Can we put some smelling salts under the noses of the men's basketball team?
There are still too few people at the games. It has been mentioned on the radio, at least, that they are considering giving tickets away (I mentioned that a couple of weeks ago in an earlier post here).
I have advocated for a single host of the Olympics. The reasons are multiple, even before the issue about security. Previously, my main point was the rather inefficient replication of velodromes, rowing lakes, and the like, that will rarely be used after the Olympics. In Atlanta, the Olympic village became dormitories for Georgia State, the swimming venue was given to Georgia Tech, and Olympic stadium was given to the Atlanta Braves. Beyond those, the rest of the venues are left unused.
Now we have to worry about security concerns in which relatively poorer countries have to fit the bill for beefed up safety issues, requiring infrastructure they simply do not have or can afford. In step the developed countries to help out (read subsidize).
It might be better to just have a single host site, country or set of countries for the Olympics. In the United States, just about any major city could host the Olympics with a bit of heads-up. The Dallas bid for the 2012 Olympics was a pipe dream but the reality is the area has two major outdoor stadiums, two reasonably sized indoor arenas, a horse track, and plenty of other venues - albeit spread out over about three hundred square miles of prairie. The point is, why do we have to go to another country every year to duplicate what we have in the developed countries already?
In addition, holding the games in the United States every four years would guarantee a lot more tickets sold. Not only will people be willing to visit from other countries, the American people are wealthier and more sports crazy than in many other parts of the world and would actually attend the games.
Finally, there is a loss in "learning by doing" which occurs by moving the games form city to city. It seems that my ideas are somewhat backed by others.
Overall the Olympics have been pretty good to watch, if you like American athletes. I am always puzzled, however, why Bravo will show fencing and then move to "Inside the Actor's Studio" to interview Tom Cruise or some such celebrity. I would be shocked if the Olympics on Bravo didn't draw a better crowd, at least leaving the Olympics on would motivate me to leave the television on Bravo, and thus leave it on for the commercials.
Also, why are the Olympics not "broadcast" on the internet. I can "download" the images, with the commercials, for free over the airwaves - NBC gets paid by advertisers for each viewer. Why can't we download a streaming version of the Olympics online, advertisements and all. It would seem easier to determine how many people are "watching" online than in the privacy of homes and offices. I haven't figured out enough about the television industry to understand why broadcasting on the Internet is thought to be impractical. Sitting in my office at school, I do not have a television set. However, I would watch the Olympics coverage if I could.