Ioc: What We've Learned

[Athensfan]

I think we've learned a lot about the IOC from the 2016 contest -- especially as it relates to the outcomes of previous contests:

1:The IOC is an intimate and exclusive club with a long history and old relationships. The only way to curry favor is to join this very small fraternity and nurture those relationships with great sincerity and commitment. Those closed-door, back room conversations are where all the decisions are made -- not in the public presentations and reports.

2:The most emotional bid will win (not necessarily the most emotional presentation). It doesn't have to be the best technically, but it must be "GOOD ENOUGH."

3: Continental rotation is alive and well. The IOC is committed to a variety of what I will call "flavor" rather than mere geographical variety.

4: If the Evaluation Report seems to favor one bid -- that is the bid that will win. Once the IOC decides it favors somebody, the race is over.

5: Never believe IOC members when they say they won't decide until the final presentation who they're going to vote for. The Games have gotten too big and too important for any of them to approach the process so cavalierly.

6: The IOC is the biggest star of all. Bigger than Oprah, bigger than Obama. Their will reigns supreme, they know it and they're not bashful about it.

7: By and large, the final presentations are irrelevant unless there are two bids that TRULY are neck and neck.

8: It is always better to "show" the IOC than to "tell" them. The passion must be self-evident. The legacy must be crystal clear. Spouting platitudes like "we'll be your best partner" and "we want your Games" carries no weight.

9: The IOC is always interested in a new angle on the Games. They want to do more than repeat past successes. They want to reinvent the Games -- to stay ahead of the curve, to bring something fresh to the table each time.

10: If somebody says they have a certain number of votes pledged, there's a good chance they do. This is why developing those relationships is so important...

[Rob2012]

I seem to remember both Madrid and Paris coming out of the evaluation report better than London, so I'm not sure about #4.

[Athensfan]

I think my writing was unclear on that point. I am not saying that the better report will win. I'm saying that if there is any evidence of FAVORITISM it will win. The EC clearly glossed over Rio's weaknesses and emphasized Chicago's. It wasn't glaringly biased, but it certainly wasn't objective either. That's what I mean by the report "favoring" a bid.

[DannyelBrazil]

I like the analysis...

agreed.

[aluz]

Athensfan,

I wouldn't define how the IOC behaves by only analyzing this bid process.

1: The IOC member behave like all other voters. They have visions and interests and working those would swing their votes in different ways. The clubby vision is due to the large number of senior members, which know each other for enough time to understand each one's agenda. They are probably much like a Parliament house and they also have constituents - NOCs, IFs and other associations.

2: Not always. Atlanta has beaten Athens and Sydney has beaten Beijing.

3: Yes and that's in the core of the olympic movement: universality.

4: Very disputable.

5: Of course. Since the vote is secret and they usually don't disclose it, they will never say they have made their minds. But that's also being cavalierly in respect to the IOc institution.

6: I disagree. But they represent the Olympic Movement and they are the voters. In an election, the objective is too impress your voters. Americans have elected Bush a second time, even though the rest of the world hated the guy. He was campaigning to Americans, the rest was not important.

7: It has to do with number one. If you do your job properly in number one, the presentation won't matter.

8: That's true for everything presented to an educated audience. From a proposal to sell software to an Olympic bid.

9: Why wouldn't they? As long as they buy the idea, they will go for it.

10: That can be a bluff or a mistake as well. If you don't master item 1, you might be wrong about that.

[Rafa]

I think a lot of those points include some bitterness.

The "IOC" are just 105+ people who based on their experience up until that point make a decision for reasons only they will know. Each race will be different. No city can be ruled out.

66-32 sent a clear message that were not heading back to Europe.

[Athensfan]

If I could edit my first post, I would. For some reason the board isn't letting me.

I will explain #4 one more time. What I meant to say is this: if the report contains hints of FAVORITISM towards one bid -- that bid will win. Favoritism would be glossing over weaknesses of one bid while exaggerating those of another. I am not saying that the EC was blatantly biased, but I do think they were a little less than objective. That should have been a tip off that the IOC had already made up its mind that it wanted Rio.

[Athensfan]

Athensfan,

2: Not always. Atlanta has beaten Athens and Sydney has beaten Beijing.

Athens' bid was clearly not "GOOD ENOUGH" technically. No way.

I know that there was a lot of energy behind Beijing for 2000, but I would still argue that technically it was too far behind. Plus, Sydney had it's own energy and emotion for it, with only one previous Australian host.

[baron-pierreIV]

1. I think a lot of those points include some bitterness.

2. The "IOC" are just 105+ people who based on their experience up until that point make a decision for reasons only they will know. Each race will be different. No city can be ruled out.

3. 66-32 sent a clear message that were not heading back to Europe.

1. Understandably. It was a hard fought battle and the US and the Yanks threw everything into it just to try and please those SOBs at the IOC!!

2. Agreed. Each race has its own dynamix.

3. I view the 66-32 final vote as more (i) we want to send it to a long neglected region; and (ii) Samaranch, take that. The 2/3rds who didn't owe him anything banded together to handily defeat the Samaranch forces.

Others I would like add...w/ particular relevance to this recently concluded race:

4. I think the IOC still prefers the #1 City. As technically good as Chicago's plan was, the fact that it only got 18 votes kinda also showed me that the IOC'ers prefer the #1 city. I think a New YorkII might have picked up more votes...w/ them aware that New York is an alpha city.

5. You need a Havelange or a Samaranch to work the bid from within; Tokyo had the Ichiya guy. (The USOC didn't have anyone like that within these last 2 rounds.)

But what is most surprising to me is...starting with the so-called Round One constituencies, I think Rio/So America actually had the smallest. Last time I counted-- and I am not in the mood to count again--all of South America had only FIVE IOC votes. So taking away the 2 Brazilian votes, Rio really started with a core of THREE votes! But then picked up the core support I guess from the non-Samaranch ranks of Europe.

My 50 euros.

[aluz]

Athens' bid was clearly not "GOOD ENOUGH" technically. No way.

I know that there was a lot of energy behind Beijing for 2000, but I would still argue that technically it was too far behind. Plus, Sydney had it's own energy and emotion for it, with only one previous Australian host.

But it was not the most emotional. Greece, the birthplace of the OM, in the centennial Games. Can it be more emotional?

[Athensfan]

But it was not the most emotional. Greece, the birthplace of the OM, in the centennial Games. Can it be more emotional?

Aluz, go back and read #4.

The IOC will choose the most emotional bid as long as it is technically "GOOD ENOUGH." I stand by that statement.

[Athensfan]

4. I think the IOC still prefers the #1 City. As technically good as Chicago's plan was, the fact that it only got 18 votes kinda also showed me that the IOC'ers prefer the #1 city. I think a New YorkII might have picked up more votes...w/ them aware that New York is an alpha city.

If this is true, the IOC is making a mistake. I've lived in New York, Chicago and LA. I know San Fran. Chicago is hands down the best option. I am totally unexcited about a New York Games.

[aluz]

Aluz, go back and read #4.

The IOC will choose the most emotional bid as long as it is technically "GOOD ENOUGH." I stand by that statement.

Then I would say this is kind of obvious. As long as a bid hits the credibility standards of the IOC, other issues come into play, but I still don't think emotional is the only one. The technical project is just part of the bid.

[Athensfan]

Then I would say this is kind of obvious. As long as a bid hits the credibility standards of the IOC, other issues come into play, but I still don't think emotional is the only one. The technical project is just part of the bid.

What seems obvious now was not obvious months ago.

Personally, I believe that Rio's bid was technically the weakest of the four. However, I also believe that Rio's bid was, without question, "GOOD ENOUGH." This is a meaningful observation. Basically it means that the Evaluation Report is really just a means of filtering out the unsuitable bids. If a bid has a strong emotional draw and it makes a certain technical grade, it will be chosen. Even if other bids are stronger.

Incidentally, although I am disappointed that Chicago was eliminated in such a brutal way, I am not surprised that Rio won. This whole topic is motivated by a desire to highlight patterns in IOC voting -- which is basically the whole purpose of GamesBids.

[Mainad]

Basically it means that the Evaluation Report is really just a means of filtering out the unsuitable bids. If a bid has a strong emotional draw and it makes a certain technical grade, it will be chosen. Even if other bids are stronger.

I believe the technical aspects of a city's bid are largely determined by the Evaluation Report.Cities that make it to candidate status are assumed to have the necessary technical ability as that is the job of the Evaluation Commission.When it comes down to the vote,I think the IOC delegates then make their choices for all kinds of reasons from liking the technical and legacy aspects of a city's bid plan to liking the colour of its bid logo more than that of the others!

[baron-pierreIV]

I believe the technical aspects of a city's bid are largely determined by the Evaluation Report.Cities that make it to candidate status are assumed to have the necessary technical ability as that is the job of the Evaluation Commission.When it comes down to the vote,I think the IOC delegates then make their choices for all kinds of reasons from liking the technical and legacy aspects of a city's bid plan to liking the colour of its bid logo more than that of the others!

Plus, I think my overall reading of Rio's victory is that the IOC is very aware of destiny and history. They did as good a job as the possibly could in giving the extremely successful Beijing Games to the most populous nation on the planet. Here is one region of the earth that has NEVER hosted; this bid is as sexy as any...so GO FOR IT...lest they be accused of being too Euro-No America-centric again!!

[aluz]

What seems obvious now was not obvious months ago.

Personally, I believe that Rio's bid was technically the weakest of the four. However, I also believe that Rio's bid was, without question, "GOOD ENOUGH." This is a meaningful observation. Basically it means that the Evaluation Report is really just a means of filtering out the unsuitable bids. If a bid has a strong emotional draw and it makes a certain technical grade, it will be chosen. Even if other bids are stronger.

Incidentally, although I am disappointed that Chicago was eliminated in such a brutal way, I am not surprised that Rio won. This whole topic is motivated by a desire to highlight patterns in IOC voting -- which is basically the whole purpose of GamesBids.

If you read my posts I have always said that the IOC is not looking for the best technical bid. I have always said that it's about intangibles as in all decisions taken by numan beings.

As a matter of fact, it is a widely accepted fact that there is no purely rational decision. Every decision will always carry some kind of emotional to be taken, hence the trend of sales training to focus on emotional aspects. Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman is one of the books that address this issue.

So, basing an Olympic bid on technicalities is a losing strategy, you must put emotion on it. After all, the Olympic Movement is a lot about emotions.

[baron-pierreIV]

If this is true, the IOC is making a mistake. I've lived in New York, Chicago and LA. I know San Fran. Chicago is hands down the best option. I am totally unexcited about a New York Games.

Yes, Ath, but that is one man's opinion. Remember, whichever is the candidate must be measured against the others with it. That changes the whole coloration. (Strangely, Chicago is the only place of the top 4 that I have NOT lived in. But I did live in Atlanta for 3 years.)

[Athensfan]

I believe the technical aspects of a city's bid are largely determined by the Evaluation Report.Cities that make it to candidate status are assumed to have the necessary technical ability as that is the job of the Evaluation Commission.When it comes down to the vote,I think the IOC delegates then make their choices for all kinds of reasons from liking the technical and legacy aspects of a city's bid plan to liking the colour of its bid logo more than that of the others!

Of course, you're right to say that the shortlist is supposed to filter out the "unsuitable" bids.

Although the EC report is comparative, as an emotional favorite, a city can still have the weakest technical bid and win as long as the differential between the technical merits of that city's bid and the others is within a certain range. It can be the "worst", but it has to be "good enough."

[aluz]

Yes, Ath, but that is one man's opinion. Remember, whichever is the candidate must be measured against the others with it. That changes the whole coloration. (Strangely, Chicago is the only place of the top 4 that I have NOT lived in. But I did live in Atlanta for 3 years.)

I would add that any city might get it if the bid team can make a good technical plan and build a good story around the proposal. Smaller cities find it more difficult to build this story. Something like NYC using its importance, showing its diversity and pushing some kind of renovation in some area.

If you base a bid solely on a compact venue plan, you are likely to get shortlisted and lose it badly in the voting.

[Athensfan]

I would add that any city might get it if the bid team can make a good technical plan and build a good story around the proposal. Smaller cities find it more difficult to build this story. Something like NYC using its importance, showing its diversity and pushing some kind of renovation in some area.

If you base a bid solely on a compact venue plan, you are likely to get shortlisted and lose it badly in the voting.

I agree with this. I just don't see New York coming up with a sufficiently compelling story.

[aluz]

I agree with this. I just don't see New York coming up with a sufficiently compelling story.

I actually can see that more easily than a good venue plan. There is little space.

[Athensfan]

I actually can see that more easily than a good venue plan. There is little space.

Very valid point. Stadium, anyone?

[Rafa]

1. First round votes are vital. You must realize where the votes will be split. Secure your 25+ votes.

2. Don't be unrealistic. Tokyo received a good chunk of votes. Asia backed its candidate. Don't expect votes outside of your region, see them as a bonus. Even Rio only managed 26 votes in round 1.