Let's Get These Sports Stars Dancing

Yes it is too soon for Ryan Lochte to be on Dancing With the Stars.  They evidently had him locked in as a participant for this season before his shenanigans in Rio, but they easily could've told him "No Thanks" afterwards.  Yet they decided not to, arguing instead that he deserves a chance to rehabilitate his reputation.

Lochte won't be the only athlete on this season's Dancing With the Stars cast.  He'll be joined by Final Five gymnast Laurie Hernandez, Indy Car driver James Hinchcliffe and, since it's a rule that they must have at least one football player on the cast each season, Megatron.  They're just the latest in a long line of sports stars that have appeared on Dancing With the Stars since the beginning.  And, for the most part, they've done pretty well.  Eight have won and a handful have finished second (Shawn Johnson has done both).

Where am I going with all of this?  No, I don't watch Dancing With the Stars.  But there's no denying that they lean on the world of sports.  In fact, I'd love to see an entire season of sports personalities.  I'm not suggesting they do a season of returning sports personalities who've previously been contestants, either (although that would be fun).  No.  I want all sports people, all of whom are new to the show.  Now that's a season I'd watch.

For some reason they alternate between 12 and 13 celebrities, so, for the sake of keeping the number of men an women balanced, I'll do 12:

Kerri Walsh Jennings: Misty May-Treanor suffered perhaps the most famous injury in Dancing With the Stars history when she tore her Achilles during practice for one of the dances.  Well, now it's time for the other half of Kerri and Misty to give the dancing a go.  She's actually going to retire now, right?

Missy Franklin: Other than Ryan Lochte, name one U.S. swimmer who needs a bounce back more than Missy Franklin.  She was such a huge star in London, only to see that shining light flicker out in Rio.  Dancing With the Stars would be the perfect opportunity to reenter the limelight.

Abbey D'Agostino: If Missy Franklin were to using Dancing With the Stars to rebound from her Olympic disappointment, it would be exactly the opposite for Abbey D'Agostino.  She's America's darling right now after her incredible act of sportsmanship heard around the world.  Sure, the torn ACL is a problem, but it would still be a great way to extend her 15 minutes.

McKayla Maroney: Who better to be the next dancing gymnast?  She's not impressed with anybody else, but I bet the judges would be impressed with her.  Yes, post-London really would've been a better time for her, but Aly Raisman's already been on, so they only have three of the Rio team left.

Miesha Tate: She hasn't announced anything about her future career plans yet, but it's fairly obvious Kayla Harrison is going to join MMA.  If she doesn't, she's an idiot.  Anyway, I digress.  Miesha Tate already is an MMA star.  And I actually think she'd do pretty well if she ever did Dancing With the Stars.

Lindsey Vonn: Lindsey Vonn is everywhere.  Seriously, what hasn't she been on?  Surprisingly, Dancing With the Stars.  With our Olympic focus shifting back to skiers and skaters, it seems like a great time to start seeing a lot of Lindsey Vonn once again.

Colin Kaepernick: Talk about athletes who need to reshape their image.  Kaepernick would also get the football player requirement out of the way (although there are plenty of candidates, and I'm sure Tim Tebow would be as amazing at dancing as he is at everything else).  As long as the national anthem isn't one of the songs...

Tony Stewart: He's gonna have a lot of time on his hands coming up.  He also seems like the type of guy who would do it.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Tony Stewart actually appear on Dancing With the Stars in the near future.

Alex Rodriguez: Baseball season is so long that they're never able to have an active baseball player on the show.  Well, A-Rod isn't an active baseball player anymore.  And don't tell me you wouldn't tune in just to watch him.

George Foreman: Don't tell me this wouldn't be amazing.  Because you know it would be.  The boxer seems to be just as frequent as the football player, yet somehow George Foreman has never been on Dancing With the Stars.  (In the same vein, how has Regis Philbin never been on Dancing With the Stars, either?)

Cristiano Ronaldo: Well, they might as well cancel the season if Cristiano Ronaldo participates.  Because God's gift to the world is the greatest at everything he does.  He would automatically win, right?  (I think the reason he's smiling in the picture is because he can see his likeness in the trophy.)

Andy Roddick: I'm actually kinda surprised Andy Roddick has never been on this show.  Believe it or not, it's been four years since he retired.  It really seems like they've missed the boat on this one.  Because Andy Roddick would be perfect.

A Sit Down Kaeper

At least people have finally stopped talking about how unpatriotic Gabby Douglas is for standing with her hands in front of her instead of at her side during the national anthem after the team final at the Olympics.  Talk about making something out of nothing!

Our latest national anthem controversy involves 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick.  As you probably know by now, Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem prior to San Francisco's preseason game against the Packers on Friday night.  Kaepernick later said that he did it as a protest in response to what he feels is the mistreatment against African Americans and minorities in this country.

Now, nowhere does it say that people have to stand for the national anthem.  Even the NFL said that players are "encouraged but not required" to stand.  San Francisco's carefully-worded press release said: "In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem."  Even 49ers coach Chip Kelly told reporters that it's "his right as a citizen" and that "it's not my right to tell him what to do."

The public reaction to Kaepernick's protest is far less understanding.  He's been called "spoiled" and "selfish," which are probably the nicest things anybody has said on the matter.  A lot of people, including some of Kaepernick's teammates, are downright offended.  Some people feel like he's taking a swipe at military servicemen and women who fight and sacrifice to give Kaepernick the very rights he has as an American--like the right to protest.  NASCAR driver Tony Stewart called him an "idiot" who needs to learn what police go thru and respect the job they do.  Likewise, former 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh took exception to the "method of action" his former QB used.

One of the biggest critics was Saints quarterback Drew Brees.  Brees spoke to ESPN.com on Monday night, explaining that he felt "compelled to speak out" because the protest had been "bothering him all day."  Brees doesn't disagree with Kaepernick's decision to protest.  What he doesn't like is his decision to disrespect the flag.  Brees called the American flag "sacred" and noted the irony that Kaepernick is choosing to sit down and disrespect the flag, which symbolizes the very freedoms to speak out.  Giants punter Steve Weatherford was also extremely critical.  His Facebook page is full of photos of veterans (including the late Arizona Cardinals safety Pat Tillman) thanking them for their service while at the same time calling out Kaepernick.  Personally, I think Weatherford took it a little unnecessarily over-the-top (and most of the criticism directed back his way isn't totally unjustified), but at least you know where he stands.

People are obviously going to be divided on this issue, and everyone is entitled to their opinion (another thing which makes America great).  The San Francisco police union has demanded an apology.  Even our next president has chimed in (don't worry, he fired back at both of them).

However, it is worth noting that Kaepernick is slated to make $11.9 million this year, so he's certainly not as "oppressed" as the people he's protesting for.  Likewise, and this is perhaps the most relevant part, Kaepernick is a mixed-race man, who was adopted and raised by white parents.  When the 49ers were in the Super Bowl three years ago, that was one of the biggest storylines.  I have no idea what it was like for Colin Kaepernick growing up and, at the risk of sounding ignorant, he probably never experienced that "oppression" either.

He obviously has his reasons for his protest, but I can't help but feel it's more about making the statement than anything else.  Kaepernick is making his point, and he's doing it successfully.  People are talking about him and the issue that he's bringing up.

Kaepernick is also putting the 49ers in a very difficult spot here.  He took them to a Super Bowl as the starter and was the reason Alex Smith got traded to Kansas City.  But he was also benched last season and isn't a guarantee to make the roster (for reasons that have nothing to do with this).  In fact, Kaepernick has done his protest at all three of San Francisco's preseason games, but nobody noticed at the first two because he wasn't even dressed.

According to the sources of FOX's Jay Glazer, the 49ers are seriously cutting Kaepernick and his $11.9 million salary.  And it has nothing to do with his political views.  It's because they feel like they're better off with Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder at quarterback, and they don't feel like paying him that much to sit on the bench (if he even dresses).  If they release him and he signs somewhere else, the 49ers' cap hit will only be the difference in his salaries.

San Francisco's got a very difficult decision on its hands.  If they cut Kaepernick before the start of the season (which is evidently a very real possibility), it'll look like a retaliatory move.  But if they keep him on the roster just for the sake of keeping him on the roster, that doesn't do anybody any good either.

Whatever the 49ers do, Kaepernick isn't helping his case by getting involved in a non-football controversy that's completely of his own making.  They might simply decide it's worth eating his salary just to be done with him and the distraction.  Teams have done it before (the Browns are paying Johnny Manziel, who isn't even on their roster, more than the Broncos are paying their starter, Trevor Siemian).  That might actually be the best thing for everyone.

US Wide Open

If there was ever a year where the US Open was more wide-open, I don't remember it.  But, because of injuries or other reasons, the story's more about who's not here and who looks vulnerable.  With three quarters of the Big Three battling injuries, the men's tournament certainly looks like it's anybody's for the taking.  On the women's side meanwhile, we've had three different winners in the first three Grand Slams, and Monica Puig is coming off a surprise Olympic gold, so it really is anybody's to take there, as well.

Let's start with the men.  Roger Federer is injured and not playing, which is weird in its own right.  Rafael Nadal only came back for the Olympics after missing a couple months with the injury that forced him to withdraw from the French Open mid-tournament.  Even Novak Djokovic has been dealing with an injury.  He'd been playing with a hurt wrist for a while, and it's probably at least part of the reason he was upset at Wimbledon.  Djokovic lost in the first round at the Olympics, a tournament he probably wouldn't have even played if he already had an Olympic medal.

So, that would lead you to think this tournament is Andy Murray's to lose.  Murray's clearly been the best player on tour this summer, winning his second Wimbledon title and defending his Olympic gold.  He'll justifiably head into the US Open as the favorite.  And if Murray's on his game (which he has been for the last couple of months), he'll definitely be very tough to beat.

In the Olympic gold medal match, it was Juan Martin Del Porto, he who vanquished Djokovic, that took on Murray.  Del Potro now has an Olympic silver to go along with his bronze from London (when he also beat Djokovic).  The 2009 US Open champ, Del Po has always shown that he can play with the big boys.  He's always injured, though.  Del Potro has been healthy so far this summer, so you've got to view him as a contender, too.

Unfortunately, Murray-Del Potro can't be the final here.  It's a tantalizing semifinal, though.  Del Potro might be unseeded, but he's not your typical unseeded player.  He beat Wawrinka at Wimbledon and inherited the seed.  He beat Djokovic at the Olympics and inherited the seed.  At the US Open, he doesn't really have to deal with any top players until a potential quarterfinal with Wawrikina, who I see losing to Fernando Verdasco in the first round.  Murray, meanwhile, has to deal with Grigor Dimitrov and Kei Nishikori or Ivo Karlovic just to get to Del Potro in the semis.

Because the top two contenders are in the bottom half, things actually worked out pretty well for Djokovic and Nadal in the draw.  The two of them have had some epic US Open battles in recent years, including those memorable finals.  Except they're potentially gonna have to deal with Marin Cilic (Djokovic) and Milos Raonic (Nadal) in the quarters.  Cilic is probably excited about that possible matchup with Djokovic after he was embarrassed by the world No. 1 in last year's semifinals.  And just ask Roger Federer about how good Milos Raonic is.  This guy's a star in the making, and, after making the finals at Wimbledon, I can easily see him hoisting the trophy in New York.

I don't see Raonic winning his first Grand Slam title here, though.  Not with the way Andy Murray's been playing.  Just like in 2012, I think he follows up Olympic gold with a US Open crown.

What a difference a year makes when it comes to storylines.  Last year, it was all about Serena Williams going for the Grand Slam.  She was, of course, upset in the semifinals by Roberta Vinci, who fell to countrywoman Flavia Pennetta in the final.  Pennetta retired immediately after winning her only Grand Slam title and won't be defending her crown.

Pennetta's US Open title started a string of four different Grand Slam winners for the women.  The only constant has been Serena in the finals.  But she lost early in the Olympics, which was definitely out of character.  In 2012, she won Wimbledon, the Olympics and the US Open all in a row.  She was in top form four years ago.  I can't say she is this year.  But she's still Serena.  And if she is on her game, she's still the one to beat.

However, Angelique Kerber did that at the Australian Open, and she also reached the Wimbledon final, where she lost to Serena.  Kerber is also the Olympic silver medalist.  Her first Grand Slam breakthrough came in 2011, when she made the semis here.  Kerber hasn't been past the fourth round since, but I see that changing.  If she goes out before the quarterfinals, it'll be a major upset.  Kerber should go much further than that, though.

Don't be surprised to see Puig carry the momentum from her Olympic gold (the first ever for a Puerto Rican) into the US Wide Open.  Same thing with Madison Keys.  She finished fourth in Rio and reached the round of 16 at each of the first three Grand Slams this year.  The only potential roadblock for Keys is Caroline Wozniacki, who always does one of two things at the US Open--lose early or make a deep run.  She's unseeded this year, which takes some of the pressure off, so don't be surprised if it's the latter.

Meanwhile, you know Serena wants to make up for last year.  Winning the 2016 US Open will never make up for last year's semifinal loss when she was trying to finish off the Grand Slam.  But it would be No. 23, breaking the tie with Steffi Graf and moving her within one of Margaret Court's all-time record.  She's twice followed up a Wimbledon win with a US Open victory.  Will she make it three?

Despite all of her ups and downs this year, Serena Williams is still the player to beat in any Grand Slam tournament she enters.  That's no different here.  I've got her and Kerber facing off in the rubber match.  Kerber won in Australia.  Serena won at Wimbledon.  Who wins in New York?  Give me the woman who's made it to at least the semis in each of the last seven times she's played here and is looking for her fourth title in five years.  Of course, that one loss since the 2011 final, is the one she'd like to have back.

It's also worth noting that this US Open is going to be much different than any before.  The retractable roof on Arthur Ashe Stadium has been installed and is fully operational, so there will be no more rain delays on the main court.  I noticed how much of a difference it was last year with just the superstructure in place even compared to 2014.  I wonder how much more of an impact the full roof will have.

There's also a new Grandstand.  Although, I'm going to miss the old one.  So many great matches took place on that court over the years.  I'll have to check out this new version, but it's not going to have that same ambiance.  I'm sure it'll create plenty of memories of its own, though.

Baby Bombers Earning Their Stripes

For most of this season, the Scranton-Wilkes Barre RailRiders were a more entertaining team to watch than the New York Yankees.  The Yankees would even tease their fans with the "prospect watch" between innings of home games, when players like Aaron Judge and Gary Sanchez and Ben Gamel were touted as future All-Stars before they even arrived in the Majors.  People were excited about the future, which really was the primary motivation for wanting them to cut ties with A-Rod and move on.

Well, that future has arrived.  Sanchez and Judge are here, and they're here to stay.  Many experts have predicted that they'll be the foundation of the Yankees' next dynasty.  And, after just two weeks with them in Pinstripes, you can see why they had everyone so excited.  Because they're tearing up Major League pitching the same way they did in Triple A.  And they won't be tearing up Triple A pitching ever again.  The Yankees have found their starting right fielder and starting catcher for the next 10 years.

Everyone knows the "Core Four" and the reverence Yankees fans have for that quartet.  Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera were the home-grown anchors of the Yankees' last dynasty.  The team that won four titles in five years and made six World Series appearances in eight seasons from 1996-2003.  That's what made them legends in the eyes of Yankees fans.  That's why all four of them have (or, in Jeter's case, will have) their numbers on the wall in Monument Park.  And that's why Jeter and Rivera (and possibly Pettitte) will have plaques in Cooperstown once they're eligible.

But since the Yankees lost to the Marlins in 2003, they've been to the World Series just once.  And since that memorable 2009 title run, each season has been the same as the last.  High-priced free agents underperforming and coming up short of a championship, only to be replaced by more veterans after they didn't get the job done.  The last time that worked was prior to the aforementioned 2009 campaign, when the newly-acquired CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira proved invaluable for the World Series champs.

That method clearly hasn't been working, so it's worth giving this way a shot.  And, it's worth noting, that's exactly how the Core Four Era Yankees became a dynasty in the first place.  They hadn't been to the World Series in 15 years prior to that 1996 title, mainly because of George Steinbrenner's obsession with big-name free agents throughout the 1980s.  It was only during the time that Steinbrenner was suspended from baseball that Gene Michael was able to build the farm system, which would become the foundation of that dynasty.

Fittingly, it was the day of the 20th anniversary celebration for that 1996 team that Judge made his Major League debut.  That was also the Yankees' first game after A-Rod's retirement.  Guess who took his roster spot?  Tyler Austin also made his debut that day.  And they both hit a home run in their first Major League at-bat, becoming the first teammates in Major League history to do that in the same game.  Oh yeah, they did it in the same game, too.

Gary Sanchez was already on the team by then.  He was called up after Carlos Beltran was traded to take those DH at-bats and give the Yankees a long look at what they had.  They didn't need a long look.  In fact, Gary Sanchez was probably the main reason for A-Rod's hasty retirement.  He's been in the Majors for three weeks, and he hasn't stopped hitting!  Sanchez isn't just a constant in the Yankees' lineup, he's their No. 3 hitter!  When he doesn't catch, he DHes.  There's even been some clamor that Gary Sanchez will make Brian McCann expendable during the offseason.

It's been less than a month, but it's already obvious why there was so much buzz about Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge.  Every game I go to, there's at least one No. 24 Tino Martinez jersey and one No. 24 Robinson Cano jersey somewhere in the stands.  It won't be too long until the No. 24 Gary Sanchez jerseys start appearing as well...if they haven't already.  We're also likely to see No. 99 jerseys start popping up.  (In general, I'm opposed to guys keeping their random high numbers after Spring Training ends, but Judge kept it in Scranton and is wearing it now, so it looks like he won't be changing it anytime soon.)

The sample size has been small.  Gary Sanchez has had a monster start to his Major League career, but he's bound to eventually endure some struggles.  Aaron Judge had a miserable West Coast trip, his first real slump.  We'll see how he rebounds.  Same thing with Tyler Austin, who had a torrid start, but hasn't played as much as the other two.

I'm not saying they're going to be the new "Core Four."  There's no way to predict what's going to happen in the future.  But, with Sanchez and Judge being joined by the likes of Greg Bird, Rob Refsnyer and Clint Frazier, as well as Didi Gregorius and Starlin Castro up the middle, the Yankees feel they have the foundation in place for their next extended run of success.

Years from now, we may look back at the 2016 trade deadline as a turning point for that next dynasty, whenever it may be.  The Yankees were sellers instead of buyers, yet may end up being the biggest winners of anybody.  Because if not for the deals made at the end of July, we'd probably still be seeing the same boring veteran team that had no shot of making the playoffs.  They're still unlikely to reach the postseason, but they're at least fun to watch now.

Instead we're getting a sneak peek at Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge.  Who are leaving us salivating and the thought of what they might do in the future.  And how many World Series trophies the Yankees might collect with them leading the way.

A New York Olympics

The Olympics aren't coming to New York anytime soon.  I know this.  The bid for the 2012 Games went up in flames as soon as the plans for a West Side stadium that would eventually host the Jets were squashed and they had to change everything at the last minute to one centered around Citi Field.  (No comment on the fact that five new professional sports venues, which currently play home to six of the New York area's 11 teams, have been built since then.)

And with all of the problems potential Olympic bids have with garnering the requisite public support have had in recent years, the chances of New York bidding again in the near future seem unlikely.  Even if a New York bid were put together, the USOC would likely go with somewhere else unless that support was unwavering, if only to avoid another embarrassment like Boston.

Of course, we all know what happened there.  The USOC picked Boston as the American bid city for the 2024 Olympics, only to switch to Los Angeles after Boston balked.  The LA bid is stronger anyway and has a very good chance of winning (while Boston definitely wouldn't have), and I suspect that LA will be presented as the American candidate until the bid is successful.  But, assuming that LA does host the Olympics again, whether it be in 2024, 2028, 2032 or some other point in the future, the USOC will need to move on to a new bid city.  And they could choose worse places than New York.

With 11 professional teams (12 including the Liberty) and so many colleges, there are plenty of venues already in place to make use of.  And transportation, which plagued the Rio Games, would obviously not be much of an issue.  Sure, it can take a while to get places on the subway and some venues would require a lot of transfers, but it could be done.

Really, the biggest problem with using all of New York's existing venues is that they're so spread out, so there wouldn't be a centralized Olympic park.  And you'd still have to drive out to Hofstra or the renovated Nassau Coliseum.  Plus, figuring out a location for the Olympic Village would be a challenge, although I'd imagine one of the colleges could chip in some land in exchange for the apartments being turned into dorms post-Games, like Georgia Tech did for the Atlanta Olympics.

There are a couple other venues that would need to be built, as well.  The most obvious is an Olympic Stadium.  That West Side land is almost certainly not going to available, and Icahn Stadium on Randal's Island is too remote to renovate and make the main stadium.  So it would have to be a temporary venue or one that could ultimately be downsized (this would be the perfect scenario if New York City FC eventually gets its soccer-specific stadium).  Likewise, there are no velodromes anywhere in the city, and a stadium for swimming would have to be built (the Goodwill Games pool in Nassau County would be used for water polo and diving).

An IBC would also need to be constructed.  Although, NBC shoots many of its New York-based shows in the Chelsea Piers area, so those sound stages could conceivably be used as the IBC.

However, my hypothetical New York Olympics would be able to have something that no other Olympics (at least any in recent memory) has done--have all the soccer games in the host city.  No ridiculous traveling to Manaus (totally unnecessary as an Olympic soccer city).  We're making use of existing professional and college football/soccer venues, which would allow the soccer teams to stay in the Village and actually feel like they're a part of the Olympics.

My venue plan is different than the one presented to the IOC 11 years ago.  In addition to venues like the Barclays Center, which didn't exist in 2005, there are more sports in the Olympics than there were then.  And, for the sake of consistency, I'm using the sports on the program for Tokyo 2020 in my plan for NYC 2028.

BROOKLYN
Barclays Center: Basketball
Coney Island: Surfing
Olympic Aquatic Center: Swimming, Synchronized Swimming

BRONX
Pelham Bay Park: Modern Pentathlon
Pelham Bay Shooting Center: Shooting
Yankee Stadium: Baseball

MANHATTAN
Baker Field (Columbia): Field Hockey
Central Park: Archery, Beach Volleyball, Marathon (Finish)
Grand Central Station Atrium: Sport Climbing
Hudson River Park: Triathlon, Race Walk
Javits Center: Badminton, Fencing, Judo, Karate, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Weightlifting, Wrestling
Madison Square Garden: Gymnastics, Rhythmic Gymnastics, Trampoline
Madison Square Garden (Theater): Boxing
New York Harbor: Sailing, Swimming (Open Water)
Olympic Velodrome: Cycling (Track)
West Side Highway: Cycling (Road)

QUEENS
Flushing Meadows Corona Park: Canoe/Kayak, Rowing, Skateboarding
Olympic Stadium: Track & Field
USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center: Tennis

STATEN ISLAND
Greenbelt Park: BMX, Mountain Biking
Richmond County Bank Ballpark: Softball

LONG ISLAND
Belmont Park: Equestrian
Nassau Coliseum: Handball
Nassau County Aquatic Center: Diving, Water Polo

WESTCHESTER
Winged Foot Golf Club: Golf

NEW JERSEY
MetLife Stadium: Soccer (Finals)
Prudential Center: Volleyball
Red Bull Arena: Rugby

Soccer Venues: Citi Field (Queens), Icahn Stadium (Manhattan), Mitchel Field (Long Island), Rutgers Stadium (New Jersey), Shuart Stadium (Long Island)

Final Thoughts On Rio

Well, the Rio Olympics have come to an end.  And, despite of the Armageddon predictions about how these Games were going to be a disaster, Rio pulled it off.  Just like you knew they would.  Were these Olympics perfect?  No.  Were they a massive failure?  No to that one, too.  They weren't London.  They were Rio.  They had their own identity and left their own indelible moments.

In Rio, we saw the end of two of the greatest careers in Olympic history.  Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are already the stuff of legend.  Years from now, there will be Olympic fans watching clips of the two of them on YouTube just wishing they'd been able to see them in their prime.  We would've been lucky to see one in his prime.  We got to see both!  It really is amazing that they're contemporaries.  And I hope everyone realizes just how privileged we were to live in the Era of Bolt & Phelps.

But these Games were about more than Phelps and Bolt, both of whom made Rio their Olympic swan song.  We were introduced to plenty of stars that we'll see again in Tokyo and beyond.

Team USA paced the medal count with 121 medals, 46 of which were gold.  That's the most for an American team since 1984 (which comes with an asterisk because of the Soviet-led boycott), and the most for anybody since the Soviet Union won 132 in 1988.  It's also the most-ever for Team USA in an Olympics held in another country.  The women were particularly successful, contributing 61 of those medals and winning 27 of the golds.  If the American women were their own country, they would've finished fourth in the medal standings!

The United States won at least one medal in 20 of 27 sports in which it competed, which is a remarkable showing of depth.  But, as usual, most of the American success was found in the pool and on the track.  Team USA captured an incredible 65 medals (29 gold) in its two powerhouse sports of swimming and track & field, plus another 12 in gymnastics.

Towards the end of the swimming competition, Rowdy Gaines gave his theory about why the U.S. swim team was so dominant at these Olympics, and I completely agree with him.  The U.S. Olympic Trials are later than all of the other countries, so the Americans are in much better form heading into the Olympics.  Likewise, just making the team is so hard that all the pressure is on Trials.  Once they make the team, it's gravy.  If other countries want to close the gap in Tokyo, they'd be smart to take a page out of the Americans' playbook.

Meanwhile, it was quite a contrast between last summer's World Championships and this year's Olympics for the USA track & field team.  This was the best Olympics anybody can remember for USA Track & Field, with medals all across the board, including an impressive distance showing to go along with the usual haul in the sprints and field events.  So why did the Rio Olympics go so much better than the 2015 Worlds?  The same reason as swimming.  Olympic Trials were a month before the Olympics.  Last year, U.S. Nationals were nine weeks before Worlds.  Clearly a shorter gap is better.

As for Brazil, they enjoyed the usual host country boost.  It may not look like it to outside observers, but this was actually a very successful Olympics for the home team.  Brazil had its most-ever medals with 19, and its seven gold medals also set a record.  And, most importantly, they got the golds they wanted.  They won men's beach volleyball and indoor volleyball, which was nice, but they would've been willing to trade those for the gold in men's soccer.  And that's exactly what they got.  Neymar had the Maracana rocking when he clinched Brazil's first-ever Olympic men's soccer title on Saturday night.  it was Rio's signature moment.  Brazil's Super Saturday or Sidney Crosby goal.  If that had been Brazil's only gold medal, it would've been enough.

Speaking of the Maracana, it was full for every game.  So were Copacabana and the Maracanazinho and some other marquee venues.  But there were noticeable empty seats at some others, which the critics were quick to point out.  In London, everything was sold out, so that's not a fair comparison.  And all of the venues that were packed were the ones that housed sports popular in Brazil.

And, frankly, some of the other ones might've been full, too, if not for the media.  For months leading up to the Games, all you saw were articles trying to spread panic by saying how unsafe Brazil was or that they were going to get Zika.  Because of this, a lot of people who might've traveled to Rio for the Games decided not to go.  And they didn't buy those tickets as a result.  You can't have it both ways!  You can't tell everyone to stay away, then criticize the organizers for all the empty seats.

Of course, everyone loves to criticize.  And we never see that more than when people speak out about NBC's Olympic coverage.  I had a discussion with a friend earlier about NBC's coverage in Rio, and we both agreed that it was a solid B+.  The Opening Ceremony was a disaster, but they really did settle into a groove once the Games themselves began.  I actually kinda liked Ryan Seacrest on the late night show, and Mike Tirico further proved that he's one of the best in the business.

My "favorite" thing about the criticism of NBC's coverage, though, is when people get all bent out of shape about the tape delay.  Either that, or when they complain about what they show on which channel.  ("Why do they focus so much on the Americans?".  Well, because they're the American rights-holder, that's why.)  Well, guess what, they're never going to make everyone happy.  But no one is possibly able to say they weren't able to watch what they wanted.  They just needed to find it.

They had coverage on seven! different networks during the Games, much of it overlapping, and dedicated channels for both basketball and soccer.  If you didn't want to watch rowing on NBC, you didn't have to.  And if you couldn't find your sport on TV (or it wasn't being shown live), every event was streamed live online.  So, it would be inaccurate to say that NBC didn't give you plenty of options.  In fact, they offered more viewing options than ever before.  This isn't Sydney, or even Athens, where you had no choice.  It was what was on NBC, when they decided to air it, and that was it.

It also goes without saying that, like-it-or-not, NBC has Olympic rights in this country until at least 2032, so if you don't like their coverage, but still want to watch the Olympics, you don't really have much of a choice.  And the next three are in East Asia, which isn't ideal for anybody.  But that's the way it is.  We turn the page from Rio and get ready to head across the Pacific.  The countdown to PyeongChang 2018 is on.

Alright Lochte, What Really Happened?

Heading into these Olympics, there so much concern about security in Rio.  The city has a reputation for street crime and that, along with worries about the Zika virus, probably scared a lot of potential Olympic visitors away.  Brazil wanted to make it a point to let anyone traveling to Rio (whether it be a fan, athlete, official, family member, whatever) that they would be safe.  The last thing they wanted was a high-profile member of a country's delegation to become the victim of a street crime, yet that's exactly what happened on Sunday morning.  Or was it?

American swimmer Ryan Lochte claimed that he and three other swimmers (Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger and Jimmy Feigen) were robbed at gunpoint in the early hours of Sunday morning while returning from a party.  This was Brazil's worst nightmare, both from a security and PR perspective.  Not only was somebody the victim of a robbery, it was an Olympic athlete, and a high-profile one at that.

With Rio's reputation, Lochte's original account seemed completely plausible.  In fact, some spectators and athletes from other nations have said that they've also been robbed since they've been in Rio.  The Australian team went so far as to ban their athletes from going out in the Copacabana area at night, and they've barred two of their Olympians (one of whom was robbed) from the Closing Ceremony for breaking that rule.

Except it's becoming more and more apparent that what he claimed didn't happen at all.  First, there were changing stories and conflicting accounts.  Now there's surveillance video, which makes it pretty clear things didn't go exactly as Lochte said they did.  At first, I had no doubt they were robbed, but was skeptical of the ever-changing details.  After seeing the video, however, it seems obvious that they made the whole thing up.

Of course, the obvious question is why would they fabricate such a story?  Lochte said that they didn't come forward at first because they feared they'd get in some sort of trouble, and only did when he realized they wouldn't.  (Sidebar, how would four consenting adults who are all of legal drinking age and done with their competition deciding they wanted to go out and blow off some steam be a problem with anyone?)  But even if that was the case, how do you immediately decide on being robbed at gunpoint was going to be your story?  The only reason I can think of is because that with the time of day and Rio's reputation, that explanation was believable.

And people did believe it.  The four swimmers were viewed as victims and the Brazilian police began investigating it as a crime.  Although, frankly, it's because the Brazilian police are doing their job that the swimmers' story started to fall apart.  They claimed the robbery happened a little after 4:30 a.m., yet there's video of them returning to the Olympic Village well after 6 a.m., not appearing at all traumatized from the incident.  And the video from outside France House shows them leaving the party after 5:30, which would make it pretty tough to be in a cab and robbed at 4:30.

From watching the videos, you can piece together what actually happened.  They got drunk and were acting like idiots.  They stopped at a gas station, went into a bathroom and vandalized it in some way.  When the gas station attendant wanted them to pay for the damage, one of them took out their wallet and did (which I assume is the so-called "robbery").  They did have a gun pointed at them.  By a police officer who wanted them to get out of the taxi.  But it was never pointed at Lochte's head, as he originally claimed.

This story has taken one bizarre turn after another over the past five days.  Lochte went home.  The others tried, but had their passports seized.  Two were even pulled off their flight so that they could be questioned by authorities.  It was in one of those police interviews that it came out Lochte made the whole thing up.  They weren't robbed at all.  If any crime was committed, it was likely by the swimmers.  Vandalism, destruction of property, maybe even assault.  Now, police are seeking an indictment against Lochte and Feigen for falsely reporting a crime (although Lochte, perhaps not coincidentally, got out of dodge beforehand).

Which brings me back to my original question, how is this any better than being upfront about what happened?  Now this has been turned into an international incident.  One that has completely hijacked the Olympics.  When people look back at the Rio Games, this is one of the first things that's going to come up.  And it's not a good look for anybody.  Not the Rio organizers.  Not Brazil.  Not the USOC.  Not USA Swimming.  And especially not the four swimmers.

Sadly, this whole think wreaks of the Duke lacrosse scandal 10 years ago.  In that case, we all jumped to conclusions and assumed they were guilty, until the facts came out and, as it turns out, the players were all telling the truth.  Nothing happened.  This is the reverse.  We assumed they were innocent victims.  But now the facts have come out and revealed them to be liars, who made up a story to try and cover up their drunken idiocy.

So far, Ryan Lochte's erroneous account is the only story we've heard about that night.  I want to know what the other three have to say.  Because the truth about the incident is out there somewhere.  And it's going to come out.  Did they think it wouldn't eventually?

A good number of Brazilians are demanding an apology from the swimmers.  That's the least of what they deserve.  Because there was absolutely no reason to fabricate such a tale to cover up your own behavior.  Especially in a country so self-aware about its reputation.

I'm not surprised Ryan Lochte is the one who cried wolf.  He's a 31-year-old child.  (Proving how oblivious he is, he posted an Instagram video this afternoon where he was goofing around with a friend, only to delete it a couple hours later.)  Hopefully this will serve as a wake-up call.  It's time to grow up.

Because this entire story is completely despicable.  And it never would've happened if you'd just kept your mouth shut.  Nothing happened.  We all know it.  You should be embarrassed and ashamed that you said something did.  It's not just the Brazilians who deserve an apology.  It's the 318 million Americans that you were representing in Rio who are owed one, too.  Because you're a reflection of us, and you're not making us look very good right now.

Let's Add Some Missing Events

During the swimming competition last week, Rowdy Gaines got pretty animated while discussing Katie Ledecky and the fact that the women's 1500 meter freestyle isn't part of the Olympic program.  They swim both the 800 and 1500 freestyle for both men and women at the World Championships, but in the Olympics, it's only the one long distance race each.  They also swim a 50 in each stroke at Worlds, but not at the Olympics.

Given the appetite most of the world has for Olympic swimming, why isn't every event held at the World Championships contested at the Olympics?  And, frankly, adding them wouldn't be very hard.  There's currently 32 events on the Olympic swimming program, which means there are four finals on each of the eight days of competition.  Adding the eight other events contested at Worlds (men's 800 free, women's 1500 free, men's & women's 50 back, fly and breast) brings that total to 40.  So, you have five finals a day instead of four.  You're not really adding any athletes, either, since many swimmers would just add the 50 in their discipline to their personal schedules.

It's not just swimming where they don't contest every event at the Olympics.  In fencing, there are six individual events, but only four team events.  They rotate which of the three team events isn't held at each Olympics.  Why?  What difference would it make if they had 12 fencing events instead of 10 and were actually able to have a men's and women's team competition with each weapon?

Likewise, in rowing, the commentators were talking about how the U.S. women's four is nearly as good as the dominant women's eight.  Then I noticed that the women's four isn't even an Olympic event!  Yet the men's four is.  There are 14 rowing events--eight men's and six women's.  The men have a four and a lightweight four, while the women don't.  How about replacing that men's lightweight four with a women's four?

One event that is being replaced with a women's event in Tokyo is the men's whitewater doubles canoe.  The women's whitewater singles canoe will be contested instead.  That one at least makes sense.  They have the whitewater singles kayak for both men and women, but the other two whitewater events are men's canoe, so I've got no problem with evening that out.  However, in flatwater canoe/kayak, there's still a big disparity.  There are 12 events, only four of which are for women.  The number of women's flatwater canoe events?  Zero.

A few years ago, the IOC made cycling balance out its men's and women's Olympic programs, and sailing has the same number of men's and women's events, as well as one that's mixed.  Wrestling just did the same thing.  They added two weight classes for women, and there are now six weight classes in all three wrestling disciplines.  Boxing had to adjust its weight classes when the women's divisions were added in London, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them adjusted again to make room for another women's class.

There are plenty of critics who like to point out that even though women's participation in the Olympics has reached a record number, there are still more men's events than women's.  Now, there are a number of reasons for this, so I don't view it as a particular problem.  For example, in gymnastics there are eight men's events and only six women's...because the men compete on six apparati and the women four, so there are two more event finals for men.  (There are also the women's-only sports like rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming that help balance out the numbers.)

We also have no idea if women even compete in some of these disciplines outside of the Olympics.  When wrestling was ridiculously dropped for a few months, that question was actually posed to federation officals prior to the vote about whether or not it would be put right back in.  And they noted that women have only show interest in the freestyle discipline, which is why Greco-Roman wrestling is contested only by men.  Just like we don't know if that's the reason there are more shooting events for men than women (or if women do those canoe events I was referring to).

In the past (meaning, under Jacques Rogge), they were hesitant to expand the Olympic program beyond its current size, both in regard to number of events and number of athletes.  If a sport wanted to add one event, it had to drop another.  But seeing as they let Tokyo add six sports (I'm sorry, but baseball and softball are NOT the same), some of which have multiple events, to the program for 2020, that's clearly not as big of a concern anymore.

I can understand the worry about adding too many more athletes.  There are already over 10,500 at the Summer Games.  But I never got the idea of an event cap.  Especially because most, if not all, of the events I'd like to see added would feature athletes already competing at the Olympics.  And you wouldn't need to construct any additional venues or really adjust the schedule that much.

And I'm not talking about adding events in every sport, either.  (How are you going to add an event in, say, soccer?)  I'm talking about adding maybe 30 events to the program, using, for the most part, athletes that are already competing and venues that are already being used.  That doesn't make the Olympics too big.  And it gives athletes the chance at more Olympic medals, which is the reason they all go in the first place.

The IOC Wins Gold

One of the strangest medals ceremony in Olympic history took place yesterday.  It happened after the men's double trap competition in shooting.  Except, after having the gold medal put around his neck, Fehaid Al-Deehani didn't hear his anthem or see his flag raised.  Instead, it was the Olympic flag raised and Olympic anthem played in his honor.  The whole thing was very weird.

You're probably wondering why that was the case, so let me explain.  It's fairly simple really.  Al-Deehani's country, Kuwait, is currently suspended by the IOC.  They still let Kuwaiti athletes participate in Rio, but as "independents" under the Olympic flag.  This isn't the first time that there's been a team of "Independent Olympic Athletes."  In fact, there were four in London from the Netherlands Antilles, which had recently dissolved and no longer had an Olympic committee, and South Sudan, which was such a new country they hadn't set one up yet.  This is the first time, though, that an independent athlete has won a gold medal and heard the Olympic anthem instead of his own (Yugoslavian athletes won a silver and two bronzes in Barcelona as independent competitors).

This case is completely unique, though.  I can't think of a similar situation in Olympic history.  Because here's the kicker.  Kuwait has never won an Olympic gold medal and technically still hasn't.  Al-Deehani's gold doesn't count towards their total.  In fact, the country has won two Olympic medals in its history--both bronzes by Al-Deehani.  So, he finally wins gold in his sixth Olympics, and he doesn't even get to celebrate what should've been the greatest sporting moment in his country's history.

At the Opening Ceremony, the Kuwaiti athletes were led into the stadium by a Rio 2016 volunteer.  Al-Deehani was asked to carry the flag.  He refused.  A proud member of the Kuwaiti military, he said he'll only carry the flag of his nation.  Based on those comments, you know he'd be representing Kuwait if it was up to him.

People have been weighing in all over social media about this unusual occurrence.  One of my favorite lines was, "Like it or not, IOC, he's from Kuwait!"  No one's trying to say he isn't Kuwaiti.  Especially not the IOC.  Do you really think they wanted to be in this position?  They were trying to do the right thing by trying to keep the politics out of it and letting qualified Kuwaiti athletes compete under the Olympic flag.  I'm sure they didn't necessarily foresee a Kuwaiti athlete winning gold and having to raise their own flag, knowing how ridiculous it was going to look.

And the reasoning for Kuwait's IOC suspension is valid.  The IOC wants each country's Olympic Committee to be an independent organization with no government involvement.  Well, guess why Kuwait's suspended?  In fact, they've been suspended twice in five years because of government interference.  They were suspended from 2010-12, forcing their athletes to compete under the Olympic flag at the 2010 Youth Olympics and 2010 Asian Games, although it was lifted in time for London (by only about two weeks).  Kuwait has previously been suspended by FIFA for similar reasons.

The Kuwaiti government obviously disagrees.  But the reasons for the suspension are valid.  And what they have to do for reinstatement is pretty clear.  India's athletes marched under the Olympic flag at the Opening Ceremony in Sochi.  They held new NOC elections two days later and got reinstated.  One athlete competed as an independent, the others as Indians.  All Kuwait's government needs to do is let the National Olympic Committee function as an independent entity...like it's supposed to.

It's unfortunate that Kuwait's first Olympic gold isn't even Kuwait's.  But I don't have any sympathy for them.  Yes, I feel for Fehaid Al-Deehani.  He deserved to see his flag raised and hear his anthem played.  But the flag on his jersey doesn't change the fact that he's an Olympic champion.  And I'll bet that all Kuwaitis are celebrating it as their own.  Which they should.

Maybe someday their government will act the way every other country's does and the Kuwaiti flag will fly at an Olympics once more.  Then their next gold medalist will get to see it raised.  Regardless, Fehaid Al-Deehani will always be their first.

A Disappointing Opening Ceremony Broadcast

NBC's overnight ratings for the Opening Ceremony were down from four years ago.  We'll start to see during the week if that's going to be a trend for Rio or not, but I do have a couple theories as to why.  The first of which is that the tape delay generated a lot of ill-will, so people tuned out just out of spite.  It didn't help that they talked down to the entire country when they said that they needed to put it in "context."  Or that even though it was taped, it ended at 12:30 (when it was scheduled to end at 12), despite being heavily edited.  And the number of commercials at the beginning was ridiculous.

As much as I try to defend NBC and their Olympic broadcasting strategy that has been proven to work time and again, I just can't get over how bad their Opening Ceremony coverage was.  The "context" that they wanted to give us consisted of a split screen with that lady who directed the ceremony explaining things...in English that you could barely understand!  They seriously would've been better off not saying anything.  And with the amount of stuff that was cut out, any context was lost anyway.  I saw pictures from the Opening Ceremony online and started counting off the stuff Americans didn't see...and it was a lot.

For example, did you know Kip Keino gave a speech after Thomas Bach gave him the Olympic Laurel?  Likewise, the head of the organizing committee always gives a speech prior to the IOC President.  Which NBC didn't show.  (I'm assuming it's because the speech was in Portuguese.)  They also continued their tradition of not showing the athletes' and officials' oaths (again, I'm assuming Portuguese was the reason).  And, from what I could tell from the pictures that I saw, there was at least one part of the cultural presentation cut out.

Likewise, I knew that gold mirror thing behind the cauldron had some sort of meaning.  It just took them until Saturday's primetime coverage to say what it was.  Since Maracana's not the main stadium, they moved the cauldron.  They did kinda what Vancouver did and set up the main flame in the center of the city during the Games.  It's in front of a church in downtown Rio, in front of a similar mirror sculpture that's at the church.  Would've been nice if NBC had said that!

Also, was there a need for all that filler?  They came on the air at 7:30, but didn't start the Ceremony until 8...and had that ridiculous three-minute piece about women's gymnastics between commercial breaks for really no reason.  NBC, we get it!  You like women's gymnastics.  We're watching the Opening Ceremony right now!  (That interview with Ryan Seacrest on the preview show was bad enough.)

The one thing I did like was that they didn't skip any countries during the Parade of Nations.  Usually, they'll go to commercial after one of the bigger nations and, when they come back, scroll through the teams they missed (so, good luck seeing any country between Canada and China).  At least every country was given its proper due this time.  I know that's been a complaint in the past, so it was good to see them listen to the criticism at least in one area.  Although, they didn't need to constantly remind us that the countries were "out of order."  Most of the time they don't march in English!

That brings me to my biggest gripe about the Opening Ceremony.  Why were Meredith Vieira and Hoda Kotb there?  Seriously, they brought absolutely nothing to the broadcast.  The only part where you even need hosts during the Opening Ceremony is to talk about the 207 countries, but Matt Lauer was the only one of the three who contributed anything worthwhile.  Meredith screwed up a bunch of country names, a few athlete names, and I'm pretty sure she got a couple facts wrong.  And I think Hoda was drunk the entire time.  (I didn't even get my quadrennial reminder of where the Central African Republic is!)

No complaints about Matt Lauer.  He's done plenty of Opening Ceremonies before, and it showed.  He did his homework, and he actually knew worthwhile things about the various delegations.  You don't need a news guy at the Opening Ceremony, but it definitely helps when you have to talk about political issues in the various countries.  The fact that Matt actually knows about sports, too (as he showed while filling in as primetime host in Sochi) is a plus.

With all that being said, it should've been Matt Lauer and Bob Costas.  I was shocked when I saw Costas wasn't doing the Opening Ceremony, and I'm still kind of confused why he didn't.  Don't you want your face of the Olympics to be the first one you see?  And those interviews he did in the beginning were clearly pre-taped, so you can't use that as the reason.  Yes, the IBC and the Maracana are far away from each other.  So what?  Did he really need to be in the IBC?  You couldn't have one of the other Olympic hosts manning the studio so that you could actually have the two people who should've been calling the Ceremony both be at the Maracana?

I had originally planned to have this post be about the opening weekend of coverage as a whole, but I went on too long about the Opening Ceremony (sounds like a post for tomorrow).  I will say this, though.  Mike Tirico, in his first Olympic assignment, has clearly been the best studio host so far.  And Ryan Seacrest is fine.  Much better than I thought.  The late night show is exactly what they want it to be, and he actually did his homework.

But I definitely have some thoughts on their coverage strategy that I've noticed throughout the opening weekend of the Games.  More on that as the Olympics continue.

Rio 2016 Medal Projections

The 2016 Rio Olympics are finally underway!  After that over-the-top Opening Ceremony eight years ago in Beijing and the dignified affair in London, this Opening Ceremony was much simpler.  And it worked.  The Brazilian spirit was definitely on display.

I thought the selection of Vanderlei de Lima as the final torchbearer was absolutely perfect, too.  He's not somebody that was remotely close to my radar.  But it was brilliant.  It took 12 years, but he finally got his Olympic moment.  And people are going to remember this a lot longer than they'll remember him getting pushed into the crowd by that crazy fan in Athens.

With the Opening Ceremony now in the books, we move on to the competition.  There are 306 events in Rio, an increase of four from London (golf and rugby are to thank for that).  And the usual suspects will be in play for most of them.  The United States has won the overall medal count at each of the last five Olympics, and had the most gold medals at each except 2008, when China topped the gold medal tally in Beijing.  But with the Chinese not enjoying the home field advantage in London, the U.S. moved back to the top of both tables.  It figures to be the same again in Rio.

Brazil should get the expected hometown boost.  They won 17 medals in London, their most ever.  Their most-ever gold medals were the five they won in Athens (after not winning any golds in Sydney).  Both of those numbers are in serious jeopardy.  In addition to the typical host-country boost, Brazil has its largest Olympic team ever.  Their stated goal is to finish in the top 10, which I think is very realistic (using either method of calculating the medal leaders).

Great Britain, obviously, won't match the 65 it won on home soil.  But they should still be up there in the top five.  Especially because Russia's medal haul will be significantly lower than it normally is.  Whatever your thoughts about that country's doping situation, there's no denying that their medal tally will suffer as a result of it.  The fewest medals Russia has won since the breakup of the Soviet Union was 63 in 1996, its first appearance as Russia.  I don't see how they even approach that number in Rio.

Russia is usually third in the medal standings behind the United States and China.  That won't be the case this year.  With a much smaller team and the country not allowed to compete in some of its strongest sports, there's no way they'll come anywhere close to the top.  They'll be lucky to place in the top five.  I've got them in fourth, but barely, just ahead of Great Britain and Australia.

As for the rest of the top 10, it's the usual suspects.  Japan, Italy, France, Germany, with Ukraine, the Netherlands and South Korea just behind.  (Although, using gold medals instead of total medals would move South Korea into the top 10 according to my predictions.)

In total, I've got 92 countries winning medals in Rio.  Of those 92 (which would be a record), I've got four winning one for the first time.  Believe it or not, Fiji's never won an Olympic medal.  That should change now that rugby's on the program.  I've got them taking the gold on the men's side.  The other three nations I have cracking the medal table for the first time are Antigua & Barbuda, Malta and Kosovo, which is making its Olympic debut.

If this were the Winter Olympics, I'd give you my whole list of medal predictions.  But with 306 events and a projected 92 countries winning medals, I won't subject you to that.  Since this is Rio 2016, I was going to give you my top 16, but I've got a three-way tie for 16th between Cuba, Poland and Hungary, so 15 it is...

1. United States         47-37-32 (116)
2. China                     27-20-22  (69)
3. Germany               17-21-20  (58)
4. Russia                   12-13-21  (46)
5. Great Britain        21-12-12  (45)
6. Australia              15-18-12  (45)
7. Japan                    13-12-9   (34)
8. France                 10-13-11  (34)
9. Italy                      9-7-18    (34)
10. Brazil                   9-8-14    (31)
11. Ukraine                 5-4-14    (23)
12. Netherlands          4-6-13    (23)
13. South Korea       11-5-6      (22)
14. New Zealand        5-5-7     (17)
15. Canada                 4-8-5     (17)

Will the New Sports Last?

In an unsurprising move, the IOC approved five new sports for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.  (OK, it's really six, but baseball and softball were presented together, so they count as one.)  After the Tokyo organizers presented this list to the IOC Executive Board, it was really just a matter of rubber-stamping it when the whole IOC got together in Rio.  And that's exactly what happened.

So, after the painstaking process that golf and rugby went through to get added for the Rio Games (and the ridiculous dropping of wrestling only to bring it back), the Olympic program went from 28 sports to 34 in one felt swoop.  There's a catch, though.  As part of the IOC's Olympic Agenda 2020 reforms, they said that organizers can add sports for their Olympics only without affecting the slate of permanent sports.  In other words, baseball/softball's return and the addition of skateboarding, surfing, karate and sport climbing could all be a one-off scenario.

Now, I've gone on record as saying that I'm not a proponent of this idea.  When the 28-sport cap was put in place, I wasn't a fan of that either, but I don't like the idea of picking and choosing Olympic sports.  I'm glad baseball and softball are back because they never should've been dropped in the first place, but what good is it to be back in the Olympics if they're going to be gone again in 2024?

By the way, golf may have the same problem.  They're only guaranteed for Rio and Tokyo, and there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm among the golfers to participate in the Olympics, so it's a very realistic possibility that golf's swan song could be in 2020.  With rugby, I don't anticipate any such issues.  I can't wait to watch this rugby tournament, and I don't think I'm alone.  While it won't approach the following of beach volleyball, rugby could definitely develop that cult-like status.  I foresee a long Olympic future for rugby.

As for the newly-added sports, I'm not so sure.  I may be wrong, but baseball/softball and maybe karate are probably the only ones with real lasting power (and, no offense to karate, but do we really need judo, taekwondo and karate?).  Surfing and skateboarding seem like desperate grabs for a younger audience, though.  Of course, snowboarding has turned into one of the most popular sports in the Winter Olympics, but surfing and especially skateboarding just seem out of place in the Olympics.

Sport climbing is the interesting one.  It was previously a finalist to join the Olympics the old way, so it's been building towards inclusion for a few years.  And I definitely think sport climbing could be here to stay.  Tokyo will obviously be a test run (and I don't know when LA/Paris will have to make its decision by), but sport climbing doesn't seem as gimmicky as surfing and skateboarding.  We'll have to see what kind of reaction it gets, but I like sport climbing's prospects for remaining in the Olympics beyond Tokyo.

Then there's the elephant in the room.  Baseball and softball.  To say they were unceremoniously dropped from the Olympic program in 2005 would be an understatement.  They suffered a fate that they didn't deserve, and I'm glad to see they're back where they belong.  But it wasn't the IOC that rectified that mistake.  It was the Tokyo organizers.  And when they gave them that power, you knew it was almost certain baseball and softball would return, considering their popularity in Japan.

My concern, though, is baseball and softball's lasting power.  I don't know how this'll end up working and/or if the IOC could take it upon themselves to keep them permanently, but let's assume that won't be the case.  That means it'll be up to the organizers.  I think it's safe to say that if LA wins the bid for 2024, they've got nothing to worry about.  But can the same be said for Paris?  And after that.  Who knows what cities will even bid for the 2028 Games?  And seeing as it's logistically impossible for Major League Baseball to shut down in the middle of the season for the Olympics, how well is that going to go over?

Likewise, if this whole mixing-and-matching thing is going to continue, what other sports might we expect to see at future Olympics?  That's why I like the old process better.  Squash is an Olympic sport.  It's just never been on the Olympic program.  Yet five sports get added and squash isn't one of them.  Would that have been different if the IOC as a whole had been the ones making the call?  Even still, I'd imagine that squash will eventually get the nod if the IOC keeps leaving it up to the host cities.

Who knows how this is all going to play out in the future?  And right now, that doesn't really matter.  The bottom line is that six sports now have a reason to celebrate.  And the 2020 Tokyo Olympics just got a whole lot bigger.  Baseball and softball, welcome back.  And welcome to karate, sport climbing, skateboarding and surfing.  Enjoy the ride while it lasts.  Because you don't know how long it will.

Stop With the Dumb Suggestions On How to "Fix" the Olympics

I can't wait for the Olympics to begin on Friday night.  I'm excited for the obvious reasons, but I'm also ready to stop hearing all of the doomsday scenarios about how Rio's going to be this massive failure.  The same thing happens before every Olympics, and every time the host country manages to pull it off.  I don't expect these Games to be any different.

A lot of the criticism has been directed at the IOC for choosing Brazil in the first place.  In their defense, though, when Rio was chosen as the host city seven years ago, they couldn't have predicted what would happen to the Brazilian economy.  The Brazilian economy was strong in 2009, and there was no reason to think that taking the Olympics to South America for the first time wasn't worth the risk (which it was, by the way).

In response to all of the negative backlash regarding the selection of Rio, it's been suggested that the IOC will go with the safe choice in upcoming host city elections.  That's why Tokyo beat Istanbul (by the way, Tokyo hasn't started rebuilding its Olympic Stadium yet, and it's not expected to be ready until December 2019) and why Beijing is getting a Winter Olympics despite the fact that "winter" is an arbitrary term in that part of China.  I do agree that the IOC will be a little more cautious, at least in the near future.  The race for 2024 was already between Los Angeles and Paris, and I don't expect that to change.

Experts have also predicted that the rush to get to Africa, the last remaining continent, has been calmed.  South Africa's probably the only African country that can handle hosting an Olympics economically anyway, so it's really up to them when they want to even take the chance.  The first Olympics in a Muslim country is probably on hold now, too.  But Istanbul's bids keep getting better and better, and it seems inevitable that Istanbul will eventually host.

But, among all the articles I've read with their "solutions" for how to "fix" the Olympics in recent days, the suggestion that delaying the inevitable trips to Africa and the Arab world over safer alternatives are the only things I agree with.  In fact, most of the ideas put forth in those articles were downright stupid.

The article that I found the dumbest (by a Dartmouth professor no less) implied that the Olympics are becoming too expensive for a single host city.  The solution offered?  Hold the Olympics all over the world!  Seriously.  That was this guy's suggestion.  To have each sport in a different city, and not necessarily on the same continent.  (If he'd said pick a host country instead of a host city, I wouldn't be so completely dismissive of this idea.)  His argument for why did have some logic to it, but having all the sports together in the same place is kind of the point of the Olympics.  They already have competitions in the different sports all over the world.  Those are called World Championships.

One of the other obvious flaws of this plan is the Opening Ceremony.  He suggested that the athletes could all simply fly into one city for the Opening Ceremony, then disperse for the different events.  OK, so where do you hold the ceremony then?  And what athlete in his right mind is going to fly somewhere just to march in the Opening Ceremony, only to immediately fly somewhere else (who knows how far away) for their competition?  A lot of swimmers and gymnasts that compete on the first weekend skip the Opening Ceremony already.

That's still better than another brilliant solution to deal with the costs associated with hosting the Olympics.  That's the oft-proposed idea of having a permanent host city.  That way you don't have a different city spending millions to build venues that they'll only use for two weeks every four years.  Olympia is the destination brought up most frequently, for obvious reasons. (Apparently the Greek economic issues aren't a problem for these advocates.  Although, that's still better than the idea of permanently holding the Winter Olympics in Antarctica, which, in addition to being literally the furthest place on Earth for much of the world's population, has a pretty inhospitable climate year--round.)

While the Ancient Olympics were always held at Olympia, a permanent site for the modern Games goes against the very ideals established by Baron Pierre de Coubertin.  When he revived the Olympics in 1894, he made it clear that he didn't want that.  An international event is supposed to be held all over the world.  That universality has always been a trademark.  That's one of the reasons this year's Olympics are in Rio de Janeiro.  They've never been to South America before.

Logistically, a permanent host city wouldn't work.  Where would that permanent site be?  Who would be in charge of organizing the Games?  Where would the money come from?  And, frankly, the novelty would wear off if athletes were going the same place every four years.  Each Olympics gets a good part of its identity from its host city.  That would definitely be lost with a permanent host.

Then there's the article that didn't have a ridiculous "solution."  Unlike the others, it wasn't an apocalyptic lament on the death of the Olympic Movement.  It was an article that came out on the anniversary of the 1984 Opening Ceremony.  The Olympic Movement was in a bit of a crisis back then.  Things were so bad that LA was the only bidder for the 1984 Games, which gave them the power to control some things, namely using existing venues and privately financing the Games.  LA didn't just save the Olympic Movement, it established a model that Olympic hosts continue to use.

Wouldn't it be crazy if things come full circle and LA "saves" the Olympic Movement again 40 years later?  That's the moral of the story here.  Everyone thinks the model is broken because of Sochi's price tag, Rio's problems, and the nightmare that was the bidding for 2022.  It's not broken.  People just need their faith back.  Maybe 16 successful days in one of the most picturesque cities on the planet will help restore some of that faith.

Dissecting the Deadline Deals

Major League Baseball's non-waiver trade deadline has come and gone.  And as usual, teams made deals with a definite purpose in mind.  The Indians, Rangers and Cubs went all-in for this season, while the Yankees were in the unique position of unloading their prime talent.  There are also the buyers that are fooling themselves (Mets, Pirates) and the teams that surprisingly did very little (Tigers).  Still other teams, I'm not exactly sure what they were doing (Matt Kemp from the Padres to the Braves?).

As with every trade deadline, there were definite winners and losers.  While we won't know for certain who the real winners and losers are until October (or, potentially, years later), we've definitely seen some of their chances at getting to the Promised Land improve dramatically.  We've even seen one seller potentially set itself up for a long run of sustained success.

So, who are those winners?  Well, a lot of people are now expecting a Cubs-Indians World Series.  At least they were until Texas was done dealing.  Now, I'm seeing a lot of Cubs-Rangers.  And I can see why.  You want winners?  Start right there.

Winners

• Cubs: The only thing they were missing was a closer.  That's why they fired the first strike by getting Aroldis Chapman last week.  Everyone knows they can hit and the rotation, which was the problem last year, is definitely good enough for a long playoff run.  But that bullpen, which was already decent, is that much better with Chapman closing and the combination of Pedro Strop and Hector Rondon moved up an inning.  Throw in Joe Nathan, as well as the also newly-acquired Mike Montgomery and Joe Smith, and you can see why the Cubs are now even bigger favorites in the National League.
• Rangers: Texas might've been the biggest winner of anybody that was buying.  They already had arguably the best lineup in the American League.  Then they added the best catcher available in Jonathan Lucroy (after he vetoed a deal to Cleveland), as well as the best hitter available in Carlos Beltran.  Prince Fielder's out for the year, and Texas actually managed to upgrade at DH, which Beltran is now free to do full-time.  I still have questions about their bullpen, but they can easily slug their way to the AL pennant.
• Indians: Cleveland's in first place because of its sensational starting pitching.  But they knew that if they're going to go far in October, they needed to improve their bullpen.  Enter Andrew Miller, the second closer traded by the Yankees in less than a week.  Of course, with Yan Gomes out, they really would've hit the mother load if Lucroy had agreed to come to Cleveland.  They still need a bat.  Michael Brantley's coming back at some point, but don't be surprised to see them try and pull off a waiver deal sometime in August.
• Dodgers: When the Dodgers announced that they had acquired Josh Reddick, I was confused.  "They have a stockpile of outfielders, why do they need another?", I thought.  But then I heard they're trying to get rid of Yasiel Puig, and the Reddick trade made more sense.  Rich Hill was a smart add since they obviously needed at least one starter (especially with Kershaw out), and Jesse Chavez was a nice addition to the bullpen.  Is it enough to catch the Giants?  Probably not (it is an even year, after all).  But the Dodgers are definitely right in the heart of the wild card discussion.
• Yankees: Yes, it seems odd to say the team that's usually a buyer and turned into a seller is a deadline winner, but I think in this case, you could argue that the Yankees are.  Of the four guys they traded (Chapman, Miller, Beltran and Ivan Nova), three are going to be free agents at the end of the season.  So, instead of losing them for nothing, they yielded an incredible haul of prospects that have given them one of the best farm systems in baseball.  Those prospects could either form the core of the next Yankees dynasty the same way The Core Four did...or they can be flipped for the big guns the next time they're in a position to buy.

Now for the losers, of which I can definitely think of a couple...

• Mets: Last year when they got Yoenis Cespedes, it was the move that propelled the Mets to the World Series.  This year they made a similar move for Jay Bruce, but the results won't be anywhere near the same.  This isn't last year's Mets.  Adding Bruce seems a little desperate frankly.  They're not going to catch the Nationals, and I'm not really sure they improved their wild card chances.  And the outfield of Bruce, Granderson and Cespedes isn't exactly three Gold Glovers out there.  I do like it that they brought Jon Niese back, though.  Mainly because I like him.
• Mariners: Seattle's in the postseason discussion for the first time in years.  Yet what did they do at the deadline to improve themselves?  Exactly.  In fact, the only move they did make was sending starting pitcher Wade Miley to Baltimore.  Contending teams are supposed to use the trade deadline to make themselves better.  The Mariners didn't do that.  They weren't good enough to make the playoffs before, and they aren't good enough to now.
• Padres: It's pretty obvious that they were in sell mode for most of the season, but it has to be embarrassing when you trade a guy only to have the other team trade him back three days later because he got hurt in his first start.  At least Colin Rea's return means that it's only 60 percent of their Opening Day rotation that's been traded.  They went all-in during the offseason a few years ago and it didn't work out.  Now they've gone full-blown Atlanta Braves.  Although, it was actually impressive that they somehow convinced the Braves to take Matt Kemp, who doesn't really have any value.
• Tigers: Like Seattle, Detroit did nothing at the deadline.  Of course, the Tigers are in a much better position than the Mariners right now, but I'm still surprised they didn't make even a minor move to improve the bullpen.  Apparently they tried, but the asking price was too high.  As a result, the Tigers are going to bank on the returns of J.D. Martinez and Jordan Zimmermann to push them past the Indians in the AL Central.  But Detroit has long had bullpen problems (which have killed them in the playoffs in the past) that they would've been smart to address.
• Red Sox: A lot of people would argue that Boston didn't have to do much at the deadline, and I would have to say I agree with them.  So why do I consider the Red Sox "losers?"  Because Baltimore and Toronto made better moves than they did.  The Orioles and Blue Jays both added the starter that they needed and picked up a bat.  Other than getting their needed starter (Drew Pomeranz), the Red Sox mainly addressed their bullpen.  We'll see if it's enough.