Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol led their respective countries to the Gold Medal game in the 2008 Olympics. Then they came back and won an NBA title together in 2009. I don't think it will hinder someone like LeBron either. 

It certainly is exciting and brings lots of drama when U.S. goes 5-0 in its pre-Olympics tourney, winning by an average of well over 26 points.

Yawn.  Bring back the collegians.

Oh, you're right.  The Miracle on Ice wasn't exciting at all.

Well, it also gives Matt Lauer another place to travel to.

I always go through the same pattern with the Olympics. I'm never interested in any of the preliminary stuff and think I won't watch much. Then the games actually start and I get interested and start watching. By the time they're halfway over, that's the only thing on my TV and I'm obsessively watching even weird stuff like curling. (And yes, I realize curling is Winter Olympics, not Summer, but that's the weirdest event I can think of at the moment.) So although I'm not much interested today, I'm sure by this time next week the Olympics will have taken over my TV. (Sorry, Real Housewives.)

And in the pro vs. amateur argument, I come down on the side of sending our best athletes. If that means sending professionals, send them.

So you didn't find Phelps' 2008 effort interesting because he's a professional?

I guess I'm not really sure if Olympic handball is amateur or pro; there are still a few sports in the Olympics that are limited to amateurs.  A small country like Iceland could probably compete in professional handball, but in most other team sports they are at a much greater disadvantage than if competition is on a completely amateur level.  Though they have a very small professional basketball league, in which our very own John Rhodes once competed, they could never field a team the least bit competitive against the NBA All Stars.  On the amateur level they'd still have a difficult time, but once-in-a-blue-moon a country that size might be able to have an "Indiana Hoosier" moment with a dream team.  That, to me, would be real Olympic excitement.  

Exhibit A

Didn't see this mentioned, but if the Olympics instituted an under-23 amateur only rule for basketball, the U.S. would likely dominate more than they have.  Outside of the U.S., almost none of the best young basketball players play collegiately.  They all play professionally from a young age.  In that regard, the U.S. would destroy everyone if it became an under-23 event for everyone involved.  However, if only the U.S. was going to the age limit, then our collegiate players would just get waxed by far more experienced foreigners.  

I'm guessing Argentina thought the 2004 Olympics was pretty exciting.  Winning as a huge underdog is much more exciting than winning as a favorite but there is really no reason to go back to college players. Heck, 90% of the players that were on the team pre-Dream Team wouldn't be eligible these days.  Essentially we would be stuck playing good (not great) college players or great high school players.

You're not agreeing to disagree, you're refusing to acknowledge that our collegians didn't strive, they dominated as much, if not more, than professionals. And our current collegians would dominate. THERE IS NO STRIVING.

Yes, they would. It's not even a question. I've already explained it in this thread and others have as well. You continue to ignore it. And if you're going to try and burn me, use the correct word. You're looking for "omniscient."

These guys get paid millions upon millions of dollars to play basketball. They're not require to do this and they don't need the stress. Instead, they sacrifice their off-season and play FOR FREE for their country. That selfless act should be celebrated. No, you ungrateful jerks complain about how they shouldn't be there in the first place, whine about how it's not dramatic enough for your tastes, and (in giacomo's latest bout of insanity) scold them for doing it. 

After reading over the posts in this thread I've come to one basic conclusion: I'm a "ungrateful jerk."  but I'm in good company with a few other more esteemed BobcatAttackers.  Since I'm already a certified jerk, I might as well admit that I thought the opening ceremonies were not very revetting.  Further, I find virtually all the sports where the results are determined by judges' opinions rather than who crosses the finish line first or who has more scored points (baskets, goals, etc.) not of great interest.  Obviously these are personal idiosyncrasies, but they are probably not acceptable to the intelligentsia of this board.  So far, I've enjoyed the swimming competition the most.  The competition between Chinese and North Korean swimmers was very dramatic.  

In terms of amateurs in basketball:  yes it would give the USA an advantage.  I don't mind that at all, because in IMJHO (J stands for "jerkish") it would be more exciting to see young college-age kids play for their respective countries than a bunch of jaded pros.  I don't really get chills up my spine over the sacrifices of NBA stars playing in the Olympics.  Sorry.