Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Quaker2001 last won the day on January 30

Quaker2001 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1177 Excellent

1 Follower

About Quaker2001

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer Level 6
  • Birthday November 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

23310 profile views
  1. Pyeongchang 2018: Your verdict

    If you think NBC is jingoistic, wait until you see CBC. They may provide more straight-forward and honest coverage, but if there's a Canadian involved, you can be sure they'll remind you he or she is competing, whether it's 1st place or 50th. And if there's any sort of controversy involving a Canadian athlete (I saw this with my own eyes and ears in 1998 and 2002), be prepared for them to blow it out or proportion and lose any semblance of objectivity. Ross Rebagliati getting stripped of gold? Sale and Pelletier getting screwed by the judges? If that happens here, it's a story, but NBC wouldn't take it so personally. CBC did. No, NBC does not deserve *all* of the criticism because some of it is pure bullshit. Things like bad commentators and tape delays I get. But I learned something with these Olympics. There are those who seek out when and where the coverage is (broadcast, cable, streaming, whenever it's on) and are largely content with that. Then there are those - usually cord-cutters - who expect the Olympics to be placed in a nice neat little package in front of them and lash out when it's presently differently than they would like to see. And get upset that the entire thing isn't for free. The #nbcfail tweets were a lot less this time around than last time, mostly because of the live primetime coverage, no more west coast delays, lots of cable coverage, and because just a tweaked approach to the games. Yea, they're over-hyping a few athletes (check the ratings for last week's golf telecasts with Tiger Woods in the field to see how that works for them), but this is the Olympics with a nightly audience of 20 million people. It's impossible to make everyone happy. And yes FYI, I would have responded to these even without my favorite FYI-ism, the unnamed mention of another poster.
  2. United States 2026/2030

    USOC: No plans for American bid for 2026 Olympics Good for you that you wouldn't say that. I am saying it. That was the USOC's position a month ago was that they weren't looking at 2026, but left the door open a crack just in case (when you disappeared from this site for a couple of months). That they're now looking to explore a 2026 bid indicates that they're assessing the situation a little differently now. Hence, I think the plot has thickened. You and I don't disagree about the possibility of a 2026/2030 double. This is the USOC acknowledging that the IOC holds the cards and a month ago when they said they want to protect the financial interests of 2028 (part of that was some rhetoric, but not entirely IMO), now they need to pivot a little where they need to be in the discussions for 2026 or else they risk being left out. Was the USOC talking to the IOC all along? We don't know that and you know that's an opinion, not fact.
  3. United States 2026/2030

    The plot thickens a bit.. 'This is wow’: Salt Lake able to participate in 2026 Winter Games bidding process
  4. Los Angeles 2028

    The possibilities are indeed huge. And I agree it could definitely become a major focal point for LA.
  5. Los Angeles 2028

    Have you ever been to Times Square in NYC? Or the Vegas strip? The issue isn't just about technology. It exists now to produce giant video images like the image of LA that was posted. But is it practical to put a giant video screen up like that and have it up and running all day/night?
  6. Potential 2026 and 2028 bids

    Of course they can't exclude Asian cities. If they had done that for 2022 on the heels on PyeongChang, they wouldn't have had any bidders! I think we all know that the IOC would prefer to go anywhere other than Asia. But if their options are hold the Olympics in Asia or not hold the Olympics at all, that's not really a tough call there
  7. Amazon's Search for a 2nd HQTRs

    Yes it is. The fact you're suggesting they "pull a Montreal 1976" is probably not a good thing. Forget the anomaly argument that FYI brought up, which I happen to agree that it needs to stop happening here. There's a difference between a city like Orlando having the technical capabilities to host an Olympics (and/or be able to put a package together that could be put forward) and the chances of them actually being selected by the USOC as their candidate. The former is up for debate that it could be within reason. The latter is not. You say limiting ourselves to LA is unfair. Well, no one said this was a fair process. The USOC is always going to put forward their best available candidate. It is virtually impossible to even imagine a scenario where that candidate is Orlando. There's a reason the most obvious city is the one that was awarded an Olympics, and not one of the others that's merely "promising in their own ways." We need to get out of this mindset where large cities like a New York or a Chicago or a San Francisco are lining up for an opportunity to host an Olympics and excited about the prospect of doing so. And if all of us here are not destined to experience another Summer Olympics on U.S. soil in our lifetimes in a city other than Los Angeles, so be it.
  8. Pyeongchang 2018: Your verdict

    Ski jumping stadium - opened in 2008, used as a football stadium much of the year. Cross-country and biathlon - originally built more than 20 years ago, used as golf courses outside of the winter. Sliding venue - yea, what else would that be used for. Main stadium - temporary venue, will be demolished. Could do a lot worse than that. There are venues here that weren't custom-built for the Olympics and had events before PyeongChang was awarded the games. How much have the venues in Whistler been used since 2010? Like JMark noted, the coastal venues are likely to be an issue. I don't think these Olympics are a major red flag in that regard compared to some of what we've seen in the past.
  9. This. Boston fell apart on their own. If Chris Dempsey did nothing, the same outcome likely would have occurred. Good for him for spreading an anti-Olympic vibe elsewhere. Denver seems like too easy of a target for him. If it wanted a real challenge, go after Salt Lake
  10. That's why streaming is a wonderful thing. I care very little for figure skating, so if I knew NBC was going to go heavy on that, I'd pull something else up for streaming. And that I had 2 Roku's set up, it's not like I needed to go through my computer or have some sort of wonky set up that way. That's what made a huge difference in streaming this Olympics versus Sochi.. TV-connected devices were not as prevalent back then. Now they're very much widespread.
  11. It was definitely a refreshing change for these Olympics to be covered as a live event rather than the usual pre-packaged show. A lot of folks (especially those without cable and that think that primetime is everything) weren't fans of the format and view it as a step backwards and they were the ones most vocal about it on social media. I really liked it though. Gave us much more honest coverage than we're used to. If the Ledecka race happened in Sochi, NBC would have edited that together and presented it as if they didn't know it was going to happen. Instead, we get a much more real moment where it was more "well, we thought it was over, but we were wrong, here's what just happened." And I'm fine with that. Stuff like the protocol segments.. it's been proven that there are certain elements of the ceremonies that viewers will largely tune out from. So there's not really a good way to find a happy balance there. But between NBC and the cable nets, we definitely got more coverage of events and fewer profiles/features. And if your complaint is that there was too much Olympic coverage (NBC had to stay relevant during the daytime somehow, so I appreciated the 24 hours a day coverage for most of the Olympics), then that probably means they did something right. Thankfully that last week provided some of the best moments of the Olympics, so it went out with a bang rather than 4 years ago, when it seemed to fizzle out over the course of the 2nd week. A lot of that came from the Opening Ceremony and most of the comments referenced were in fact pretty dumb. But again, that's the nature of the Olympics. A lot of people are watching so any comments are going to come under scrutiny. And in an age where people are ready to pounce on anything they find disagreeable (i.e. Adam Rippon makes a comment about Mike Pence and then every time they show him on screen, NBC is to blame for "pushing politics"), almost any sort of comment will grab the spotlight.
  12. The ABC of yesteryear has long since been dead and buried. If ABC were to broadcast the Olympics now, it would be an ESPN presentation and I can all but guarantee there would be a fresh wave of complaints and criticisms because, well, this is the Olympics and that's what happens everywhere. Jingoistic claptrap is what draws people in (thank you paul for the note about CBC.. I experienced 2 full Olympics with CBC and CBS/NBC side by side and I agree that we hvae nothing on Canada). Not a coincidence that the ratings are the highest when Americans are competing and doing well. I know that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy the way they push the Vonns and Shiffrins of the world ad nauseum. If they didn't do that, would people be as interested? The medal counts.. again, that's everyone. They don't think it's a matter of winning, but then again, how many of their viewers look at it that way? I'm all for expecting more of NBC where they are not as good at covering the Olympics as they should be. But it needs to stop of where they are doing what every other broadcaster out there is doing just because Americans are dropping in on these sports for a couple of weeks every 4 years and couldn't care much less about them before or after the Olympics.
  13. True with the Summer Olympics, not at all true at the Winter. In 2014, US men and women were an even split.. 13 medals each and 4 gold. In 2010, it was heavily male-dominated. 24 total medals and 7 gold for men. 12 medals and only 2 gold for women. So this is the first time at a Winter Olympics that the American women had a real edge.
  14. Did you think your suggestion through? The idea of a permanent host has been bandied about before, certainly on this forum. But as baron noted, it's very impractical. Okay, so let's delve into this a little further. First off, you start by saying the Greeks had one home for their Olympics. That's because the Olympics were largely theirs and theirs alone. They didn't belong to the world like they do now. Either way, perhaps we shouldn't be looking to 2800 years ago for precedent as to how to go about things in the 21st century. You say facilities would be state of the art. How did that work out for Greece when they hosted the 2004 Olympics? It takes a lot of money to build these facilities in the first place. It requires even more money to be kept in top shape from year to year, and if they're not being used for much else aside from the Olympics, then that seems like a bad waste of resources. You mention training facilities. If I'm a runner or a swimmer, I don't need to fly to a central location to train. I can get those facilities closer to home, and it's not like you can expect a sport's entire pool of athletes to all go to the same location. Winter sports are a little more specialized, so the benefit of a single location would be different. But even still, there are now world class facilities on every continent. Athletes need not travel thousands of miles to find one. Beyond all that, what about athlete and media housing? That's often the toughest element of an Olympics, especially the Summer Olympics. LA is about the only city in the world that seems to be able to offer a unique solution to that. But at the same time, they also require expensive overlays to host athletics and swimming, 2 of the Games' marquee sports. So they wouldn't necessarily be the best choice for a permanent host. And lastly, as Gangwon pointed out, this will kill interest in the Olympics around the world if it belonged only to 1 country. If we're getting the same experience every 4 years, then the event no longer belongs to the entire world. Not to mention the burden you're placing on that city to spend billions of dollars on things like security, expenses that will be necessary every 4 years regardless of how little in terms of infrastructure needs to be added. It's understandable to look for solutions to the IOC's issues of increasing costs and the lack of enthusiasm for potential host cities to offer themselves up. A permanent host is not the solution though, let alone to put it in Greece, a country with a massive amount of debt that shouldn't deal with the additional burden of hosting every Olympics, especially given the aftermath of their 2004 Games (which are certainly not responsible for, but definitely contributed a small piece of their financial woes).
  15. Normally I would explain all the things that are wrong with this. But I'll go with the simpler route that Rols just did. No. Just.. no