I mean, you could say the same about the Olympics. There’s no way a small country like Jamaica could possibly beat a huge country like the US.
But sometimes they do. That’s what makes it so exciting.
And what are you on about a 50 lane track? Does the Olympics have a 200 lane track for all the countries? You do it in heats. Have you ever watched a track and field event? And practically every state has a facility that would support a track and field event with around 120 people. That’s not absurdly large.
I assume it’d general track and field, though it’s a little odd if you just have 2 competitors per state to do all the events. Though I think that actually makes it a little more interesting. Kind of triathalon-y.
I don’t think this is as hard to organize as you seem to think it is. Yes, it requires coordination and stuff, and is more than just a snap of the fingers, but if you assigned a qualified and well funded planning group to it, I’m confident you could get it put together by summer.
Jamaica spends more on its Olympic team than the US does. They enter around 60-70 athletes, while the US is spread thinner with around 600.
So ultimately Jamaica spends over 10x per athlete. And that’s state funding, which the US doesn’t do. Team USA half-asses the Olympics, falling back on sheer population size to garner the required athletes at the right time, rather than having a proper training programme.
Compare it to China then, which does state sponsor.
Or, hell, South Dakota can state sponsor their Patriot Games athletes if they want, to try to give them an edge. Make it a point of state pride or whatever to pull better competitors than a state that’s bigger but doesn’t care.
Alabama does better at college football nationally (historically) than much bigger states because of a culture difference. The idea that California would outperform them just because they’re bigger does not in fact bear out in reality.
I mean, you could say the same about the Olympics. There’s no way a small country like Jamaica could possibly beat a huge country like the US.
But sometimes they do. That’s what makes it so exciting.
And what are you on about a 50 lane track? Does the Olympics have a 200 lane track for all the countries? You do it in heats. Have you ever watched a track and field event? And practically every state has a facility that would support a track and field event with around 120 people. That’s not absurdly large.
I assume it’d general track and field, though it’s a little odd if you just have 2 competitors per state to do all the events. Though I think that actually makes it a little more interesting. Kind of triathalon-y.
I don’t think this is as hard to organize as you seem to think it is. Yes, it requires coordination and stuff, and is more than just a snap of the fingers, but if you assigned a qualified and well funded planning group to it, I’m confident you could get it put together by summer.
Jamaica spends more on its Olympic team than the US does. They enter around 60-70 athletes, while the US is spread thinner with around 600.
So ultimately Jamaica spends over 10x per athlete. And that’s state funding, which the US doesn’t do. Team USA half-asses the Olympics, falling back on sheer population size to garner the required athletes at the right time, rather than having a proper training programme.
Compare it to China then, which does state sponsor.
Or, hell, South Dakota can state sponsor their Patriot Games athletes if they want, to try to give them an edge. Make it a point of state pride or whatever to pull better competitors than a state that’s bigger but doesn’t care.
Alabama does better at college football nationally (historically) than much bigger states because of a culture difference. The idea that California would outperform them just because they’re bigger does not in fact bear out in reality.