Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content count

    6313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    118

Quaker2001 last won the day on November 1 2017

Quaker2001 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1164 Excellent

1 Follower

About Quaker2001

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer Level 6
  • Birthday November 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

22727 profile views
  1. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    Yea, that seems to have flown under the radar a bit because of the Katie Couric announcement for the opening ceremony. It's about bleeping time they did this. Best part of it.. no commentary!
  2. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    Not really that curious. When they hired him a few months ago, they noted he would likely contribute to their Olympic coverage. Especially considering the connections between NASCAR and bobsledding (and Earnhardt's apparent interest in the sport), this shouldn't really be a surprise.
  3. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    CBC/RADIO-CANADA ANNOUNCES TELELATINO NETWORK AS AN OFFICIAL LICENSED BROADCASTER FOR PYEONGCHANG 2018 AND TOKYO 2020
  4. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    Coming soon to Netflix (all 2 episodes of it).. NBC OLYMPICS PRODUCES ORIGINAL SERIES TO PREVIEW WINTER OLYMPICS
  5. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    NBC to Distribute Olympics in 4K High Dynamic Range
  6. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    CBC UNVEILS STAR-STUDDED ROSTER OF COMMENTATORS, ANALYSTS AND REPORTERS FOR ENGLISH-LANGUAGE COVERAGE OF PYEONGCHANG 2018
  7. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    NBC OLYMPICS TO PROVIDE LIVE VIRTUAL REALITY COVERAGE OF THE WINTER OLYMPICS POWERED BY INTEL TRUE VR
  8. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    Westwood One Sports at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games
  9. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    GOLF CHANNEL’S DAVID FEHERTY, DAMON HACK AND RICH LERNER TO MAKE NBC SPORTS’ WINTER GAMES DEBUTS IN PYEONGCHANG SVG Sit Down: NBC Sports’ Karl Malone Talks Olympic Sound
  10. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    NBC OLYMPICS TO FEATURE STATE-OF-THE-ART 3,500 SQUARE FOOT GEODESIC DOME STUDIO FOR PRIMETIME AND LATE NIGHT COVERAGE OF PYEONGCHANG OLYMPICS NBC unveils set designs for PyeongChang Olympics
  11. PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Media Updates

    Did you really think it was going to happen? Or is that hindsight talking? Because 24 hours ago, NBC had no plans to air any NHL games during the Olympics. And it's been known for a few weeks now that NBC's weekend afternoon Olympic coverage isn't starting until 3pm. Obviously not by accident this gets announced on the day of the Winter Classic, but if I had asked you this yesterday, I'm wondering if you would have said you thought this might happen.
  12. England 2030

    England is bidding for the 2030 World Cup. They haven't been awarded the rights to host it yet.
  13. United States 2026/2030

    A lot. No, I know what your opinion is. You've made it clear. You think a double "could" happen. I know what that word means. But when I ask you to offer some context behind that opinion, it's "Quaker is just being negative.. the IOC is talking about it, so it's not outside the realm of possibility." There's a larger discussion here that I think is worth having. So let's have it. JFC. If there wasn't any possibility at all that it wasn't possible? LOL. Once again, please stop arguing against me as if you think my position is that I'm saying a double isn't possible. I know there are legs behind this. No fuckingshit the USOC would want to be a part of a double. If the IOC is handing out Olympics like they're going out of style, of course the USOC is going to pursue that. That's very much a 2-way street there though. But just because the IOC is talking about something doesn't mean that we should expect that it's going to happen. At this point, the discussion is about *if* the IOC should do this. Hence why make it's worth taking a longer look at whether or not it's a smart move, aside from the fact the IOC usually can't be counted on to be smart. And yes, the double has been discussed before in a generic sense. But you know (and I know you know) that my position is that it depends on the cities. So it's a much different discussion if we're talking Calgary/Salt Lake rather than a different pair of cities. Okay.. are you "One"? Are you making that argument or are you just throwing at back at me as some sort of counter-point? Remember what one of the main points you and I both agreed on the whole way.. this was about getting a big European city in the mix, not to mention one that had bid on the Olympics before and might not again. If it was Budapest and LA left standing, would they have done the double? Hamburg and LA? Key word in that first past.. "now." You offer it's probably safe to say in 4 years, Europe likely is still a lost cause (no, it is not safe to say.. that merely is your opinion), and it might time a handful of more cost-effective Olympics to get Europe to come around? Does the IOC want to wait that long and close the door until then? By awarding Paris the 2024 Olympics, that means most European cities likely would pass on 2028. But if Calgary or Salt Lake gets 2026, why shut Europe out of 2030 even there may not be a city that makes it all the way to a bid? Part of the argument about doing a double is what are the consequences of not doing a double. We discussed that plenty with 2024/2028. Paris may not have bid again. LA might have had to try and raise money for another bid. That's what the IOC was hoping to avoid. What are they looking to avoid with a 2026/2030 double? What's the rush to name a 2030 host now? So, once again, to make my position clear.. I believe it's possible that a double award could be the way to go for 2026/2030. My personal feeling though is that I don't see it making sense given the circumstances (please for the love of G-d do not interpret that as that I think it's not possible and that when you say you think it is possible, I'm arguing the opposite of that). Maybe that will change in the next year, much like the idea of a Paris/LA double evolved. But if it doesn't, so be it. Right? Bcuz
  14. United States 2026/2030

    Not even close to what my opinion is, but whatever. And yes.. "at this point in time." You're asking the IOC to make a decision that's not just about now but about many years from now. Is this the best time to make a decision like that when the IOC and the Olympic movement are not in such a good place? And don't counter that by simply saying they did it for 2024/2028, so why not. That's an overly simplistic argument. I'm not unaware of the fact that the IOC is looking into this and that there are probably some very good reasons to do so. I'm just questioning whether or not it actually is the smart move to make right now. The easy analysis we're getting sometimes here is "yes, it worked for the Summer Olympics, so therefore why wouldn't it work for the Winter." But it's not that simple and it's worth a more detailed discussion. Here's the question to be asked. The IOC is definitely between a rock and a hard place, but they put themselves in that position. They have no one else to blame. So if they're doing this for peace of mind.. what happens several years from now when they need to start finding the next Olympic host city? Are they in a better position a decade from now from having done a double here or not? How many times was it said in the lead up to 2024 that for the IOC to consider a double meant an admission that they were in a bad place and needed to do something drastic in order to change course. They did it then because they fell into perhaps the most ideal of all possible circumstances with those 2 cities. And locked in 2 cities/countries that may or may not have wanted to come back again. So again.. what are the long term consequences of a double here? The IOC has a problem now. A Calgary/Salt Lake double feels a little like kicking the can down the road and then having to address the problem later on. If the IOC thinks that Europe is completely a lost cause, then by all means pull the double now with whatever 2 cities are immediately available to them. But maybe if the IOC wants to try and right the ship, improve their reputation and further distance themselves from Sochi.. award 1 Olympics now and maybe things will be better in 4 years. Maybe they won't, but at least there's that time to try and convince the people of Europe that their city need not reject the Olympics rather than to completely throw in the towel. Because where does that leave them 8 years down the road? Probably in the same bad place they are now.
  15. United States 2026/2030

    Well, a certain 'other' poster likes to scoff at anyone who would even suggest that a double might not happen. Apparently any such negatively leads to a "don't rule it out, the IOC is already talking about it" response. I'd say I'm sure the IOC is aware of what they're facing, but then again, this is the IOC so maybe they're still ignoring reality. Yes, it's a matter of public record that we have all these European cities who have tried and failed at the hands of their citizens. But - to para-phrase your other post - the IOC doesn't need Europe to rise like a Phoenix for 2030. Like with 2024, they just need 1 and only 1 bid that they're satisfied with. Needless to say, that likely requires said bid to survive a referendum. Would an extra 4 years passing help that cause? It might. And it might not, but we'll never know if the IOC were to award 2 non-European cities this time around. So the question is one of consequences. If they do a double, will that further alienate European cities and shut any potentially willing candidates out for not 1, but 2 cycles? Is there a hope they'll have someone back for 2034 or will Europe have become a lost cause at that point? The flip side is what of Canada and the United States. Again, assuming they're the only 2 left standing, do they battle it out for 2026 and leave 2030 for another time? Would the loser of that battle want to return for 2030? And what happens if there is no European challenger then? My opinion is that doing a double has a potential of doing more harm than good. I don't think they need to lock in 2 cities right now if these are the 2 they're presented with. I'll certainly grant you that Calgary is not in the safest position if they're asked to come back. But then again, they probably wouldn't be pushing for this in the first place if they thought the competition was stronger. Similar, the USOC probably wouldn't be talking about the effort either if they thought this would be more difficult. In short.. you say they should take North America if they can get it. Do you not think they'll be able to get it 4 years down the road? Why do they need to do this now? If the problem in Europe is one of public perception, I'm not sure this helps that cause.
×