Nacre

Premium Members
  • Content count

    1022
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Nacre last won the day on March 2

Nacre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

152 Excellent

About Nacre

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    w/ the pygmy rabbits
  • Interests
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

4531 profile views
  1. Do you realize that the coliseum was originally built with public money? What has gotten the Olympics into trouble is not the use of government funding, but rather governments wasting money. Every major city in the world spends money on public housing, including Los Angeles, so the fact that Paris will use a government funded village is not significant.
  2. While I agree that the Premier League is awful at developing English players, the second division of English football is stronger than leagues like Eredivisie. Surely teams like Watford and Fulham can be relied upon to take the academy graduates of Liverpool and Chelsea on loan. There is a difference between kids being forced to play a sport in school vs kids playing it at a high level. Growing up in the USA I was forced to play football in school against my will (because it is cheap: you only need a ball and a field) but I never played the sport with my friends for fun until I went to university. We played basketball for fun, so naturally I am much better at basketball than football despite "officially" playing football more often. Canadian kids living in colder and snowier environments need to have access to indoor training facilities to train during the winter. That makes it harder for the working class kids to develop. Compare Russian football to Italian football.
  3. The USA's player pool is still behind that of Mexico, much less Brazil or Germany. It is more obvious at the club level than internationally. The 200th best American is way behind the 200th best Mexican. (Unfortunately you have to watch a bunch of Liga MX vs Major League Soccer games to see it.) But you only see the cream of each country's players in international matches so Americans can delude themselves into thinking we are now better than our neighbors to the south. The big weakness in American football/soccer is that youth teams are really direct (or "simple" for Americans) compared to the passing heavy play of youth football in Latin America and continental Europe. There is a lot of mindless running and not enough mental work. Unfortunately I think it is even worse in Canada due to the frigid winter weather. (Except for coastal British Columbia.) English football also tends to be very physical and far fewer fouls are called than on the continent, which is probably why the English national team has historically underachieved.
  4. Not just in the commonwealth, but anywhere the English and Scottish settled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_named_after_Queen_Victoria To be honest I am not a fan of colonial countries using European place names, but that's a debate best left alone.
  5. The host countries are also seeded, though, so France cannot be seeded in Montreal unless Canada does not play in Montreal. It is a shame that Los Xolos do not have a bigger stadium. Tijuana + California would be a fun road trip for Europeans.
  6. As a Canadian do you want Canada to be treated as a junior partner? There is simply no way to satisfy all three of Canada, Mexico and the USA. Split the matches equally between the three countries and it is too much travel for players and fans and a paltry return for the US sponsors and fans who will kick in most of the money. Split the matches unequally between the three countries and the USA is treating Canada and Mexico unfairly. It is a no win situation. Canada and Mexico are both large enough to host the World Cup on their own.
  7. The lighting of the cauldron must be visible from the ceremonies stadium. The cauldron can be moved afterwards, though. So they could light the cauldron in the Coliseum and then put in on a float to parade around Los Angeles. But that would still leave the Rams stadium as a glorified concert venue rather than an actual Olympic venue. That isn't because people hate Los Angeles, though, it's because real estate, water and electricity are all in high demand. (Well, many people outside of Los Angeles hate the city, but the people who live there do not.) The real estate cost issue also forces people with lower incomes out of Manhattan and San Francisco, yet no one calls them "third world." Los Angeles does have climate and economic problems, but both of those are exacerbated by simple overpopulation. And they don't have anything to do with an Olympic bid.
  8. The problem is that American football is not in the Olympics. Where LA is behind Paris is in the sports requiring specialty venues (athletics, track cycling, rowing, etc) and the new Rams stadium does nothing to address that. The same thing is true for the baseball stadiums. The new Rams stadium would be useful. It just does not address any of the weaknesses in LA's bid. As for the double ceremonies idea, the IOC wants everything to happen at a single location in view of all of the foreign dignitaries. The Olympic flame has to be within view of the stadium, the athletes and officials have to be in the same stadium, the cultural segments and the athletes ceremony have to be in the same stadium, Rio had to use Maracana instead of the Sambadrome, etc. LA could have a second "celebration zone" in the Rams stadium but the second stadium could not have any athletes, officials or the flame.
  9. The problem is that the new stadium in LA does not address any of the areas where LA has problems. Los Angeles already had the Rose Bowl for the football/soccer finals anyway, and the whole "double ceremonies" thing will not go down well with traditionalists in the IOC. Similarly the Coliseum renovations are good for USC's football program but will be pretty bad for the stadium in an athletics configuration. I don't mind people promoting the positives of LA's bid (of which there are many) but the willful ignorance of any of the downsides is simply moronic. The fact that Parisians accept the negatives of their own city and/or bid is being spun by LA boosters as some kind of negative for Paris. Meanwhile the complete ignorance of LA's partisans (see here) of any flaw in their bid is almost indistinguishable from North Korean propaganda.
  10. It is the north that wants reunification now. I had a South Korean roommate and he wished that the two countries would just completely ignore each other: no reunification and no threats of war. To be honest I can understand this. What is important is that the Korean people prosper and are able to see family across the border. Not that the Korean states themselves reunify.
  11. That is very disappointing to me. Of all of the big athletics-capable stadiums in the world Stade de France seems like the one best suited to its primary tenants. If a stadium designed from the start to be suitable for football and rugby in addition to big athletics events is not good enough, then there is simply no hope for Olympic Stadiums in the future.
  12. It would not be very difficult to pick a sport for which France and the USA are roughly equal. Perhaps tennis or judo. To be honest this is not a terrible idea if they get two equally compelling bids. Or if a vote is a tie.
  13. If the IOC was OK (or should I say "d'accord") with Denver and Beijing, I don't see why it would object to a Rhone-Alps bid from Lyons.
  14. The 2020 Olympic Games are being held in Japan: a country with high speed trains. The 2020 Olympics are supposed to be held under the new plan for Agenda 2020. And yet the sporting federations have done everything they can to force events to be held in Tokyo proper instead of places like Yokohama, Izu and Miyagi.
  15. Rio had a second tier velodrome completed in 2007 much like LA's velodrome and had to build a bigger and better one for the Olympics to satisfy the cycling federation. Rio has an existing tennis center for the Rio Open of similar size to StubHub's but had to build a new one in the Olympic Park to please the tennis federation. Rio built a second tier aquatics center in 2007 but this was not good enough for FINA. (the swimming and diving federation) Rio has the Sambadrome for carnival that would have been perfect for the athletes parade, but the IOC likes a stadium for the ceremonies so they had to waste a lot of money converting Maracana Stadium into the ceremonies venue. The sporting federations and broadcasters want showcase "world class" venues for the Olympics. They do not care about cost effectiveness. No one is disagreeing with you that LA's ideas to save money are good ideas. What we are disputing is the idea that the IOC's voters will also love those ideas. Until the IOC voters and financial contributors accept smaller, cheaper and more distant venues Agenda 2020 is just words on a sheet of (virtual) paper.