1. Who says an all star game *has* to be half ass. It's only half assed because the players treat it as such.

2. When I was growing up, the Olympics *was* about amateurs. About people whose day job was not being an athlete in whatever they were competing in. People who put in the work, and the money, because they wanted to be the best they could be. Then the fucking politicos made it a piece of the goddamn Cold War. And since the eastern bloc was all about government financing whatever the hell the government thought was going to help it out in said Cold War, they started subsidizing athletes and created a group of athletes that were paid to be Olympic competitors.
Not surprisingly, this meant the people putting more bucks into it started to win too much for the people on this side of the Atlantic. Since we have this incredible pool of pro athletes -- who are, indeed, among the best in the world at every major team sport but soccer -- all we have to do is "open things up" and, voila, we win again.
And all it takes is to take an objective of "showcasing the best amateur sports the country has to offer" and delete the word "amateur". Which is what happened.
If what you want from the Olympics is merely nationalistic bragging rights about who can assemble the best group of 12 guys for a particular tournament, fine. That's what you've got, and I'm glad you're happy.

Because I could care less. If I want to watch pro basketball, I'll watch the NBA. If I want to watch pro hockey, I'll watch the NHL.

ANd if I gave a flying fuck about which country has the best soccer team, I'd watch the World Cup.

You're right. It's unfair to compare the Dream Team and an all-star game.

It's unfair to the all-star game. Because nobody expects an all-star to be anything other than chest-thumping and me-me-me-ing. You get what you expect.

With the Olympics, you get less.

---

We don't have the best of the best athletes from our Country. Easy example to follow my point, Sidney Crosby. Plays for NHL, but played on Canada's team in the Olympics.



No one has said the All Star game has to be half ass'd. I must not have made my point clear enough. An all star game is TWO teams, not one playing for its country. The all star teams don't spend weeks working as a cohesive unit to take on teams from around the world.

You win the all star game, what do you get? Who won the all star game in '92?

There's no reason to go all out during the game because it has no value.

The Olympics have a value, to win a Gold medal for your country.



For me the Olympics should be the best athletes from that country in their respective sports.

I'm thinking you're falling more on the lines of Coubertin who envisioned it being more amateurish.



That just doesn't appeal to me. I don't want to see the 3rd or 4th best in that country facing off against the 5th or 6th best in another country. That's about as interesting as a pre season football game between two teams not the Packers. ... to me that is.


If I'm understanding right, you want to see amateurs and I want to see the best each country has to offer. Which is okay (not that you need me to tell you that), some like College sports better than Pro sports because of the lack of commercialism and its more about the love of the game, instead of the SHOW ME THE MONEY.

---