Winter Olympics as a game of chance

1) "Game of chance" Yes, that is why skiing and other winter sports are popular. You don't know who is going to win, miss a gate, or have a NASCAR'ish crack up. That is why people will freeze their you-know-whats off to watch the thing, while we swimmers have a hard time getting people to enjoy a taste of summer weather watching our meets. Their sport is compelling and watchable, whereas most knowledgable fans in our sport could fill out the order of finishers before the race with 90% accuracy. I'm a broken record on this subject, so I won't wax fulsome, but competitive swimming could use a little of the edginess of short track speed skating. Snowboard-cross! We need some of that there. 2) NHL players in the Winter Olympics. OK, can we now all come to consensus that this is a BAD idea? How many times do we need to have it beaten in our heads that TEAMS that play together for months ahead of time will consistently beat All-Star squads tossed together at the last minute. Did we learn nothing from Herb Brooks and the 1980 Olympic hockey competition? Has anyone checked which teams won the last few Superbowls and what was their concept? Any Randy Mosses, Terrel Owens, or Peyton Mannings in that crowd? No? Didn't think so. Anyone checked out how the Pistons are playing in the NBA lately, with no legit superstars? How many rings does Iverson have? Oh, BTW, when was the last time the Yankees won the Series; it's been so long that I forget. And don't get me started on the meager results the recent NBA "Dream Teams" have generated in international competition. The people who are dreaming are the chowder-heads that think you can slap together a group of supertalented individuals and expect them to beat a cohesive unit. So, tell the NHL to keep their players unless they are willing to skip the entire first part of the season up through the Olympics. (Besides, what effect does that really have on who makes the playoffs anyway?)

1) "Game of chance" Yes, that is why skiing and other winter sports are popular. You don't know who is going to win, miss a gate, or have a NASCAR'ish crack up. That is why people will freeze their you-know-whats off to watch the thing, while we swimmers have a hard time getting people to enjoy a taste of summer weather watching our meets. Their sport is compelling and watchable, whereas most knowledgable fans in our sport could fill out the order of finishers before the race with 90% accuracy. I'm a broken record on this subject, so I won't wax fulsome, but competitive swimming could use a little of the edginess of short track speed skating. Snowboard-cross! We need some of that there. 2) NHL players in the Winter Olympics. OK, can we now all come to consensus that this is a BAD idea? How many times do we need to have it beaten in our heads that TEAMS that play together for months ahead of time will consistently beat All-Star squads tossed together at the last minute. Did we learn nothing from Herb Brooks and the 1980 Olympic hockey competition? Has anyone checked which teams won the last few Superbowls and what was their concept? Any Randy Mosses, Terrel Owens, or Peyton Mannings in that crowd? No? Didn't think so. Anyone checked out how the Pistons are playing in the NBA lately, with no legit superstars? How many rings does Iverson have? Oh, BTW, when was the last time the Yankees won the Series; it's been so long that I forget. And don't get me started on the meager results the recent NBA "Dream Teams" have generated in international competition. The people who are dreaming are the chowder-heads that think you can slap together a group of supertalented individuals and expect them to beat a cohesive unit. So, tell the NHL to keep their players unless they are willing to skip the entire first part of the season up through the Olympics. (Besides, what effect does that really have on who makes the playoffs anyway?)