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.

So the organizing committee behind Boston's 2024 Olympic bid had its first public meeting a while back, and presented materials that were part of its presentation to the USOC. And while the documentation was described as a "proof of concept" rather than a finished plan, it does give a clearer idea of how the organizers are trying to make these a walkable Games.

Venues are planned within a "waterfront" cluster that centers on South Boston and Dorchester, and a "university" cluster which includes facilities at BU, MIT and Harvard. There is then a "midtown" location which would be the location for the main stadium. Lowell would host boxing and the Merrimack River would host various canoe/kayak events. Even so, there are a number of events that seem to fall outside of this arrangement. Here's how it looks sport by sport, and what I think might work better.

Archery - a temporary venue in Killian Court, which is the area in front of the main building at MIT. Great choice for atmosphere between the dome and city views over the Charles. It's only going to seat 1000, which seems small. The venue for London seated 6500. My personal choice here is Fenway Park, as it's a way to include an iconic sports venue at a minimal impact to the venue.

Athletics - centered on the main stadium, which is located on the Widett Circle parcel in South Boston. The committee says they want to acquire the land from the food wholesale co-op that is currently there by sale rather than eminent domain. We'll see how that goes. In any event, this is probably the best location that's available.

The marathon will use a route centered on Boston Common. This appears to be different from the route used in the past when Boston hosted Olympic trials. Which makes sense, as it will finish at the stadium.

Aquatics- This will be a temporary venue at something called Allston Landing, which is part of Harvard's stake in that neighborhood. Seems doable, and at 18500 people the size is right. Not sure how well this will go with Allston residents still sore over Harvard's expansion into Allston. Note that this venue includes swimming, diving and synchronized swimming.,

There's also a marathon swim course in the Charles River, with Magazine Beach being the focal point on land (this is closer to BU than Harvard, but on the Cambridge side of the river). This is not the most accessible location, something farther down the river (maybe by the Hatch Shell) would work better and provide more options for getting there.

Badminton - Agannis Arena at BU. The only event located at BU, which is a little surprising but their other athletic facilities may not be big enough (they all tend to seat under 5000, which looks like the minimum). The Green Line runs right by it, which you think is helpful but it's notoriously slow. I do think that Agannis would be better suited for basketball prelims or handball, with badminton going to the BCEC or Hynes.

Basketball - the final is at TD Garden, but with gymnastics taking up most of the time here the prelims would need to be held elsewhere (Agannis and the Conte Forum would be reasonable local options, while the DCU Center and Dunkin Donuts Center are a little farther out but bigger). All of these venues have reasonable transit options, with Worcester and Providence allowing for more car use.

Boxing - Tsongas Center in Lowell. Lowell has some solid local boxing history (thank Mickey Ward for this, I suppose), and it creates a decent cluster with the various rowing events.

Canoe - temporary venue in Lowell using the Merrimack River. I'm assuming the slalom course will be built in the same area, but it's not mentioned in the plan.

Cycling - the road course is centered on the Boston Common. Track cycling would be in a velodrome crammed into one end of Assembly Square in Somerville. After the Games it would be repurposed into some sort of multi-use facility (the area is redeveloping as a shopping and entertainment district, so probably along those lines). I hate this site, as I think it will be hard to get to. There is a new Orange Line station close by, but it's tight quarters for surface traffic and relying on Route 93 to get anywhere is magical thinking.

Oh, and the BMX track is going to be in Assembly Square, too! Ugh.

A better option would be using either Suffolk Downs or Wonderland. Both have Blue Line and bus access already, and both are in more desperate need of redevelopment than the Assembly Square area.

Equestrian - the horses will take over the William Devine golf course in Franklin Park. Suffolk Downs is available, and you'd think the horse infrastructure there could be used. I'd go there instead, but at least the Franklin Park site is close to the Orange Line.

Fencing - temporary venue on the Alfred Gordon track site at Harvard. There are a lot of temporary venues at Harvard, it would be better to spread some of them around, especially as the area where they're going is not as transit friendly as the plan suggests.

Football - final will be at Gillette, which is a pain in the ass to get to (poor road access and limited rail access), but it is the home to the New England Revolution. No talk about preliminary sites, but I expect they'll be scattered around the northeast (my guess would be using NFL stadiums with temporary turf as needed, though both the Yale Bowl and Rentschler Field are big enough to host as well).

Golf - The Country Club in Brookline. Still think TPC Norton is better choice logistically. Getting there for the Ryder Cup in 1999 was a pain. It'll all be shuttle buses and satellite parking.

Gymnastics - artistic at TD Garden, rhythmic at the Boston Convention and Expo Center (BCEC). Artistic includes trampoline, for which TD Garden seems like overkill. The BCEC gets quite a workout in this plan, which is concerning given how hard it is currently to get out of the Seaport district. There are plans to improve transport (including a rail line running from the BCEC into Back Bay station), though recent events may push money towards fixing existing service.

Handball - There's nothing about handball in the documentation. which is weird. I don't know how your plan can ignore an entire sport. I'm guessing handball will use some of the same venues as basketball, though maybe some of the smaller arenas (like Matthews Arena or the Bright Center) could be used as well.

Hockey - Harvard Stadium, putting more pressure on that part of Cambridge and Allston. London had two areas for hockey, perhaps Nickerson Field or Alumni Stadium could host this as well.

Judo - BCEC, whose use is pretty clearly modeled on how the ExCeL Center was used in London.

Modern Pentathlon - White Stadium in Franklin Park and the aquatics center for the swimming part.

Rowing - also in Lowell on the Merrimack.

Rugby - Gillette Stadium,which I assume can host the entire tournament given that it's modeled after Rugby Sevens, whose events only take a weekend.

Sailing - off of Castle Island in the Boston Harbor. I understand why that's desirable, but getting to and from there is going to be murder. The closest thing to public transit is "anticipated" Silver Line service. It's all surface transport, so this may wind up being a walkable venue by necessity.

Shooting - OK, this is a weird one. A temporary venue seating 7000 will be constructed on Long Island, with access by shuttle bus over the one bridge connecting the island to the mainland (which will be restricted to Olympic traffic) and ferry. I thought 7000 was way too high for shooting, but the London venue was 7500, so maybe it's fine. There's also spectator areas to watch sailing, which is good as this is probably still easier to get to than Castle Island.

Table Tennis - BCEC

Taekwondo - BCEC

Tennis - temporary venue at Harvard on their playing fields. Planned capacity is at 20000, which I assume is mostly center court. So with the planned swimming capacity, you could have almost 40000 people in a fairly small section of Allston if the events aren't timed right. Forget walkable, that would be crawlable at best.

Triathlon - swimming at Magazine Beach, with cycling and running legs in Cambridge (hopefully away from everything else going on at Harvard). I'd move this closer to downtown as with the marathon swim, and the cycling and running can use parts of the courses for the road race and marathon.

Volleyball - beach is on Boston Common, in an attempt to recreate the atmosphere of Horse Guards Parade. I don't think it'll work, and while I don't think it's the worst location it drew most of the criticism at the first open forum. There probably isn't a great downtown location for this.

Indoor volleyball is at the BCEC, I'm assuming in the part of the facility that's proposed for expansion (Olympics or not).

Water Polo - also at Harvard (Allston Landing) in a 5000 seat venue.While it makes sense to have this a the same location as the other aquatic events, but I do think Harvard is overloaded. Not sure where else this could go, though.

Weightlifting- at the Blue Hills Bank Pavilion (ne Bank of America Pavilion and Harborlights), good harbor views but it's open to the elements (the stage and most seating is covered). I'm pretty familiar with the venue (my employer holds a graduation ceremony there every summer), and it looks like they're going to build something out into the harbor for athletes to use for warm up, locker rooms, etc. At least I don't recall there being anything there now. Also, another transit issue as the Silver Line is your best non-car option.

Wrestling - BCEC

As a proof of concept I suppose the original plan works, but if there's any hope of actually landing the Games there's work to be done. The waterfront cluster has significant transit issues, while the university cluster is too focused on the least accessible part of Harvard's campus.

As I mentioned in my last post, the USOC's selection criteria for determining which bid to put forward don't specifically mention two things: venues and cost. So how do the four bids stack up in those areas?

Boston, as I also mentioned, has put forward a "walkable" Games, with most venues within 3.5 miles of the city center. The only event I've seen mentioned as being held outside of Boston is rowing, which is reportedly going up to Lowell to be held on the Merrimack River (the Charles being too twisty and bridge-covered). Still not sure this is the best way to go, but I do think there's a certain logic to a dense Olympics that could allow spectators to walk between venues rather than rely on public transport for all trips.

There's a real focus on using existing venues, and on making any new venues temporary (or in some cases, convertible to office/retail/residential space). The big question is where an Olympic stadium will go. I tended to think the site of Suffolk Downs would make sense - it's on Route 1A and the Blue Line - but there's more talk now about the site of the New Boston Food Market. It's located right next to the Southeast Expressway and rail lines from South Station, which seems ideal (though the Expressway traffic is always problematic), but to get the parcel the city would likely need to take it by eminent domain. Warm up your lawyers.

As far as costs go, $7.5 billion gets bandied about quite a bit, but depending on how you count things it could go as high as $20 billion. A fairer number is probably somewhere in the middle - for now - as the high estimate includes projects in a $13 billion transportation bill that will happen regardless of how the Olympics go.

Washington has a more spread out plan if these map views are anything to go by, though it's more compact than earlier plans that saw venues spread out from Baltimore to Richmond. It looks like there will be more new building in this plan than in Boston's, unsure if the Olympic Stadium plan would renovate or raze RFK Stadium. The Olympic Village is also slated to go in an area whose most notable facility is apparently a homeless shelter. Not sure how well that will go over.

I didn't find a lot of cost projections, but it looks like they're aiming at a similar operating budget to Boston and what was spent in London. It's the additional costs that can cause the budget to bloat, which is especially concerning for Washington given that much of their governance is done by Congress rather than local officials. Good luck squeezing an extra billion out of a House committee chaired by some guy from Idaho.

Los Angeles will put the LA Coliseum back to use as their Olympic Stadium, which makes sense. Venues will be placed into four clusters, two in what I consider LA proper, one in Carson, and one in Long Beach. A walkable Games this is not, though organizers have a stated goal of having 80 percent of spectators get to venues by public transportation. It's not clear to me how many new venues are needed, but many of the ones listed in a venue map (that may have come out prematurely) seem to already exist.

Same story on costs as with the other bids, and I'm finding no estimates of costs beyond the operating budget. Given the emphasis on extending a couple of transit lines, I'm thinking the costs here may be significant.

San Francisco also seems to be taking more of a regional approach, looking at using existing facilities in San Jose, Santa Clara and Berkeley. There's also a potential $2 billion stadium deal for Oakland that could be included, but there are apparently significant challenges to that project as well. There's also talk of a temporary Olympic stadium like Boston's, and using existing venues or building temporary ones in the city (beach volleyball in front of city hall, for example).

Costs - should I even bother? Just like everyone else, as far as we know.

 It's probably a fool's errand to try to compare these bids at this stage, when so much is unknown. But from what is out there, I do think the Boston bid is the most walkable, and perhaps the one that does the best job of using existing venues (or of not talking about what will need to be built, temporary or not). It also appears to be the bid that's the most up-front about costs outside of the operating budget, for better or worse (living in the Boston area may also may be making more aware of Boston's details). I'm most concerned over Washington's bid, between the specter of Congressional involvement and the likely backlash of clearing out the homeless to build an athlete's village.

The Boston bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics was officially submitted to the US Olympics Committee yesterday. And while details are sparse as to contents of the bid, the Boston committee's website does list six selection criteria that the USOC will use to compare the Boston bid to those of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington DC. Those criteria?

45,000 hotel rooms - organizers claim Boston clears this minimum, but the city's tourism bureau claims 30,000-plus. The chairman of the organizing committee claims the 45,000 are in Boston proper, and that 5,000 more rooms will be added to Boston's total from hotels under construction now.

An Olympic village that sleeps 16,500 and has a 5,000 person dining hall - talk is that this will be located on the UMass Boston-Bayside Expo Center parcel, which makes me wonder how athletes and the like will get from there to venues given the usual horrific traffic on the Southeast Expressway (more on how that might work later).

Also worth noting that the UMass-Boston master plan from 2009 (warning: large PDF!) only mentions 2,000 bed spaces. At 16,500 beds, the village could house the entire undergraduate population of the school with room to spare.

Operations space for over 15,000 media and broadcasters - I have no idea where this would go, and what talk there's been about the bid doesn't mention this. I'm guessing some mix of existing and new office space will cover this.

An international airport that can handle thousands of international travelers per day - Logan's international flights mostly come from Canada, the Caribbean, and Europe. This past October Logan saw just over 420,000 international passengers. So while the volume may not be a problem, the lack of direct flights from most of the world is a concern (though one that other hosts have likely encountered).

The biggest problem may be getting people from Logan to sites around the city, which leads us to the next criterion...

Public transportation services to venues, roadway closures to allow exclusive use for Games-related transportation - this is the topic of the most importance to Bostonians, as transportation infrastructure is already strained and may not be able to handle the additional load the Olympics would bring. The bid proposes to make the Games walkable, with most venues in or near the city center.

The road closures are perhaps more problematic, as traffic in Boston on a good day is challenging. Taking away a lane from the major thoroughfares (as happened in London with its Olympic lanes) is feasible but could completely screw up what little order there is in driving in the city currently.

A workforce of up to 200,000 - a potential drawback given our reasonably rosy employment numbers, but a number that could be reached by employing a large number of retirees and students. Students may well form the backbone of this workforce, as the timing and temporary nature of the Games does lend itself to be an ultimate summer job. Whether or not these are paid or volunteer positions is kind of an open question, though I did run across some talk of using international students as free interpreters.

There's no talk among these criteria about venues or cost, but from what's come out the Boston bid will lean on existing college facilities quite a bit, which helps with the walkable theme and keeps costs down. This is also where the use of college students as volunteers or low-cost workers is implied.

Where cost is concerned, the estimated costs seems to be in the $7.5 billion range. The money seems to be 60 percent revenues (tickets, broadcasts and international sponsorships) and 40 percent other sponsorships (local biotech firms are mentioned in this context quite a bit, not sure why they'd pony up over $3 billion for this). The organizers swear up and down that no public funds will be used outside of infrastructure improvements. Considering the federal government just pledged $1 billion for a Green Line extension that will cover less than half of the total cost, you can see where this might go.

Without more specifics it's hard to tell if this bid is really feasible, or how it measures up against the other bids. But at this point, the Boston bid seems to at least meet the minimum requirements.

As you may have heard, the Winter Olympics have returned, this time at the Russian resort city of Sochi, where a mere $51 billion dollars have been spent (or siphoned off or otherwise thrown down a hole somewhere) to bring us, to date at least, journalists mocking the shoddy nature of the accommodations and dog murder. Things will likely even themselves out as the actual competition starts, but it got me to thinking what the potential is for similarly humorous Winter Olympic shenanigans in the future?

Turns out they're not great. The 2018 Games will be held in a handful of towns in Pyeongchang, South Korea, and, agitation from the north notwithstanding, will likely be free of nonsense. So what about 2022? There are five potential hosts, with varying potentials for public failure, which I will rank here in increasing order of potential chaos.

5. Oslo, Norway. An absolutely solid choice that would provide zero opportunity for amusing failure. They'd be on the other end of this list if we were looking at the likelihood of actually winning the Games, though probably not at the top as bribery opportunities will be limited at best.

4. Beijing, China. Proved in 2008 that they can put on an event of this size, and would be able to do so again here, but without Sochi-level fun as corruption on that scale in China often ends with the grifter taking a state-sanctioned bullet to the head. We'd just have to wait a couple years after the games to go back for a second dose of ruin porn.

3. Krakow, Poland.  I suppose there's some potential for shenanigans, but any comparison to Russians would likely be met poorly, so I'm assuming work would be mostly on the level. 

2. Lviv, Ukraine. Probably not fair to lump the current unrest in Ukraine with double toilet bathrooms and hotels without lobbies, but should the country continue to more closely align itself with Russia maybe we'll get something similar out of their Olympic preparation. Not sure there are enough oligarchs to rack up as much waste and skimming as Sochi, but maybe Russia will lend them some.

1. Almaty, Kazakhstan. Former Soviet republic, only one president since independence, awash in petrotenge and looking to build its international profile. I'm surprised the IOC just hasn't awarded them the Games by fiat. I expect the bribes are already flowing to get the votes they need in 2015. On the down side, Kazakhstan has or will host some Olympic-style events, so may already have enough infrastructure in place to not have the sort of problems that were reported in Sochi. 

So while there's some potential for things to go sideways in 2022, the best option is actually in another sport: Russia hosts soccer's World Cup in 2018. Start rounding up the dogs now.

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.

Word today that the International Olympic Committee, in their typical wisdom, has decided to jettison wrestling as of the 2020 Summer Games. They can petition to get back in, which several other sports are trying to do already (such as baseball and softball). The decision was made to "streamline" the Games, which is kind of a funny rationale given the recent inclusion of golf and rugby. It's also odd that they'd try to streamline things by taking out one of the sports contested in the original Olympics. So much for tradition.

There are better ways to fix things. In fact, I can think of five things, which brings us to:

MAKING IT BETTER: THE SUMMER OLYMPICS

1. Give the IOC a line item veto for events. Part of the problem currently is that the IOC can't adjust events, they can only add or drop an entire sport. So instead of cutting down on the number of weight classes or something, they have to drop the entire thing. I'm sure there's some sort of political reason for this between the IOC and the governing bodies of each sport, but having the ability to cut some events rather than an entire sport makes more sense. Some humble suggestions:

• Race walking
• Trampoline
• Synchronized diving
• Duet synchronized swimming
• At least one weight class in men's weightlifting and boxing.

Granted, this would be an annual bloodbath, but at least it would give the IOC more flexibility and more opportunity to do what it does best: behind the scenes politicking and bribery.

2. Get rid of tennis and golf. I'm assuming that their inclusion in the Games is an attempt to draw some star power, as you can wedge the Olympics into the schedule every four years in a way that you can't with, say, baseball. Still, it hasn't worked quite so well for tennis, which has drawn some big names but seems to be just below Davis/Fed Cup in terms of excitement for players. I can't imagine this will work any better for golf, though maybe there's a groundswell of interest in it as we get closer. Still, neither has much Olympic pedigree and fans can just tune into any of the dozens of events that normally dot the tennis and golf calendar to see their favorites.

3. Move some stuff to winter. Rather than cut stuff entirely, let's load level and push some stuff that doesn't need to be held in the summer on to the Winter Games. Wrestling would work here, as would weightlifting, fencing, badminton, table tennis, volleyball (with beach staying in the summer, of course), judo, taekwondo, and shooting.

4. Use the LIFO method if you have to cut. If you have to cut something from the program, using a "last in, first out" method causes the least disruption, certainly in tradition if not in practice. The IOC would not be getting the negative reaction they're getting if they dropped taekwondo,which was only added as an official sport in 2000. Well, except from South Korea, who would likely take it personally.

5. Go for the one or two nation dominated sports first. Like any sport, wrestling has its dominant nations, but if you look at the 2012 results you see a pretty diverse group of countries. Russia won the most, but the top 10 includes countries like Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Hungary. Compare this to table tennis, which saw half of all medals go to China. In fact, half of all medals in the history of table tennis have gone to China.

Not that table tennis would get bumped, because who wants to piss off China? But the point remains, if half of your medals go to one or two countries, maybe you shouldn't be an Olympic sport quite yet. It's the same logic (sort of, and only in part with respect to baseball) that saw baseball and softball dropped.

So three things I've been mulling as explanations for Chicago's poor showing in today's vote for the 2016 Olympics

1. Everyone else still hates us. Nothing like a sweeping generalization to kick things off, but it may be fair to say that there's still some fence-mending to be done, even with Obama's apparently popularity abroad. Which leads to...

2. Obama's slight to voters. At least one article I read suggested that some voters passed on Chicago because they felt snubbed by the short length of Obama's appearance. Honestly, if the idiots who vote for this thing won't vote for a city because the leader of the free world isn't going to spend a couple of days kowtowing to them, then we really don't need the Olympics.

3. Never underestimate the emotional appeal of the very old. As part of Madrid's presentation, former IOC president (and current lifetime honorary president) Juan Antonio Samaranch more or less said they should win because he's pretty close to dying and he'd like to see Spain named host before that happens. Throw that out to a room full of people who you've worked with for years, and it's not surprising that you get that close to winning. Which also seems like a pretty weak rationale for voting, which just further tells you what you're dealing with as far as the IOC is concerned.

Anyway, congrats to Rio. Hope you get your rat and monkey problem cleared up in time for the Games.

Now that the cauldron has been extinguished, it's time for a very special:

MAKING IT BETTER: The Summer Olympics

Granted, most (if not all) of these suggestions are aimed more at whatever international body runs the sport. But I imagine the IOC has some leverage here.

1. Create an audit system for gymnastics where the judges have to document deductions, and make them publicly available. This doesn't have to be real time (judging seems slow enough now), but I think there'd be fewer shenanigans if the judges were under greater public scrutiny. If nothing else, gymnasts would have data to help them know what to expect from certain judges, sort of like how baseball players know how each ump defines the strike zone.

2. Wire up the boxers like the fencers. The current judging system in boxing is probably the worst of all the current Olympic sports and is among the worst all-time. Why not use technology to put sensors in the gloves and uniform in such a way that contact leads to points, with contact information transmitted wirelessly?

Other option - use a panel of judges for each boxer and give them more time to register punches. This will cut down on the amount of work per judge, and allow for them to register combinations that the current system can't always handle.

3. Bring back baseball and softball, as the idea that both are dominated by Americans was pretty much put to rest this year. Or, if the MLB steroid issue was as much of a factor in their removal as Rogge suggested, also get rid of cycling, weightlifting and track - to start.

4. Cut taekwondo, as it needs to get its own house in order before it can continue as an Olympic sport.

5. Getting back to cycling, bring back the team time trial as a road discipline. Maybe that'll get the Tour de France to put it back in for a stage. It's always one of my favorites.

6. If we can't have baseball and softball, add in rugby. It's a popular world-wide game that the US sucks at. Like soccer.

That's all I have for now. I'm sure I've missed something, so suggestions are welcome.

There's an analogy out there between the US men's basketball team from 2004 and the two US 4 x 100 meter relay teams this year, but I can't quite figure out if it involves a lack of fundamentals or lack of preparation. Or why not both?

So I've been absent. What's been up? Let's start from last Friday:

Funeral - had my aunt Shirley's funeral on Friday, which went as well as a funeral could go. Saw a fair amount of family that I'd not seen in a while, and the rain managed to hold off for the most part. I did get to spend some quality time with the neices and nephews, which is always good. We got back to the house late in the afternoon, actually pulling up at the same time as our...

Houseguests - the wife's cousin and her husband are over from England, and they stayed with us for a few days. It was great fun, as we got to sightsee a bit, drank too much, and probably watched more Olympic coverage than they'd have liked (though we did see a swimming event where the Brits went gold-bronze, which went over well). I didn't get to spend quite as much time with them as I'd have liked, thanks to...

Work - our big graduation was today, and we added a little over 500 new alumni to the rolls without too many problems. We did have a few more problems than usual, though, thanks to a database problem on Monday that kept us from releasing grades to students until Friday. We could see them, so I was able to do a fair amount of my usual pre-graduation work, but parts of it got pushed back. I had a nice little plan going into the week, which was summarily blown to hell. We should have seen this coming when we closed grading with fewer than 20 individual grades missing. When I did get home, it was time to settle in and relax with...

The Olympics - which would be fine if I was in as much in love with swimming and gymnastics as NBC would like me to be. I wound up missing some sports entirely (cycling and judo), which others I've only caught fragments when I managed to catch a recap or the start of early morning coverage on one of the cable outlets. I feel like there was more variety to coverage in 2004, or at least the scheduling allowed me to see more.

So there it is. Back on the blogging wagon this week. Expect multiple appearances of the Book Log.