So the International Olympic Committee approved plans for the options sports being offered at the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. Before getting to those, though, let's take a look at the optional sports for next year in Paris.

Three of them were held over from Tokyo - skateboarding, sport climbing, and surfing.  While I didn't see a lot of any of the competitions in these sports, what I did see varied from underwhelming (skateboarding) to meh (sport climbing) to fine (surfing). If nothing else, keeping surfing allows Paris to run the event in Tahiti,which is pretty cool.

The fourth sport, replacing baseball and softball, is breakdancing. I did see some of this when it was part of the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, and I can say it was more entertaining to watch than skateboarding. I've come to think of competitive breakdancing as figure skating on cardboard. 

So what's on tap for LA?

Baseball/softball - which still have to travel together as they share an international federation. I'll be interested to see if MLB works out any allowances for its players to participate, though I don't expect they will.

Cricket - the planned venue will seat 10000, which I hope can expand to something much larger if the Indian team makes the gold medal match. The competition will be in a format called T20, which I now have just a little under five years to figure out.

Flag football - the NFL is already hyping this, to the surprise of no one. According to Al Michaels (reading from the NFL's press release during last night's Jags-Saints game, I assume), there are 20 million flag football players in over 100 countries. Who knew?

Lacrosse - which will finally make up for the lack of medal winners named Jaxxon.

Squash - of all the optional sports, this to me feels like it has the best chance of getting promoted to a core sport. It's popular internationally, and as an individual sport adds fewer athletes to the Games than the team sports (though it will require another venue, where you could play lacrosse, flag football, and rugby on the same fields).

All in all it's not a bad lineup, I think. I'd watch all of these.

For those of you looking for surfing, which seems like a no-brainer inclusion in one of the epicenters of surf culture, not to worry. It's now a core sport. What isn't a core sport for LA is boxing, as the IOC no longer recognizes the International Boxing Association as the federation for international amateur boxing. There's apparently a new federation that's trying to get recognized, so you may yet still get to see people punch each other in the face.

And while it's way too early to know what the optional sports will be for the 2032 Games in Brisbane, I could see baseball/softball, cricket, and squash making the list. I could see netball making it, but sadly not Aussie rules football. Unless there's a flag Aussie rules football that I don't know about.

As entertaining as the World Cup has been so far, the corruption allegations for Qatar's 2022 hosting linger, a specter that seems to be staying on the fringes just until the current tournament ends. That specter took center stage briefly when it was reported that FIFA had contacted the US soccer federation about taking over. That blew over after a few days, but leaves the thought: how would the US host the World Cup if it was reassigned?

Group Stage

For the eight groups, I would pair two reasonably close stadiums to host three group games each:

New England - Gillette Stadium and Rentschler Field or the Yale Bowl. Gillette is a no-brainer, as Foxboro hosted in 1994. They'd have to use the grass trays, but that's hardly a drawback at this point. The other venue would either be an expanded Rentschler Field (capacity is currently 40,000) or the Yale Bowl (which is old but a reasonable size at just over 61,000).

Mid Atlantic - Lincoln Financial Field and M&T Bank Stadium. Two newer stadiums with capacities in the high 60,000s and low 70,000s. No brainers.

Southeast - Bobby Dodd Stadium and EverBank Field. I went with Georgia Tech's home over the new stadium for the Atlanta Falcons as Bobby Dodd Stadium is open air, and I'm favoring those where I can (though the use of the Pontiac Silverdome in 1994 shows they could be used). EverBank Field hosted a pre-Cup friendly earlier this year and it went pretty well, so I'm giving them the nod. Jacksonville is also closer to Atlanta than Tampa or Orlando.

Mid-Central - Heinz Field and Ohio Stadium. I'd thought about putting both stadiums in this group in Ohio, but opted to go with Heinz Field instead. Ohio Stadium reflects the support Columbus has given the USMNT over the years and the reality that Crew Stadium is too small to host Cup games.

Great Lakes: Ford Field and Michigan Stadium. Ford Field has hosted Gold Cup matches, and is plenty big enough for the World Cup. And the idea of the World Cup at the Big House is certainly appealing. Maybe too close to each other?

Show-Me: Arrowhead Stadium and Edward Jones Dome. Kansas City gets in thanks to supporting their MLS team and to recognize Lamar Hunt's support of soccer. St. Louis, while a historically important city for US soccer, doesn't have a great venue for it. I'm reluctantly going with it for now.

Lone Star: AT&T Stadium and Reliant Field. Like Mid Atlantic, two newer stadiums with plenty of seating, as well as two cities with MLS teams.

Northwest: Levi's Stadium and CenturyLink Field. Also not particularly close, but both home to dedicated MLS crowds, Seattle especially.

Round of 16 and Quarterfinals

Also two stadiums per group, three games in total.

Garden State: MetLife Stadium and High Point Solutions Stadium. MetLife, of course, gets you New York atmosphere with New Jersey location. Getting actual New York location is a problem, as Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, and both planned soccer-specific stadiums are too small. So we do down to Rutgers to borrow their stadium, which is on the smallish side as well but larger than any other option.

Sunshine: Raymond James Stadium and Florida Citrus Bowl Stadium. You could flip these two with the Atlanta/Jacksonville pair and it would be OK with me.

Midwest: Soldier Field and Lucas Oil Stadiu. Indy can handle one game, right? Solider Field was a host in '94, and unless the renovation made the field to narrow they'd be an easy pick to host again.

Southwest: Qualcomm Stadium and University of Phoenix Stadium. OK, not particularly close, but for three games you can make it work.

Semifinals and Finals

Rose Bowl. Of course. Why would it end anywhere else? 

The idea of a Summer Olympics in Boston reared it ugly head again recently. It's a horrible idea for any number of reasons, from the stress it would put on an already taxed transportation infrastructure to the cost of developing new venues to the usual inability to recoup costs. Unlike London, we don't have a section of the city we can level to build an Olympic park, and we're not going to have the sort of governmental backing they did.

But let's say, just for the hell of it, that Boston was going to host. Where would we put everything?  Here's what I see, by sport, using London as a guide where possible.

Archery - in London, they used Lord's Cricket Ground, a venerable venue considered the home of the sport. It was well-suited for the event, with its open space and seating for 28,000 or so. Based on the history and capacity, the most obvious Boston equivalent is Fenway Park. It's not like it'll be needed for baseball, as the Sox will certainly spend the entirety of the Games on the road (sorry, team!).

Athletics - The largest existing arena in the area that could fit this is Harvard Stadium, which is too small and not well-situated for traffic. As the athletics venue also typically hosts the opening and closing ceremonies, you'd need some space. My guess is that we'd knock down a significant portion of a neighborhood that abuts 93 and is within reasonable bus distance to South Station and the Red Line. This will be one of the many times we'll muse on the redevelopment of the Bayside Expo Center, which is owned by UMass-Boston and plays multiple roles in the current development of their campus. It is close to 93 and the JFK/UMass stop on the Red Line. Is it a big enough parcel for a stadium? Not without some eminent domain, I think.

Badminton - was held at Wembley Arena, which seats about 6,000. A similarly sized venue is Agannis Arena, on the campus of Boston University. BU also has a track and tennis center that could be used for something, although the capacity may be a little low (based on London venues, which seemed to bottom out at 5,000).

Basketball - was held in two separate venues, one in the Olympic Park that sat about 12,000 and the North Greenwich (ne O2) Arena, which seats closer to 18,000. While TD Bank Garden would serve as the larger venue, there's not a second arena of similar size in Boston proper. The Conte Forum is probably the next biggest arena that's close, but it seats under 10,000. If we're not being too picky about keeping things in Boston, you've got Worcester's DCU Center or Providence's Dunkin' Donuts Center.

Beach Volleyball - the site for this in London was Horse Guards Parade, which is the sort of flat, wide-open space Boston doesn't have in abundance. One completely impractical idea would be to have this on Georges Island, squeezing the court and stands inside the walls of Fort Warren. One idea that could have merit would be rehabbing the Wonderland dog track, which is a big enough parcel, across the street from a Blue Line stop which has a big new garage, and right next to a commuter rail line that could spawn a temporary stop. It's not a great site for cars - it's on a very heavily traveled section of Route 1A.

Boxing - this was one of many sports held at the ExCeL Center, a large convention center that could be configured for events seating 5,000 to 10,000. And while I don't think it's quite as big, I do think that the Boston Convention and Exposition Center could host this and a few other events. Its location near highways belies the fact that the Seaport District is one of the hardest parts of the city to get into and out of during rush hours. Though there are plans to start running a train from the BCEC to Back Bay using a currently unused track the state owns.

Canoeing - there were two separate venues outside of London, one for flat-water canoeing (the same lake used for rowing) and a man-made whitewater course. They weren't near each other in London, but could be close by if placed on Lake Quinsigamond out in Worcester. It regularly hosts rowing events, and it's got enough open space near it to put in the whitewater course.

Cycling - the variety of cycling events - track, road, mountain and BMX - will require completing a number of new venues.The road course would involve Boston streets, I assume, but timing would be key as it's going to be hard enough to keep things moving without shutting down streets for racing. A velodrome and Olympic-level mountain bike and BMX courses would need to be built, and I think that putting them all in one place would make sense not only for the Games, but as a potential post-Olympic cycling center. As for where I'd put it, I'd suggest either Devens or the former Weymouth Naval Air Station, both decomissioned military facilities with a reasonable amount of open space. My preference would be Devens, as we're already putting enough stress on the Red Line and 93.

Diving - would be part of a new build aquatics center as discussed under swimming.

Equestrian - London used Greenwich Park for this, and there's not really a comparable space in Boston. I would look to have this held up in horse country somewhere, like Andover. If we did want to keep it in the city, Franklin Park could probably host it, although it's a pain to get to and touches on some of the less salubrious neighborhoods of the city.

Fencing - was one of the events at the ExCeL Center, and could be held at the BCEC. But it could also be run at the Hynes Convention Center, a downtown location near the T that could handle those large, out of control fencing crowds.

Football - this is typically the most spread out event, and for London they held games all over the UK. I'd not spread it out that far, but if we were looking for five stadiums to use for this I'd go with Gillette Stadium (with temporary sod), the Yale Bowl, Rentschler Field, MetLife Stadium (also with temporary sod), and Lincoln Financial Field.

Golf - Forgot that they added golf. Ugh. An obvious location would the The Country Club in Brookline, which hosted the 1999 Ryder Cup. Should they pass, there's also TPC Boston, which is Norton and close to 495 and 95. There are also two muni tracks  in the Boston area - William J Devine (which is in Franklin Park) and George Wright in Hyde Park, both of which are 18 holes. I have no idea if they're of the appropriate quality for Olympic golf, as I would like to ignore that there is such a thing as Olympic golf.

Gymnastics - London used two venues, one for artistic (i.e. regular) and trampoline, the other for rhythmic. The same thing could be done in Boston with rhythmic and trampoline at Agganis or Conte and artistic at TD Bank Garden. Though there's part of me that thinks you could put rhythmic and trampoline somewhere smaller, like Matthews Arena.

Handball - would, based on London, wind up in the secondary basketball venue. I would wind up bumping it to either Agannis or Conte and then find a new home for badminton (such as Matthews) if needed. The medal round would wind up at TD Garden.

Hockey - a temporary venue was constructed for London, with 15,000 and 5,000 seat facilities. As this is the one sport that favors Astroturf over FieldTurf, there's not a place of the right size in Boston that could also hold that number of spectators. You could potentially do something temporary in Fenway after archery is done (probably not with two fields, though).

Judo - as one of the ExCeL sports, would go either to the BCEC or the Hynes.

Modern Pentathlon - would be split as appropriate for each discipline, with the advantage of combining running and shooting (and the recent adoption of laser guns) opening up a venue like the Public Garden or the Esplanade. It's a fairly small event - 72 competitors evenly split by gender - so there's some wiggle room.

Rowing - out at Lake Quinsigamond with canoeing.

Rugby - thankfully, synthetic turf appears to be OK for this, so you can put some combination of Harvard Stadium, Alumni Stadium, and Nickerson Field into play. You could potentially also use Parsons Field in Brookline, though 7,000 seats may be too small.

Sailing - taking a page from the America's Cup, it'd be great to do this on the Charles River. I don't know if there's enough room on the water, though. This could be where we revive the idea of using the harbor islands, or perhaps move things out to a more sailing-centric location, of which there are plenty.

Shooting - there is not an existing military structure in the Boston area that could hold this and provide potential seating for 7,500 spectators. This may be another event for Bayside depending on what sort of shape it's in for indoor events.

Swimming - would require building a facility, as the only way you could approach the sort of capacity that London had would be to construct a temporary pool at TD Bank Garden, which is out of the question.Once again we look to Bayside as a possible location for a new build facility (assuming the existing buildings have been demolished by then).

Synchronized Swimming - also at a new aquatics center, wherever it is.

Table Tennis - BCEC or Hynes.

Taekwondo - Also BCEC or Hynes

Tennis - while its name would imply otherwise, the Longwood Cricket Club played a pivotal role in early US tennis history - the Davis Cup was first contested there, for example - and it hosted a pro tournament for years. It's not quite up to Wimbledon's standards - no roofed center court, for example - but it's almost certainly the best option in the Boston area outside of a new build.

Triathlon - I would move this up the coast a bit, with swimming at Revere Beach and then the cycling and running heading in whatever direction makes the most sense. You could either cycle down 1A and bring competitors back into Boston for the run, or go up 1A and host the run somewhere like Salem. A pain if you want to drive 1A, but accessible by public transport between the Blue Line and commuter rail.

Volleyball- in London, volleyball was held at Earl's Court, a well-known exhibition center of which there's no real equivalent in Boston (at least at the stated capacity of 15,000). The more of these events show up the more I think a newly-built (probably temporary) general purpose arena is needed, which is unfortunate.

Water Polo- had its own venue in London. I'd suggest a combined venue with swimming, though the logistics may be problematic. The London venue was next to the aquatic center, and they shared some facilities, which would help. Not sure there'd be enough room at Bayside to build two buildings, but perhaps something with pools on multiple levels?

Weightlifting - Would go to BCEC or the Hynes normally, but I like the idea of using the Citi Performing Arts Center to create more drama. Probably too small at roughly 3,600 seats. Could go to Matthews.

Wrestling - at ExCeL in London, I'd prefer it to be in an arena venue like Agannis or Conte.

Three additional considerations to this nonsense:

1. The Paralympics. The Olympic host also hosts this event later in the year, which means a second disruption (or a longer initial disruption), although of less severity as there are fewer spectators. The Paralympics in London required a couple of venues not used for the Olympics (for wheelchair tennis and a cycling road course). Still, adding this in you'd get a pretty solid month of activity to deal with.

2. Non-athletic venues. On top of everything listed above, you'd also need an Olympic Village and a broadcast center. Personally, I think you could stick the broadcast center somewhere like the World Trade Center, though it tends to be in the middle of things, so might require something built close to the main stadium. The village is an even bigger concern, as I don't know where we'd drop a development for 17,000 people.


3. Timing. Of late the Summer Games have been happening in August, with the Paralympics in late August or September. The problem with that is going into September would clash with the return of 100,000 or so college students to Boston. Starting in July would help, but would also have things happening during the hottest (and muggiest) part of the year. We're not Qatar, but it'd be a bit uncomfortable. June would be best, not sure how much we'd have to bribe the IOC to make that happen.

Following up a news story from earlier in the year, the IOC's executive committee recently short-listed three sports that are in the running to replace wrestling in the 2020 Summer Games. The sports short listed were squash, baseball/softball, and... wrestling. Yes, wrestling may replace itself, which is a pretty good indication as to how the IOC works.

It's ridiculous that things got to this point to begin with, though I suppose the bright side is that the federation for wrestling used the dumping from the Olympics to clean house and refocus itself on promoting the sport. Still, it's a little too much blame the victim for my taste.

So we're down to these three sports, two of which should be in the Olympic program regardless (wrestling and baseball/softball) and a third, squash, which is pretty popular internationally and certainly worthy. In my book they'd all be in, and in the interest of whatever the IOC is trying to do by dropping and adding sports, I have suggestions on what to cut to allow all three in.

Add wrestling, drop taekwondo. I have nothing against taekwondo, I've gone with it mostly under the "last hired, first fired" philosophy. It also doesn't help that over a third of all medals have gone to just three competitors: China, South Korea, and Taiwan Chinese Taipei.

It'd be more fitting if wrestling replaced boxing, which has lost a lot of its luster thanks to issues with scoring and refereeing. But we'll stick to the LIFO approach for now.

Add squash, drop table tennis. I don't mean to be picking on the People's Republic, but when a sport sees more than half of its medals go to one country, you have to question if it has enough competitive balance to be part of the Olympics. Squash should be somewhat better in this regard, though recent world championship results suggest a fairly small group of countries at the top.

Alternately, you could drop tennis, considering that the Olympics is, at best, the fifth-most important tennis tournament of the year.

Add baseball and softball, remove field hockey. The most imbalanced team sport is probably basketball - especially on the women's side, given the recent domination of the US team - but it's too popular (and too lucrative) to pull.  Going through the other sports there's not a great argument to be made for getting rid of of any of them. I still think the best bet would be to move an indoor team sport to the Winter Games, but that's not likely to happen, so I went with what seems to have the least mass appeal of the team sports.

You've likely heard that the New Orleans NBA franchise is planning to change its nickname from Hornets to Pelicans. Some have mocked the new name, but there's one spirited defense that makes me doubt I'll ever go bird watching in the bayou. There's additional talk that the Carolina Bobcats will reclaim the Hornets name, which makes a certain amount of sense.

Personally, I'd prefer to see New Orleans trade the Hornets name to Utah. The New Orleans Jazz would ride again, and the Utah Hornets makes a bit of a call out to the honeybee, the Utah state insect and Mormon symbol.

In any case, this got me thinking of what other teams could use a name change.

MLB: the most obvious case here is the Washington Nationals, a name whose generic quality underscored the whole ridiculous process that brought the team down from Montreal. I can understand why they didn't want to revive the Senators name - and if you don't, check out the pre-1960 seasons listed for the Minnesota Twins - but there are other options. Ambassadors, Diplomats. Monuments. Capitols (or even Capitals, it's not like that name's getting a lot of use right now).

My second option here is the Cleveland Indians, which I would roll back to Spiders. 

NFL: And with the Indians in mind, my suggestion here would be the Washington Redskins. I don't mean to pile on the District, but of the few Native American nicknames that still persist in pro sports, this one's the most egregious.

But rather than go with Warriors or something, I'd go with a tribal name - the Powhatans. Their territory covered Maryland and Virginia, and there are state recognized tribes today that trace back to the Powhatans. Cut a deal, change the logo (but keep the colors, I have a fondness for the unis), make the change.

For those not looking to tackle racial and ethnic issues, I'd suggest a name change for the Carolina Panthers, a snoozer of a nickname.

NBA: The New Orleans name change is not the most needed change in the league. The team that most needs a change is the Toronto Raptors, an example of why you don't name your team after something appearing in a currently popular movie. That sort of synergy only goes so far.

Reviving the Huskies name (from Toronto's brief 1940s stint in the BAA) would have made more sense. Even if you were going for something ferocious or dangerous, Dragons or Scorpions (both suggested) would have been better. Really almost any of the other nine names that made it to the final cut would have been better than Raptors (the only one that wouldn't be an improvement was T-Rex, for obvious reasons). So let's just go with Dragons and work out a deal to mimic the Barcelona Dragons kit, which was the best thing to come out of the World League of American Football.

NHL: If we ever have professional hockey again, I would hope to have it without the Minnesota Wild, a nickname that has never made any sense to me. I get that Minnesota has all those lakes and trees and such, but I don't think that it translated well into a nickname. Or at least this nickname.

The other finalists weren't much better (I suppose Voyageurs was the best of the lot), so I'm not sure what to go with here. North Stars was pretty much perfect, so I suppose I'd suggest some sort of name trade with Dallas, who could then don whatever bovine-related nickname would work best with Cowboys and Mavericks.

The other option here, of course, is the Chicago Blackhawks.

MLS: The truly awful names of Major League Soccer are thankfully gone (though I don't know if FC Dallas and Sporting Kansas City are huge improvements over the Burn and Wiz[ards]). So while I don't particularly dislike any of the names, the one I'd tab to change is the Columbus Crew. It's not awful, but it's kind of goofy (as is their logo of guys wearing hardhats).

If they're looking to honor workers in heavy industry, well, I don't know what to go with that's not Steelers. Suggestions welcome.

No second option, none of the other names really bother me.

NCAA: I'm not suggesting a specific school to change, but am rather suggesting the retirement of a nickname: Wildcats. How lazy is that as a nickname? It's not like we have teams called the Fish or the Mammals. Even the Greendale Community College Human Beings use a specific primate. It's a nickname for a school that either can't be bothered to go with something overused and specific, like Bulldogs or something.

The closest NCAA division 1 school to me that uses that name is the University of New Hampshire, and given the lack of athletic distinction in Durham (they didn't get their University of No Hardware nickname from their smashing successes), Wildcats almost works for them. They also have the problem that they have a native feline - the Fisher Cat - but that's being used by a minor league baseball team (which should have been called the New Hampshire Primaries, but that's another issue).

I looked up the official New Hampshire state symbols to find a new nickname, and it's not helping. The state bird is a finch. The state insect is the ladybug. There are really only two options if we go this route: Bucks (the white-tailed deer is the state animal) or Granite (state rock). I don't rend to like non-plural nickname, but I do think the UNH Granite has a certain ring to it.