Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content Count

    7032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    157

Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. Who knows. That's the problem is that no one can be sure when this pandemic would let up. And yes, they *should* be working on a contingency plan. But I'm not so confident they're actually doing that. It's one thing to tell the world the Olympics will happen as scheduled. The sense I've had though is they are not even discussing it. That's a dangerous move right now
  2. What baron said. The logistical challenges in moving the Olympics back a year are enormous. That's why they're pushing back against any notion of a postponement. But it's something they need to consider
  3. Some athletes are starting to speak out and I have a feeling it's going to snowball. I'm okay with proceeding in hopes of Tokyo 2020 going off as scheduled, but at some point soon, I think the IOC and the OCOG need to address the possibility that the Olympics may not be able to go off as scheduled this summer and that they're working on a contingency plan
  4. That's issue right there. I get that the IOC wants (and probably needs) to be careful about public statements, but the idea it didn't come up at the meeting is the IOC burying their heads in the sand and keeping their fingers crossed things will get better. I've said for awhile it's either Tokyo 2020 or bust and that moving the date or the location isn't an option. And yes, I think everyone understands that leads to the possibility that the Olympics might not happen at all. At least though everyone involved needs to acknowledge there is a very real chance and there may be no alternative
  5. What the IOC needs to show is that they're willing to choose the sustainable bid over the flashy, shiny new one. They had a chance to do so for 2022 (and let history not forget how close that vote was), but it didn't happen. Chances are, the next 2 Winter Olympic hosts will be Sapporo and Salt Lake. So the next test of that may be a decade from now. And as I've said here more times than I can recall.. the IOC can only choose from cities/countries that propose a bid. I doubt we're ever going to go back to the days when there was a full field of bidders. If the mantra going forward is to reduce or eliminate the number of white elephant stadiums, then how could any country without the majority of the facilities already built hope to be able to put in a sensible bid?
  6. More than a few logistical hurdles. I saw tweets from GB's own Robert Livingstone addressing some of the challenges. Relocation is not the solution.. after all, where in the world isn't affected by the virus at this point. Postponement? Might be too difficult to overcome. Everyone involved would try, but it would likely mean an extremely sized down version of the Olympics to say the very least.
  7. The days of multiple cities competing with each other for the right to host the Olympics are over, possibly forever. So the IOC certainly needs to adapt to that changing climate. But I don't think it's a matter of buying time and hope they atmosphere changes. They need to change unless they want to keep flirting with potential danger. It should be considered encouraging for them, especially on the Winter side, that there are cities and countries interesting in returning as hosts after a relatively short amount of time. Because we're likely not looking at any new frontiers any time in the near future. Right now, we've got Sapporo and Salt Lake showing interest, although perhaps conveniently for the IOC, they're seemingly not after the same prize. So it may not be necessary to use unusual tactics. That Salt Lake is eyeing 2034, I doubt that would change much between now and 2027 when it would be time to announce a host. Locking them in earlier than that may have its advantages, but it need not be like Paris-Los Angeles where it was a 3-way deal for 2024 and 2028. This one can be done independently.
  8. There are definitely some new realities out there. Certainly agree with you on that one. And it's definitely possible that leads to more unorthodox elections of host cities going forward. Still, we do need to treat Paris/LA as a one-off and not necessarily something we should expect to see again. That's not to say the possibility is being completely dismissed, but again, let's not treat it as precedent either as if it's something to be expected again. As an example, look at what the future potentially holds for the Winter Olympics. Originally, it seemed like we might have a Sapporo vs Salt lake showdown. Now however, seems like Salt Lake may set their sights on 2034 instead, leaving Sapporo for 2030. So the dynamics aren't necessarily the same as what we saw with Paris and LA. It's far from unthinkable we could see the IOC award 2030 and 2034 together. But for an organization that doesn't have the most sterling reputation these days, they need to be careful about making closed door deals like that. Different when they had engaged with Paris and LA for nearly 2 years before working out 2024/2028.
  9. NBC didn't have the LA Games, but they did win the rights for Seoul, so clearly they weren't so put off by what happened in 1980 that they didn't want to return. It was a large sum of money, but nothing along the lines of them going bankrupt. What's probably going to suffer the most at NBC if the Olympics are cancelled is Peacock, their new streaming service. Set to debut in full on July 15th (Comcast subscribers will start having access on April 15th), exclusive Olympics content will be a big part of their launch. Without the Olympics, that's probably a lot of potential customers they won't be able to bring in. NBC's rights fee for this summer's Olympics is $1.45 billion. Plus however much they're spending in additional production costs. But that's going to much more than just the broadcast media. Moreso than ever, their digital and cable efforts will be a major aspect of their success or failure. If the Olympics are cancelled, all of that takes a hit. Comcast's profitability comes from a lot more than just the broadcast network.
  10. Where'd you get that from? NBC took a huge loss from those Olympics, but it didn't bankrupt them. Obviously the stakes are pretty high this year and I don't know what kind of insurance or protection they have if the games get cancelled. But yes, that would be a major blow to NBC.
  11. The NHL and NBA are unaffected. MLB is underway with spring training. No reason to think the NFL would be affected.
  12. Usual over-reactions to world events. This is serious right now, but the Olympics are 5 months off. If they can't get the virus under control in that time, what does that say about the state of the planet? I doubt they could re-schedule, but it is worth noting.. normally the Summer of a Winter Olympics year is occupied by the World Cup. Not so this time around since the 2022 World Cup is in November.
  13. As much of an Olympics super-fan as I am and how upset I would be if the whole thing got cancelled.. if that happens, it means after several months, the world will not yet have figured out how to deal with this virus. Which means the entire planet may have a really big issue to deal with. And yes, shame on those who potentially caused all this in the first place because no animal is too exotic for them not to eat.
  14. There are treatments for malaria and for influenza and preventative measures for how to avoid traffic fatalities. Coronavirus isn't a big story because it's new. It's because they don't have a treatment for it yet and it's spreading quicker than the world seems to know how to handle it. It's not about the number of infections so much as an inability to treat those who are infected.
  15. 100% it will affect the Olympics. Just keeping my fingers crossed for everyone involved that this doesn't escalate to the point it causes the postponement of the Olympics. Because if that happens, the whole planet is likely in trouble.
  16. New Utah Olympic bid committee announced Here is one of the key takeaways from the story..
  17. China hasn't hosted their first Winter Olympics and you're already giving them another one? And not a single European city for nearly 2 decades?
  18. Almost happened in 1998. Salt Lake was only a few votes away from beating Nagano. That would have given us consecutive Olympics in the United States.
  19. So you think Salt Lake would lose once and then just give up? Pretty sure the IOC can assume that risk considering Salt Lake would have jumped at 2026 they had the chance. I actually think we're going to see Sapporo in 2030 and then Salt Lake in 2034. Right now, NBC already has the rights to the 2030 Olympics. The rights to 2034 have not been awarded yet. That TV deal starting in 2034 becomes a lot more valuable to the networks if it's going to be held in the United States.
  20. NBC OLYMPICS AND SNAP INC. PARTNER TO CONNECT U.S. SNAPCHATTERS WITH TOKYO OLYMPICS Similar to their partnership from the 2018 Olympics..
  21. Now it makes a little more sense. NBC had a "Gold Zone" program in 2012 and 2016 which was a live whip-around show to any and all events going on. So this is likely the new version of that, which makes sense since the timing doesn't work out as well to have that during the day. Good addition since we know NBC wouldn't preempt the Today Show for Olympics coverage (although they'll likely have their cable nets going with coverage)
  22. At the past 2 Olympics, NBC has moved towards measuring viewership in the form of TAD, Total Audience Delivery. This can better account for everyone watching the Olympics, whether it's NBC primetime or on 1 of the cable networks or live streaming. So primetime ratings are much less important than they have been in the past and likely won't be what NBC bases any ratings guarantees on. Since this new streaming service is ad-supported, people will still see the commercials, so even if people are watching early in the morning, they're still being exposed to the ads.
  23. Was literally just about to post, but you beat me to it. Still need some clarification here as to what this means for the NBC Sports/Olympics app. My guess is this is in addition to that, not in place of it. Hopefully I'm right on that one.
  24. Inasmuch as Jesse is right that this wouldn't be some big catastrophe, it does shine a light on what happens when infrastructure projects are tied to the Olympics. We can say it's not a bid of the bid - which is technically accurate - but these things still cost money that has to come from somewhere. It can't be "well, that's not LA2028's problem." It's someone's problem. If the private sector is willing to pump in additional funds, then it's all well and good. If not, then the question becomes how vital are these projects and is it worth the extra money to finish them earlier. Thus, we have the unintended consequences of hosting the Olympics in LA. And it's not like we couldn't find similar cases when we're talking about 1984.
×
×
  • Create New...