U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026

[FYI]

Athensfan, I wasn't trying to call you a stubborn mule.

What I meant to say by that, is why should the *USOC* take the 'stubborn mule' approach of just going after the Summer Games when the IOC has soundly rejected 2 Summer U.S. bids in a row by 2 U.S. cities that totally meet the very "appealing & inspring" category. And actually, I pretty much agree with you that the U.S. SHOULD host a Summer Games next, but at the moment, that doesn't look very likely for a long time to come, even if the USOC decides not to bid for 2022.

And sure, Reno isn't the greatest of what we have to offer, but who else is there in the Winter category? Most here have agreed that both Anchorage (as majestic as that would be) & Denver both have their baggage. So what else is left? Bozeman, MT? Burlington, VT? Jackson, WY? Albany, NY? None of these cities have made any official annoucements about plowing forward with a serious bid.

And what about 2024? What appealing & inspiring cities are left to go after those Summer Games if we do? Certainly not New York or Chicago. They're done for a long time to come. San Francisco, maybe. If they can ever get their sh!t together. Los Angeles for a 3rd time? As we all know, in the Summer category, the appealing nature of the city is of utmost importance. And since no top U.S. cities most likely are not gonna be lining up for 2024, then why not try 2022. Cause I'd rather see a Winter Olympics here in the U.S. in Reno before I'd wanna see the Grandeur Summer Olympics in an unappeling & uninspiring 2nd or 3rd tier U.S. city like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis or Detroit. Even Houston or Philadelphia would be quite a stretch.

[baron-pierreIV]

I really don't know why we have to unravel Athenrye's TOTALLY stubborn, unyielding stnce?

I'm just thankful he's actually NOT on the USOC board...otherwise we'd be even in deeper doodoo than it actually already is...considering all the other external factors that come into play.

[baron-pierreIV]

Such pessimism! It's all in the timing....

I'm actually just being a realist. Have followed this game for nearly 40+ years now...

[Soaring]

I don't think Athensfan is promoting a stubborn approach from the USOC, but rather a more purposeful, thought-out vision/plan. Hopefully, the days of the USOC bidding just to bid are over. After all, the U.S. has put in over 50 bids, which is more than any other country on earth.

In the last 30, we have lost bids for '92, '94, '98, '12, and '16, but we have hosted 4 times! I would rather take a wait and see approach, before throwing in sub par cities like Reno and third tier summer game prospects. I see no problem with waiting for a Chicago, NY or San Francisco 2026 bid. If we lose that race to Toronto, then I say go for a 2030 Winter bid.

I know it is risky to put all of your eggs in one basket 10 years down the road, but I do see the valid argument that putting in a bid for 2022 would maybe be better than waiting until 2026. Although I do feel that 2018 or 2022 should be in an Asian city (but I like the idea of Munich hosting). Timing is everything, and there is no magical spell that works all of the time. Each bid is a risk in its own way.

*** Sorry, I mixed up my years - I meant Chicago, NY or San Fran 2028 bid, not 2026 ***

I can't edit my post though

[stryker]

Athensfan, I agree with you spot on. I would prefer the U.S. to host a summer games before a another winter games. Tahoe is awesome, but Reno is not a city I would be proud of. Sure, SLC wasn't amazing, but it was doable. Realistically though I think it is going to be hard for the USOC to sit out 2022, 2024 and 2026. So, we are just going to have to sit back and see what happens. One argument that was made during the 2016 race is that most of our future bids could come from sub-par cities, since the mega cities (NY, Chicago, etc.) will probably sit out future races. I think that kind of now applies to our winter bids too. I would prefer Anchorage or Denver to Reno, but obviously civic enthusiasm/support matter deeply with both of those cities.

The sub-par or second and third tier city idea would probaby set a summer games in the U.S. back even further. The last two summer games elections were filled with mega cities and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Just because Chicago and NYC came up short doesn't mean the USOC should start looking down the line at a city like Pittsburgh for example. It would be the equivalent of Germany putting forth Leipzig in the 2012 race. If the USOC really wants another summer games, it will have to be one of the big guns.

As for Reno, well, I also would prefer Denver but for reasons already mentioned I doubt the USOC would be crazy enough to offer up the Mile High City again. Reno certainly seems to be the front runner based on organization right now. Could any other candidates step up if the USOC indeed decides to go the winter route? We'll have to wait and see. i really would like to see Albuquerque give it a shot.

[baron-pierreIV]

Here's the deal with the IOC. They snub the premium AMerican cities (NYC, CHicago, LA picked only when no one else was interested, ok Denver, but Denver threw back the ball..) when these are offered to them but settle for a 3rd tier up-and-coming regional town like Atlanta for its 100th anniversary bash. And then decide afterwards that it was a less than tasty dish. Well....??

Go figure.

Does anyone think that such an organization will play along if its biggest client (the USOC) will again wait its time before offering the best of the best? I don't think so. The IOC pretty much thinks in 2/3 competition cycle spurts; and in that their negative, anti-USOC feelings emerge and they use it as the slightest excuse to slam the best technical bid. But the USOC still has to catch that little window of opportunity to host a Games and it's far easier to do with a Winter one than a summer one which MAY Never come at all.

Further, a winter bid will move farther along the hoops on its own momentum WITHOUT the presence of an American member in the Exec Board which would be the inverse case for another summer bid--where we would need an influential US member there to pull some ears and drop some reminders.

And what's with this summer sports only mindset? The USOC also represents the WINTER feds who bring in more profile, prestige and moolah than the little Field Hockey, Team Handball, Pentathlon, etc., governing bodies.

[GoNutz]

Frankly I think we shouldn't even bother with a Summer bid. We can rock Winter Games we have the mountains, Denver, or Reno/Tahoe would be awesome.

[Soaring]

But the USOC still has to catch that little window of opportunity to host a Games and it's far easier to do with a Winter one than a summer one which MAY Never come at all.

That is a bit dramatic. The U.S. will most definitely host a Summer Games in my lifetime.

And what's with this summer sports only mindset? The USOC also represents the WINTER feds who bring in more profile, prestige and moolah than the little Field Hockey, Team Handball, Pentathlon, etc., governing bodies.

I don't have a summer only mindset. I just think the USOC should have priorities -

#1: Improve their relations and influence in the IOC.

#2: Get a Summer games without using a third tier city.

#3: Get a winter games (if the U.S. loses a summer bid for 2024 and/or 2028, then I say put everything into a winter games in 2030).

[baron-pierreIV]

That is a bit dramatic. The U.S. will most definitely host a Summer Games in my lifetime.

well, maybe your lifetime but I don't know if there's another one in mine.

BTW, the above, longer response wasn't directed at you in particular. It was a general post, and actually more to Mr. A as well.

[Athensfan]

I think we have a fundamental difference in philosophies:

Philosophy A.) Because the U.S. has suffered some extremely disappointing, high-profile losses we should focus on landing the first Games we can (Summer or Winter). The biggest priority is landing the Games quickly and the quality of the bid city and the profile of the Games is of secondary importance.

Philosophy B.) The recent losses suffered by American bids reveal the IOC's commitment to truly global Games and an unwillingness to continue awarding the U.S. frequent hostings. Since we know we are not likely to host often, we should strategize as to when and where the next domestic Games can make the biggest impact -- both on the international community and on domestic sponsors, athletes and audiences.

Obviously, I subscribe to Philosophy B. I think Philosophy A is a bit short-sighted and impatient.

I think it is a real mistake to interpret recent votes as an indication that the IOC isn't interested in Chicago or New York. They just didn't want NYC in 2012 and they didn't want Chicago in 2016. That doesn't mean they won't want them EVER. I don't think it makes much sense to take offense at the recent votes and start putting forward weaker bids as some sort of payback. Obviously, New York and Chicago will be gunshy, but a lot can happen in a decade or two -- and that's the time frame we're talking about about -- a decade or two. People change. Cities change. Economies change.

I'm not even saying it even has to be a top tier city that hosts next. I'm just saying that the U.S. needs to carefully think through their next Olympic hosting and make it count for as much as possible. If we've learned nothing else, we should have learned that the Olympics -- even in the U.S. -- are a rare privilege and we need to treat them as such. That's the only reason I'm opposed to a Winter bid -- particularly if it comes from Reno.

[Athensfan]

I don't have a summer only mindset. I just think the USOC should have priorities -

#1: Improve their relations and influence in the IOC.

#2: Get a Summer games without using a third tier city.

#3: Get a winter games (if the U.S. loses a summer bid for 2024 and/or 2028, then I say put everything into a winter games in 2030).

I wholeheartedly agree with your priority list. I'm not anti-Winter Games either. I just think it is important that a Summer hosting come first.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ U have the luxury of giving them time...I don't.

[baron-pierreIV]

1. I think it is a real mistake to interpret recent votes as an indication that the IOC isn't interested in Chicago or New York. They just didn't want NYC in 2012 and they didn't want Chicago in 2016. That doesn't mean they won't want them EVER. I don't think it makes much sense to take offense at the recent votes and start putting forward weaker bids as some sort of payback. Obviously, New York and Chicago will be gunshy, but a lot can happen in a decade or two -- and that's the time frame we're talking about about -- a decade or two. People change. Cities change. Economies change.

I'm not even saying it even has to be a top tier city that hosts next. I'm just saying that the U.S. needs to carefully think through their next Olympic hosting and make it count for as much as possible. If we've learned nothing else, we should have learned that the Olympics -- even in the U.S. -- are a rare privilege and we need to treat them as such. That's the only reason I'm opposed to a Winter bid -- particularly if it comes from Reno.

1. Well then, after spending nearly $125 million in private funds for those 2 bids, I don't see how the lesser cities can come up with at least $50 million (adding inflation) to compete with bottomless gov't funded rival bids???

2. We TREAT them as a rare privilege. That's why they were offered New York and Chicago. So, what were those? Punting tries?

As for Reno, it is what it is. ANd you can't have the gorgeous Lake Tahoe setting without attaching the closest metropolis to it which is Reno. 280,000 people live there everyday. I can't see how bad a place it is. Not everybody yearns for the swank avenues of Paris, New York or Chicago. An unpretentious city is good enough for good people too.

[Athensfan]

/\ U have the luxury of giving them time...I don't.

Pulling a Samaranch, eh?

[FYI]

I think it is a real mistake to interpret recent votes as an indication that the IOC isn't interested in Chicago or New York. They just didn't want NYC in 2012 and they didn't want Chicago in 2016. That doesn't mean they won't want them EVER. I don't think it makes much sense to take offense at the recent votes and start putting forward weaker bids as some sort of payback. Obviously, New York and Chicago will be gunshy, but a lot can happen in a decade or two -- and that's the time frame we're talking about about -- a decade or two. People change. Cities change. Economies change.

I'm not even saying it even has to be a top tier city that hosts next. I'm just saying that the U.S. needs to carefully think through their next Olympic hosting and make it count for as much as possible. If we've learned nothing else, we should have learned that the Olympics -- even in the U.S. -- are a rare privilege and we need to treat them as such. That's the only reason I'm opposed to a Winter bid -- particularly if it comes from Reno.

Well, try telling that to New York & Chicago (who gave it everything they had), though. Even in a decade from now, I doubt we'll see either of them bidding again.

And you're sounding contradicting now. You're saying that you're not saying that it even has to be a top tier city that hosts next, but yet at the same time you're saying that a country hosting should offer the best of what it has to offer (which is why you're so against Reno). So which is it? Besides the big guns (NYC, Chicago & San Fran), who else is there (Maybe, maybe Boston or Seattle)? Cause again, I certainly don't wanna see the Grandness of the Summer Olympic Games in some common 3rd-tier U.S. city like Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Detroit or Heaven forbid, TULSA (which would make Reno shine in comparison).

[GoNutz]

New York & Chicago shouldn't bid again they were kicked in the groin. I think a Winter Games would be the best we can expect and the most we should endeavor, I'm also of the opinion that as much as I'd like a Summer Games, however the current climate of IOC appears to be that of a spoiled rotten bratty child. If they don't like something you did, they'll play the "I Can't Hear you" game, and cover their ears, they're the lay on the floor throw a tantrum and hold a grudge type. I'm glad we pretty much kicked butt @ Vancouver, and I'm glad that NBC was picking up some fairly good TV ratings. I think overall we need a time-out. I also think we'll be able to tell a lot more after this next round of TV rights is negotiated, I read an article the other day, lemme find it, talking about how the IOC is getting pretty big for its britches and it needs a smack down. I happen to agree, but I don't think the US should or is capable of it, I think it needs to be a worldwide intervention. Salt Lake City had widespread "corruption" of the bidding process and it appears that it's not gone away just moved under the surface.

Here's that article: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/13/international-olympic-committee-isnt-a-sovereign-state/

[Athensfan]

Well, try telling that to New York & Chicago (who gave it everything they had), though. Even in a decade from now, I doubt we'll see either of them bidding again.

And you're sounding contradicting now. You're saying that you're not saying that it even has to be a top tier city that hosts next, but yet at the same time you're saying that a country hosting should offer the best of what it has to offer (which is why you're so against Reno). So which is it? Besides the big guns (NYC, Chicago & San Fran), who else is there (Maybe, maybe Boston or Seattle)? Cause again, I certainly don't wanna see the Grandness of the Summer Olympic Games in some common 3rd-tier U.S. city like Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Detroit or Heaven forbid, TULSA (which would make Reno shine in comparison).

No, I'm not advocating Tulsa... or anything similar. Please, God, no.

I'm also not saying that I necessarily expect Chicago or NYC to bid again -- but the truth is we just don't know what will happen. We are talking about many years in the future. It will be a different cast of characters by then, different leadership. The more time goes by, the more promising a U.S. summer candidature will be. I think there will be people in both cities who would be interested in hosting IF they stood a much stronger chance of being selected. The biggest weakness of the recent U.S. bids (especially Chicago) was not the bid cities -- it was poor USOC/IOC relations coupled with the international perception that the U.S. has hosted too many Games. Those were the negatives -- not bid cities. Blackmun will continue working on relationships w/ the IOC. As for our frequent hosting, the more time passes, the more likely the IOC will consider returning to the U.S.

Regarding the perceived contradiction: a city with character and international appeal does not necessarily have to be one of the top tier behemoths. I really don't see any contradiction there. For example, San Francisco is definitely not a top tier city, but has many traits that could make it an attractive host. SF also has a ton of other issues that pose significant problems-- I'm not saying it's the ideal candidate, I'm just saying that an appealing host does not have to be the country's biggest, most powerful city. When I wrote about the "best" our country has to offer, I didn't see that as automatically limiting the pool to LA, NYC and Chicago. The U.S. is a diverse country with a wide variety of appealing qualities. I just think that the next host should highlight some of our best.

[OneTimeOnly]

For example, San Francisco is definitely not a top tier city

I disagree. If SF isn't, neither is Chicago. Only New York and L.A.

[FYI]

^And I wouldn't even consider Los Angeles as a top tier city either, if that's how we're going to classify the cities. If that's the case, only New York falls in that "top tier" category in the U.S.

[baron-pierreIV]

Then I've been right all along. There is NO TOP TIER U.S. city ready to handle a Summer Olympics now. So the IOC has also been right; therefore we shouldn't feel bad and it's time to try for another Winter Games.

End of story.

[Soaring]

I'm not going to get into a SF vs. Chicago vs. LA argument here. No U.S. city can really compare to the global recognition of NY, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. on the world stage. LA surely has a larger population than Chicago, and it is the entertainment capital of the world.

The SF Bay area is continuing to climb the charts as the tech center of the world. Chicago surely has it's positive attributes, but I think that SF and Chicago are very comparable on the world stage with respect with forth a bid.

One interesting note, is the unofficial poll the USOC took in 2006 of their 2016 candidate cities LA, Chicago and SF. Supposedly Chicago received the best response. I wouldn't put too much stock into that though, considering the USOC and Chicago bid team thought they had way more support than the 18 votes received in the first round (Istanbul received just one less vote in the first round for 2008).

[747]

USA should give it a rest. The whole O bit is like an enlarging heart that's been overworked and requires more and more resources to contunue in a less "healthy" state than intended.

[Athensfan]

Then I've been right all along. There is NO TOP TIER U.S. city ready to handle a Summer Olympics now. So the IOC has also been right; therefore we shouldn't feel bad and it's time to try for another Winter Games.

End of story.

First, Chicago was totally ready.

Second, I'm not talking about NOW. 2024 and 2028 are hardly NOW.

FInally, let's not revive the top tier city debate. I was solely addressing what FYI perceived to be a contradiction in my argument against Reno. Yes, NYC is the biggest city in the U.S. LA and Chicago are 2 and 3 respectfully. The point is that the next host doesn't have to be one of our biggest cities. It needs to be a city with character, international appeal and sufficient infrastructure. The big 3 fit could fit that criteria, but so could some others.

In my opinion, Reno is a less than ideal option for those who can't control their desire for instant gratification.

[OneTimeOnly]

The point is that the next host...needs to be a city with character, international appeal and sufficient infrastructure.

Then San Francisco is that city. SF has tremendous international appeal, superbly scenic and iconic (Golden Gate Bridge, Cable Cars, Victorian Row Houses, Lombard Street, the hills, proximity to Napa and Sonoma, and more etc etc etc), world famous, and has the infrastructure. It beats Chicago in everything I've mentioned (and this isn't to rip on Chicago, but the fact is more people outside of the U.S. can tell you about San Francisco and it's charms while drawing a huge blank on Chicago). It's local politics that are the biggest hurdle.

In my opinion, Reno is a less than ideal option for those who can't control their desire for instant gratification.

Reno is totally tacky for an Olympic host city. Agreed. Where are all the Olympic Family supposed to stay? Harrah's? The Silverado? Give me a break. Yeah, casino hotels. Okaaaay.

[baron-pierreIV]

Reno is totally tacky for an Olympic host city. Agreed. Where are all the Olympic Family supposed to stay? Harrah's? The Silverado? Give me a break. Yeah, casino hotels. Okaaaay.

Oh yeah, and the Sarajevo Hilton in 1984 with bugged rooms et al, was better?

There is no Ritz or Four Seasons either in Lillehammer.