are basically saying that instead of allowing equal participation between countries regardless of size or wealth, the Olympics should be organised around what appeals to an American audience?

And you would be happy if there were 4 times as many Chinese athletes since China has a much bigger population.