cmburrill: Its lost meaning for you. To me the ancient Greeks never sent their worse athletes. It was a source of huge pride for the ridiculously competitive City States to win an event. I cant imagine Sparta sending a weak boxer to fight against an Athenian.
These were not Professonials. Our boxers and swimmers aren't professional. Etc. I'm just say that allowing Pros to play in some of the sports has ruined it for me and taken away the true meaning of the Olympics.
In the Olympics, the only sport in which no professionals compete is boxing (and most of them are faux amateurs, they get paid to compete). In every other sport, the best athletes in the world are playing (besides soccer, mostly because soccer is so big). Where did you get the idea that swimmers aren't professionals?
If allowing pros to play has ruined it for you, it's has been a long time since you enjoyed the Olympics. When the modern Olympics games were created, only amateurs were allowed because of elitist reasons. The "professionals" were basically sports instrutors or gymn teachers, and Coubertin didn't want people who needed sports to make a living (or, in fact, that needed to work to make a living) playing in the Olympics. I think that mindset is clearly outdated.
The Olympics are great because the best athletes in the world are competing. Who would want to see some random guys running the 100 meters in 14 seconds?
And you wouldn't be able to send college players to the basketball tournament anyway, because they wouldn't qualify. And the Olympics baskebtall tournament without the US would be a shame, like the table tennis without the chineses or the soccer without the brazilians.
I really don't see what's the problem with allowing the players and the teams to decide by themselves.