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.

No I don't think they are. And that's the way it should be. I don't think any of the sports should be cut because it doesn't generate revenue. Now if it's losing them money, then duh.

Fly4Fun;1422305 wrote: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.

And I'm on board with that. Just more reason I don't understand the wrestling cut, and adding something like 3 on 3. I find it hard to believe there is a huge market for 3 on 3 that makes them feel compelled to add it.

Fly4Fun;1422277 wrote:But if they are garnering more attention from viewers then from a business standpoint then it makes sense.

How much of this is a "chicken/egg" thing (or self-fulfilling prophecy...which might be more accurate), though? My perspective:

1. As a spectator sport, I'd think wrestling would have some appeal. Wrestling is one discipline that makes up MMA, which is pretty popular at this moment. It might not be the most beloved of those disciplines from a spectator standpoint (all the "lay-n-pray" comments directed towards wrestlers w/o much of a stand-up or submission game), but it is part of that sport and, as thus, I'd think it'd have a chance of drawing a crowd that might not have been so interested 20 years or more ago.

2. It hasn't gotten that chance. With the Olympics, you have a handful of sports they care about covering and everything else gets shunted off to lesser channels and/or those really early or late spots. Like with wrestling this past year...was that ever really on the prime time or big weekend time slots or was it more of one of those sports where if you want to watch it, you better be paying CLOSE attention to all TV listings to find where it was tucked away at? Seems to me that in recent Olympics, the only way I'd see wrestling would be if I specifically was looking to see when it was on. Just randomly turning on the TV gets you deluged with gymnastics, swimming, track, pro basketball and a select few others.

3. And let's not forget this: This past Olympics, the US won a total of 4 medals. Two gold, two bronze. Ranked fifth if you count gold first and use total as a tiebreaker; ranked sixth if you count total medals first. Nowhere near Russia's 11 and Azerbaijan's 7 and also behind Iran, Japan and Georgia. With our networks and with the tape delay format they had, that's about the kiss of death. You're just not going to get that much airtime dedicated to sporting events where we're not the top dog or one of the elite. The US networks want the US population to watch US athletes kicking ass (as well as guys who get tons of money from big US corporations, such as Usain Bolt). Not watching us getting beat by Russians or the BY-GOD-EVIL-IRANIANS-BY-GOD! That sort of shit doesn't lend itself to overly dramatic Bob Costas' feel-good features of heartwarming triumph over unspeakable odds.

To be honest, a lot of times I feel that with the Olympics, the network people are like: "Sports fans have all these pro and college seasons; the Olympics are not for them...they're for the housewives and casual fans who don't care about stats, wins and losses!" And so, we get tons of women's (uh...I mean teen girls with pre-teen bodies) gymnastics to go with features on stories like how some guy was motivated to medal because his sister has cancer. In that sort of situation, wrestling is fucked.

WebFire;1422307 wrote:And I'm on board with that. Just more reason I don't understand the wrestling cut, and adding something like 3 on 3. I find it hard to believe there is a huge market for 3 on 3 that makes them feel compelled to add it.

Basketball is seeing a lot of success in growth internationally. Europe has really come along and is competing close to the level in the US (their overall depth isn't there, but they definitely have stars as evidenced by their players being some of the more notable stars in the NBA). South America countries are right behind Europe as far as interest and growth. And then you have Asian countries (especially China) that love the sport. Their competition level isn't there yet, but they're trying to get better.

But basketball is seeing a lot of international growth, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to explore if it's possible to have another format for the sport.

Fly4Fun;1422305 wrote: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.

For many countries wrestling is part of their "main stream" sports. Wrestling is ranked 2nd for a lot of countries behind soccer. For Iran, wrestling IS their national sport. Please just stop pretending you know anything about this.

Heretic;1422312 wrote:How much of this is a "chicken/egg" thing (or self-fulfilling prophecy...which might be more accurate), though? My perspective:

1. As a spectator sport, I'd think wrestling would have some appeal. Wrestling is one discipline that makes up MMA, which is pretty popular at this moment. It might not be the most beloved of those disciplines from a spectator standpoint (all the "lay-n-pray" comments directed towards wrestlers w/o much of a stand-up or submission game), but it is part of that sport and, as thus, I'd think it'd have a chance of drawing a crowd that might not have been so interested 20 years or more ago.

2. It hasn't gotten that chance. With the Olympics, you have a handful of sports they care about covering and everything else gets shunted off to lesser channels and/or those really early or late spots. Like with wrestling this past year...was that ever really on the prime time or big weekend time slots or was it more of one of those sports where if you want to watch it, you better be paying CLOSE attention to all TV listings to find where it was tucked away at? Seems to me that in recent Olympics, the only way I'd see wrestling would be if I specifically was looking to see when it was on. Just randomly turning on the TV gets you deluged with gymnastics, swimming, track, pro basketball and a select few others.

3. And let's not forget this: This past Olympics, the US won a total of 4 medals. Two gold, two bronze. Ranked fifth if you count gold first and use total as a tiebreaker; ranked sixth if you count total medals first. Nowhere near Russia's 11 and Azerbaijan's 7 and also behind Iran, Japan and Georgia. With our networks and with the tape delay format they had, that's about the kiss of death. You're just not going to get that much airtime dedicated to sporting events where we're not the top dog or one of the elite. The US networks want the US population to watch US athletes kicking ass (as well as guys who get tons of money from big US corporations, such as Usain Bolt). Not watching us getting beat by Russians or the BY-GOD-EVIL-IRANIANS-BY-GOD! That sort of shit doesn't lend itself to overly dramatic Bob Costas' feel-good features of heartwarming triumph over unspeakable odds.

To be honest, a lot of times I feel that with the Olympics, the network people are like: "Sports fans have all these pro and college seasons; the Olympics are not for them...they're for the housewives and casual fans who don't care about stats, wins and losses!" And so, we get tons of women's (uh...I mean teen girls with pre-teen bodies) gymnastics to go with features on stories like how some guy was motivated to medal because his sister has cancer. In that sort of situation, wrestling is fucked.

1. I think you accurately pointed out one of the problems. There just isn’t enough “action” for a combat sport, which is why I suggested possibly changing up their point scoring and/or rules.
2. With regards to time slotting. They don’t make those decisions arbitrarily. The network would be absolutely idiotic if they did. They base it off of performance from previous years and possible story lines that could garner attention. For example, I think the Gardner v. Karelin match was actually played in prime time because of the great story lines. And also, there are sports that were getting crappy time slots but still garnering interest and doing well. Not everyone can be prime time.
3. I agree that a lack of US competitiveness in a sport will tend to dissuade US viewers. But some sports still get pretty good ratings despite that (such as diving, which I hate).

But I really do think the problem with wrestling is the lack of action in a combat sport. It’s just counter-intuitive.

Fly4Fun;1422313 wrote:Basketball is seeing a lot of success in growth internationally. Europe has really come along and is competing close to the level in the US (their overall depth isn't there, but they definitely have stars as evidenced by their players being some of the more notable stars in the NBA). South America countries are right behind Europe as far as interest and growth. And then you have Asian countries (especially China) that love the sport. Their competition level isn't there yet, but they're trying to get better.

But basketball is seeing a lot of international growth, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to explore if it's possible to have another format for the sport.

Ok, basketball is already an Olympic sport. What problem are they trying to solve? Can't remember the last time I saw 3 on 3 basketball on TV.

like_that;1422321 wrote:For many countries wrestling is part of their "main stream" sports. Wrestling is ranked 2nd for a lot of countries behind soccer. For Iran, wrestling IS their national sport. Please just stop pretending you know anything about this.

Oh, I don't doubt that wrestling is big in certain countries. And I do know it's big in middle eastern countries.

I understand there is anger, but I think it's funny that people act like the IOC did this out of spite towards the sport.

And like I've said I originally was confounded by the decision given the history in the modern olympics and actual history as well. I agree some of the sports you listed suck.

But I'm also not going to pretend like the world revolves around the US and that the IOC is run by complete idiots. I have to imagine they had a process and did this with a lot of thought (they didn't just draw a sport out of a hat). What would they have to gain by purposefully tanking the Olympics by cutting sports that are doing well?

If, however, there is some kind of huge financial scandal and bribes and such (i.e. payoffs from sporting organizations to get into the Olympics), then obviously they deserve to be persecuted (some kind of court and in the eyes of the world). But I think it's a little close minded to assume that they are doing this without legitimate reasons.

WebFire;1422326 wrote:Ok, basketball is already an Olympic sport. What problem are they trying to solve? Can't remember the last time I saw 3 on 3 basketball on TV.

The point is it is a vastly GROWING sport on an international scale all over the globe. If they have a format for another form of competition of that sport that would draw a fair amount of interest from fans, why not do it?

Fly4Fun;1422329 wrote:Oh, I don't doubt that wrestling is big in certain countries. And I do know it's big in middle eastern countries.

I understand there is anger, but I think it's funny that people act like the IOC did this out of spite towards the sport.

And like I've said I originally was confounded by the decision given the history in the modern olympics and actual history as well. I agree some of the sports you listed suck.

But I'm also not going to pretend like the world revolves around the US and that the IOC is run by complete idiots. I have to imagine they had a process and did this with a lot of thought (they didn't just draw a sport out of a hat). What would they have to gain by purposefully tanking the Olympics by cutting sports that are doing well?

If, however, there is some kind of huge financial scandal and bribes and such (i.e. payoffs from sporting organizations to get into the Olympics), then obviously they deserve to be persecuted (some kind of court and in the eyes of the world). But I think it's a little close minded to assume that they are doing this without legitimate reasons.

That's pretty cute you actually believe that.

like_that;1422334 wrote:That's pretty cute you actually believe that.

Ya, obviously ridiculous. The concept that people in a billion dollar organization would intentionally sabotage it should just be assumed, right?

I do allow for the idea that there could be corruption with bribes and certain members of the organization using slack to personally profit, but I believe most of that would probably revolve around awarding the site for the Olympics and not what sports are eliminated or added.

Not everything is based upon American culture.

Somebody tell me why baseball was dropped...Almost all of Europe, the Americas and the Pacific rim plays. Probably he only thing worse than the IOC is the NCAA.....it's all about money and exploitation of amatuer athletes.

Fly4Fun;1422338 wrote:Ya, obviously ridiculous. The concept that people in a billion dollar organization would intentionally sabotage it should just be assumed, right?

I do allow for the idea that there could be corruption with bribes and certain members of the organization using slack to personally profit, but I believe most of that would probably revolve around awarding the site for the Olympics and not what sports are eliminated or added.

I never claimed that, but to think you live in this utopia where there is no corruption in those organizations when many countries are invovled is laughable. The head of the modern pent has family ties to a former powerful IOC member. Do you follow international sports at all? There is a history of corruption within these organizations, and there has been a history of it in the olympics (see sugar ray's gold medal boxign match). You can pretend these people know what the hell they are doing, and they are very righteous (LOL), but the fact they took out wrestling in favor of the sports I listed says so otherwise. Your dream world where people don't cuss, don't try to hurt anyones feelings, do the right things will never exist.

like_that;1422345 wrote:I never claimed that, but to think you live in this utopia where there is no corruption in those organizations when many countries are invovled is laughable. The head of the modern pent has family ties to a former powerful IOC member. Do you follow international sports at all? There is a history of corruption within these organizations, and there has been a history of it in the olympics (see sugar ray's gold medal boxign match). You can pretend these people know what the hell they are doing, and they are very righteous (LOL), but the fact they took out wrestling in favor of the sports I listed says so otherwise. Your dream world where people don't cuss, don't try to hurt anyones feelz, do the right things will never exist.

FIFY....I've never seen that from you before

like_that;1422345 wrote:I never claimed that, but to think you live in this utopia where there is no corruption in those organizations when many countries are invovled is laughable. The head of the modern pent has family ties to a former powerful IOC member. Do you follow international sports at all? There is a history of corruption within these organizations, and there has been a history of it in the olympics (see sugar ray's gold medal boxign match). You can pretend these people know what the hell they are doing, and they are very righteous (LOL), but the fact they took out wrestling in favor of the sports I listed says so otherwise. Your dream world where people don't cuss, don't try to hurt anyones feelings, do the right things will never exist.

And did I ever contend that I live in a utopia where there is no corruption? No, look at my next sentence. I just don't see much $$ in a situation involving the elimination of an Olympic sport. Even assuming that someone is willing to bribe officials to drop a sport, why would someone pay for the elimination of a specific sport? In a hypothetical situation that the officials are being bribed to drop a sport (in order to make room for another) then the officials would most likely eliminate the least "beneficial" sport to the Olympics in whatever sense they define that (revenue generation, international competitiveness, growth of the sport, etc). If anything there is more likelihood for the bribery for the purpose of the addition of a specific sport. I can see that being a more feasible situation

But as previously mentioned, the area where bribery would be most likely would be for the process of selecting cities as that decision has a huge financial implications not only for the local government but for private corporations as well.

Ironman92;1422352 wrote:FIFY....I've never seen that from you before

I don't see the FIFY.

One word in the last sentence

Ironman92;1422600 wrote:One word in the last sentence

Good call.