Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OneTimeOnly

USOC's "New Direction"

Recommended Posts

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — A year after Chicago’s “devastating” 2016 loss, a regrouped U.S. Olympic Committee can rightly call the past 12 months extraordinarily challenging and yet “one of the best” years ever, USOC chairman Larry Probst asserted Friday.

In addresses to the annual USOC assembly, Probst and chief executive Scott Blackmun pointed to, among other accomplishments, 37 medals won by American athletes at the Vancouver Games, key top-tier sponsor deals, a far-reaching study aimed at re-making the USOC board, re-engagement with domestic groups such as national governing body officials and intensive relationship-building internationally.

Blackmun called it a “new direction,” one that he told the hundreds gathered for the USOC’s annual assembly ought to make “us all incredibly proud to say we are part of the United States Olympic Committee.”

The tone and tenor, along with the substance itself, of Friday’s remarks served as an unveiling of sorts of a USOC with clearly articulated plans — even, in a marked change given the USOC’s historic zigs and zags, a remarkably defined vision, both near- and long-term.

READ MORE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the City of Chicago seems to have another appetite of going again should the USOC reverse it's train of thought about bidding for 2020, contrary to what most of us here have thought otherwise.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/olympics/ct-spt-0925-olympics-2020-chicago--20100924,0,7501863.story

First link didn't work. Here it is again:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/olympics/ct-spt-0925-olympics-2020-chicago--20100924,0,7501863.story

Arrgh. I don't know Y it's not working. Here it is yet again..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/olympics/ct-spt-0925-olympics-2020-chicago--20100924,0,7501863.story

Sigh - just go to the sports section & scroll a tad down, & there you'll see the article titled: "Chicago most likely candidate if USOC decides to bid for 2020".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Daley has said that he won;t run for another term and who knows if the new mayor would support a 2020 Chicago bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Chicago is the USOC's best bet for the next Games on U.S. soil -- summer or winter. 2020, however, is too soon. 2024 seems like the earliest date they could even contemplate and 2028 would be better, but who knows what leadership would be in place by then?

I am glad to hear that the USOC is so focused on keeping their priorties straight in mending relations with the IOC and the international community. It seems like they've definitely learned from the 2016 race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago couldn't host a Winter Olympics. There are no mountains anywhere near for that.

I do agree, however, that the USOC should still not bother with 2020 & go with 2024 at the earliest. 2020 still doesn't seem like it would favor the Americas' & the USOC still has other issues to deal with first B4 another serious bid is mounted. And especially with the big players like Rome, Tokyo & South Africa most likely eyeing that cycle, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2020 would be silly idea because they won't win after Rio. But Chicago going for it in 2024 would be great, I'd love to see that.

What is very interesting now, is that we have four regions, all of which would, I suspect, be very unhappy with having to wait until 2032 for the next Games, but one of which will certainly have to:

USA

Africa

Europe

Asia

Which will lose out in in the 2020s?

Europe won't have a 20 year gap surely? Asia a 24 year gap? The USA a 36 year gap? Africa waiting another four cycles?

Whatever the IOC does they'll have to upset one region in the coming decade. Before when it was just Europe and America with the occassional Asian Games, it would have been much easier to keep everyone happy. With South America and Africa suddenly catapulted into the equation, things are much trickier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the WC picks in December will also have a slight impact on the countries bidding for 2020 and 2024. I see a 2022 WOG as a consolation prize for the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the City of Chicago seems to have another appetite of going again should the USOC reverse it's train of thought about bidding for 2020, contrary to what most of us here have thought otherwise.

I don't quite get the same take-away from this article that you do. In my opinion, the synopsis is that:

1) IF the USOC were to bid in 2020, they (the USOC), seem to prefer Chicago as they can update the same bid, while any other city would have to start over

2) Pat Ryan, not the City of Chicago and her citizens, supports another bid. The problem is that it is unlikely that Pat Ryan will have any influence in Chicago in the next decade. The same goes for Mayor Daley

3) The USOC makes it clear they aren't going to send in speculative bids when the IOC is looking elsewhere. That means we can probably forget about a US bid until at least Europe and Africa have hosted, in my opinion

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the USOC seems to imply that they are playing hardball on revenues with the IOC - why else do they not want a bid in? "Blackmun acknowledged the inherent paradox that having a U.S. bid city could be a key component in the USOC's efforts to build the international relationships necessary for the bid to win... the offsetting consideration is the impact it might have on our negotiations over revenues". This practically says they are prioritising revenue negotiations over the relationships required to win a bid.

This entire article is more about this final point than about Chicago.

I am prepared to stick with my two predictions from before:

1) The next US candidate will NOT be Chicago

2) The next US SOG will not happen before the 2040's at the earliest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With South America and Africa suddenly catapulted into the equation, things are much trickier.

The only thing that is tricky about it is that the IOC is still Eurocentric, and so far there is no indication that they are going to break with bringing the Games to Europe every 2 or 3 cycles.

The way I see it going forward is it will be 4 regions: Western Europe, Asia (excluding Middle East), Americas and "somewhere else". The "somewhere else" includes Africa, Australia, Middle-east, and Eastern Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, here's the thing...US TV rights for 2014 and 2016 will be negotiated early next year per Rogge.

So it would be dumb for the USOC to renegotiate its $$ arrangements w/ the IOC before that since any new arrangements would mean a SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER cut for the USOC when that happens. So, the bidding will take place first, and then perhaps in mid-2011, maybe in time for Durban, will the USOC and IOC finalize new sponsorship details. (But don't expect record-shattering bids, esp for Sochi based on the $223-mil loss of NBC on Vancouver which is already in a favorable time zone for US audiences...altho the Rio amounts might compensate for that.)

With that in place, the stage will be set for Reno-Tahoe 2022 as a consolation prize for the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2020 would be silly idea because they won't win after Rio. But Chicago going for it in 2024 would be great, I'd love to see that.

What is very interesting now, is that we have four regions, all of which would, I suspect, be very unhappy with having to wait until 2032 for the next Games, but one of which will certainly have to:

USA

Africa

Europe

Asia

Which will lose out in in the 2020s?

Europe won't have a 20 year gap surely? Asia a 24 year gap? The USA a 36 year gap? Africa waiting another four cycles?

Whatever the IOC does they'll have to upset one region in the coming decade. Before when it was just Europe and America with the occassional Asian Games, it would have been much easier to keep everyone happy. With South America and Africa suddenly catapulted into the equation, things are much trickier.

Excellent observation, Rob.

Mathematically, Europe should be the continent to wait since they're hosting in 2012, but that hardly seems likely, considering the unbalanced make-up of the IOC. I think both Europe and Africa will host before 2032. That leaves the USA to duke it out with Asia for the third slot.

I'm rooting for Pyeongchang in 2018. I think that will keep Asia at bay until 2032.

Of course, if the US gets either 2022 or 2026, the U.S. is doomed to wait until at least 2032 and probably much longer for a Summer Games. In my opinion, such a course of action would be extremely short-sighted -- particularly considering the absence of an exciting winter candidate... (I know you're reading this, Baron)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that in place, the stage will be set for Reno-Tahoe 2022 as a consolation prize for the US.

Yikes. If we give them Reno-Tack-ho in '22, it may take another 80 years before we get over the embarrassment to be able to host another Games with dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rooting for Pyeongchang in 2018. I think that will keep Asia at bay until 2032.

The '8's are reserved for Asia.

1988 Seoul

1998 Nagano

2008 Beijing

2018 PyeongChang

2028 Tokyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USOC approves addition of five new board members

Dec 16 (Reuters) - The United States Olympic Committee continued its restructuring Thursday by adding five new board members, including a former Microsoft executive.

Four of the new directors will fill seats created by the board following recommendations made in an independent advisory report headed by former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

The fifth new director will fill a vacant position created by the departure of Stephanie Streeter, who stepped down as the USOC's chief executive last year.

The board will now have 15 members with Thursday's additions.

"Today the USOC welcomes five new board members, all talented, passionate leaders who have committed to contributing their expertise and talent to the U.S. Olympic movement, and we are a stronger organisation with their addition," USOC chairman Larry Probst said in a statement, following a meeting in Redwood City, California.

"The calibre of their talents and backgrounds is a testament to the power and spirit of the movement."

Probst emphasised that the new members all bring special expertise to the posts, specifically in the areas fund-raising, international relations, new media and marketing.

Joining Robbie Bach, the former president of Microsoft's entertainment and devices division, on the board are James Benson, a past CEO of former Olympic sponsor John Hancock; Dave Ogrean, executive director of USA Hockey; cross-country skier Nina Kemppel, a four-time Olympian and Susanne Lyons, who most recently was Visa USA's chief marketing officer.

The board also approved the USOC's 2011 budget and said it expected negotiations for U.S. Olympic broadcast rights for the 2014 Winter and 2016 Summer Games to begin sometime in the second quarter of next year.

Reuters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They chose a former Microsoft executive? :unsure: Good luck.

Should have picked someone from Apple.

Microsoft...Apple...same thing. Besides, the guy is FORMERLY with Microsoft...so the company affiliation is NOT the most important factor. Like me on the Board of my condo association, it's WHO wants to serve on those boards (which after all, are voluntary positions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that Benson is the significant addition. Some of us recall the fairly incisive and aggressive criticism given by John Hancock's CEO & President David D'Alessandro back at the peak of the WOF ethics crisis and Benson was a VP during that time. It would be interesting to see what kind of boardroom gossip, skeletons in the closet and perhaps corporate baggage he will bring to the table for the USOC. Perhaps bygones will be bygones and no one at the Lausanne Bunker will be that worried or concerned about going face to face with someone who was part of one of the biggest corporate rejections of the IOC, and vice versa from the USOC board. I'm sure Probst will be looking to finesse Benson's influence any way possible to maximise the benefits for any future bid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. 4 Games (6 years) seems like a really risky package to bid on (altho of course the contracts would probably have "out" or "fail-safe" clauses). I think the winning network will take a bath on a 4-Games deal. I wonder how the USOC will weigh in on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USOC would loose some timezone leverage on the games that had not been awarded to a host city yet. Maybe not critical but it seems every bit is in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...