Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content Count

    7032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    157

Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. Please don't turn into a certain banned poster here because he's not around anymore and pretend like everything is going to be okay with your reasoning being "because 1984" Did you bother to read the article that stryker posted which talks about a potential funding shortage for Metro project, possibly in large part because they're being accelerated due to the Olympics? Yes, I'm aware these projects were approved before the Olympic bid. Have you considered that these projects will now be more expensive than they would have been otherwise *beacuse* of the Olympics? If the private sector kicks in the money, then it's not an issue. Otherwise, where else do you suppose they'll get the money from. Give this a read.. L.A. Officials Use Olympics as Cover to Spend $26 Billion on Transit Projects That Have Little to Do With the Games I know it's a popular talking point to talk about how these infrastructure projects are independent of the Olympic bid. That's accurate, but look at the consequences of that. And if we're talking 8 years out about things not being finished and already talking about a "Plan B," then maybe that's not a good thing and there is at least a tiny level of concern that everything won't be as perfect as it was in 1984.
  2. Not really a bid anymore considering they have officially been named as host. And don't forget Canada and Mexico.. this isn't just a USA 2026 World Cup. Only 10 cities in the United States are going to get to host. Which means there's going to be more than a few very deserving cities left out. There's no possibility for any white elephants because nothing new will have to be built.
  3. Don't forget the number of media as well. That's probably an even bigger jump from LA `84 to 2028. It's been said here many times before, but it bears repeating.. the narrative of "LA was successful in 1984, therefore they will automatically be successful in 2028" is a really dangerous approach to take. I don't doubt that they have a lot of smart people working and managing all of this, but it is far from a given that history will repeat itself when so much more is being asked of the city and the organizing committee this time around.
  4. 1984 was a massive success because they didn't have to build all that much, so they weren't spending a lot of money. This is the pitfall of tying infrastructure projects to an Olympics because now they're rushing to deliver and that rush is going to cost money. If the private sector is willing to pay for it, then they're fine. If not, that's a problem. And the response shouldn't be "well, if they don't do all these things they said they would do before 2028, it probably won't matter anyway."
  5. Looks like the IOC need not sweat it over having at least 2 viable candidates for 2030.
  6. Why? That moment is for the athlete, not the athlete's family. Show a shot or 2 of them during the anthem, but that seems like overkill to have it in a split screen.
  7. NBC says it has topped $1 billion in national ad sales for 2020 Summer Olympics Notable in this is that there are a lot of new advertisers in the mix, which hopefully means we won't see the same 3 commercials from Coca Cola over and over and over again. Also notable and I believe we saw this from the 2018 Olympics.. NBC's ratings guarantees will be based on TAD numbers (Total Audience Delivery) rather than just using the primetime TV numbers. Which is probably (hopefully) good news in terms of programming and scheduling.
  8. I doubt it makes a difference. Presumably, it will be the same formula as PyeongChang.. they'll stream the ceremony live, no live TV broadcast. And it'll be in primetime as usual on NBC. And I am perfectly fine with that
  9. According to Wikipedia, for the 1998 Opening Ceremony in Nagano, they used the English alphabet to determine the order. Not sure what they are planning on doing this time around.
  10. Interesting revelation about the Opening Ceremony for Tokyo.. Olympic Opening Ceremony Parade of Nations order changed slightly The refugee team will enter 2nd, right after Greece (as opposed to Rio where they were 2nd to last, before Brazil). And future hosts will be moved to the end of the order. That's a huge win for NBC. Remember they had lobbied to get the order changed in 2016 so that the United States would march later and theoretically would keep people tuned in longer
  11. Those last 2 things aren't necessarily related. NBC seems to be looking good in terms of sales for Tokyo despite the fact they're slowing moving away from putting everything into primetime. So the length of the contract isn't necessarily tied to NBC's ability to generate revenue from primetime. The extension NBC got was a gift from the IOC. Basically a "thank you" for what probably was an over-pay on the 2014-2020 package. Tough to tell what the Olympics will be worth a decade from now. I don't think we can expect a contract of that length based on that reason. Especially if there's open bidding because at that point, I doubt anyone is looking for a package of 6 Olympics. 4 maybe, but that's likely the max. That all said.. don't think it necessarily has a bearing on the host selection. A little bit of certainty will be nice, but we're a ways off from when that will come into play.
  12. Even if we're making this about the countries, they didn't pick Italy over Sweden because it's the larger country, but more because they had stronger support for their Olympic bid efforts. Yes, those can often go hand in hand, but what scared off Oslo for 2022 wasn't the size and scope of an Olympics relative to the size of the country but rather a 7,000 page list of demands that they would have to follow. I think we'll see some sort of bid from Norway eventually. They'll figure out a way to put a plan together that the country can get behind, but a lot of that is based on the IOC's attitude and are they in fact more willing to work with a country like Norway to make an Olympics more feasible for them.
  13. You are reading way too much into this. This is all a matter of circumstance and coincidence than any sort of effort to have history play out like this. When you say "the USA wanting to go back to hosting".. no, the USA has always wanted to host these events. They put in a bid for literally every Summer Olympics between 1944 and 1984. Took a break after that and bid for 1996, which of course they won. Took another break and bid for 2012. There has always been a "want," but the IOC doesn't always want to come here. Don't just look at the times the United States has hosted these events as the only times they have *wanted* to host these events. When I used the word "attraction," it's not about the United States and various cities being interested so much as the country's ability to actually bring those events here. And obviously that's going to be based on recent history where if they have hosted an Olympics or a World Cup in recent memory, they shouldn't expect to see another one for a while. In that regard, 1996 is a big exception, but look at what has been discussed here as the "what if Atlanta doesn't get 1996" alternate history. Maybe Salt Lake gets the `98 Olympics then. Maybe New York is properly timed to get either 2008 or 2012. Now all of a sudden these events are all much more spaced out. Either way, especially when looking at the Olympics and the World Cup, 1 has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics are certainly tied together. In short.. how history has played out (and will play out) has absolutely nothing to do with American culture or global image or anything like that. All a matter of timing and it just happened to work out that 2026 and 2028 will see a World Cup and an Olympics here, with another Olympics probably not too far behind.
  14. The USOC has already chosen Salt Lake over Denver should they decide to pursue a 2030 bid. That decision has been made. The LA2028 folks may say that only because they're concerned about another event cutting into their sponsorship money. Logistically, the United States will have absolutely no problems hosting all 3 in that span. It just may not be as lucrative as it might be if it was spread out. As for the "entire generation" part.. in a 22 year span, the United States hosted 4 Olympics and a World Cup. And here we are again where it may be 2 Olympics and a World Cup in less than 4 years. So it's not as though the United States hasn't been able to attract these events. They're not just well spread out.
  15. Ahh yes, this old tired narrative again. No.. the 2002 Olympics were not tainted by bribery. The bid was. But I was there in Salt Lake the entire month of February. The Games went off without a hitch and the IOC would be overjoyed to head back there with all the American sponsorship dollars that came along with it. No one cared at that point how Salt Lake got the Olympics because they were a more than deserving and worthy candidate. That Salt Lake struggled for votes for 1998.. again, perhaps that had something to do with the fact that vote came less than a year after Atlanta had won for 1996 and the IOC wasn't chomping at the bit to return there. And when they won 2002, is it maybe just possible that they won because they actually had the best bid? Regardless of what steps they went to in order to ensure a win. As for Lillehammer.. yes, they hosted an extraordinarily memorable Olympics back in 1994. But this is 2030 we're talking about. There could be close to double the number of athletes and double the number of events there were last time. 1994 didn't have 3 disciplines of curling and 2 full hockey tournaments to manage. That's why it was Oslo's bid in 2022, with Lillehammer as the secondary city. It needs to be that way again. And I feel very confident that if the IOC has to choose between Salt Lake and Lillehammer, then Salt Lake is going to win that one.
  16. I do. I saw your post in another thread about old Olympic recordings that I keep meaning to reply back to. I saw the link to your site. Assuming the e-mail address is still good there, I'll send you a message and hopefully we can work something out
  17. Do you have something to offer in terms of a trade?
  18. Very much so, yes. Probably have every Opening and Closing since at least 1984
  19. I think I can probably help you out. Send me a personal message so we can chat over e-mail. I have a very extensive collection of the Olympics from 1992 and on.
  20. What stryker said. What exactly about Milan/Cortina getting the 2026 Olympics is going to change anything for other prospective candidates? Especially considering they won't actually be hosting for another 6 1/2 years. Plus, look at the cities you listed. Salt Lake is already as eager as could be. They would have bid for 2026 if they could have and they'll 100% go for 2030 if the USOC gives them the green light (easier said than done due to LA 2028). Sapporo will likely get in line right behind them. Calgary? Their 2026 bid effort was an absolute disaster. I don't think we'll see them again for awhile. Why would Milan/Cortina change anything for them? You mentioned a key point.. Italy has support. That may or may not translate over to other cities and countries. This is not LA in 1984 where several previous hosts were plagued by political and financial issues. The problem these days isn't with the hosts, it's with the IOC. Italy is taking a leap of faith. Sweden was going to although it may have been a somewhat half-hearted effort. The IOC is in a good position that potentially Salt Lake and Sapporo are there for the next 2 cycles which give them 2 potentially low risk hosts. Who else out there is willing to take that chance is the question
  21. The question still needs to be less "is it possible" and more "is it practical." We'll see if any other European cities/countries take a page from Milan/Cortina and suggest something more spread out. That we have this once doesn't mean the IOC is suddenly fine with these things. It's all a matter of comparison. To say nothing of the fact they would need to propose it first and they might not do that in the first place unless there's a sensible plan behind it.
  22. When Nagano won the 1998 Olympics, Salt Lake was 2nd in the voting behind them and only lost by a handful of votes. All it would have taken was 3 voters to flip and Salt Lake would have hosted less than 2 years after Atlanta. So it almost happened once. No reason to think it couldn't happen again. I don't think it's over-confidence to say 2030 is SLC's to lose. If they bid, there's a pretty good chance they'd win. Who would beat them? The IOC isn't in a position to be romantic. If they were, they would have taken a chance on Stockholm. SLC versus Lillehammer is no contest. Lillehammer hosted an Olympics without women's hockey, without curling, and without freestyle skiing or snowboarding. SLC in 2002 had all of those things. So if it's those 2 against each other, SLC will likely win that contest easily.
  23. Colorful overlays will track athletes’ speed during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
  24. They have to know they have virtually no shot up against SLC. Probably not worth the fight. Hold off and then maybe try again a few years down the line.
  25. Why would you wonder something like that other than a desire to make up random ****? I doubt Bach is going to give a wink wink nudge nudge to Munich to try and get them back in the fray as if he needs that for his legacy. Even then, what about Milan hosting 2026 helps Munich for a potential 2030 bid? Because 1 spread out bid won a vote (against another spread out bid), suddenly Munich/Garmish/Innsbruck is going to be a thing? Good like trying to beat Salt Lake City with that one
×
×
  • Create New...