Jump to content

Will the USOC bid for 2020?


alphamale86

Recommended Posts

Dream on about using Sacramento....to say you're really stretching it is an understatement.

P.S. all the best Skiing in Lake Tahoe is on the California side.

The possible use of Sacramento was shared with me -- I didn't author that idea.

Since you're all know-it-alls, why don't you tell the Reno guys yourselves??

I thought we got rid of 2 dogmatic Annency "nuts."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Re Reno-Sacto, well, why not? HongKong (where the equestrian events were held) is 1,225 mi from Beijing. Yachting events have always been held hundreds of miles from inland Summer host cities. And that's why satellite villages are also created. The point is...it's NOT impossible; it's NOT a deal-breaker and that's what was informally shared with me. And logically, Maybe Reno can come up with another $700 mil to build 2 more arenas in the city? :blink:

Re the alpine events, a good 2/5ths of the Lake periphery is on the Reno side. I imagine they might try to keep most of those on the Nevada side of tings.

I'm with OneTime on this one. If you're relying on Sacramento as 1 of your main bases, then why aren't they bidding as the home of all the indoor events (especially if they're going to build a brand new arena anyway) and let the Reno arena host the mountain venues. I understand that Reno is pushing ahead with this and more power to them if it gains some steam, but there are so many holes in this plan, I don't see how they believe they can make this work to the point of being a viable potentially winning bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it make them more likely to win? Maybe not, but I'm less than convinced that Reno is the city that gives us the best chance at landing a Winter Olympics.

Then, why even bother bidding? A Denver guy here already shot down his own city's chance.

I'm with OneTime on this one. 1. If you're relying on Sacramento as 1 of your main bases, then why aren't they bidding as the home of all the indoor events (especially if they're going to build a brand new arena anyway) and let the Reno arena host the mountain venues. I understand that Reno is pushing ahead with this and more power to them if it gains some steam, but there are so many holes in this plan, I don't see how they believe they can make this work to the point of being a viable potentially winning bid.

1. Because it probably wouldn't make fiscal sense to have what? 7 arenas for a city of 220,000 people?

2. I think because Reno and the slopes would be less than an hour away. Sacto would be about 1.5 hrs away from the Tahoe slopes.

2. I don't know Nevada's finances right now, but I don't think they're as bad as CA's. And you have to start from now.

3. "I don't see how they believe they can make this work to the point of being a viable potentially winning bid." Maybe they know something you don't? Why don't you give them a chance? If they win, they win. If they fail, it's not for want of trying.

I for one, kinda like to see the little guy make it. If Denver and the USOC want to blow another $50 mil and a 3rd loss, then go with Denver. Obviously, it'll ALL depend on the USOC Executive Board or BoD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Lawlor - Short-track skating does NOT REquire an int'l hockey-sized ice rink. Because it is SHORT track, therefore, I think the ice surface it requires (I'm guessing) might be just 2/3rds and preferrably in a circular fashion) of a hockey-sized rink.

Short-track speedskating absolutely requires an international-sized (200 ft. x 100 ft.) ice rink. This is non-negotiable--even an NHL-sized rink (typically 200 x 80 or 90 x 190) will not work. Anything smaller than 200 x 100 is not safe for the skaters. That's why Vancouver had to renovate Pacific Coliseum to fit an international-sized rink, while they were able to petition the IOC and IHF to use an NHL-sized rink at GM Place. It's called short-track because the track is 110m, as opposed to the 400m track in long-track.

With regard to the Delta Center, I doubt a venue like that would ever be approved again by the IOC and ISU. From what I remember, the Salt Lake organizers originally sold the IOC and ISU on that venue by saying that they were going to raise the ice surface to bring it up to the level of the seats. That didn't work, so then the SLOOC just decided to use the arena as it was. After the Delta Center hosted the 1999 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, so many people complained about the poor sight lines that the SLOOC seriously considered moving figure skating to the E Center instead. Ultimately, they decided against it because the E Center had a lower seating capacity, and they didn't want to lose out on the revenue from the premier figure skating tickets. If Salt Lake were to host the Olympics again, I'm sure they would tear down the Delta Center and build a new arena instead that would be suited for ice events as well as basketball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Short-track speedskating absolutely requires an international-sized (200 ft. x 100 ft.) ice rink. This is non-negotiable--even an NHL-sized rink (typically 200 x 80 or 90 x 190) will not work. Anything smaller than 200 x 100 is not safe for the skaters. That's why Vancouver had to renovate Pacific Coliseum to fit an international-sized rink, while they were able to petition the IOC and IHF to use an NHL-sized rink at GM Place. It's called short-track because the track is 110m, as opposed to the 400m track in long-track.

2. With regard to the Delta Center, I doubt a venue like that would ever be approved again by the IOC and ISU. From what I remember, the Salt Lake organizers originally sold the IOC and ISU on that venue by saying that they were going to raise the ice surface to bring it up to the level of the seats. That didn't work, so then the SLOOC just decided to use the arena as it was. After the Delta Center hosted the 1999 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, so many people complained about the poor sight lines that the SLOOC seriously considered moving figure skating to the E Center instead. Ultimately, they decided against it because the E Center had a lower seating capacity, and they didn't want to lose out on the revenue from the premier figure skating tickets. If Salt Lake were to host the Olympics again, I'm sure they would tear down the Delta Center and build a new arena instead that would be suited for ice events as well as basketball.

1. Oh, OK. I sit corrected.

2. Well, there ya go.

So with even Salt Lake, maybe the U.S. should never EVEN bid again with less than ideal venues.

Haven't paid much attention to Munich's plan, but aren't theirs also recycled ones? and aren't their alpine events so far out as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I'm glad to see this conversation. I know that we don't know exactly what Reno is planning, but clearly there are some major issues that they must address.

Yes, Baron, as you say it's only for two weeks. But the IOC voted for Sochi because they liked the magnificent complex of purpose-built venues. Just because Reno might (and it's still a "might" at this point) be able to reach a point where they have a basically functional venue plan doesn't mean the IOC will go for it thanks to it's continental location.

I still think it almost makes more sense for Sacramento to be the official host city of a Tahoe Olympics -- although there are still obviously problems there.

All in all, nothing is screaming that 2022 is coming to the USA -- at least not yet.

I admit, I'm glad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Because it probably wouldn't make fiscal sense to have what? 7 arenas for a city of 220,000 people?

No way, 220,000 people. So I looked at the article on Wikipedia for Sacramento and the actual city population is 466,488 with an estimated total metropolitan area population of 2,927,123.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Reno is absolutely serious about winning, then they'll have to come up with an awesome plan. If not, at least the UOSC will tell Reno (like they told Chicago when their initial plan was less than stellar) to "put some skin in this game".

I'd have to agree, that with a hypothetical quality packed 2022 field, Reno ain't gonna be able to compete with the likes of Munich, Annecy, etc & possible Swiss, Norwegian & Swedish bids unless they can come up with a compelling, competing venue plan from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I'm glad to see this conversation. I know that we don't know exactly what Reno is planning, but clearly there are some major issues that they must address.

1. Yes, Baron, as you say it's only for two weeks. But the IOC voted for Sochi because they liked the magnificent complex of purpose-built venues. Just because Reno might (and it's still a "might" at this point) be able to reach a point where they have a basically functional venue plan doesn't mean the IOC will go for it thanks to it's continental location.

2. I still think it almost makes more sense for Sacramento to be the official host city of a Tahoe Olympics -- although there are still obviously problems there.

All in all, nothing is screaming that 2022 is coming to the USA -- at least not yet.

I admit, I'm glad.

1. Well, i's better than nothing.

2. I don't know that there's a great push in Sacramento. Reno has been doing its homework -- and again you would say that is doesn't automatically go to them. Well, of course. But what I'm positing is that there is obviously great interest from Reno and they seem to be doing their homework early enough. That much credit I give them. Sometimes that's really half the battle even in just getting the domestic nod.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they know something you don't? Why don't you give them a chance? If they win, they win. If they fail, it's not for want of trying.

I for one, kinda like to see the little guy make it. If Denver and the USOC want to blow another $50 mil and a 3rd loss, then go with Denver. Obviously, it'll ALL depend on the USOC Executive Board or BoD.

New York thought they knew something, how'd that turn out. There were people in this city convinced that the Olympics coming here was a done deal. I'd be more than happy to give Reno a chance. If the USOC backs them and thinks they're a contender, score one for the little guy. But if you're trying to sell us on Reno, I'm not sure I'm buying. Yes, Salt Lake's bid had flaws, but at least there's a legacy of training/competition venues that serve a useful purpose and there were enough pre-existing arenas to keep costs down, although to Barcelona's point.. I was at 2 nights of short track in Salt Lake and it's almost an understatement to say that the sightlines were poor. Then along comes Vancouver with not 1, but 2 16,000+ seat arenas, 1 of which needing little to no changes for the Olympics.

Now I'll reserve final judgment until I see Reno's bid plan and what they're up against, but I still don't give them much of a shot at winning. Like you said.. maybe the United States just isn't destined to host a WOG anytime in the near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No way, 220,000 people. So I looked at the article on Wikipedia for Sacramento and the actual city population is 466,488 with an estimated total metropolitan area population of 2,927,123.

That's 220,000 FOR RENO...NOT Sac'to!! :rolleyes: Why would I peg the Sacto metro area to be 220,000 when I know it's way above 1.5 mil. I was just there 2 weekends ago.

But if you're trying to sell us on Reno, I'm not sure I'm buying.

Now I'll reserve final judgment until I see Reno's bid plan and what they're up against, but I still don't give them much of a shot at winning. Like you said.. maybe the United States just isn't destined to host a WOG anytime in the near future.

I'm NOT trying to sell anyone on Reno. I am just sharing what I know and posting what I like. What's in it for me?

I mean, when all is said and done, I really DON'T care what anybody else thinks because ultimately, it's going to be the USOC -- so I find anyone else's appraisal of Reno's or other cities' chances moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree, that with a hypothetical quality packed 2022 field, Reno ain't gonna be able to compete with the likes of Munich, Annecy, etc & possible Swiss, Norwegian & Swedish bids unless they can come up with a compelling, competing venue plan from the start.

If Rome (or Madrid) gets 2020, that greatly increases a 2022 U.S. bid. And that would be the first Games AFTER the just-concluded 4.3 billion TV broadcast package and also the first Games in the new revenue-sharing plan with the IOC, in which I imagine the IOC will be getting their bigger cut of the pie. Obviously, a western time-zone setting will give the IOC even greater bang for the TV buck than if 2020 were followed by another Euro time zone. So, I think a 2022 U.S. setting can command a, just being conservative, $1.45 billion tag vs. maybe a $1.25 tag for Europe?

But hey, that's just me. I'm not in the select 110 voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 220,000 FOR RENO...NOT Sac'to!! :rolleyes: Why would I peg the Sacto metro area to be 220,000 when I know it's way above 1.5 mil. I was just there 2 weekends ago.

Because that's what you said!

Quaker said:

1. If you're relying on Sacramento as 1 of your main bases, then why aren't they bidding as the home of all the indoor events (especially if they're going to build a brand new arena anyway) and let the Reno arena host the mountain venues.

To which you replied:

1. Because it probably wouldn't make fiscal sense to have what? 7 arenas for a city of 220,000 people?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm NOT trying to sell anyone on Reno. I am just sharing what I know and posting what I like. What's in it for me?

I mean, when all is said and done, I really DON'T care what anybody else thinks because ultimately, it's going to be the USOC -- so I find anyone else's appraisal of Reno's or other cities' chances moot.

When all is said and done, we're just a bunch of nobodies in an Internet forum, so I think we're all aware our opinions count for absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. But, and I'm just gonna throw this out there.. isn't 1 of the main purposes of this website (and I mean the main part of the site, not just the forums) to appraise Olympic bid cities' chances? I'm sure the USOC doesn't put much stock into almost anything anyone says or does here, yet we're discussing it anyway because we're interested in the subject matter with or without the end result.

That all said, I just took a glance at the RenoTahoeWinterGames website. I'm still not seeing this working out well and if it's going to cost time and money for them to put in a serious bid, I think it's going to be for nothing in the end. Reno just doesn't strike me as an Olympic city (neither does Lake Placid, but never in a million years could they land a games now, although I'd love to see them throw their hat in the ring for a YOG).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm heading up to Anchorage to see if I can get something going... :lol:

In all seriousness, I would love for Lake Tahoe to host a WOG, but there are clearly some major hurdles to overcome for that to be a viable bid. Nevada is not doing great economically as well. They have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and they were among the hardest hit with the housing crisis. California surely has their economic issues as well, but I seem sense that the state feels rather confident on their abilities to stage a successful Olympic games, so I would not completely rule out Sacramento involvement in the bid.

I think we are all going to have a "wait and see" mentality for the next cycle or two to see what 2022 chances look like. If I were the USOC, I would just hold my cards for the moment, and wait to see what the IOC deals out. If Asia gets 2018, and 2020 goes to Europe, and it seems like RSA rules out a bid for 2024, I say skip 2022, and work real hard to get an Alpha American city to bid for 2024. The hardest part may be deciphering whether RSA will bid for 2024.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardest part may be deciphering whether RSA will bid for 2024.

Obviously, going for the 2017 WOrld Games and the 2022 CWG, you know they (OK, I guess have to be VERY SPECIFIC HERE because it could get misconstrued, RSA -- the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) are HEADING for the Big One. Does it make sense for them to spend over $10 billion for the World Cup, pulled back on a Big 2020 bid, then quickly announce that Cape Town will go for the 2017 World Games, and confidently declare that Durban will go for the 2022 CWG just as soon as nominations are open? Does anyone really think they went after the 123rd IOC Session next week for their health?? And then ALL OF A SUDDEN, go...OK, we've had enough...NO MORE Games for us. Oh, wait a minute, Africa's never had it yet. Nahhhhhhhhh...let's fuggedaboutit!! HUH?? :blink::blink:

You will know RSA 2024 Olympic ambitions by 2015 at the earliest!!

On our front, I feel the US will NOT get a Summer Games until at least 2032. But I just think there's an opening there for the IOC to throw a WOG our way -- and it's up to some American city and the USOC, obviously, to grab the bull by the horns.

As for Denver, here's how an IOC member with maybe 15 years under his/her belt would think: Denver? Where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, that's the one that threw it right back at us. Why the hell should I even give them the time of day when we gave them their chance and they blew it? We could have given it to Vancouver some 35 years earlier! How do I know they're not going to pull the same sh*t again? Why waste my time on this? I'll show them who's boss! It's dead even before arrival.

Whereas, an OK, 'yokel' town to some of you, Reno,...would I think prompt: well, I don't know much about this city; I'll give them as much a chance as the other 2. Their alpine venues look about as good as any I've seen with the Alps. Let me look at the city-ice venues... A new city will at least get past 1st base! Go with Boise, Anchorage or Sacramento if you think those cities/slopes are more appealing or they're even interested. (Actually, Sacramento's even closer to me.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rome (or Madrid) gets 2020, that greatly increases a 2022 U.S. bid. And that would be the first Games AFTER the just-concluded 4.3 billion TV broadcast package and also the first Games in the new revenue-sharing plan with the IOC, in which I imagine the IOC will be getting their bigger cut of the pie. Obviously, a western time-zone setting will give the IOC even greater bang for the TV buck than if 2020 were followed by another Euro time zone. So, I think a 2022 U.S. setting can command a, just being conservative, $1.45 billion tag vs. maybe a $1.25 tag for Europe?

But hey, that's just me. I'm not in the select 110 voters.

Baron, you've been trying to sell me on Reno for months....

As usual you talk about continental rotation and money. What about the actual BID?! I agree that the geopolitics could be favorable for the U.S. in 2022 and that the IOC might have a financial incentive to go for American WOGs. I don't dispute that. But the bid has to have some appeal.

The odd thing about Reno is that it really has nothing to offer in the way of venues, scenery or cultural appeal. All it is is a medium-sized city with a name that could be slapped on the 2022 Games.

ALL the appeal is on the California side of Lake Tahoe. The problem is that there's just no obvious place for quality venues for the ice sports -- no appealing metropolitan hub. Sacramento has more to offer than Reno, but as you correctly point out -- there doesn't seem to be buzz in Sacramento.

I agree that the WILL in Reno is probably their greatest asset. Unfortunately, that desire is just about their only asset at the moment and I don't see it as being sufficient to win. Sufficient to get nominated as an applicant city? Possibly. Win? No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Denver, here's how an IOC member with maybe 15 years under his/her belt would think: Denver? Where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, that's the one that threw it right back at us. Why the hell should I even give them the time of day when we gave them their chance and they blew it? We could have given it to Vancouver some 35 years earlier! How do I know they're not going to pull the same sh*t again? Why waste my time on this? I'll show them who's boss! It's dead even before arrival.

Whereas, an OK, 'yokel' town to some of you, Reno,...would I think prompt: well, I don't know much about this city; I'll give them as much a chance as the other 2. Their alpine venues look about as good as any I've seen with the Alps. Let me look at the city-ice venues... A new city will at least get past 1st base! Go with Boise, Anchorage or Sacramento if you think those cities/slopes are more appealing or they're even interested. (Actually, Sacramento's even closer to me.)

The majority of the IOC clearly aren't fans of the United States these days, but to assume that the IOC will connect the Denver of 2015 with the Denver of 45 years earlier is a big assumption. Even if that's the case, here's what the USOC should do if they think the Summer Olympics are a lost cause for the next 20 years.. Put up a Denver bid for 2022. If the IOC chooses to exercise a nearly 5 decade old grudge that almost no one would be old enough to remember, let them. You know what the USOC does if that happens? They put up Denver again. Let the IOC get it out of their system and prove to the world that we're serious about the Olympics, not that the USOC is going to nominate a different city every time and give up on each one the minute they lose. No wonder the IOC doesn't think the United States isn't committed to the Olympics after they've given up following a couple of losses! Salt Lake certainly didn't get there on their first try. Maybe Denver wouldn't win it on the first shot, but if they're determined enough to keep trying until they get it, I'd sooner want to see them take a shot than a city like Reno that might try once, lose, and then never get back in the game again.

Baron, you've been trying to sell me on Reno for months....

Glad someone else is in agreement with me on this one. baron, look at the last paragraph of your last reply.. looks like a sales pitch to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that '76 is a problem for Denver. I'm not completely convinced that it's as insurmountable as Baron is suggesting. 2022 could still be too soon, but I think forgiveness is possible...

As for 2024, I think SA will bid and will probably win. There's no way the U.S. can base their decision to bid on guesswork about SA's intentions. The only way to safely avoid another head-to-head encounter with a new frontier is for the U.S. to wait until after SA has won the Games. That means that 2028 is probably the first realistic option for the U.S. Despite the 8's for Asia, I think the U.S. could have a great chance. Otherwise, it's 2032.

Ultimately, though, the Games are about more than geopolitics. Yes, the geopolitics play a role, but there also has to be a great bid with fantastic leadership. All the stars have to align for a city to win. For 2022 I see geopolitics, but -- so far -- no great bid and no great leadership. I'd prefer to focus on the factors the USOC and the potential bid cities can control -- the quality of the bid and the people spearheading it.

The geopolitics will fall where they will.

We could wait for everything to seem perfect and still be disappointed....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the IOC clearly aren't fans of the United States these days, but to assume that the IOC will connect the Denver of 2015 with the Denver of 45 years earlier is a big assumption. Even if that's the case, here's what the USOC should do if they think the Summer Olympics are a lost cause for the next 20 years.. Put up a Denver bid for 2022. If the IOC chooses to exercise a nearly 5 decade old grudge that almost no one would be old enough to remember, let them. You know what the USOC does if that happens? They put up Denver again. Let the IOC get it out of their system and prove to the world that we're serious about the Olympics, not that the USOC is going to nominate a different city every time and give up on each one the minute they lose. No wonder the IOC doesn't think the United States isn't committed to the Olympics after they've given up following a couple of losses! Salt Lake certainly didn't get there on their first try. Maybe Denver wouldn't win it on the first shot, but if they're determined enough to keep trying until they get it, I'd sooner want to see them take a shot than a city like Reno that might try once, lose, and then never get back in the game again.

My God, if they will honor Centennials of something, do you think they ARE such forgiving angels to IGNORE a slight that messed up their proceedings 40 years ago? They punished whatss'name, Hodler, for spilling on the SLC scandal by trouncing Sion's (and the IOC's own host country)'s bid. What more a city that caused them great discomfort 35 years ago?

Easy for you to say "Put up Denver again." R u going to throw in $100 million? :rolleyes:

Most of you guys are quite naive. Whaddya think the IOC is made up of? 20- 25-year olds who can't remember prior to 2000? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

to assume that the IOC will connect the Denver of 2015 with the Denver of 45 years earlier is a big assumption. Even if that's the case, here's what the USOC should do if they think the Summer Olympics are a lost cause for the next 20 years.. Put up a Denver bid for 2022. If the IOC chooses to exercise a nearly 5 decade old grudge that almost no one would be old enough to remember, let them. You know what the USOC does if that happens? They put up Denver again. Let the IOC get it out of their system and prove to the world that we're serious about the Olympics,

I totally agree with you on this, Quaker. A Denver bid has a lot more to offer the IOC than a Reno bid. If '76 is the issue, following up a failed Denver bid for 2022 with a bid for 2026 would put a lot of fears to rest. The real question is whether Denver actually wants the Games. Is the will there? That has yet to be proven.

I'm not convinced that SOGs are a lost cause for the next 20 years. With a WOG in 2022 -- or worse yet 2026 -- the U.S. will be waiting 30 years for a SOG at least....

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual you talk about continental rotation and money. What about the actual BID?! I agree that the geopolitics could be favorable for the U.S. in 2022 and that the IOC might have a financial incentive to go for American WOGs. I don't dispute that. But the bid has to have some appeal.

The odd thing about Reno is that it really has nothing to offer in the way of venues, scenery or cultural appeal. All it is is a medium-sized city with a name that could be slapped on the 2022 Games.

ALL the appeal is on the California side of Lake Tahoe. The problem is that there's just no obvious place for quality venues for the ice sports -- no appealing metropolitan hub. Sacramento has more to offer than Reno, but as you correctly point out -- there doesn't seem to be buzz in Sacramento.

I agree that the WILL in Reno is probably their greatest asset. Unfortunately, that desire is just about their only asset at the moment and I don't see it as being sufficient to win. Sufficient to get nominated as an applicant city? Possibly. Win? No.

Well, you guys speak of waiting for a perfect Winter bid. Well, is the money there to do a Beijing or Sochi in I dunno, you guys pick the locale...to submit a perfect, EXCITING bid?? If it's not this, it's that. It ain't the right side of the Sierras, the city isn't pretty enough, it's not the right sunset...WELL, NAME A viable alternative. You guys somewhat sound like that troll 'nature' - very much AGAINST a certain city but really offers no alternative.

I've followed Olympic bidding for over 40 years now -- even before this site or the internet was born...and I'm not saying I'm always right...but there are certain quirks and predictable behavioral traits of the IOC that I've observed when they come together to vote.

If it appears "I'm selling Reno;" well, yes it's for discussion's sakes -- but I have no vested interest in it. It's NOT my hometown. As I explained, I'm excited that they are close to bidding and I know 2 top people in the organization somewhat. What are you guys selling? Non-starters like Denver which doesn't seem to have any collective will to get get it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright then, maybe we shouldn't post about cities and bids we like and just keep it to ourselves. Yeah, maybe I think I'll just be a little more reserve in posting my thoughts here.

Hey, you were the one who said you weren't "trying to sell anyone on Reno."

Well, you guys speak of waiting for a perfect Winter bid. Well, is the money there to do a Beijing or Sochi in I dunno, you guys pick the locale...to submit a perfect, EXCITING bid??

Come on, now. There's something between "perfect" and a host city with very little to offer. I thought Chicago's bid was very solid -- not perfect. I'm just looking for something GOOD.

Frankly, Reno feels a little like the eventual Republican nominee for president in 2012 -- the winner, by a nose in a very weak field that generates little excitement and has just about no chance of winning.

There's got to be something in between THAT and "perfect." If we can't find it for 2022, then we shouldn't bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...