Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by josejose50

  1. Past our discussions yesterday when the story broke, my original question is still out there "What incentives can the IOC offer LA to accept 2028?" 

    I guess I'm not understanding all the requirements from the IOC to LAOCOG and vice versa. Is there somewhere that lists them? I remember from 2012 that there was a big deal about the requirements from the IOC to LOCOG for setting up accommodations and parties/hospitality suites, but I can't find those references now.

  2. 3 minutes ago, FYI said:

    Madrid & Paris didn't bid for the Olympics in the early 2000's. 

    And Paris' 2024 bid is not inherently "weaker" than L.A.'s. The IOC evaluation committee head has cited that both bids can't be rated anything below a "10". And I wouldn't equate L.A. getting 2028 on a silver platter as losing, either.

    Sorry meant that as their bids were ongoing in the early 2000's to show they bid for 2012 and 2016. 

    Don't misconstrue my use of "weaker" as saying its a bad bid, theres a reason the word is in quotation marks. My comment saying inherently "weaker" is based on the idea that when the IOC asked "can you do 2028?" Paris is saying "No, the land for the village is only available for 2024", while LA is saying (at least from what I can find on the web) that they are able to handle going to 2028. Both bids are a "10", but one bid says they can be flexible, while one is saying they are not setup to do so. To me, I read that as one bid is not as robust as the other, even if its not on a critical point, hence one is "weaker".  


    • Like 1

    1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Again, long before all this discussion of the village became a hot button topic here, the question was raised about the respective cities' willingness to make another run if they had lost.  It was always going to be the case that Paris likely wouldn't return for 2028.  The village just made for a convenient excuse to push that narrative.

    As for the Europe issue, don't look at recent hosts.  Look at even more recent bids, or rather the lack thereof.  Where you have all the cities in Europe who have basically told the IOC to piss off, what would the message be if the IOC told Paris they're not interested and instead gave it to the United States for the 3rd time and to LA for the 2nd time in 40 years.  Continental rotation doesn't dictate that a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous, especially when there are only 3 countries on the continent capable of hosting.  And if you extend your list 16 years earlier, now you're adding as many North American cities are you are European cities.  Suddenly the disparity doesn't look as big.

    More than that, we are now 3 years removed from the most recent European Olympics (and Sochi is not in traditional Europe).  The IOC desperately needs to get back there, less they send the message to other cities/countries there that Europe can't handle an Olympics anymore.  LA and the United States will be back.  They can wait more easily than Paris can.  It's not about the gap back to the last Olympics there.  It's about restoring confidence in the Olympic movement on the continent.

    LA is an extremely strong candidate.  No one would deny that.  But the intangibles of this one are where Paris has the edge and where if there is a double award, it makes more sense IMO to go Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028.

    With regards to extending the time frame by 16 years, I was thinking of that but thought that would enter into a lot of the East/West politics that could muddle the logic, but your point is fair.

    I don't think the Europe issue is that the IOC is afraid they are telling the cities they are not capable of hosting, but that most of the candidate cities are saying they don't want to to host it (losing referendums, etc.).  Madrid and Paris had good bids early in the 2000's and they were not picked by the IOC (in one case for another European city), so they have themselves to blame as much for this issue. 

    Let's say the IOC's deal works out and Paris hosts 2024, what happens if there are cost overruns or organizational issues leading up to the games? Will the IOC be willing to accept egg on their face if their "Agenda 2020" model changes nothing?  I'm not wishing ill on the Paris bid, and I would be there for the games in 2024 in a heartbeat, but as an American I'm a little frustrated that their bid may win because it's inherently "weaker" than what LA put together.




  4. I guess I'm missing this, but what incentives the IOC can provide the LA2024 committee? Reduce the demands on the LAOC for hotels and similar? They were ready to accept and run the games based on the current requirements, so I'm not understanding what benefit they can get from saying "we'll sit out for an extra 4 years". 

    I'm sure the Trump election and his policies are driving some of this discussion but I think it's just Paris using the olympic housing availability as their "bluff" (not in that it's not really an availability issue but more that there is no other option available for 2028 if they lose) and the IOC has decided to not call them on it and also try to prevent having a 2028 race with no real bids. 

    Lastly, I'm not buying the whole "it would help the movement to have the games back in Europe again". Look at the recent fames and continent impacted in the 40 years before 2024, and also how many Winter games hosted since they would also help keep "the movement" fresh in the public's mind:

    Europe - Barcelona ('92), Athens ('04), London ('12) - (5 Winter games in this time, I gave them Sochi which could also be argued as Asia)

    NA - LA ('84), Atlanta ('96) - (3 Winter games)

    SA - Rio ('16) - (Nope)

    Asia/Oceania - Seoul ('88), Australia ('00), Beijing ('08), Tokyo ('20) - (3 Winter games)

    If the IOC considers a 12+ year gap as an issue for Europe, then a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous. I know that there are reasons for why the US hasn't had a winning bid since Atlanta (the revenue sharing problems, international backlash to the Iraq war, general sense that the US has had enough olympics, etc.), but if the entire Olympic Agenda 2020 movement is about holding realistic games that will not bankrupt cities or leave them with venues that are left to rot afterwards, then LA should be seen as a stronger candidate.

  5. Being in the London for the OC, the Mr. Bean and James Bond were definitely well received in our section. Both had a decent sense of comedy mixed in (which was a nice break from the big artistry in the first part), and flowed with the ceremony ( I personally don't like Mr. Bean but it worked if only for the Chariots of Fire section). The only part I think we were confused on was the four choruses singing the songs of Scotland, Wales, etc. at the beginning just because it wasn't really explained at first and the sound didn't come through well in our area.

    • Like 1
  6. Bettman has to be of two minds the last two weeks. He's never been a real fan of the NHL in the Olympics, but the level of interest that picked up in the US after the Russia game and going into the two US/Canada games has to have given him cause to think. I think the NHL makes it to 2018 but it will have to be as good or better a tournament to make sure 2022 happens (unless 2022 goes to Norway, where I think a lot of the nordic players will push to have NHL inclusion).

    On a side note, how does the NHL not work on creating a biennial series between the US/Canada women's teams or work to promote a small tournament of nations type cup? Most of the feedback I got from folks out here in southeast Michigan was that the women's games were better than most of the mens.

  7. Concerning the size of the Games, I'd like to present a differing view about canceling the snowboard / slope style events.

    Yes, I think the athletes who do these events see the OWG as either equals or second to the X-Games and that their addition increases the costs and complexities of the games. Thought let me tell you that most of the people who I have talked to in the last week or so here in Michigan about the games bring up events like snowboard cross and half pipe as events they want to see. The sliding events, alpine skiing? Maybe. Ski Jumping / X Country and Biathlon? Boring (except the shooting part of biathlon, but I go to work with a few hunters). Figure skating is popular with the women, hockey with men. Most like curling (its the one sport we all think we could do) but it's too long to watch.

    My point is that, at least here in middle America, you are going to need some of the flash and risk taking of the "new events" to bring in new viewers and get people interested enough to follow the sports instead of just having them on in the background while cooking dinner. While I think we are fans of the Olympics, bringing in new fans and viewers is what counts in the long run (IOC needs to get their nut from the broadcasting rights). Take away those new sports and the olympics will look like they are dismissive of the younger generation and will lose their interest.

    If you want to add new events look to how Figure Skating is handling the new Team Event. It's different but still recognizable and should not be that much of an additional cost/burden than the regular figure skating contests.

    TL,DR: Don't throw out the new events because the millenials (i.e. future viewers) will think the IOC is old fashioned. Try to grow organically using current events and not adding completely new sports.

    Also, this is only my opinion for the Winter Games. My thoughts on the Summer games are a different matter.

    • Like 1
  8. 1. Will there be an 'terrorist' attacks? Not in Sochi, but in other areas of Russia or the region.

    2. Which nation will claim the first gold medal? (men's slope style) McMorris

    3. Which nation will claim the last gold medal? (men's ice hockey) Canada

    4. Which nation will win the most gold medals? United Sates

    5. Most silver medals? Norway

    6. Most bronze medals? Canada

    7. Will there be a gay protest? Yes

    8. Over/under 6th place for Lolo Jones? Over

    9. Which nation will win the most medals in the new events? Canada

    10. Over/under 6th place for Evgeni Plushenko? Under.

    11. White/Davis or Virtue/Moir? White/Davis

    12. Which nation will win the most medals? Norway

    13. Which athlete will win the most medals? Ligety (really have no clue here)

    14. Will there be a Germany sweep in women's luge? Nein

    15. Over/under 20 medals for the host Russians? Over

    16. Will A Canadian defend their gold medal from Vancouver? Yes

    17. Will any nation break the gold medal record (14)? No, US ties it

    18. Will any nation break the total medal record (37)? No

    19. Will there be a Bradbury in Short Track Speed Skating (crash leading to an unexpected winner)? Its short track so yes.

    20. Kim Yu Na or Mao Asada? Mao.

  9. And may I ask where this blue structure is exactly? I can't get my bearings straight at this angle.

    Shot looks to have come from the area outside the stadium behind where the Tor is located (North?). I think the Blue builds were already there in the picture someone else had posted in the previous page, its just that the angle of the shot makes it look like the structures are bigger.

  10. So we are making our trek to London this year to attend our first games (and cross off a bucket list item for me!) and snagged tickets to the Opening Ceremonies. Has there been any information published out there about the procedures for those attending the ceremonies (cameras allowed or not, bag restrictions, etc.)? Also for those on here who have attended opening ceremonies, is there any kind of expected dress code for the event? I'm more curious if people dress a little for the event or if its frowned upon to show up in shorts and a tee.

  • Create New...