Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content Count

    6924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    148

Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. If there's an Olympics in 2022, they will be in Beijing. If Beijing for whatever reason can't host the Olympics, it probably means there won't be an Olympics in 2022. Virtually every Olympics has negative stories in the lead up that make us question whether or not they will happen. It happened with Sochi. It happened with Rio. It happened with PyeongChang. It's happening with Tokyo. So why would Beijing be an exception? It is way way waaaaaaaaaay too early to assess what these protests mean for the Olympics. To try and put a number on it is an exercise in pointlessness. Especially since it's still 2019 and we have nearly 2 1/2 years to go. No Durban, that's not what Quaker is saying. The IOC is not going to apply pressure. They chose China. They have no choice but to accept the consequences of that decision. It's outside forces that would pressure the IOC, not the other way around. The IOC will do what they need to do in order to give off the impression that there are no issues with a China-hosted Olympics. Just like they did with 2008. As you alluded to, it's not like the IOC was unaware of China's history then. This likely won't phase them.
  2. I doubt it. The IOC was not unfamiliar with China when they awarded them the 2022 Olympics. There may be pressure on them, but what's the alternative? Can another city/country take over with a little over 2 years to go? I doubt it, so it's likely Beijing or bust for the IOC and 2022. And you know darn well the IOC isn't going to tell China they're not hosting the Olympics anymore.
  3. Some nuggets on NBC coverage from Tokyo, including the 1 notable one quoted below https://www.inquirer.com/sports/nbc-2020-olympics-tokyo-comcast-plans-20190729.html
  4. Yes, this has long since been established. Likewise, I doubt Wallechinsky cares what you think or prefer. You and I were once a part of his audience and would pay for his work. Times changed and I moved on. You should do the same because for better or worse, those books aren't coming back and no amount of change to the IOC or the Olympics will make it happen.
  5. Gonna be honest.. I literally had absolutely no idea the Pan Am games were going on until I came across an ad. Wasn't even sure if ESPN was covering it and neither of the 2 press releases give much in the way of a schedule. Shows where this event falls on the spectrum of importance in the United States. May check out some of it tomorrow, but I'll be spending most of my Olympic sports viewing this weekend on NBC with the Tour de France and the FINA World Championships.
  6. You're in the minority on that one. Very few people (especially those outside of the demographic of "older than dirt") will pay money for a book that gets outdated every 4 years and whose contents can be found online for free.
  7. Tennis won't be an issue. A city can built tennis courts that can be used recreationally (as opposed to a slalom canoe course.. not so much) and then the main court can incorporate temporary stands to keep the costs down. So it wouldn't necessarily be an expensive venue to construct and it's one where if planned properly could see usage after the Olympics. I used to be a big fan of the Wallechinsky books, but the Internet killed the market for that. Why buy a book when all that information is available at a moment's notice online? The number of sports has nothing to do with it, nor does all the posthumous results changes.
  8. NBC and Twitter to Team Up on Limited Live Olympics Coverage
  9. They changed the format for Tokyo to reduce the number of games (teams will play 3 games in the preliminary round rather than 5), probably in response to the addition of the 3x3 tournaments. Perhaps LA is proposing to go back to the previous format and decided it would be smarter to hold the women's games in a smaller venue rather than to use the Staples Center for 6 games a day 10 straight days.
  10. Tokyo 2020: Additional sports to be broadcast live.. A total of 21 Paralympic disciplines from 19 sports will be screened
  11. What krow said. If no one really cares, why are we discussing this? Drug cheating is different because you can take away a person's medals, although if it happens after the fact, isn't that a FUGGEDABOUT IT? Hard to leave something for posterity that doesn't match with what people experienced. You're right that it would be tough to figure out what happened. For an organization like the IOC thought that's trying to regain the public's trust and desperately trying to prove to cities it's still worthwhile to host the Olympics, this is not a good look. If anyone involved in this (whatever it was that happened) is still connected with the IOC, then it's absolutely worth pursuing to throw them out on their asses. Yes, the IOC will probably get through this even if it turns out to be a bigger deal than it seems. But maybe they shouldn't be so quick to say "oops, we missed it.. oh well, what can ya do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯." After all, it was years before they figured out what went on with Salt Lake and they still dealt with that.
  12. As much as Rio didn't go well (although some of the negative stories that were predicted never came to pass.. as it is with most Olympics) and there was some political fallout, I don't think this is something that will cast a black cloud over the IOC in terms of future bidding. Salt Lake certainly didn't, as if this is something the IOC hasn't dealt with before. And yes, I'll be curious to see how it goes for FIFA with Qatar. Because usually once the games start, most of the minutiae gets pushed off to the backburner. Might not be quite so easy to do that with the World Cup.
  13. What does 1 have to do with the other? And what statute of limitations are we talking about? Athletes have been stripped of medals years after the fact. Obviously Brazil can't un-host the Olympics, but if there are people still with the IOC who were involved in wrongdoing, then they should get kicked out of the club. If Brazilian officials were involved, that's for them to sort out on their own. Either way, this is definitely not a case of "well, the Olympics already happened, so who cares to do anything about it"
  14. My thoughts exactly. With Salt Lake for 2002, I would have taken a lot of votes to change the outcome. With 2016, not so much. So yes, this definitely creates the possibility that it affected the outcome of the vote.
  15. IOC makes sweeping changes to their host selection process. And around a week later, this news comes down. Not a good look for the IOC
  16. What "anyone else"? These Olympics are still 13 years away. The IOC hasn't set any sort of timeline for how or when they'll decide on who hosts 2032. Australia doesn't get extra credit just because they're the first ones to raise their hands and start working with the IOC. Like you said, if China comes along and says they're offering up Shanghai - and they still have years ahead of us to do that - then no one is likely to remember that Australia was potentially offering up Brisbane years in advance.
  17. Like I said, if that's the direction the AOC wants to go, then the IOC doesn't really get to have an opinion or a preference on that one. If the AOC is putting forth Brisbane because they feel it has a better chance of being selected than Melbourne or Sydney, I'm sure they've weighed those options. But from what I'm reading - and correct me if I'm wrong here because this is your city we're talking about - it sounds like it's going to be pretty expensive. They say it fits in with some of the city's long term urban development plans, but I have some reservations about just how much they will need to spend and how that's going to look in an environment where the IOC is looking for existing infrastructure and to avoid large amounts of spending. Because the most recent string of hosts for the most part have been some of the world's largest and most prominent cities. No disrespect to Brisbane, but I don't know if it fits that mold. So if the IOC is given a choice between Brisbane or a larger city/region (who knows if they'll have that choice though), which city is the IOC could to choose? Key phrase in that last sentence.. "at the moment." If we were still operating under the old formula, applications for the 2028 Olympics Olympics probably wouldn't be due for another couple of months and we'd be 2 full years from the vote. I don't get where people on this site are making it seem like the IOC is ready to choose the 2032 host city right now just because they have 1 country that's showing interest. Of course the IOC should take it seriously. But it takes a whole lot more than a couple of meetings to get a deal done. It's a good start and I'm sure the IOC has to love a country that seems enthusiastic especially after what just transpired with 2026. That shouldn't imply the IOC is ready to hand them an Olympics in the near term. IMO, we are years away from that even being a consideration.
  18. Not getting in the middle of that one. Maybe John Coates and the AOC have done the math and feel they are better off offering up a less than ideal Brisbane bid in the preferred time window rather than going with Melbourne in a non-traditional window. And who is to say if that's a smart decision or not, but at the very least, let's assume they've thought this one through, even if it's not necessarily the right call. I honestly don't have a strong enough opinion on this one other than to reiterate that Australia is free to propose whatever they want, a "rule" be damned, so long as they understand the consequences and risks of that decision.
  19. The IOC is still a business, so for any notion of altruism on the part of their organization's mission, I can't entirely fault them for being about making money. The IOC has made it increasingly clear they'll say no to any bid for whatever reason they deem fit. That's probably not a bid thing. I doubt they'd reject Australia outright simply for proposing an October Olympics (although that seems like it's a moot point anyway), but it's something the IOC will have to try and put a value on. If the numbers don't work out, then it's likely not going to happen.
  20. Yes, the beauty of an Asian Olympics is that NBCSN can (presumably) be up and running 24/7 with Olympic coverage, but they'll happily step away during the afternoon for a live event like a NASCAR race. I don't think there will be much of anything that takes priority over live Olympic coverage. We saw that from Rio when events (like NASCAR races and Premiere League soccer) got moved to other networks so that NBCSN could stick with the Olympics. That will be less of an issue from Tokyo. As to your second point.. when you say simulcast, do you mean the same event on 2 networks at once or an event repeated a different time on a different network? If you mean the former, how does NBC do that during the Today Show? The last Summer Olympics in Asia, NBC only had a 3 hour daytime show during the week. A little of it was live, but that won't be an option with Tokyo since nothing goes past 11:30pm local time (10:30am on the East coast). So if that's a 7 hour show, what are they putting there where the last 2 Olympics, the daytime show has been mostly live and could include team USA game in sports like volleyball and water polo. Will those go on cable now and not get shown on the main network? Or will the cable nets show other countries and show the USA game on delay on the daytime show. As for basketball.. I think I can probably count on 1 hand the total number of basketball games NBC has shown at each of the past 2 Olympics. I imagine that number will be similar at these Olympics. Both gold medal finals are scheduled during U.S. primetime, so those are likely both headed to NBCSN.
  21. Better question.. why shouldn't GamesBids continue to exist? The Olympics are going to continue to be held for the foreseeable future and that means a city has to host them. Even if the process of selecting a host city changes, there still needs to a be process. The IOC can have their discussions and deliberations done in private, but the cities can't. Not when public officials and funding are involved. And that may be exactly why GamesBids continues to exist. So that there's someone out there asking the questions. Even if it's less transparent on the part of the IOC, this all won't be as hidden from public view as you seem to be anticipating. Sure, the days of BidIndex and a large number of bidders with their bid books may be a thing of the past. Doesn't mean there won't be anything to analyze, even if that unfortunately gets mixed in with some overly hypothetical speculation.
  22. Welcome to GamesBids in 2019. You know what happens when there's no data? Then the crowd here will invent their own data. And fuel their own pointless speculation about who will host the Olympics in the year 2052. Unfortunately, that's pretty much already happening. This site has gone downhill since you were a regular here, in part because the Olympic bid process isn't what it used to be and the crowd here replaced legitimate discussion and the occasional logo contest with a bunch of hypothetical BS. That all said, with regard to the Olympic bid process.. it's literally not possible for it to be as secretive these changes make it seem. So you're right because I'm not buying it either. Salt Lake City has a pretty big presence on social media. You really think there's any chance they won't give us a play by play of everything going on with their bid? The IOC might not want to tell us anything but I'm betting the cities will. Especially those that are most interested in the Olympics and not those trying to shield themselves from the public eye (i.e. Stockholm). If the media wants to report on an Olympic bidder, they'll report on an Olympic bidder. These things can't stay completely out of view if someone is there to ask the questions, and that's a much easier job to accomplish in the age of social media. More than that, you're right that it would be a mistake to go down this path and lose all sense of transparency. Then again, this is the IOC we're talking about. Can't exactly count on them to make smart decisions. I also don't buy the idea that they're going to lock in hosts as quickly as possible. It takes time to know if a partnership will work. We're starting to see the evolution of the bid process where it's not as formal as it used to be. I doubt we're on the precipice of where the IOC operates by choosing a host in private and we wake up 1 day to find out that a city has been chosen. I can't see that happening (well, unless the IOC is stupid, which again is a strong possibility).
×
×
  • Create New...