17 replies to this topic

[Fred not Lynn]

You know, I can't think of a fundemental reason that the Olympic Games have to be every four years. Personally, I'd love to be engaged like this and see guys like Usian Bolt every year. Sure, I know that there's a World Championship, and I often watch that...but this whole concept of packaging all these sports and presenting them in a unified way, is pretty fun.

Maybe you don't do the actual Olympic thing every year. Maybe you do each Games every second year. Maybe you somehow link all the sports World Championships in a way that they're presented on TV and internet to SEEM like the Olympic Games, even if they're at different sites all over the world. Maybe in off years, you create sub-games for genres of sport (i.e. an all ice Games, the Thialf Games featuring figure skating, speed skating, curling, bandy and ice hockey, or the Posideon Games with all aquatic events) in the off years.

And don't pull the "It won't be special" line on me. The Super Bowl is pretty special every year. So are the World Series, Augusta, Tour de France and the Kentucky Derby. A little more Olympic style multi-sport action won't dilute the excitement.

[lars10]

You know, I can't think of a fundemental reason that the Olympic Games have to be every four years. Personally, I'd love to be engaged like this and see guys like Usian Bolt every year. Sure, I know that there's a World Championship, and I often watch that...but this whole concept of packaging all these sports and presenting them in a unified way, is pretty fun.

Maybe you don't do the actual Olympic thing every year. Maybe you do each Games every second year. Maybe you somehow link all the sports World Championships in a way that they're presented on TV and internet to SEEM like the Olympic Games, even if they're at different sites all over the world. Maybe in off years, you create sub-games for genres of sport (i.e. an all ice Games, the Thialf Games featuring figure skating, speed skating, curling, bandy and ice hockey, or the Posideon Games with all aquatic events) in the off years.

And don't pull the "It won't be special" line on me. The Super Bowl is pretty special every year. So are the World Series, Augusta, Tour de France and the Kentucky Derby. A little more Olympic style multi-sport action won't dilute the excitement.

There aren't enough cities with enough venues... even a city like London has to make a number of temporary facilities and huge infrastructure improvements to host. And they've already changed to alternating winter and summer so that there are games every two. It's more like the world cup or the european championships...Super Bowl is one game. World Series is seven...Kentucky Derby is one event at an olympics...as would be the Tour...they're just not comparable in the amount of planning and facilities needed.

[Fred not Lynn]

That's why one of my suggestions was to simulate the Olympic Games as a TV/Internet thing, but at different sites around the globe. You've also got the many cities that have already held the Games that would gladly welcome another chance to use their specialzed venues again.

[Andrew]

Once every two years makes it feel more special. I know that sounds corny, but I honestly think it is true. Don't tell me what I can't do!

The other things you listed are nowhere near as impressive as the Olympics, are not *two week* events, and don't involve anywhere near the number of people.

Edited by Andrew, 12 August 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[Fred not Lynn]

But it is once every four years if you're actually interested in the sports you're watching.

[singaporesoxfan]

If what you like is just the combination of different sports, there's usually something every year on a regional basis: Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games etc.

I think the ending of the Goodwill Games might suggest that there isn't the appetite for more frequent iterations of the Olympics.

[collings94]

Television is an underlying factor. It's a huge commitment to cover the olympics the way NBC does, and if they didn't have as much time to get ready for the Games, the coverage would be sloppy (it's already pretty bad). Also, you have TV contracts for shows that have to be made so the Olympics can run in primetime. Summertime shows that are in-season get taken off of the air for nearly a month, not just on NBC, but on other stations as well. Getting rid of these shows once every 4 years is ok, but I presume it would be much harder to do it more frequently.

[Fred not Lynn]

I think with the changing media realities, the way traditional TV does this may not be the way it would be moving forward. I guess my question more is, are WE, as a viewing public, more interested in seeing this sort of thing more often? If so, what formats would work best? If not, why not?

[DrewDawg]

But it is once every four years if you're actually interested in the sports you're watching.

I think he meant the fact that 2 years from now there's a Winter Olympics.

[Fred not Lynn]

I know exactly what he was saying. I meant, if you actually like the sports, you have to wait 4 years - just like the athletes in those sports do.

And come to think of it, there is recent precedent for a shorter break and it worked out fine - the 1994 Winter Games in Lillhammer were a great success, despite only being 2 years after the 1992 Games in Albertville.

[DrewDawg]

I think, like someone said above, it's mainly the economics of the thing.

But, if we changed the time frame, we'd need to change the name. Olympics comes from, obviously, Olympiad. An Olympiad is a period of time lasting 4 years.

And no, I don't think that's actually a big deal, but who knows? You may be on Jeopardy one day and need the knowledge

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

Putting the entire event together would be prohibitive for both TV and for hosting cities that have to grind to a halt while all the events step on daily life, but I love the idea of trying to do something in the way of coordinating symbiotic sports, like aquatic events, ice based, team field based games and so on. There's not much interest in sports cooperating right now, and egos of the governing bodies would surely get in the way, but even if it meant staggering the annual championships of speed skating short and long track with ice hockey, and skiing with luge, bobsled, ski jumping, etc. so that programming could showcase them worldwide for fans with an inclination to pick up on the years outstanding performers, it would be a boon to everyone. If they happened in the same or in nearby cities the commercial aspect would make it into a commercial opportunity.

The one city, one event for every last sport is so big a production it requires planning of a genius like Mitt Romney, so that could be set aside for every four years.

[SumnerH]

I think, like someone said above, it's mainly the economics of the thing.

But, if we changed the time frame, we'd need to change the name. Olympics comes from, obviously, Olympiad. An Olympiad is a period of time lasting 4 years.

And no, I don't think that's actually a big deal, but who knows? You may be on Jeopardy one day and need the knowledge

They held a 2-year offset games in Athens in 1906 called the Intercalated Olympic Games. They were planning on having the regular Olympics move around every 4 years as they do now, with the Intercalated Games in Athens every 4 years on the 2-year offset. For a variety of reasons that didn't happen, but the name's ready to go...

[santadevil]

I know exactly what he was saying. I meant, if you actually like the sports, you have to wait 4 years - just like the athletes in those sports do.

And come to think of it, there is recent precedent for a shorter break and it worked out fine - the 1994 Winter Games in Lillhammer were a great success, despite only being 2 years after the 1992 Games in Albertville.

The only other issue I can see with this, are there are some athletes that do actually compete in both the summer and winter games. Which would take one of those games out of the equation for them.
I know it's only a small number and not likely to matter, but it is one reason I can see.

[Dan Murfman]

The only other issue I can see with this, are there are some athletes that do actually compete in both the summer and winter games. Which would take one of those games out of the equation for them.
I know it's only a small number and not likely to matter, but it is one reason I can see.

The Winter Olympics are in February and the Summer Olympics are in July/august. Why couldn't they did both?

[trekfan55]

There is a huge effort involved ion hosting the Olympic Games. Getting a host city on board does not seem to be a problem for the IOC now, but it's proven less and less advantageous to host event on such a scale by certain cities. The construction of stadia, much of which may never be used again, plus the infrastructure needed involves a massive investment, one less and less likely to be recouped in today's world. This is not even taking into account what must be spent in security nowadays.

Now, if you can find cities that can do something like LA did in 1984 (used mostly preexisting facilities) and have most of the infrastructure ready then maybe.

For 2020 the candidates are Tokyo, Madrid, and Istambul. I don't see Madrid going forward with their country on the verge of bankruptcy. Who else can really do this?

[Fred not Lynn]

There is a huge effort involved ion hosting the Olympic Games. Getting a host city on board does not seem to be a problem for the IOC now, but it's proven less and less advantageous to host event on such a scale by certain cities. The construction of stadia, much of which may never be used again,

Part of what I'd like about doing it more often would be being able to go back to some of the same host cities more often, and get some more mileage from the venues. There was a joke that Montreal should host the 2000 games, might as well use the stadium again if you're still paying for it.

[trekfan55]

Part of what I'd like about doing it more often would be being able to go back to some of the same host cities more often, and get some more mileage from the venues. There was a joke that Montreal should host the 2000 games, might as well use the stadium again if you're still paying for it.

I do remember that joke, and maybe it's a good idea to reuse some of the facilities that are there, but in reality now there is so much more involved, from hotel accomodations to more athletes and countries, to the media and communications facilities that I'm not so sure so many of the previous hosts are up to. And again, there is the one time cost of the necessary security (which in London even involved the installation of missile launchers on the roofs of apartment buildings).