So the IOC is just considering proposals from a bunch of different sports such as BMX street bike, mountain bike races, 50M butterfly, back and breast (currently only 50M free), etc.

I think 3 on 3 Basketball could be very successful and get good TV ratings. My main concern would be how both the 3 on 3 and the full team basketball would probably be diluted since the athletes would have to split (assuming the schedule isn't redone to allow participation in both somehow, which would be difficult just because of the length of the full team basketball tournament).

http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/9148662/olympics-mulling-addition-3-3-basketball-bmx

what a joke, bmx and mountain biking, 3 on 3 but no wrestling?? and i hate wrestling

3 on 3 basketball? Hahah, no thanks.

I doubt they would split up players. The real players would play regular 5 on 5, and the 3 on 3 would be filled with the best street ballers.

WebFire;1422132 wrote:3 on 3 basketball? Hahah, no thanks.

I doubt they would split up players. The real players would play regular 5 on 5, and the 3 on 3 would be filled with the best street ballers.

You really don't think some of the top NBA players would opt to do the 3 on 3 in order to take a break from the 5 on 5 team basketball that they just got done playing for months?

Fly4Fun;1422138 wrote:You really don't think some of the top NBA players would opt to do the 3 on 3 in order to take a break from the 5 on 5 team basketball that they just got done playing for months?

No I don't. Doesn't mean I'm right, but I don't think they would.

fuck with a capital F the IOC

Would love to watch 3 on 3

So they drop the oldest sport, to add new invented sports? As I said before, the IOC can go fuck themselves.

Completely stupid. You don't replace wrestling with fucking 3-on-3 basketball. What's next? 1-on-1? H-O-R-S-E? Sideline basketball? Knock-Out?

ernest_t_bass;1422159 wrote:Completely stupid. You don't replace wrestling with fucking 3-on-3 basketball. What's next? 1-on-1? H-O-R-S-E? Sideline basketball? Knock-Out?

Yes. Knockout!

ernest_t_bass;1422159 wrote:Completely stupid. You don't replace wrestling with ****ing 3-on-3 basketball. What's next? 1-on-1? H-O-R-S-E? Sideline basketball? Knock-Out?

cornhole

like_that;1422148 wrote:So they drop the oldest sport, to add new invented sports? As I said before, the IOC can go fuck themselves.

Pretty much. Fuck the Olympics; they've jumped the shark worse than the phrase "jump the shark".

ernest_t_bass;1422159 wrote:Completely stupid. You don't replace wrestling with fucking 3-on-3 basketball. What's next? 1-on-1? H-O-R-S-E? Sideline basketball? Knock-Out?

Flip cup and beer pong.

3 on 3 basketball, if they continue to use NBA players, would completely kill the competition.

If the USA sends their best, it's over.
If the USA doesn't send their best, people care a lot less.

It's a lose-lose situation. Why mess with one of the most popular events? I love the Olympics, but c'mon. Dropping softball, then wrestling, now this?

I figured a 3 on 3 game would have gotten a bit of a more positive reaction from the OC.

I was angry when they decided to drop wrestling as well. It is a "traditional" sport not only in the fact it's been in the modern games for forever but it brings it back to ancient times as well. There is no more "pure" competition than just you against someone else physically like in wrestling, running, swimming, etc.

But I think their move does have some merit if they truly did their diligence and looked at the TV numbers and just decided that the sport really wasn't garnering attention. The only match that I can even think of ever watching is Rulon Gardner vs. Karelin (bad ass Russian guy). What this does suggest though is maybe wrestling as it currently exists needs to take a look at it's rules and point scoring system and possibly make changes to make it a more viewer friendly sport.

For a sport to be successful and thrive, there has to be some entertainment value to it. Despite Track and Swimming being typically average sports for spectators (at best), they both do amazingly at the Olympics. I'm not saying wrestling needs to make itself as exciting as football, basketball, soccer, etc. But it needs to be intriguing enough that it can pull in viewers to see the top athletes once every four years (like Track events and Swimming).

Fly4Fun;1422270 wrote:I figured a 3 on 3 game would have gotten a bit of a more positive reaction from the OC.

I was angry when they decided to drop wrestling as well. It is a "traditional" sport not only in the fact it's been in the modern games for forever but it brings it back to ancient times as well. There is no more "pure" competition than just you against someone else physically like in wrestling, running, swimming, etc.

But I think their move does have some merit if they truly did their diligence and looked at the TV numbers and just decided that the sport really wasn't garnering attention. The only match that I can even think of ever watching is Rulon Gardner vs. Karelin (bad ass Russian guy). What this does suggest though is maybe wrestling as it currently exists needs to take a look at it's rules and point scoring system and possibly make changes to make it a more viewer friendly sport.

For a sport to be successful and thrive, there has to be some entertainment value to it. Despite Track and Swimming being typically average sports for spectators (at best), they both do amazingly at the Olympics. I'm not saying wrestling needs to make itself as exciting as football, basketball, soccer, etc. But it needs to be intriguing enough that it can pull in viewers to see the top athletes once every four years (like Track events and Swimming).

You are right, trampoline, speed walking, the modern pent, ping pong, badminton, syncho swimming are all more exciting than wrestling. :rolleyes:

i dont mind 3 on 3 i dont care if you add ten more sports..but in an age where you are cutting sports like wrestling it just seems stupid. i think you could add 3 on 3 using your regular olympic team players. just like in tennis you play singles and doubles. half court 3 on 3 is not that taxing

like_that;1422272 wrote:You are right, trampoline, speed walking, the modern pent, ping pong, badminton, syncho swimming are all more exciting than wrestling. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I hate those activities. I would prefer for those to be gone from a standpoint that I hesitate to even call those sports or put them in the same event (Olympics) as real sports. But if they are garnering more attention from viewers then from a business standpoint then it makes sense.

But I do think that the IOC needs to be careful with adding too many fringe "sports" like that as it at least brings down the credibility and mystique of winning an Olympic medal in my mind.

Fly4Fun;1422270 wrote:I figured a 3 on 3 game would have gotten a bit of a more positive reaction from the OC.

I was angry when they decided to drop wrestling as well. It is a "traditional" sport not only in the fact it's been in the modern games for forever but it brings it back to ancient times as well. There is no more "pure" competition than just you against someone else physically like in wrestling, running, swimming, etc.

But I think their move does have some merit if they truly did their diligence and looked at the TV numbers and just decided that the sport really wasn't garnering attention. The only match that I can even think of ever watching is Rulon Gardner vs. Karelin (bad ass Russian guy). What this does suggest though is maybe wrestling as it currently exists needs to take a look at it's rules and point scoring system and possibly make changes to make it a more viewer friendly sport.

For a sport to be successful and thrive, there has to be some entertainment value to it. Despite Track and Swimming being typically average sports for spectators (at best), they both do amazingly at the Olympics. I'm not saying wrestling needs to make itself as exciting as football, basketball, soccer, etc. But it needs to be intriguing enough that it can pull in viewers to see the top athletes once every four years (like Track events and Swimming).

The Olympics shouldn't be about revenue. Of course they want to take a loss, but that right there is the problem.

WebFire;1422279 wrote:The Olympics shouldn't be about revenue. Of course they want to take a loss, but that right there is the problem.

With as big as it is, and as much money goes into putting on a single Olympics, it would be ridiculous to even suggest that revenue shouldn't be a factor.

No baseball, no softball, no wrestling....but the IOC wants to consider 3 on 3?....F 'em.

Fly4Fun;1422282 wrote:With as big as it is, and as much money goes into putting on a single Olympics, it would be ridiculous to even suggest that revenue shouldn't be a factor.

It should be a factor only in not taking loss, like I said. They didn't cut wrestling because they were LOSING money, they cut it because it wasn't MAKING them money. Goes against the spirit of the Olympics, IMO. Making them a revenue sport leads to this kind of shit.

WebFire;1422295 wrote:It should be a factor only in not taking loss, like I said. They didn't cut wrestling because they were LOSING money, they cut it because it wasn't MAKING them money. Goes against the spirit of the Olympics, IMO. Making them a revenue sport leads to this kind of shit.

I'm not privilege to the workings of the entire discussion when they eliminate sports. I'm just relating the little information I remember reading. I know of the recent eliminations of sports they have been for 1 of 2 reasons. I believe Softball was eliminated because of a lack of competitiveness and interest from most countries (aside from a few including USA, Canada and Australia). And I believe the wrestling elimination when it was explained came along with a mention about lack of viewer interest (TV ratings).

As far as some of the other "sports" mentioned that are included such as table tennis, badminton, sychronized swimming, there is pretty good competitive balance and a lot of interest from other countries. We, Americans, however don't see the value in those and are subsequently outraged with a situation like this.

I personally think wrestling still should be included, I'm just saying, I don't think this was a decision done out of spite without considering relevant factors.

WebFire;1422295 wrote:It should be a factor only in not taking loss, like I said. They didn't cut wrestling because they were LOSING money, they cut it because it wasn't MAKING them money. Goes against the spirit of the Olympics, IMO. Making them a revenue sport leads to this kind of shit.

That's a bunch of bullshit. They are just spewing bs to hide their incompetence and how corrupt they are. You can't tell me that the sports I listed were actually making the Olympics money.

like_that;1422304 wrote:That's a bunch of bullshit. They are just spewing bs to hide their incompetence and how corrupt they are. You can't tell me that the sports I listed were actually making the Olympics money.

Really? Just because we don't appreciate a sport doesn't mean other cultures/countries don't. I know Asian countries are fanatics about table tennis and badminton (and even non-traditional gymnastic sports such as trampolining). European (specificall eastern european) countries love water based sports (water polo and synchronized swimming)Not everything is based upon American culture.