What does this have to do with Derek Jeter?

Well, as the Jeter decline phase intensifies, the Yanks might consider allowing The Captain to participate in the Olympics next summer.

Is there a limit to the number of possible sports to add? or is it just up to how much money/hookers these organizations are willing to give to the IOC?

What the heck is Wushu....looking it up, another martial arts.

I am surprised that Bowling didn't make the cut to be honest, thought it had significant enough worldwide popularity, and by 2020 the two handed technique should be much more mainstream and provide an interesting comparison.

and by 2020 the two handed technique should be much more mainstream and provide an interesting comparison.

That's catching on?

Are baseball and softball seen as kind of a joint entry, in that both might get in, neither might get in, but it's unlikely that one gets in and the other doesn't? Sports such as karate and wushu would have both men's and women's competions, but baseball/softball are of one gender each.

That's catching on?

yes, to the point that the youth leagues are starting to teach it in some parts. And of course it's catching on at the pro level.

2008-2009 PBA rookie of the year.

And I know of several people in my leagues who are getting up there in age and are considering it because it gives a lot of revs with an easier delivery(although it looks to me like it would be murder on the back)

I don't see why the Olympics couldn't just allow some sports to exist in some years, and not go in other years. If the Olympics is in Tokyo or the U.S. one year, baseball/softball can be easily included to be played. If its in say, Singapore for whatever reason, then baseball doesn't make sense.

As for martial arts and the like, I'm more inclined to let the various sports (Boxing, Karate, etc.) to be in one large bracket and let them fight it out. That, or allow all of them in. Each sport should be allowed in based on its merits, not if the IOC gives it okay. There is no reason to limit a sport just because a certain group of people are not familiar with it.

I saw (ladies) Wushu at the 2006 Asian Games. Asian babes with swords. Great stuff.

I don't see why the Olympics couldn't just allow some sports to exist in some years, and not go in other years. If the Olympics is in Tokyo or the U.S. one year, baseball/softball can be easily included to be played. If its in say, Singapore for whatever reason, then baseball doesn't make sense.

I've long been for an idea like this. For one, the Olympics actually do have a list of
recognized sports in addition to the "official sports", in other words, the competitions that could be added in the future. Have a few traditional Olympic sports be required, but other than that make it depend on the country (although if a host city WANTS to build a stadium for a sport that isn't popular there, they can). If it's in the USA or Japan, as Tripon said, there is no reason NOT to have baseball. The Games are in India? Fine, have Cricket. Pamplona? Sure, why not have Pelota for a year?

Honestly, I'm not really sure what is the point of baseball being an Olympic sport. The WBC is already practically guaranteed to have far more of the best players in the world than the Olympics and it's not like baseball needs additional attention for its best athletes to get proper recognition.

Soccer is in the Olympics... that is about the only thing I can think of as a counter to that comment.

as far as post nine, I would love to see cricket in the Olympics, I think it would be an interesting sport to watch when presented in a format for a complete novice viewer.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what is the point of baseball being an Olympic sport. ...

Olympic sports tend to get a lot more money from sports federations and governments, so developing baseball countries have encountered cutbacks after baseball was bounced from the Olympics. If not for this fact, I bet MLB would be happy to say the hell with the Olympics and just focus on the WBC.

Without a doubt, the first WBC was orders of magnitude better than any of the seven Olympic baseball competitions. MLB would be nuts to shut down for 7-14 days in July/August/September so MLB players could participate in the Olympics (which is what the IOC wants MLB to do).

Golf isn't an Olympic sport, right? Baseball doesn't need this. The Olympic model of athletics pre-dates the concept of a global sporting league which has unrivaled success in attracting the very best talent. Baseball gains nothing in my eyes by becoming an Olympic sport.

Golf isn't a sport, right?

FTFY :)

Soccer is in the Olympics... that is about the only thing I can think of as a counter to that comment.

Yeah, but (men's) soccer in the Olympics is U-19 or U-21 or something like that, not the real national teams and none of the stars.

Women's soccer in the Olympics has been pretty much the legit national teams unless they changed something recently.

And US vs Brazil this weekend!

And US vs Brazil this weekend!

Depending on how the four quarterfinals come out, my four favorite countries in the world (England, Japan, United States, Sweden) could make the final four...

Yeah, but (men's) soccer in the Olympics is U-19 or U-21 or something like that, not the real national teams and none of the stars.

No, it is not even U-21, it it were that, at least the teams would be coherent teams, ie, there are U-21 teams for regional competitions, so a team would play together (fairly) regularly.

Olympics soccer is under 23 (which is an age group that is not used outside of the Olympics), with 3 overaged players allowed to boost the team. The result is that any team is a one off mish-mash, that does not play together anytime else, other than at the Olympics and at qualifying.

MLB would be nuts to shut down for 7-14 days in July/August/September so MLB players could participate in the Olympics (which is what the IOC wants MLB to do).

For the first and hopefully the last time in my life I pine for the return of Avery Brundage.

Baseball gains nothing in my eyes by becoming an Olympic sport.

It not only gains nothing, but as #12 points out, unless MLB proactively forbids its players from participating, it stands to have its season totally disrupted. As far as the fans are concerned, it'd be little more than a variant of 1981. I'd like to think that Selig couldn't possibly be crazy enough to agree to this, but that's never anything we can count on whenever the marketers get his ear.

As mentioned, the main thing with Baseball in the Olympics isn't the fact that it is in the Olympics, so much as the fact that in many countries funding for sports programs is based almost entirely on whether a sport is in the Olympics.

Personally, I think the best that MLB could offer IOC without totally screwing over the season would be something like what Japanese Baseball did: they allowed each team a certain number of protection spots, and the Japanese team had to pick from the leftovers.
In other words, MLB would be offering up a team that's a mix of okay-but-not-great MLB players mixed with some prospects. Perhaps there could be some sort of "reward" for teams have players taken, like extra draft picks.

Or, alternately, they could do something like this in reverse: Each MLB team would designate, say, five players (with at least one being from a non-US country that has qualified for the olympics, if applicable), and the national teams would have to pick from them.

That's the most I ever see MLB offering the IOC (and that is unlikely anyway), barring some sort of massive change in direction.

The Olympics are for man versus man sports that can be performed in the nude, without any tools, with the possible exception of rocks and sticks.

The Olympics are for man versus man sports that can be performed in the nude, without any tools, with the possible exception of rocks and sticks.

While on the topic of the ancient olympics, I fully support putting MMA in and just calling it "Pankration".

I live in the UK, so I saw first hand the fall-out of not having baseball in the Olympics. It would have been a tremendous boost for British baseball. The London committee were planning to build temporary stadiums at Regent's Park but they would have left the fields after the games for the British baseball community, which would have been a huge boon. They also were funding the GB team and the entire event would have mobilized the disparate baseball community - there are tens of thousands of Americans, plus tens of thousands of Canadians, Japanese, Koreans, etc. that could have banded together and really gotten baseball moving. Alas that's all gone now.

People here are reasonably receptive to baseball; most British people are more or less fascinated by America and for many British sports fans a visit to an MLB stadium is part of a holiday, but there's precious little places to play it and precious few ways how.

I believe the Italians, Dutch and Spanish all suffered some funding cuts, which put back the game in those countries by years. Olympic baseball is crucial for the international success of the game, especially in developing baseball countries.

It not only gains nothing, but as #12 points out, unless MLB proactively forbids its players from participating, it stands to have its season totally disrupted.

It would be up to the teams, right? Players have contracts with a team, they can't just decide to walk out on their employer for 7-14 days.

Olympic baseball is crucial for the international success of the game, especially in developing baseball countries.

This. Part of me thinks that baseball should just ignore the Olympics -- hell, baseball is too damn good for the Eurosnobs, so eff them -- but Olympics sports get funding that non-Olympic sports just don't get.

Maybe baseball can be the same as soccer: all players but must be under 23 years of age, with three exceptions per team.

For the first and hopefully the last time in my life I pine for the return of Avery Brundage.

Just long enough for one of us to kick him in the nuts.