The quadrennial soap opera that is the Summer Olympics gets under way again today in Sydney, inspiring the usual mixed response of blahs and hurrahs. Nobody disputes that the Summer Games have become the world's biggest recurrent spectacle, costing more than some countries' GDP and cornier than Kansas. But opinion is split on whether this giant sports fest is a welcome thing or a boring, scandal-ridden extravaganza to be avoided at all costs. Sports junkies and grumpy old cynics know where they stand. For the rest of us, it's a bit of a tossup.

Let's look at the balance sheet.

Size: The Summer Olympics are too big, critics say. They certainly have outgrown their origins as a track meet for ancient Greek city-states -- and they're still growing. There were 250 events in Barcelona in 1992, 280 in Atlanta four years later, and there will be 300 in Sydney. The number of media representatives -- always a good measure of bloat -- has jumped from 12,000 in Barcelona to 21,000 in Sydney. A senior International Olympic Committee member this week advocated scaling back future Games so that less developed countries can afford to host one (Africa, South America, India and China have never staged an Olympics). Others have suggested spreading the Games among several cities.