Summer Olympic Games Los Angeles 2028 Sports Programme Road to LA 2028

[NearPup 3,051]

11 minutes ago, Noorderling29 said:

I assume the subcontinent pays for the tv rights right now. Are you suggesting they pay more just because cricket is added?

 

The fact that Cricket is not popular in parts of the world in itself is no reason to not include it. The same could be said for other sports that are currently included. 

Not just more. A lot more.

[Siddhartha Talukdar 234]

4 hours ago, nitinsanker said:

 

 

I think the reason that it has not been in the Olympics already is that the cricket association is  parochial and has not been open to the integration. With the board open now , it is only for IOC to benefit hugely by the inclusion. 

 

 

In my opinion if cricket is included in the Olympics, huge reforms will happen in ICC and respective national cricket boards especially of India and Pakistan.
Firstly ICC has to allocate more resources to Associate nations, come up with a better Future Tours Program (FTP) which shall accommodate Olympics and qualifying tournaments.
BCCI can no longer operate as an NGO but has to come under Indian Sports Ministry which hopefully would mean more transparency and better governance. The BCCI's arrogance can be clearly shown in World Cup tickets fiasco.
In Pakistan's case, their Prime Minister can't be patron-in-chief of PCB and there has to be regular elections to select their new Chairman. This will actually improve their cricket.

[heywoodu 15,141]

Isn't Olympic flag football a similar thing as men's football in terms of how weird it is to have it at the Olympics? Men's football is a junior tournament, which obviously shouldn't be the case at the Olympics, whereas flag football seems like the amateur rip-off of the real 'American football'?  

 

Oh well, as long as it doesn't cost other sports too much, it would be kind of fun to see two sports that are super obscure in most of the world but insanely popular in a very specific part of the world, it will add a nice bit of contrast  

Edited September 8, 2023 by heywoodu

[NearPup 3,051]

8 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

Isn't Olympic flag football a similar thing as men's football in terms of how weird it is to have it at the Olympics? Men's football is a junior tournament, which obviously shouldn't be the case at the Olympics, whereas flag football seems like the amateur rip-off of the real 'American football'?  

Flag football is... a really weird sport. It's a super stripped down version of American Football where only four positions from "regular" American Football are actually represented - quarterback, wide receiver, defensive back and safety. There is a center and a rusher in flag football too, but those positions bear very little resemblance to their American Football counterparts. So if you're an end, a tackle, a linebacker, a guard, a center, a tight end, a half back, a full back, a kicker or a punter there is simply no place for you in Flag Football.

 

The best analogy would be Rugby 7s, except Rugby 7s is more similar to Rugby Union than Flag Football is to American Football. I think most NFL players would struggle here, outside of the four positions I mentioned above (and even then, there would be a big adjustment).

 

If Rugby 7s had a smaller field, no lineouts, no scrum and no kicking game then what Rugby 7s is to Rugby Union would be a good analogy for what Flag Football is to American Football IMO.

Edited September 8, 2023 by NearPup

[heywoodu 15,141]

7 minutes ago, NearPup said:

Flag football is... a really weird sport. It's a super stripped down version of American Football where only four positions from "regular" American Football are actually represented - quarterback, wide receiver, defensive back and safety. There is a center and a rusher in flag football too, but those positions bear very little resemblance to their American Football counterparts. So if you're an end, a tackle, a linebacker, a guard, a center, a tight end, a half back, a full back, a kicker or a punter there is simply no place for you in Flag Football.

 

The best analogy would be Rugby 7s, except Rugby 7s is more similar to Rugby Union than Flag Football is to American Football. I think most NFL players would struggle here, outside of the four positions I mentioned above (and even then, there would be a big adjustment).

 

If Rugby 7s had a smaller field, no lineouts, no scrum and no kicking game then what Rugby 7s is to Rugby Union would be a good analogy for what Flag Football is to American Football IMO.

Well thanks, my interest in watching it had slowly made it's way from 0% to almost 1% and rising, but this description has made it drop down again  

Edited September 8, 2023 by heywoodu

[Olympian1010 7,976]

The IFAF rules are different from what I played in my youth league growing up. We played 8-on-8, so there was more room for position players, and you could get more creative with plays.

 

Flag Football essentially started as a safer, developmental form of the sport. Although many parents just start their kids in tackle football anyway.
 

For what it’s worth, I actually enjoyed playing 8-a-side flag football as kid, and I had ZERO interest in playing tackle football. However, I found myself struggling to enjoy IFAF’s version of the game last summer at The World Games.

 

I think it would be interesting to see as a one-off at the Olympics, and does reflect local sporting culture. I’m just not sure how it will land with the wider public.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Olympian1010

[Shravan Kumar 109]

2 hours ago, Noorderling29 said:

I assume the subcontinent pays for the tv rights right now. Are you suggesting they pay more just because cricket is added?

 

The fact that Cricket is not popular in parts of the world in itself is no reason to not include it. The same could be said for other sports that are currently included. 

Yes The TV Rights will become competitive. Right now even though the Olympics has a viewr base in India the rights are not bid for by all big players. If Cricket is added then the rights become very important as there will be no alternative in those two weeks.  Cricket also is more commercially profitable as it has breaks between overs. If you can guarantee the eyes of Indian sports viewers on one network it will be invaluable and will atleast double the current Tv Rights deal.

[heywoodu 15,141]

29 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

The IFAF rules are different from I played in my youth league growing. We played 8-on-8, so there was more room for position players, and you could get more creative with plays.

 

Flag Football essentially started as a safer, developmental form of the sport. Although many parents just start their kids in tackle football anyway.
 

For what it’s worth, I actually enjoyed playing 8-a-side flag football as kid, and I had ZERO interest in playing tackle football. However, I found myself struggling to enjoy IFAF’s version of the game last summer at The World Games.

 

I think it would be interesting to see as a one-off at the Olympics, and does reflect local sporting culture. I’m just not sure how it will land with the wider public.

But doesn't that sound perfectly like an event they could host outside of the Olympics, with fun and slightly competitive games in a fan village and such? You know, like if the Olympics were in the Netherlands we might have some fun in a fan village with stuff like koekhappen  

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koekhappen

 

 

[Noorderling29 167]

38 minutes ago, Shravan Kumar said:

Yes The TV Rights will become competitive. Right now even though the Olympics has a viewr base in India the rights are not bid for by all big players. If Cricket is added then the rights become very important as there will be no alternative in those two weeks.  Cricket also is more commercially profitable as it has breaks between overs. If you can guarantee the eyes of Indian sports viewers on one network it will be invaluable and will atleast double the current Tv Rights deal.

Thank you, I now see the logic of the comment.

[AsensioWillemsen 158]

7 hours ago, nitinsanker said:

It would be crazy for the IOC not to push cricket ....  it will earn huge amounts for the IOC on television rights in the sub continent alone ....the recent world cup of cricket television rights to cricket were sold for 3 billion dollars.... I am not sure in which sport the television rights sell  for so much with the exception of football, 

And possibly tennis 

 

 

With the enormous diaspora in America / Canada of Indians , if they get a rare chance to see world class cricket in US they will buy tickets like crazy ..... 

 

I really find some of the comments that it is a difficult sport to understand or that it is not followed in Europe really limited in their world view. Cricket is not one of those sports followed by a few thousand or million. It is the second most followed sports in the world with over 2.5 billion viewers,  second only to soccer .  It is an extremely rich sport as well. 

 

I think the reason that it has not been in the Olympics already is that the cricket association is  parochial and has not been open to the integration. With the board open now , it is only for IOC to benefit hugely by the inclusion. 

 

 

The biggest reason is obviously that it is hard to fit into the Olympic format. T20 does this better, but it always needs some time to establish.

 

The main reason to include it is Indian appeal. Which is.. okay I guess. I mean, India is a pretty large market. But it is a team sport and these eat quota. And I don't know how one-sided it is in terms of medaling, which is one of the problems I have with baseball, aside from it boring me to death.

I'd rather give cricket T20 a chance though. Although I rarely ever watched it. As long as it doesn't forego other (team) sports or reduces quota elsewhere.