Donuts and Bob--What are you talking about?  Instead of random, what-are-you-thinking remarks, you might address my opinion.  I prefer the collegians.  Others don't.  No big deal.    People disagree.  Not sure why your response is 'get stuffed.'

It's easy to do that when you don't show the courage and grace to post by your actual names, I guess.

Well, I guess I'm in the minority along with Monroe and few others who prefer the amateur-only Olympics.  I think we only ended up with pros in the Olympics because the USSR and the old Soviet block countries used to cheat.  They had amateur competition in their countries that was really pro competition, but because of the differences in economic and governmental systems it was very hard for an outsider to make the charge of "pro" stick.  So, instead of figuring out a way insure true amateur status the Olympic brain trust just caved in and declared that in certain sports (an ever expanded number) that pros were eligible.  At one time, if you were a pro in any sport you could not compete in any other sport.  I was in favor of dropping that rule which allowed, for instance, a pro baseball player to compete on the basketball team.  Other than that, I'd like to go back to an amateur only Olympics.  It probably won't happen, but that would make the games much more interesting to me.  

No.

Because it's boring to see our mega-ton warhead pros smash lesser squads.  It's dramatic to see our college lads struggle...and awesome should they win.  Should our pros win, nothing..it's expected.

Drama rules.

The drama of the amateur era in Olympic basketball:

1936: The USA was so much better than the rest of the world, they got a bye into the fourth round. They won every game by double digits, including a 19-8 win over Canada in the gold medal round.

1948: The USA goes 5-0 in pool play, scoring 325 points and allowing 167. Their smallest margin of victory in the knockout rounds is 31. They beat France 65-21 in the gold medal round.

1952: The USA defeats the USSR twice, including an 11-point victory in the gold medal round, capping a perfect 5-0 Olympics.

1956: The USA goes 8-0, winning every game by 30 points or more.

1960: The USA goes 7-0, winning every game by 24 points or more.

1964: Yugoslavia is the first team to ever lose to the USA by single digits in Olympic play, but we roll over the Soviets in the gold medal round anyway.

1968: 9-0 this time, beating Yugoslavia by 15 in the gold medal round.

1972: I think we can all agree the drama in the gold medal round was not fun or something we would like to see again.

1976: Puerto Rico and Czechoslovakia push us in pool play but a 95-74 victory in the gold medal round secures yet another gold medal.

1980: Boycott. Drama!

1984: Canada and West Germany are the only teams to get within 20 in another easy gold medal win.

1988: The Soviets score an upset in the semifinals. The USA has to settle for bronze.

So, in the entire amateur era, the United States lost all of two games, one of which because of one of the greatest officiating blunders in the history of sports. I ask you, where is the compelling drama you're alluding to?

I'm not going to get into a prolonged argument with you, Jeff.  I won't convince you and you won't convince me.  I will say that games  before about 20 years ago don't mean anything.  Basketball was not then nearly the universal sport that it is now.

 

You seem to be assuming that other countries could just continue to do business as usual. If everyone had to have amateurs that would apply to all nations that wished to compete in the Olympics.  I submit that in almost any given year our college all stars could beat the college all stars (or amateur all stars) in a very high percentage of games against nearly every other country.  This would be much more exciting than the paid gladiators from one country playing the paid gladiators from another country.  

The difference with my thinking is, Rose, Howard, Bosh and Wade would all definitely play if healthy. Thomas wasn't hurt, and Shaq wasn't hurt, so the Dream Team basically got every single player they wanted. On a side note, what if Lebron James or Kobe Bryant would have just said "hey, we don't like Deron Williams, leave him off the team." They would probably talk about that on First Take for 2 weeks.

While Karl Malone and Charles Barkley are beasts down low, I'm confident that Lebron could handle both. He's just as big or bigger than both.

Mullin was at the tale end of his prime, and although Harden had the luxury of being a 3rd option this entire year, his regular season was better than Mullin going into the Olympics.

The international game makes post play tougher, so I don't think the lack of size and muscle would hurt them as much as people would think. Besides, other than Jordan and Pippen, the Dream Team would be forced to have poor matchups on the perimeter as well. The Dream Team did a ton for basketball, but they would not be unbeatable and they certainly wouldn't just blow this team out every time out. For some reason, the sentiment among the common basketball fan is that the level of play has never been the same since the 1990s. I personally feel it is at an all-time high at every position besides center.

It's the same reason I watch much more college football than pro football, more college basketball than pro basketball.  I find the amateur game more exciting.  I suppose this is true in part because they are not as polished and hustle and coaching skills seem to play a greater part in victory or defeat rather than just winning with overwhelming talent.  Though when you get to the OSU (football), LSU (football) or UK (basketball) level you sometimes get to a distinction without a difference.  It's kind of the exception that proves the rule to me.  As you imply, we'll probably never agree on this issue, but I would sill like to see amateur-only Olympics.

As to the topic itself (and I'm pretty sure JSF covered this already):  If the Olympics are to see who the best countries are at certain sports, why the heck would they not send the best players in those games?  Dramatic/compelling or not, the name of the game is to see who the big dog is.  It wouldn't make sense to send anything but your best to such a competition.  If the games were to see who the best amateur teams were, then we'd have a different case.

I personally believe if we sent out college players then they would play much better defense and work well as a team. To say that we wouldnt qualify for the olympics using college players is crazy. 

Setting aside USA basketball as the lightning rod here, what's the point of the Olympics any more except to sell Coke and promote NBC's fall line-up?  Yeah, I'll watch selective events because it's in prime time and it's great drama but,

The track events are dominated by pros, so it;s just another world championship, only with flags instead of shoe companies.  Tennis?  Didn't we just see those international rankings and matches settled at Wimbledon?  Soccer?  Don't even get me started there.  Aren't four or five "challenge/ World Cup/Pan American/European be all, end all" championships per year enough?

I personally am excited about seeing golf added to the Summer Games, though, because 30 - 40 tournaments per year with the same basic field just isn't enough.

So let's not make it more than it is. It's simulcast commercial television for the whole world.  Will someone please DVR the Opening Ceremony for me?  That's original and that's entertainment.

I could not disagree more with this post.  It is the Olympics for God's sake, in which you represent your country.  How can you not see that is different and special?  By your logic, let's just get rid of the US Open, British Open, and PGA championship...just the Masters will do.  In fact let's apply this to our Bobcats...all those MAC West teams are so similar, let's just play Northern Illinois and tell the rest to stay home.  Miami again?  Nahh...I feel like we just saw that show...boring!

The only thing you may have a point on is soccer, but still not really...because it is still a prestigous international tournament...and you are part of a diverse group of elite athletes representing your country.

I am also growing really tired of the emerging sentiment that if any one makes any money off it, the whole thing is a big sham.  Lots of people work hard to provide entertainment that people want to see, and advertisers want to get involved in...they deserve to make money accordingly.  This does not make them evil nor does it squash any significance of it.  How would you like it if others questioned the significance and validity of what you do every day because of that salary they pay you?  Come on...