Oddly, the Americans' loss may actually be good for keeping softball in the Olympics.

They really need to tweak the game to allow for more scoring, though. Set the mound further back? Three balls for a walk? Higher arcs on the pitches?

First Pearl Harbor, and now this.

First Pearl Harbor, and now this.

Furman Bisher must be pissed.

Furman Bisher must be pissed

He's pretty old so...yeah.

That tournament system in the Olympics was pretty asinine.

Agree with RMc, for softball to have a chance at coming back, the U.S. had to lose. Now advocates can point at the result and say that softball can be competitive.

"Agree with RMc, for softball to have a chance at coming back, the U.S. had to lose. Now advocates can point at the result and say that softball can be competitive."

Which in turn, makes conspiracy theories more attractive...

Is competitiveness really the reason they got rid of softball? If so, aren't there other sports equally dominated by one country? Diving, ping pong are both dominated by the Chinese. Why not get rid of those? I'm sure there are others but they don't come to mind right now.

What is the reason that baseball and softball were removed from the program? I'm sure there is a public explanation, though it might not be entirely truthful.

They got rid of them because there was limited appeal.

While it would really cost MLB a ton of money to do it, I really think having MLB players in the Olympics would be good for the sport, especially if it was a "no opt out" situation, so you'd have all the best players. And ESPECIALLY if it was done outside the United States.

They have limited olympic appeal and require the construction of large infrastructure than cannot be used by other sports.

Is there really less international interest in baseball/softball than there is in water polo or trampoline? It's possible, I suppose, but it seems unlikely.

EDIT: BLB's second point makes sense.

Meh. Take it to Softball Think Factory.

"Is there really less international interest in baseball/softball than there is in water polo or trampoline? It's possible, I suppose, but it seems unlikely."

During the water polo broadcast of US v. Croatia, they talked about how almost all the top US players spend their non-Olympic time playing for European pro teams. It totally blew my mind that Europe HAS professional water polo teams.

With regard to baseball, I thought the main reason for elimination was that, unlike basketball and hockey (and virtually all of the other sports?), the top athletes are not competing. The Olympic committee wanted Major League players to play. MLB said no (to interrupting the season). Olympics cancelled baseball participation. This doesn't explain softball, but I assume they were looked at as a pair in terms of deciding for their inclusion or exclusion.

I was also astounded to find that there is professional Team Handball in Europe.

Is there really less international interest in baseball/softball than there is in water polo or trampoline? It's possible, I suppose, but it seems unlikely.

IMO, one of the "problems" with baseball / softball is that the interest in them is too concentrated. In countries where they are played seriously, they are very popular, there's a large audience. But outside of those countries, baseball / softball pretty much doesn't exist at all. Other than "hip" people wearing Yankee or RS hats, because they are trendy.

They should play baseball during the winter olympics. I'm sure they could convert a stadium to play indoors or they could even play it in an entirely different locale. That way major league players get to play, even if it's not the best of the best. It would also get around the problem that baseball fans would probably rather watch the pennant race than the olympic games.

I was in France last week...wall to wall Handball coverage

Weird

I've definitely noticed a correlation between a sport's popularity in Europe and its viability for Olympic play.

I was in Germany during Nagano...it was non-stop XC skiing. They never even mentioned hockey or even figure skating, really. A little bit of ski jumping.

A lot of European soccer clubs are actually part of larger organizations (that is, actual "athletic clubs" instead of just soccer teams) that have professional basketball teams, handball teams, volleyball teams, et cetera.

Most of the big-name Israeli, Greek, and Turkish teams are like this. There's Real Madrid and Barcelona basketball teams as well as football teams. I even found a Wikipedia list.

And in England, a lot of the big soccer teams have women's teams now as well as one or more youth teams.

So my point is that it's easy for a fan of PSV Eindhoven to also become a fan of PSV Eindhoven's volleyball team and the PSV Eindhoven water polo team because they sort of have the same image/brand/personality as the football team.

I bet if the Pirates were called "Pittsburgh Steelers Baseball Club", to go along with the Pittsburgh Steelers Football Club and Pittsburgh Steelers Ice Hockey Club, they'd have a lot more fans in other cities and the fans would be a lot more annoying.

The best players don't show up in soccer either. By design.

2004 FIFA World Footballer of the Year Ronaldinho says hi

During the water polo broadcast of US v. Croatia, they talked about how almost all the top US players spend their non-Olympic time playing for European pro teams. It totally blew my mind that Europe HAS professional water polo teams.

It's basically said above, but most Olympic sports have pro leagues around the world. The US strikes me as being fairly unique in having such huge professional sports industry with a relatively few sports dividing up the pie.

Hey GuyWho, you're screwing up the side menu with your fancy pants handle!

I was also astounded to find that there is professional Team Handball in Europe.

Handball's cool. It's sort of like baskethockeyball. I'd watch it if it were on the teevee.

The best players don't show up in soccer either. By design.

2004 FIFA World Footballer of the Year Ronaldinho says hi

Hi, Ronaldinho. As you know, it's a 23-and-under tournament, though each team gets three age exceptions. So a few of the world's best players show up, but generally speaking, the most notable fact about the Olympic soccer tournament is the absence of the world's best players. Which is by design.

Handball's cool. It's sort of like baskethockeyball. I'd watch it if it were on the teevee.

Just click over to nbcolympics.com and watch to your heart's content. Its also nice that they have top plays from each day of action.

I had heard (don't have any idea if its true) that baseball and softball were basically being dumped for the 2012 Olympics because London didn't want to have build facilities that they were unlikely to have any reasoanble use for after the Olympics. As such, the expectation was that baseball and softball would be back for 2016.

Anyone hear anything like that? It certainly seems plausible enough and the other excuses I've heard don't really hold up. Baseball is increasingly international with high-level play on multiple continents. This kills the "no one else plays" argument. Moreover, the "the best guys don't play" argument seems unlikely in view of the soccer competition.

But the best guys do play in soccer. The best under-23 guys, plus the 3 exceptions on every team. In baseball, on the other hand, it's the best of the worst.

If there were an under-23 baseball tournament, where MLB teams released their 22 year old rookie of the year candidates, and teams also picked 3 superstars per country, that would be great. But that's not what happens. Instead, you get some prospects, some AAAA no-names, and a Japanese team with a smattering of top stars and no-names, all competing against the Cuban all-stars.

If you picked "the best of a limited set, plus others", baseball could work. Instead, you get whoever isn't good enough to be unavailable and feels like going.

"Which in turn, makes conspiracy theories more attractive..."

OK, it's been three hours, I'm going to call it: The Zeth-beacon is officially broken.

I had heard (don't have any idea if its true) that baseball and softball were basically being dumped for the 2012 Olympics because London didn't want to have build facilities that they were unlikely to have any reasoanble use for after the Olympics. As such, the expectation was that baseball and softball would be back for 2016.

How nice. How about if Chicago declines to build a whitewater rafting facility or skulling complex? Jeeze, you agree to host all the Olympics, not just convenient portions.

Hey GuyWho, you're screwing up the side menu with your fancy pants handle!

Duly noted and changed. I mean I knew it was a powerful handle and all... it's fine on my screen though, maybe you just need a bigger one.


#30: I think it's almost certainly a combination of multiple factors. The cost of facilities that have no further use a certainly one of them.
Secondly, there really is just no general appeal. The countries where it would be viewed are all pretty much focused on the MLB pennant races. Outside of those nobody cares about baseball.
It's simply a cost-benefit black hole.

Another aspect that often gets overlooked is that MLB does not adhere to the IOC's standards with regards to steroids (testing and punishment). So basically, there is no guarantee (in the IPC's eyes) that anybody coming from the minor league affiliates etc. is clean. And the IOC can get very picky about those kind of things...

As for 2016, it's possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath. As I said, this decision is based on more than one criterion, and a lot of the problems that London faces with holding baseball/softball will persist well past 2012...

Mike Piazza is interested in this so-called "fancy pants handle". This "handle"...is something you grab ahold of, to drag a fancy person around by the pants?

How nice. How about if Chicago declines to build a whitewater rafting facility or skulling complex? Jeeze, you agree to host all the Olympics, not just convenient portions.

But that's not what happened. The IOC made the decision to can baseball and softball, not the London 2012 comitee. London's concerns were probably a (big) part of decision, but it wasn't London that made it.

As for 2016, it's possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath

It would be a damed shame if the games are held in Chicago or Tokyo with no baseball. And I think there's about a 90% they will be in one of those 2.

Mike Piazza is interested in this so-called "fancy pants handle". This "handle"...is something you grab ahold of, to drag a fancy person around by the pants?

Looks like a starter handle, works like an off switch.

"Mike Piazza is interested in this so-called "fancy pants handle"."

Yeah, but I bet Smitty hates it.

Mike Piazza is interested in this so-called "fancy pants handle". This "handle"...is something you grab ahold of, to drag a fancy person around by the pants?

It's the new market inefficiency in the pants industry. We'll finally be able to compete with the Underwear Gnomes again!

I don't know whether they lost on purpose to try and keep softball alive, but I kind of doubt it. The Olympics tend to be kind of important to the people that compete in them, and we'd be talking a conspiracy involving at least a dozen people to throw a game. That's about impossible to keep under wraps. Doesn't pass the plausible conspiracy test for me, and that's saying something.

By the way, the officially given reason for killing softball was "excessive US dominance." Never mind that the US has been dominating a certain other two-on-two women's "sport" to an even greater extent, and said "sport" continues to be played.

Maybe we can strike a compromise and let softball continue under the condition the players play 93% naked?

Whatever they say it's about, it's about the ratings -> it's about the money. Playing softball in the Olympics isn't profitable to anybody.

"Never mind that the US has been dominating a certain other two-on-two women's "sport" to an even greater extent, and said "sport" continues to be played."

I thought it was the Chinese that were the best at ping-pong?

It would be a damed shame if the games are held in Chicago or Tokyo with no baseball. And I think there's about a 90% they will be in one of those 2.

It would. The next host will likely play a big part with regards to baseball being back on the schedule. But I don't think the IOC likes going on/off with Olympic events. If they decide to reinstate it, I suspect they would want some type of insurances that it will remain viable beyond 2016, regardless of where the Olympics are being hosted.

Although, come to think of it, I believe I read somewhere that the host nation gets to nominate one event for their Olympics. That might be a backdoor to putting it in 2016, but not beyond...

I had heard (don't have any idea if its true) that baseball and softball were basically being dumped for the 2012 Olympics because London didn't want to have build facilities that they were unlikely to have any reasoanble use for after the Olympics.

That is not right, although the IOC was concerned about building facilities that wouldn't be used after the games. However, the decision to drop baseball and softball was certainly separate from London --- the announcement of London getting the games and the IOC dropping the two sports were made within days of each other. The decisions were made by separate voting comitteees. London certainly didn't have any say in what sports they would host.

Baseball was kicked off as a result of an ongoing power struggle between MLB, the IOC, and the International Baseball Federation. In a nutshell, the IOC had been upset with MLB's drug testing policy for quite sometime, plus the fact that MLB did nothing to send the major leaguers to the Olympics. When Selig and the IBAF announced the WBC, the IOC reacted by cutting baseball. Softball was collateral damage.

Never mind that the US has been dominating a certain other two-on-two women's "sport" to an even greater extent, and said "sport" continues to be played.

That's in the AMV Awards, not the Olympics.

The next host will likely play a big part with regards to baseball being back on the schedule.

The host has absolutely nothing to do with what games are on the venue.

bads85's explanation seems very plausible to me. That basically boils down to 1. Bickering over money/marketing and 2. Personal conflicts, which are the two things that, when you get down to it, explain 98% of all the decisions that are made in the world.

Crispix, this seems like as good a place as any to mention that I'm in love with your present username. Well played.

"The host has absolutely nothing to do with what games are on the venue."

I think it'd be hilarious if the host just decided at the last minute to host games and sell tickets anyway. What's the IOC going to do, cancel the Olympics and tell everyone to go home?

Thanks, but the Ryan Howard ads aren't here anymore, so soon it will have to change.

To whoever suggested that baseball be played during the winter olympics: The Winter Olympics are comprised of games played on snow and/or ice. Baseball doesn't meet that requirement.

Also, if Bud Selig is the reason softball was canceled as an Olympic sport, then that's another reason to hate him.

I don't know whether they lost on purpose to try and keep softball alive, but I kind of doubt it.

They probably lost because they didn't take the best players to the Olympics. Granted, it was still an enormous upset, but the U.S.A. roster selection was not based on ability. Certain players past their prime were selected because of who they were rather than their ability while younger, better players were denied.

If Chicago does get the Olympics, do the Cubs and Sox both go on two week road trips? I suppose that's what the Braves did in 1996.

{checks BBREF}

Yep. The Braves were on the road from Jul 18 through Aug 4, 17 games in a row.

To whoever suggested that baseball be played during the winter olympics: The Winter Olympics are comprised of games played on snow and/or ice. Baseball doesn't meet that requirement.

Plus, if you think it's hard getting London to build a baseball stadium, try convincing some small town in the Alps or the Caucases.

"The Winter Olympics are comprised of games played on snow and/or ice. Baseball doesn't meet that requirement."

There's no reason you couldn't, if you wanted to.

I frolf in snow, maybe that'll be a winter olympic sport.

The host generally does get to select "Demonstration Sports" for their Olympics. Those events aren't given actual medals however. At least that is how baseball made its way into the 1984 games as I recall.

With respect to the baseball decision, I think there is a lot more respect for the IOC process here than I would have generally expected. My sense of the situation, based on the Utah games, was more of the London people telling the IOC, "We have the construction of baseball and softball facilities in our left-hand and the use of a dozen prime London flats in our right."

If nothing else it allowed me to put Gilbert Gottfried in the IOC role.

I have the perfect compromise: wiffle ball. You can play in almost any venue plus it's fun to make up the ground rules based on the configuration of the "field"

The host generally does get to select "Demonstration Sports" for their Olympics

.

Demonstration sports have been banned since 1992.

There are lots of good reasons not to have baseball in the Olympics. I'm fairly ambivalent.


There really is no reason not to have softball other than "US dominance" which is a crock of ####. They should ban any sport where one country wins three Olympics in a row, which would be most sports (at one time or another).

you can play wiffle ball ANYWHERE.

There really is no reason not to have softball other than "US dominance" which is a crock of ####.

Yeah. Why didn't they ban Hockey around 1976? Why do they still have pairs figure skating?

Maybe by the time chicago hosts the olympics, they will be able to have competitive eating as a demonstration sport.

"Is there really less international interest in baseball/softball than there is in water polo"

Water Polo was the first team sport at the modern Olympics.
More different countries have won the gold for Water Polo and Soccer than any other sport and by almost the same countries.
You must live in part of the country that doesn't have much Water Polo. But it is the corresponding team sport to a pool. Swimming isn't as popular as Track & Field corresponds to Water Polo isn't as popular as Soccer. Diving is the pool Sport that is losing popularity due to extra equipment needed, deep pools required, lots of injuries and law suits.

But I know what you meant, you just didn't pick the right sport.
Softball really does have the least numbers of countries participating. If they want the sport back, they need all those Latin American countries that have Baseball teams to start up Softball ones.
Someone already mentioned the lack of reusability of the Baseball fields. That is really important to a host country. The Table Tennis Center can be reused for Volleyball, Team Handball, etc. That site is worth building.

The World Baseball Classic hurts baseball rather than helps it. It is probably right that Baseball/Softball are dropped. But there are a lot of other sports that should be looked at for competitive imbalance: Judo, Greco-Roman Wrestling, Table Tennis, Weight Lifting (although this has become popular in a lot of countries), Trampoline, Rythym Gymnastics, Badminton, some of the Shooting, and Archery. But China is good at a lot of those sports so they weren't about to be dropped.

Demonstration sports have been banned since 1992.

Thank goodness. They were an affront to decency and needed to be banned.

I grew up in an LA suburb and just wrapped up the third-grade when the '84 games were held. For a kid and a sports geek they were the greatest thing ever. I can remember specific events from virtually every day of that two week stretch. Based primarily on that experience, I've remained one of the three or four people left in this country who actually cares about the Olympics.

I am certain that the IOC has simply decided that they want everyone to hate the games. Its the only reasonably plausible explanation. How a governing body can get people to remain ambivalent about, or even dislike, an opportunity to gather people from around the world to play and to watch sports will remain one of the greatest achievments of the modern age.

Based primarily on that experience, I've remained one of the three or four people left in this country who actually cares about the Olympics.

Three. Beatrice M. Schnupp of Monticello, Indiana, died age 71 in February. :(

"If Chicago does get the Olympics, do the Cubs and Sox both go on two week road trips?"

Another cool aspect of including baseball in 2016, if Chicago is selected, would be playing games in a stadium that is over 100 years old. Has that ever happened before for any event in the modern olympics? Although, I guess, even without baseball/softball, they could still probably find some sport to host at Wrigley.

Beatrice M. Schnupp of Monticello, Indiana, died age 71 in February.

I hope she Fed-Exed the potato salad for Saturday's BBQ before she kicked.

playing games in a stadium that is over 100 years old. Has that ever happened before for any event in the modern olympics?

I remember in Athens they used a stadium that was thousands of years old for the shot put and some other track things.

Motoko Fujimoto hit a comebacker to U.S. pitcher Monica Abbott, who tried to get the runner heading home. Her throw to catcher Stacey Nuveman was late

Someone tell me how the #### a throw to home on a comebacker to the pitcher is LATE.

Maybe fully grown women should play on something a little bigger than a tee-ball field.

"Maybe by the time chicago hosts the olympics, they will be able to have competitive eating as a demonstration sport."

And instead of medals, they can give out little foil-wrapped pieces of chocolate at the end.

If there were an under-23 baseball tournament, where MLB teams released their 22 year old rookie of the year candidates, and teams also picked 3 superstars per country, that would be great.

This was basically my wife's idea. My wife isn't even a baseball fan, and she figured it out...why can't MLB/IOC?

To whoever suggested that baseball be played during the winter olympics: The Winter Olympics are comprised of games played on snow and/or ice. Baseball doesn't meet that requirement.

Er, that was me; file that one under "It's So Crazy It Just Might Work...!" It would work in Vancouver in 2010; after that they'd need to make other arrangements. How about building a permanent Baseball Olympia in Japan or something?

For a kid and a sports geek (the 84 Olympics) were the greatest thing ever.

Hear, hear. I ate free McDonald's food for weeks.

Another cool aspect of including baseball in 2016, if Chicago is selected, would be playing games in a stadium that is over 100 years old.

Oh, for the love of god, host 'em at the Cell (if we're unfortunate enough to actually get that godforsaken international circlejerk). It's a vastly more modern facility, and it's much closer to the proposed Olympic park.

To whoever suggested that baseball be played during the winter olympics: The Winter Olympics are comprised of games played on snow and/or ice. Baseball doesn't meet that requirement.

Someone's never been to Cleveland in April.

Racer X wins the thread.

i'd be fine with downsizing the olympics until it was nothing more than weightlifting, track and field and boxing and wrestling, frankly. screw the silly synchronized sports, the swimming (yawn), ping pong, the team sports that already have well established leagues and fan bases. its out of control. watching the 200m sprint final last night was the easily best,most dramatic experience of the olympics for me so far. i've wanted to see more track and field but every time i turn on the tv there's some stupid volleyball/soccer/whatever. enough.

Simply watch the events/games/sports you want to watch and ignore all else. That's not so hard given how many channels NBC is using to broadcast the games, as well as being able to watch almost any event online. While you may enjoy track and field, someone else might be captivated by swimming or (gasp) beach volleyball.

If ping pong is a sport, though, why not foosball? Imagine how cool it would be to see foosball replays in slow motion from various camera angles, including inside the "arena".

An obstacle course combining strength and speed would be fun too. So like the Eliminator in American Gladiators, but with more strength components included, as the current course is biased towards speed.

Finally, team dodgeball and everyone-for-themselves dodgeball would rock. Start each of the latter with 75 players representing 25 countries (so three player per country). The three players on a "team" (country) could work together of course to eliminate all the others. I think this would be extremely intense and violent enough to attract the viewers.

Personally, I will not pay any attention to the Olympics until they include the Aggro Crag. I don't understand how it can be considered an athletic competition without it.

That's not so hard given how many channels NBC is using to broadcast the games,

yes it is. they focus on the sports that shouldn't be in the olympics as far as i'm concerned. volleyball, handball, basketball, more volleyball, water polo, swimming, more volleyball, more swimming, beach volleyball, synchronized swimming (yech). i exxagerate but that's what it's felt like. i've gotten some relief from watching online, true. so there is that.

Damon R: as long as you're suggesting sports, how about yet another type of gymnastics - circus gymnastics. The headliner event would, of course, be flying trapeze, but you'd also have the tightrope event, and spinning around while hanging from a pole by one's teeth, and maybe even an equestrian event. Best of all, for the right ambience, you don't need a fancy arena - a big tent will do.

i've wanted to see more track and field but every time i turn on the tv there's some stupid volleyball/soccer/whatever. enough.

I am with you for the most part, especially with synchronized diving. Diving is great, but synchronized diving? That is the stupidest #### this side of rhythmic gymnastics. Or maybe trampoline.

But SWIMMING? Swimming is fantastic. Just amazing, and I don't get the yawn at all.

i don't find swimming exciting. its just a matter of taste. i'm mostly for downsizing the olympics for convenience sake, easier to take it in and all that, give smaller countries a chance to host ... i'm just not into the excess.

Never mind that the US has been dominating a certain other two-on-two women's "sport" to an even greater extent, and said "sport" continues to be played.

Maybe we can strike a compromise and let softball continue under the condition the players play 93% naked?

*Rolls eyes*. Just because you watch the sport for the naked girls doesn't mean it isn't a sport.

It is probably right that Baseball/Softball are dropped. But there are a lot of other sports that should be looked at for competitive imbalance: Judo, Greco-Roman Wrestling, Table Tennis, Weight Lifting (although this has become popular in a lot of countries), Trampoline, Rythym Gymnastics, Badminton, some of the Shooting, and Archery. But China is good at a lot of those sports so they weren't about to be dropped.

China only became good in some of these sports, weightlifting for example, very recently. When they began pouring money and resources into it in preparation for Beijing. And they are only really dominant in women's weightlifting. And even in women's weightlifting that domination might not last long, as many smaller countries are improving quickly. Imbalance in women's lifting is expected, as it was only allowed into the Olympics in Sydney 2000. China has no long tradition of excellence in weightlifting.

The 2 dominant nations in Archery historically are Korea and the US.

The dominant countries in Wrestling are principally the countries of the former USSR, Japan, Iran.

Out of your list, the only sports in which China has a long tradition of excellence / domination are Table Tennis and Badminton. And even in Badminton, there are other countries that are as good in it as China: Indonesia.

It is really humbling to see an American TV company break away from live coverage of a semi-final Water Match between USA and Serbia to show updates of the Gold medal Baseball game between Cuba and Korea.