Sorry that I've been somewhat MIA over the past couple weeks. I'm still in catch-up mode after the Olympics. But I haven't been oblivious to all the stuff that's gone on in the world of sports, either.
The Tampa Bay Bucs' new uniforms? At least the Jaguars won't have the worst unis in the NFL anymore. Mark Cuban's thoughts on one-and-dones and the NBA D-League? I don't know if I think he's a total idiot or some sort of mad genius. Probably a combination of both. Phil Jackson to the Knicks in a front office position? Sounds like a pretty good idea for all involved. The Ryan Callahan-Martin St. Louis trade? Don't get me started. You don't trade your captain with six weeks left in the season, even if you don't think you can re-sign him! The Oscar Pistorius trial? I'm pretty sure you already know my feelings on that one. If he gets off, it'll be an even greater crime.
There are also a couple pieces of Olympic news that I found intriguing, especially with the Paralympians currently getting their turn in Sochi. One notable statement has already been made at the Paralympics. During the Opening Ceremony, the team from Ukraine didn't march. They had a flag bearer, but that was it. An obvious statement about the current political situation between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea.
But the Olympic news that I want to talk about specifically refers to a couple sports and their eligibility/Olympic desirability. The U.S. and Canada obviously did very well in the new snowboarding and freestyle skiing events in Sochi. Not surprisingly, the U.S. and Canada are leading the charge for more of those X Games events to be added to the Winter Olympics. Their reasoning isn't just the chance for more medals (which we know is the real motivation). Instead, they're citing the TV ratings for the new events in Sochi and their general appeal to the younger demographic that the IOC loves as the reasons why we need more of these events. I'm curious to see what happens.
If you ask Tony Hawk, another extreme sport that's Olympic-bound is skateboarding. He went so far as to say that skateboarding will be in the 2020 Olympics. Never mind the fact that the Olympic program is locked in when they choose the host city for a given Games, and wrestling was voted back in days after Tokyo was named host. Or the more obvious impediment that the IOC doesn't yet recognize the International Skateboarding Federation, which is the first step required for a sport to be added to the Olympic program. All the IOC has said is that the ISF is likely to get IOC recognition sooner rather than later. They said absolutely nothing about Tokyo.
IOC President Thomas Bach is a little more flexible than his predecessor, Jacques Rogge, about adding new sports, as long as the 10,500 athlete limit can be maintained, but I think Hawk's speaking with his heart here. He said about the Olympics that "they need us more than we need them." I'm not sure how true that is. The Summer Olympics are a completely different animal than the Winter Olympics. Snowboarding and freestyle skiing are incredibly popular in the Winter Games, but there are also significantly fewer events in the winter. I'm sure skateboarding would be fairly popular with certain segments if it were to be added, but its inclusion isn't make-or-break for the Olympics. Sorry to burst your bubble, Tony.
But the real reason why I don't think skateboarding should be added is that it would be incredibly unfair to other sports. Squash has been fighting for Olympic inclusion for years. And frankly, squash deserves a place over skateboarding. Squash is an Olympic sport in waiting. How would those involved in the sport of squash feel if they keep getting passed over for a place on the Olympic program, while skateboarding can go from not even recognized by the IOC to in the Olympics within the span of just a few years? Or how about baseball and softball, which are trying desperately to get back into the Olympics? Forgive me for thinking the X Games and the Olympics should remain separate things.
I'm totally in favor of another sport that they're discussing adding to the Summer Olympics, though. Lamine Diack, the President of the IAAF, has said he would like to see cross country running brought back to the Olympics. So would I. Track & field has nothing between the 10,000 meters on the track and the marathon, which is on the road. But cross country is popular all over, and the World Cross Country Championships are the oldest IAAF event. Cross country has even been in the Olympics before. It was dropped after the 1924 Games because of a number of competitors got sick after the race. (It should be noted here that the 1924 Olympic cross country race was run in extreme heat and the course was too close to a power plant that was contaminating the air.)
In my opinion, though, adding cross country makes too much sense not to do. It doesn't affect the total number of athletes because they could simply reduce the field in some of the other track & field events (if they made the schedule right, there would even probably be some runners that do both the cross country and one of the long distance races). They wouldn't need to build a separate facility, either. They could use the same course that they use for mountain biking. They've said they'd be willing to do either Winter or Summer, but Summer makes much more sense.
Speaking of the Summer Olympics, it seems like it's full steam ahead on LA's bid for 2024. I think another bid from LA would be a mistake. Not only would it probably lose, but I think there are plenty of other American cities that deserve the chance to bid for the Olympics before LA bids again. London has hosted three times, and LA would be the second city to host two Olympics. But it's not fair to any number of otherwise qualified American cities to have their potential bid shelved so that LA can try for number three. Should LA win, no other American city would be able to host the Olympics for at least 20 years. Besides, the IOC has all but told the USOC to put forth a San Francisco bid. Take the hint, USOC. San Francisco's (or, more specifically, the Bay Area's) not just the best-equipped American city to bid for the Olympics. It's also the one that would have the best chance of winning.
Another city that's considered to have a very good chance of winning the Olympics is 2022 favorite Oslo. Except the public support in Oslo isn't quite there, which could put the bid in jeopardy. They've also gotten creative in one of their ideas to stay on budget. Instead of paying for the IOC's accommodations during the Games, they want the IOC to pay for them themselves. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. Especially since I, like many, think the 2022 Olympics are Oslo's to lose. Is this enough to make IOC members not want to vote for Oslo now? I guess we'll find out next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment