WTH! No more Baseball or Softball at 2008 Games?

[sssick]

How can they leave badminton in and kick out baseball? What a crock of shit. Oh well, now I'll just watch it even less than I do now.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by marzetta7

I don't doubt it is safe. I simply mentioned it as it originated in Canada (some argue Europe), but you don't hear the IOC saying that sport is too Canadian or too European.

I was shocked it was added, given how dominant Canada is in curling.

Originally Posted by marzetta7

...so I don't think the issue is the number of participatory countries. I'm of the opinion that it is simply the IOC pissed that the MLB isn't sending the likes of A-Rod, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Josh Hamilton, Johan Santana, Rich Harden, etc. over to competen on the international stage

The professional softball women ARE at the Olympics, so what is the excuse there?

Originally Posted by marzetta7

But does that mean basketball should be thrown out since we dominated it for how long? Regardless, I think a sport is a sport, regardless of where it originated from, so the premise that is too closely connected to one country or the other is not sufficient criteria for me to have it eliminated.

Just my opinion.

I think it is the Euro-centrism of the IOC, and little more. Baseball/softball doesn't generate any cushy judging positions for Europeans, and free junkets around the world to "evaluate" the countries for a particular sport.

Gary

[ThePhantomOak]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

taking softball out of the olympics has ruined the lives of billions of women????

Right from the *****ses mouth. Women are only good at softball. Every other sport is a mans sport.


But seriously, Softball was kicked out because the Americans play it, and no one else does. The Americans have 2 dozen teams that could win the olympics. Every major college has a team that could medal if geven a chance, and the rest of the world is just figuring the game out.

The other sports another poster asked about have been won other nations, Softball has never been won by any non-American.


It would be more fair if "most American person" was an olympic sport.

[ThePhantomOak]

I also think that Basketball should be forced to use non-pro's for the teams...

You cant have a pro boxer in the olympics, why are NBA players permitted? Either let both in, or exclude both.

[Anthony P]

I don't doubt it is safe. I simply mentioned it as it originated in Canada (some argue Europe), but you don't hear the IOC saying that sport is too Canadian or too European.

the big difference is that Hockey is big in all countries that could host the winter Olympics, also installation wise Hockey just needs a rink which even if we assume won’t be used for Hockey after the games the installations are just as useful for other scatting activities. On the other hand a baseball or softball diamond has a unique form and won’t be as useful if the host country is not big on the sport.

There are 16 different countries participating in baseball, and that number would only grow as more and more countries catch the feva.

I find it funny, the link you posted shows that Baseball was part of the Olympics since 1904 (as a demonstration or full fledge sport) if in over 100 years of the sport in the Olympics “feva” has not happened then why do you think it will happen soon (let’s face it, when baseball becomes popular on the world stage it could always be added back in.

Again, no reason, I simply mentioned it because it again originated in England, but the IOC isn't stating that it is too British.

I think he meant look at cricket, it Is not an Olympic event even though it is much more popular in the world then Baseball. You ranted about a sport that is not even included.
PS as to the previous posters question (why no cricket?) My guess is that it is not popular enough and it is way too long (aren’t matches like a week long? Makes it hard if the series needs to be in two weeks)

[Anthony P]

I think it is the Euro-centrism of the IOC, and little more. Baseball/softball doesn't generate any cushy judging positions for Europeans, and free junkets around the world to "evaluate" the countries for a particular sport.

I am not convinced of that. I think it is most likely three things
1) like someone said earlier installations are expensive and not useful if the host nation is not into the sport
2) The Olympics are kind of a confederation of sports, what I mean is that the IOC will add an event but they don't manage it, it is the job of each international sports federation to manage their sport (i.e. baseball is the IBAF, Soccer is FIFA...) so the Olympics are dependent on these sporting federation for everything (even what teams qualify)
3) the distribution of the available talent, just look at the games, not to be mean but some of the teams are there as filler. These are obviously not world wide sports. It is not about a team dominating (let's face it in 2004 the US baseball team did not even make it to the Olympics) it is that a handful of countries highly outclass the rest of the world.

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the big difference is that Hockey is big in all countries that could host the winter Olympics, also installation wise Hockey just needs a rink which even if we assume won’t be used for Hockey after the games the installations are just as useful for other scatting activities. On the other hand a baseball or softball diamond has a unique form and won’t be as useful if the host country is not big on the sport.

I fully realize Hockey is big in most countries that could host the winter Olympics, but again, Hockey has been given the latitude to flourish at the Olympic games since 1920...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hoc...inter_Olympics

...whereas Baseball has only been tried sporadically (labeled a demonstration/exhibition sport) and only became a medal sport in 1992...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_baseball

...so honestly for more than half the time in the Olympics, what is a country's incentive to create a baseball team when there are no medals involved?

Moreover, I don't buy that a baseball field can't be converted into something useful after its use as we have plenty here in the states that are utilized for baseball, football, lacrosse, and soccer.

I find it funny, the link you posted shows that Baseball was part of the Olympics since 1904 (as a demonstration or full fledge sport) if in over 100 years of the sport in the Olympics “feva” has not happened then why do you think it will happen soon (let’s face it, when baseball becomes popular on the world stage it could always be added back in.

As I stated earlier, when it is a demonstration sport for more than half the time it is in the olympics, there's not much incentive for countries to build teams when there are no rewards involved...aka medals.

Furthermore, baseball is already very widely popular on the world stage (Taiwan, Australia, Japan, Korea, America, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, etc), as the exclusion from the olympics certainly didn't come from popularity, but moreso as an agenda item from a largely European IOC commission.

I think he meant look at cricket, it Is not an Olympic event even though it is much more popular in the world then Baseball. You ranted about a sport that is not even included.

You are correct, I think I was looking at an article on how cricket was played at the Olympics back in 1900. Anyhow, I ranted not so much about cricket but about the hypocrisy of stating that a sport, if heavily intertwined into a national culture (although it is popular elsewhere) makes it eligible for cutting from the Olympics, and I indeed gave more examples than just Cricket.

Regardless, after reading some more about the IOC's reason, I found this snippet as some of their logic...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...8olympics.html

Rogge cited the lack of major leaguers and drug testing discrepancies, as well as the expense of building baseball and softball venues, as reasons in 2002 for his first attempt to remove baseball from the Olympic program. At that time, he proposed removing baseball, softball and modern pentathlon in favor of golf and rugby. In a compromise reached at that time to keep the sports on the program, baseball and softball agreed to possibly share a venue at future Olympics, but the sports could not retain their spot this time around.

And there ya go, Rogge is pissed because there aren't MLB players which = $ for the Olympics. Expenses of building baseball and sofball venues, I don't buy as in my mind after futbol/soccer is played, they can transform the venue to accomodate baseball/softball play. As far as drug testing discrepancies, please!... Track 'n' Field has a huge amount of dopers...should we expel Track as well because of their discrepancies, year in and year out?

Anyway, hopefully 2016 will bring back baseball and softball as $$$ that MLB players could bring is what is the issue here in my opinion...

Don't count out baseball in Olympics
MLB executives working with IOC to restore game to docket

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

I was shocked it was added, given how dominant Canada is in curling.



The professional softball women ARE at the Olympics, so what is the excuse there?



I think it is the Euro-centrism of the IOC, and little more. Baseball/softball doesn't generate any cushy judging positions for Europeans, and free junkets around the world to "evaluate" the countries for a particular sport.

Gary

I think I agree with all that you say here.

[toef]

While softball is certainly a lock for the US, I think baseball would be much harder (look at the results of the World Baseball Classic).

Since I never cared for softball, I don't mind that it's leaving (great reason, right?).

I also don't mind that baseball is leaving, but for different reason.

I wouldn't want to watch it unless all the big stars are playing, but the MLB can't easily put their schedule on hold while some of its stars head over for the Olympics.

Even if the logistics could be worked out, the risk of injuries -- especially in today's age of trillion dollar contracts -- means a lot of players may not even want to take the risk.

If the point of the Olympics is to determine which country is the best at a particular sport, how can we fairly determine the best in baseball if its best players aren't involved in the game? Who cares what country has the best "not good enough for pro-ball" players?

I'll stick with the WBC for now, and hope that the next one is a little more interesting than the first one.

[Anthony P]

I fully realize Hockey is big in most countries that could host the winter Olympics, but again, Hockey has been given the latitude to flourish at the Olympic games since 1920...

I don't think it was given the latitude to flourish, it just did, it is a good sport , we are talking Hockey and we both understand ice hockey but look field hockey is a summer Olympic sport and is also played world wide. The reality is that ,I don't think, a medal sport should be to help an activity to flourish, but it should be to find the best once it has. Think about it, that is why the Olympics has exhibition sports.

...so honestly for more than half the time in the Olympics, what is a country's incentive to create a baseball team when there are no medals involved?

because it is not just countries, a sport might not be popular in a given country but it could have people that are interested in it, look at Eddie UK ski jumper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_%...gle%22_Edwards or the Jamaican Bob sled team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_Bobsled_Team
all you need is enough people in the country who care enough for the activity and can qualify for it. Obviously if an activity is BIG in that country it makes it much easier (easier to find the installations, easier to find enough people, easier to find $)

Moreover, I don't buy that a baseball field can't be converted into something useful after its use as we have plenty here in the states that are utilized for baseball, football, lacrosse, and soccer.

I don't think a multi use field for a small community (assuming that is what you mean) with 3 or 4 rows of bleachers can be compared to a mega
stadium, I also don't think (since football and lacrosse are not internationally relevant sports) a country would need a second mega soccer stadium for a few tens and hundreds of thousands of people.

Furthermore, baseball is already very widely popular on the world stage (Taiwan, Australia, Japan, Korea, America, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, etc), as the exclusion from the olympics certainly didn't come from popularity, but moreso as an agenda item from a largely European IOC commission.

I don't know how popular it is, but the IOC is not one guy, if it was popular enough the vote would have gone the opposite way.

Anyhow, I ranted not so much about cricket but about the hypocrisy of stating that a sport, if heavily intertwined into a national culture (although it is popular elsewhere) makes it eligible for cutting from the Olympics, and I indeed gave more examples than just Cricket.

There are two issues

1) you decided to make up stuff (maybe cricket is not there because it is too British) and yes you also gave Hockey as an example, all of them sucked as excuses for a rant

2) I also think to someone like you (US) or I (Canada) most of the time American means US citizen, but I have traveled the world and know people on most continents and most of the time American means someone from the Americas, the same way a European is someone from Europe. If that was how it was meant then it would be correct, the IBAF decided it would be 8 teams the host 2 from Americas, 1 from Europe, 1 from Asia, 3 top from a tournament between 3&4 place American, 2&3 European, 2&3 Asian, Occiania and Africa, so (even though it makes sense) the qualifiers are weighted to benefit the Americas

And there ya go, Rogge is pissed because there aren't MLB players which = $ for the Olympics

lol, so you dismiss all the reasons and make your own. Yes the MLB and MLB players are important, but not for $ but legitimacy. Can you tell me how the IOC makes money from this. Look at Hockey, there was a time when professionals (NHL players) where not allowed to play so Canada was doing poorly, look at the US in Baseball, they did not even make it to the Olympics last year, how can it be a competition of the best a country has to offer in the discipline when the best of some nations can't make it. Also you started off by talking about Hockey and pretending that the Olympics turned it into an international sport, but the reality is that the NHL probably did a lot more to help Hockey expand world wide by having exhibition games between NHL teams and teams from other countries.

As for drugs, again I think you are blinded by your anger. It is not if people cheat (many will do it if it has a benefit for them and making millions is a benefit to many) but what you do if you get caught.

Anyway, hopefully 2016 will bring back baseball and softball

I can agree with you on that, I would like BB to stay in the Olympics, I just though your posts where just wrong.

[jadedeath]

In other news, sports like Trampoline are allowed to stay.

I personally think baseball sucks, but to keep Trampoline and axe baseball shows some form of bias.

Logan

[Anthony P]

The one I don't understand is synchronized diving.

[Forrestandjen07]

Um, ive ben watching baseball in the olympics


i dont get water polo or handball

wth are those sports

[Forrestandjen07]

the reason why there are no Mlb players in the olympics is becuase its in the middle of the MLB season, and No team wants to give up there best players for 2 weeks and risk an injury

if it werent for this, USA would win baseball everytime in the olympics.

[Forrestandjen07]

Originally Posted by toefer

While softball is certainly a lock for the US, I think baseball would be much harder (look at the results of the World Baseball Classic).

Since I never cared for softball, I don't mind that it's leaving (great reason, right?).

I also don't mind that baseball is leaving, but for different reason.

I wouldn't want to watch it unless all the big stars are playing, but the MLB can't easily put their schedule on hold while some of its stars head over for the Olympics.

Even if the logistics could be worked out, the risk of injuries -- especially in today's age of trillion dollar contracts -- means a lot of players may not even want to take the risk.

If the point of the Olympics is to determine which country is the best at a particular sport, how can we fairly determine the best in baseball if its best players aren't involved in the game? Who cares what country has the best "not good enough for pro-ball" players?

I'll stick with the WBC for now, and hope that the next one is a little more interesting than the first one.

I agree, Baseball rules in the olympics are dumb too
but i also dont care for the WBC either, but i dont mind watching Young and new talent battel it out in the olympics. good to see new faces

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't think it was given the latitude to flourish, it just did, it is a good sport , we are talking Hockey and we both understand ice hockey but look field hockey is a summer Olympic sport and is also played world wide. The reality is that ,I don't think, a medal sport should be to help an activity to flourish, but it should be to find the best once it has. Think about it, that is why the Olympics has exhibition sports.

Do you have an issue that I mentioned Hockey or something? I simply used Hockey as an example as being closely intertwined with Canada and Europe based upon its ORGINS, its CREATION. You respond as if I clubbed a baby seal or something because I'm using Hockey as an example and you appear to infer that somehow I don't like the sport.

I agree Hockey is a great sport and so is baseball. The reality is, is that baseball is a very internationaly-wide played sport, medal or no medal. The reasons as to why the IOC has cut it is what we're dicussing and the only reason that I mentioned Hockey in the first place was that it has a deep cultural root within Canada, and thus pointing out why I think it is ridiculous to simply cut a sport based upon its orgin or its perceived cultural heritage.

I certainly didn't make that up, as I beleive it was the IOC who stated that one of the reasons they were cutting baseball because it was "too American."

Also, you are assuming that baseball is being cut based upon popularity...so who is making that up?...Hmm? Please show me an article as to the reasons the IOC cut baseball and softball were due to popularity.

because it is not just countries, a sport might not be popular in a given country but it could have people that are interested in it, look at Eddie UK ski jumper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_%...gle%22_Edwards or the Jamaican Bob sled team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_Bobsled_Team
all you need is enough people in the country who care enough for the activity and can qualify for it. Obviously if an activity is BIG in that country it makes it much easier (easier to find the installations, easier to find enough people, easier to find $)

Again, you are assuming baseball and softball are simply not popular. I hate to break it too you, but even in good ol' Canada (I had a Canuck roomate from Vancouver, B.C. in college among numerous Canadian teammates) baseball is popular. Again, where is an article stating by the IOC that baseball and softball were cut to to not being popular internationaly? I haven't seen one yet.

I don't think a multi use field for a small community (assuming that is what you mean) with 3 or 4 rows of bleachers can be compared to a mega
stadium, I also don't think (since football and lacrosse are not internationally relevant sports) a country would need a second mega soccer stadium for a few tens and hundreds of thousands of people.

No, your assumption is wrong. There are many "mega stadiums" in the United States and elswhere in the world that are use for mulitple sports. Baseball can easily use these same stadiums which has been proven.

I don't know how popular it is, but the IOC is not one guy, if it was popular enough the vote would have gone the opposite way.

You don't know how popular baseball is, but then have the audacity to infer that the reason it is being cut from the Olympics is due to popularity without providing one iota of evidence that this is the case. Simply your assumption and guess that that is the IOC's reasoning...Nice..., unscrupulous logic, but nice.

There are two issues

1) you decided to make up stuff (maybe cricket is not there because it is too British) and yes you also gave Hockey as an example, all of them sucked as excuses for a rant

No, I didn't decide to make stuff up. You sir are the one making things up with your assumption that baseball is not popular internationally when I've shown you proof as to its international players.

Cricket was at the olympic games in the early 1900s but isn't here currently. The example stands. Did they cut cricket back then simply because it was too British?

Hockey was mentioned, again great sport so don't get your panties in a wad, but do you see it up for elimination based upon it being too Canadian.

You want more examples, how about Handball. Too German? Too Swedish? My understanding is that Handball is primarily played in Europe. Does this mean it is too European and should therefore be cut from the games. No, this is absurd, because other international teams play it just like other international teams play baseball.

What about Badminton (since the Cricket example gave you hemroids because it is no longer an Olympic sport)? Badmintion too British, therefore should be cut from the games? Of course not.

The point is, just as absurd as the notion is to cut Hockey, Handball, or Badminton based upon is cultural orgin, so is absurd the logic to cut Baseball or Softball due to is culture being American.

Again, I have no issue with the sports aformentioned to be clear, simply that the statement by the IOC of being too American isn't a satisfactory reason to me and to many others.

2) I also think to someone like you (US) or I (Canada) most of the time American means US citizen, but I have traveled the world and know people on most continents and most of the time American means someone from the Americas, the same way a European is someone from Europe. If that was how it was meant then it would be correct, the IBAF decided it would be 8 teams the host 2 from Americas, 1 from Europe, 1 from Asia, 3 top from a tournament between 3&4 place American, 2&3 European, 2&3 Asian, Occiania and Africa, so (even though it makes sense) the qualifiers are weighted to benefit the Americas

And I'm making stuff up? Clearly assumption here on your part.

lol, so you dismiss all the reasons and make your own. Yes the MLB and MLB players are important, but not for $ but legitimacy. Can you tell me how the IOC makes money from this. Look at Hockey, there was a time when professionals (NHL players) where not allowed to play so Canada was doing poorly, look at the US in Baseball, they did not even make it to the Olympics last year, how can it be a competition of the best a country has to offer in the discipline when the best of some nations can't make it. Also you started off by talking about Hockey and pretending that the Olympics turned it into an international sport, but the reality is that the NHL probably did a lot more to help Hockey expand world wide by having exhibition games between NHL teams and teams from other countries.

What reasons did I make on my own? I provided the link to an article stating that the IOC was pissed because MLB players weren't playing at the olympics. The article stated this was one of the reasons the IOC wanted to cut baseball other than being "too American." Here's another stating as such...

http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...TOKEN=87188956

"Major League Baseball's refusal to allow its top talent to play in the Olympics during the height of its season, and the recent doping scandals in the sport, are two main reasons the IOC decided to drop baseball from the Olympics for 2012."

So now, it is time for you to think about it. Why would the IOC really, really, be upset that MLB players aren't playing in their Olympics? Could it be the 4 billion in revenue that the Olympic movement generated from 2001 to 2004 that could potentially be more if superstars from the MLB were faces of baseball (thus increasing ticket sales at venues)? Noooo, not that. The Olympics are simply there to promote peace...right...and the love of the games? Not to generate revenue. Not to make money...no, that would be crazy.

As for drugs, again I think you are blinded by your anger. It is not if people cheat (many will do it if it has a benefit for them and making millions is a benefit to many) but what you do if you get caught.

Again you are assuming that I'm angry, which I'm not. I'm simply refuting lame logic by the IOC as to the reason they are cutting baseball and sofball.

I can agree with you on that, I would like BB to stay in the Olympics, I just though your posts where just wrong.

And I would like to have sports like Hockey, Badmitton, Handball, and others to stay in the Olympics as well. I'm just bummed that the IOC came to the decision it did for what I think are lame reasons. Either way, if you don't like my examples, or disagree with other logic I've presented here, at least we can agree that there's not much we can do about it, other than hope the IOC reconsiders. Maybe give them some more bribes to chew on.

[blu reality]

Hockey is not just a Canadian sport. Its very popular in Scandinavia, Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Also, Hockey isn't dominated by just one nation. Any given Olympics it can be won by Canadians, Russians, Czechs, Swedes and so on. So I am not sure why people put hockey with baseball and softball.

[Anthony P]

Do you have an issue that I mentioned Hockey or something? ...

no, it is just a stupid example. You might not like it but Hockey is extremely popular (in all its forms) and baseball is not. Hockey is there because all the "winter" nations play it and it is in the winter Olympics (which also have less events so there is less issues), it is the same with Basketball (which is also a NA sport) and Soccer wihich is a UK invented sport. There are a few sports in the olympics (that originated all over the world) but are extremely popular world wide and there are others (like Cricket and baseball) that are not popular enough around thye world to either get added or remain.

Have you ever gone out of the borders of your home town or even talked to someone that has? Because of work, vaccation, friends and familly
I have been (and have had a lot of contact with people) in Iceland, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Greece, Congo, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia (and most likely forgot a few where I did not have as much contact) and to all of them they don't tend to differentiate where in the Americas you come from, we are all Americans. The IBAF has devided the world into two the Americas that send 2 and the Eurasians that send 2 as well (with the other 4 coming from the left overs in those areas and others and the host city). If you realy think Baseball was dropped because of anti-US atitude, then why wasn't Basketball dropped? The US has done better in that sport and the US can claim, just as much as basball, that it originated in the US. In the last Olympics the US team did not even qualify and Cuba has done way better (310) and even Japan has more medals (012) maybe it is anti-cuban or Japanese sentiment. Also why would the IOC want the MLB to allow players? wouldn't that just make the US stronger.

You think I don't know how popular BB is, maybe I don't but neither do you. The simple fact is that there are 104 representatives from 104 countries in the IOC and most of them thought baseball did not deserve it (or was not popular enough)

The problem is that you are such a baseball fan that you can’t understand that many find it boring, that the IOC decided to see if they could cut several events picked the least interesting ones (baseball and softball where not the only ones, there was Greco-Roman wrestling, modern pentathlon, racewalking and three-day equestrian.) and some like baseball and softball did not make the cut in the votes and others did (at least for now)

The other problem is that you also dismiss other facts, you said several times that it is not the expense of the event, but let’s face it, if you are the host nation and you don’t care about an event would you vote to keep (add) it if you could save 100M $
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...wo-sports.html

Could it be the 4 billion in revenue that the Olympic movement generated from 2001 to 2004 that could potentially be more if superstars from the MLB were faces of baseball (thus increasing ticket sales at venues)?

I just thought this needed its own quote, so you really think that more Chinese people in Beijing (or more British in London in 2012) would go to see baseball because they recognize and know the names of the MLB players, or do you think the US people will start traveling the world and going more to the Olympics to watch MLB players? It does bring legitimacy (and takes away the excuse from whiners that the only reason that the US did not win or make it is because all the best players are not there) but not money.

[jono_0101]

i like how softball and baseball are "too american", but basketball and BMX arent....

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no, it is just a stupid example. You might not like it but Hockey is extremely popular (in all its forms) and baseball is not. Hockey is there because all the "winter" nations play it and it is in the winter Olympics (which also have less events so there is less issues), it is the same with Basketball (which is also a NA sport) and Soccer wihich is a UK invented sport. There are a few sports in the olympics (that originated all over the world) but are extremely popular world wide and there are others (like Cricket and baseball) that are not popular enough around thye world to either get added or remain.

I like it just fine that Hockey is extremely popular. What part of "I think Hockey is a great sport" don't you get? I also think it is highly popular. I used Hockey as an example precisely because it is popular and beloved by many nations...just like baseball.

And again, you are the one making up stuff. So your proof that baseball is not popular enough comes from?.......You? Hardly sufficient evidence. I gave you mine--the numerous countries that have millions of people in their populace that enjoy the game and play it in the Olympics. And you come back with more hollow "unpopular" statements based on your own whim.

Have you ever gone out of the borders of your home town or even talked to someone that has? Because of work, vaccation, friends and familly
I have been (and have had a lot of contact with people) in Iceland, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Greece, Congo, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia (and most likely forgot a few where I did not have as much contact) and to all of them they don't tend to differentiate where in the Americas you come from, we are all Americans. The IBAF has devided the world into two the Americas that send 2 and the Eurasians that send 2 as well (with the other 4 coming from the left overs in those areas and others and the host city). If you realy think Baseball was dropped because of anti-US atitude, then why wasn't Basketball dropped? The US has done better in that sport and the US can claim, just as much as basball, that it originated in the US. In the last Olympics the US team did not even qualify and Cuba has done way better (310) and even Japan has more medals (012) maybe it is anti-cuban or Japanese sentiment. Also why would the IOC want the MLB to allow players? wouldn't that just make the US stronger.

Oh, I see...it is the old and tired seclusive American...not international enough. To answer your arrogant assumption, yes I do travel internationally, quite extensively--part of that whole working for an airline tends to get you around many different countries.

Not sure why you are stressing what the IBAF does...I'm failing to see the point. Are you trying to defend the "too American" statement? So based on that statement, are you trying to tell us that since it was made, that we ought to think of it in terms of continents? Okay, if you want too, we can do that, but the fact remains, the sport still isn't "too American." Hell, I do find it interesting, based on you mentioning the IBAF that this is on their site...

http://www.ibaf.org/i_am_baseball/

"Baseball is not Korean, or American, or Japanese, or Cuban. Baseball is global. It's played by millions of children and adults in 100 different countries. It has been played at the Olympics beginning in 1904, and has been a medal sport since 1992. Even its roots are international: Cricket and Rounders from England, Oina from Romania, Lapta from Russia, Schlagball from Germany. The first recorded account of a baseball game was in 1838 in Beechville, Ontario, Canada. Likewise, the faces of baseball come from Ghana and Uganda; from the Dominican Republic and Venezuela; from the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Poland and Latvia; from Israel and Jordan; from Korea, China, Chinese Taipei and Singapore, New Zealand and Australia. All of the players, all the fans, all the coaches and umpires around the world can say, "I am baseball."

But let's just keep our blinders on and think baseball is unpopular around the world and "too American" shall we?

You think I don't know how popular BB is, maybe I don't but neither do you. The simple fact is that there are 104 representatives from 104 countries in the IOC and most of them thought baseball did not deserve it (or was not popular enough)

Again, you are making stuff up--stating that "baseball did not deserve it (or was not popular enough). Show me where this was cited as a reason for elimination of the sport, because again, I haven't witnessed it.

I have however witnessed the statement of baseball being "too American," doping concerns being referenced, facility cost, and the fact that MLB players weren't represented as reasons for elimination, all of which I find incredibly lame and easily refuted.

The problem is that you are such a baseball fan that you can’t understand that many find it boring, that the IOC decided to see if they could cut several events picked the least interesting ones (baseball and softball where not the only ones, there was Greco-Roman wrestling, modern pentathlon, racewalking and three-day equestrian.) and some like baseball and softball did not make the cut in the votes and others did (at least for now)

Again, making stuff up stating the baseball and softball were picked as "the least interesting ones." Show me facts this was the criteria, not your whim.

Moreover, I don't doubt that many find baseball boring, just like some find other sports boring, but considering that baseball is watched by millions of people all around the world (both at the parks and on TV), that there are multi-million dollar broadcast rights to the games, and played globally by millions (in 100s of different countries as stated by the IBAF mind you), I think it is safe to say it is quite popular and that your assertion that baseball is not globally popular rivals on the ridiculous.

The other problem is that you also dismiss other facts, you said several times that it is not the expense of the event, but let’s face it, if you are the host nation and you don’t care about an event would you vote to keep (add) it if you could save 100M $
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...wo-sports.html

I certainly didn't dismiss other facts, as I addressed the expense of the event. I simply stated that I thought they could easily use certain arenas for multiple sports, that they didn't have to use one arena strictly for baseball. If it helps you sleep at night, the expense of the event argument is one of the less lame arguments I've heard that have come out of the IOC. Question is, however, is how much revenue baseball and softball generate in terms of its cost. I don't have those numbers, do you?

I just thought this needed its own quote, so you really think that more Chinese people in Beijing (or more British in London in 2012) would go to see baseball because they recognize and know the names of the MLB players, or do you think the US people will start traveling the world and going more to the Olympics to watch MLB players? It does bring legitimacy (and takes away the excuse from whiners that the only reason that the US did not win or make it is because all the best players are not there) but not money.

Absolutely (all international citizens will come...they wil come Ray...oop, gettin a little Field of Dreams on ya ). Don't forget that the Chinese aren't the only ones in Beijing come Olympic time my friend. Have you noticed who the biggest basketball celebrity is in China? I'll give you a hint, it's not Yao. It's Kobe Bryant (among other NBA basketball stars). The Chinese absolutely love the guy (and American players), and do you think this love affair of basketball Olympic stars happened when we sent college kids? Nope! MLB stars, like NBA stars, have major international appeal.

I know the IOC fully realize that if they are to get MLB stars just like NBA stars, that Olympic baseball will explode from a revenue perspective. Why did the IOC cite it (MLB player participation) themselves as a reason for elimination, if it won't bring them more revenue? Because they are concerned about the legitimacy of the American team? If that was the case, then why do they (the IOC) stress the reason that softball was eliminated was because the Americans (that's the U.S. in this case, just to make it clear for you) were too dominant. Where was the IOC's concerns about dominance with basketball when Dream Team after Dream Team spanked everyone else--answer, $$$. Pure and simple.

The Olympics are a business, and the IOC want their $$$ maximized. How does that happen with baseball--bring on the MLB players, otherwise, the IOC doesn't want to play. That's how I see this as I look deeper and deeper into it.