In the freestyle relay(s), the top 6 goes to the Olympics.
Yet, all the other events it is only the top 2.
That should change. Every athlete that makes the qualifying time should go to the Olympics. Look at the men's 100 back, the top 6 at the 2008 US trials swam faster than the 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist. Surely the 5th swimmer could have a better performance in the "big" pool.
Sending only 2 in each event "waters" down the potential performances at the Olympics, ultimately making the semi-finals less competitive. (other phrases could be used) The bottom line is, the top 16 at the Olympics should represent the fastest in the world.
Parents
Former Member
You are really missing the point. Soccer is saturated in Europe, it's not getting any bigger, or only marginally so. The market is the US. Having ESPN/ABC on board is a huge benefit to the WC. The marketing potential for the US is untapped in soccer and if you don't think that is a massive cash cow you are missing, well, then you probably don't turn on your TV during football season to see the $$ out there.
I can guarantee you that when the WC people meet, or any influential soccer group for that matter, their #1 topic is engaging the US better for increased revenue.
I agree the WC is not dependent on the US but it sure is their prime target now.
Oh, and out of curiosity, check out the US investment groups buying up the Premier League teams. Still don't think US $$ is important to soccer?
No I get the point. Not saying that the money isn't an attraction for the leagues and the comps. US interests are buying up the prem teams (as are many different conglomerates) but not everyone is happy about it.
They're even trying to add 1 more game to the Prem season now and play it somewhere else in the world. Managers are not happy, fans are decidely not happy.
I forgot what your point of it was orignally but, even without the ESPN funds, the WC would still go on. My sadness is that the money is not getting to the grass roots folks in soccer to develop talent and nurture smaller clubs.
You are really missing the point. Soccer is saturated in Europe, it's not getting any bigger, or only marginally so. The market is the US. Having ESPN/ABC on board is a huge benefit to the WC. The marketing potential for the US is untapped in soccer and if you don't think that is a massive cash cow you are missing, well, then you probably don't turn on your TV during football season to see the $$ out there.
I can guarantee you that when the WC people meet, or any influential soccer group for that matter, their #1 topic is engaging the US better for increased revenue.
I agree the WC is not dependent on the US but it sure is their prime target now.
Oh, and out of curiosity, check out the US investment groups buying up the Premier League teams. Still don't think US $$ is important to soccer?
No I get the point. Not saying that the money isn't an attraction for the leagues and the comps. US interests are buying up the prem teams (as are many different conglomerates) but not everyone is happy about it.
They're even trying to add 1 more game to the Prem season now and play it somewhere else in the world. Managers are not happy, fans are decidely not happy.
I forgot what your point of it was orignally but, even without the ESPN funds, the WC would still go on. My sadness is that the money is not getting to the grass roots folks in soccer to develop talent and nurture smaller clubs.
