USA 2024

[Gangwon]

I don't know who all thought "plenty of time had passed," but I was never among them. People on these boards are constantly writing "hindsight is 20/20," but in this case I don't think it applies.

I never took NYC seriously -- even early on. Although I love Chicago and firmly believe they are BY FAR the best city to host the next American Games, I always questioned the 2016 time frame and just hoped I was wrong about it.

Here's why the "hindsight" doesn't apply:

The USA hosted an unprecedented 4 Games in just 22 years. Atlanta staged the most mediocre Games in recent memory and Salt Lake was tarnished by the bribery scandal. After adding all those factors together I never thought it was likely that the IOC would return to the US as soon as 2012 or 2016.

USA hosting so often in the past in precisely why people thought the US was due for another Games. Looking in terms of past history and in terms of continental rotation and in terms of its competitors, North America was due for a Games in 2012 and 2016.

[Sir Rols]

Excellent analysis, Athensfan! I agree totally with just about all your points.

In hindsight, yes. But at the time of choosing 2012 and 2016, we all thought plenty of time had passed to come back to the US.

Now that's a good debate starter.

Okay, for 2012, NYC was probably my sentimental favourite for almost all the race. In its case, continental rotation was probably one of its strongest positive factors. But otherwise, as much as I liked the idea of a NYC games, overall it always seemed a longer shot. After all, this was the race headed by the "unbeatable" Paris! And it was all academic after the stadium debacle imploded it totally, anyway.

For 2016? Yes, I, like a lot of people here, thought from early on that the rotational stars for 2016 were aligned for the western hemisphere. And, yes, like a lot of people early on, I thought this was a huge advantage for Chicago (though, personally, it was already a bit of a letdown it wasn't NYC, or San Francisco, bidding in its stead). But also, like many, Rio was an early sentimental favourite for me, though its chances seemed uncertain - I wasn't the only one who was saying it's challenge would be to make the candidate stage, but if it did, anything could happen. And it did make it, and the momentum really started to first slowly, and then more heavily, shift to Rio from then. And it didn't help that while this was happening, Chicago seemed to be running flat, with the ongoing issues of Daley getting and giving the financial guarantees and the USOV V IOC spats. By the end game, and the "Will Obama go to Copenhagen" soap opera, it was already starting to look like it was grasping for whatever straws it could get. I didn't see the first round assassination coming - nobody did, including the IOC - but I didn't think Chicago went to Copenhagen as an expected winner any more.

[Gangwon]

Okay, for 2012, NYC was probably my sentimental favourite for almost all the race. In its case, continental rotation was probably one of its strongest positive factors. But otherwise, as much as I liked the idea of a NYC games, overall it always seemed a longer shot. After all, this was the race headed by the "unbeatable" Paris! And it was all academic after the stadium debacle imploded it totally, anyway.

For 2016? Yes, I, like a lot of people here, thought from early on that the rotational stars for 2016 were aligned for the western hemisphere. And, yes, like a lot of people early on, I thought this was a huge advantage for Chicago (though, personally, it was already a bit of a letdown it wasn't NYC, or San Francisco, bidding in its stead). But also, like many, Rio was an early sentimental favourite for me, though its chances seemed uncertain - I wasn't the only one who was saying it's challenge would be to make the candidate stage, but if it did, anything could happen. And it did make it, and the momentum really started to first slowly, and then more heavily, shift to Rio from then. And it didn't help that while this was happening, Chicago seemed to be running flat, with the ongoing issues of Daley getting and giving the financial guarantees and the USOV V IOC spats. By the end game, and the "Will Obama go to Copenhagen" soap opera, it was already starting to look like it was grasping for whatever straws it could get. I didn't see the first round assassination coming - nobody did, including the IOC - but I didn't think Chicago went to Copenhagen as an expected winner any more.

Agreed for the most part. I didn't mean to say that NA had to be due for 2012 and 2016. And I didn't ever see NY as the favourite. I just meant to say that I don't think anyone would have been outraged had NY taken 2012 or Chicago 2016, considering how frequent the Games had been going to NA in the past. We didn't really consider how the world would change. It was all about American money, favourable time zone, Olympic power, yadda yadda yadda, and talk of new frontiers was still farfetched.

[Quaker2001]

Here's why the "hindsight" doesn't apply:

The USA hosted an unprecedented 4 Games in just 22 years. Atlanta staged the most mediocre Games in recent memory and Salt Lake was tarnished by the bribery scandal. After adding all those factors together I never thought it was likely that the IOC would return to the US as soon as 2012 or 2016.

The good news for 2024 is that it removes at least one of the major objections to American Games -- excessively frequent hosting. There will be much less guessing about "maybe it's too soon, maybe it's not." By 2024 I think those "maybes" could disappear from the conversation completely.

The thing about the hindsight argument.. we can all point to reasons NYC and Chicago lost their respective bids, some of which were more apparent than others at the time. But I still don't recall that many people citing that the timing wasn't right until AFTER those bids had lost. The thing about the hindsight argument, and this is all theoretical.. what if NYC had put together a technically stronger bid? Or what if Chicago wasn't hampered by politics and USOC-IOC relations? There are scenarios that could have strengthened those bids, maybe not enough to win, but who knows. It's easy to project back on a bid like NYC and say it was never destined to win, but I still don't point to bad timing as one of the primary reasons. And it seems like there's more than a few people here who have project out the next few Summer Olympics as Africa 2024, Asia 2028, Europe 2032, and then North America in 2036. I don't agree with that assessment, but that's an effect of the IOC's desires moreso than timing that says they shouldn't go back to the United States yet. Remember also.. Lake Placid and Los Angeles weren't exactly choices, they both won by default. It's only the later 2 that came after where the IOC actually chose to come back to the United States over other countries.

As for 2024, again I don't think it's about 'timing.' We put way more emphasis into these things than I think the IOC does who probably doesn't think more than a cycle or 2 ahead of themselves and can only evaluate what's actually in front of them, not thinking in hypotheticals. There's certainly an animus against the United States out there, but I don't think it has anything to do with how often the United States has gotten the Olympics over the past few decades. Remember that in almost the same time period that Canada, a nation a fraction of the size of the U.S. has hosted the Olympics 3 times, but I don't think that discounts Toronto solely on that basis. Certain circumstances need to align for the USOC to have a shot at landing 2024, but that's no different than 2012 and 2016. At some point, the IOC will come back to North America, but I still don't think they're avoiding it simply because of the frequency with which the United States has hosted the event.

[Athensfan]

Certain circumstances need to align for the USOC to have a shot at landing 2024, but that's no different than 2012 and 2016. At some point, the IOC will come back to North America, but I still don't think they're avoiding it simply because of the frequency with which the United States has hosted the event.

I previously wrote that the US has been their own worst enemy in recent bids. Rather than waiting for "circumstances to align," as you suggest, I argued that the USOC needs to focus on the factors that are within their control. These factors include USOC/IOC/IF relations, the revenue deal, the technical merit of the bid and timing.

I do not believe the IOC is "avoiding" North America as you wrote. They simply chose to go elsewhere. I also don't think that their decision not to return to the US is "simply because of the frequency" of American hosting. I do believe that frequent American hosting is part of the equation and I think that by 2024 enough time will have passed to silence this particular objection.

Regarding the timing issue -- which is only one of several reasons why recent US bids have lost -- the 4 Games in 22 years had never happened before. Rather than seeming precedent-setting (as Gangwon argued), it triggered American fatigue. I remember seeing a video montage leading up to the 2016 vote that showed people from a wide variety of countries voicing their preferences. One of these said, "Not the U.S. AGAIN." Obviously that person isn't a voting member of the IOC, but I doubt they're alone in their sentiment. The frequency of hosting helped add to the pile of strikes against recent U.S. bids.

(Incidentally, the US hosted 4 times in 22 years -- an average of one Olympics every 5.5 years. Canada hosted 3 times in 34 years -- an average of one Olympics every 11.33 years. In other words, the US hosted more than twice as often as Canada in the windows of time that you mentioned -- not really a fair comparison.)

Whatever anybody else argued, I had a strong sense that 2012 was too soon from the moment NYC announced their candidacy and I had a gnawing feeling that 2016 was too soon for Chicago from the outset of that race. I'm not arguing in hindsight. Those were my attitudes at the time. I'm optimistic that a 2024 bid wouldn't experience a similar handicap.

[Faster]

New York never stood a chance for 2012 with or without the stadium problems. Anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves. It was always destinted to be between two European cities. At the onset of the race it was thought it was between Madrid and Paris and at the end Paris and London.

And Chicago's was more to do with the truly remarkable execution of a campaign from the Brazilians and Japanese. The Japanese worked over some of the Arab members that would have normally voted for Chicago in the first round and the Brazilians made sure to have votes moved behind Tokyo for it to finish past Chicago. And then Tokyo was eliminated because it was the only other bid that could have won. I remember a few channels I have saying that Tokyo was going to win after the first round, they not fully realizing what the Brazilians had managed to accomplish.

[baron-pierreIV]

Here's an interesting bit of news from a summer 1973 publication about future US participation in the Olympics:

! A nine-man senatorial commission,

including two athletes from the 1972

American Olympic delegation, will

submit a report to the President of the

United States before the end of the year

to determine whether or not the country

will cont inue to be represented a t

future Olympic Games. In addition, if the

commission recommends maintaining

Olympic participation it will draw up

recommendations as to the selection of

athletes, the organisation and direction

of USOC’s activities, etc.

This is from an IOC publication that rounds up news from the various NOCs.

Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder if that should not have been reviewed again after the New York and Chicago losses.

[deawebo]

Here's an interesting bit of news from a summer 1973 publication about future US participation in the Olympics:

This is from an IOC publication that rounds up news from the various NOCs.

Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder if that should not have been reviewed again after the New York and Chicago losses.

I guess it wasnt

[Athensfan]

I think the USOC will take this news of a Toronto 2024 bid seriously.

If the US bids for 2022, they would have to do so with the knowledge that Toronto could well host the next North American Summer Games in 2024. That would probably postpone the next American Summer Games until the 40's. I can't imagine that the USOC will be willing to risk that scenario. Consequently, I think there is a strong possibility that the USOC will forego 2022 and focus all their energy on 2024 instead.

I hope that's the course of action they choose.

[Lord David]

The USOC should also take note that a 2024 Toronto bid will be more akin to it's 2008 bid, not like it's 1996 bid or like it's upcoming Pan American Games (which we all know uses extensive use of already existing venues in the region).

Therefore it would need to have something that either matches or is better than Toronto's downtown proposal.

[CanisMinor]

I think the USOC will take this news of a Toronto 2024 bid seriously.

If the US bids for 2022, they would have to do so with the knowledge that Toronto could well host the next North American Summer Games in 2024. That would probably postpone the next American Summer Games until the 40's. I can't imagine that the USOC will be willing to risk that scenario. Consequently, I think there is a strong possibility that the USOC will forego 2022 and focus all their energy on 2024 instead.

I hope that's the course of action they choose.

On one hand you are telling us that you "knew all along" that the timing was wrong for US 2016. Yet, somehow, you think 2024 it is right? 2024 is probably the worst shot the USOC can take. It will be a total waste of money.

[intoronto]

The USOC should also take note that a 2024 Toronto bid will be more akin to it's 2008 bid, not like it's 1996 bid or like it's upcoming Pan American Games (which we all know uses extensive use of already existing venues in the region).

Therefore it would need to have something that either matches or is better than Toronto's downtown proposal.

Unfortunately there are things against a Toronto bid right now.

-There is a plan to "renovate" the Portlands, which means there isn't a place to put a clustered venue plan. However, that plan does no have support.

-Apparently the 2015 Games are behind schedule.

[olympikfan]

Can you say M O N T R E A L

[intoronto]

Can you say M O N T R E A L

You can't really say that considering the biggest build will be the Aquatics center which is about $60 million.

[baron-pierreIV]

On one hand you are telling us that you "knew all along" that the timing was wrong for US 2016. Yet, somehow, you think 2024 it is right? 2024 is probably the worst shot the USOC can take. It will be a total waste of money.

ABSOLUTELY. For the U.S. or any other contender. Toronto really thinks it can take on Durban, RSA, continent of Africa?

[Athensfan]

On one hand you are telling us that you "knew all along" that the timing was wrong for US 2016. Yet, somehow, you think 2024 it is right? 2024 is probably the worst shot the USOC can take. It will be a total waste of money.

I never claimed the certainty you're accusing me of. I said I had a "gnawing feeling" 2016 was too soon. I don't think most will consider 2024 too soon. That certainly doesn't mean the US is guaranteed to win 2024. As for Durban, the USOC has to get their own house in order. Who knows if Durban will actually bid or if the bid will be good enough to win? Worst case scenario, the USOC could plan for 2024 and then regroup for 2028. I feel this makes more sense than bidding for Winter Games and risking Canada hosting the next North American Summer Games. If the USOC waits for a wide open playing field and an easy victory, who knows when we'll see another American Olympics.

[Quaker2001]

I think this whole "timing" concept is definitely overrated. It's all a matter of circumstances. It's easy to look at Rio 2016 and say it was the right time for it (and I'll argue Madrid and Tokyo had the same, if not bigger 'timing' obstacles than Chicago did. Well, of course it's the right time, they won it didn't they? It was a matter of circumstance that they were coming off a successful Pan Am games and there had been 2 European hosts who previously won, so that big competitive field from 2012 that prevented Rio from making the shortlist wasn't there. Well, what if Rio wasn't a part of the 2016 race?.. suddenly Chicago 2016 is looking a lot better against the competition, although who knows how they fare because of all the other factors involved.

Similarly with Africa, 2 years ago (or certainly after the World Cup), we were all saying 2020 was the time for them. Now we're saying 2024 as if it's a certainty they'll bid. Yes, it's probably a less than advisable move for the USOC to take on South Africa. But what if Durban/Cape Town isn't there? All of a sudden, USA 2024 is looking a lot stronger and maybe it's a repeat of 1996 which was clearly "too soon" after 1984, but Atlanta won going up against a weak field.

As I think we all agree, the USOC needs to get their act together if they're going to win, especially if it's for a Summer Olympics. My comment earlier about circumstances needing to be right.. obviously they shouldn't wait around for the thing to fall into their laps, but they also shouldn't wait for everyone else like South Africa and Tokyo and whoever else to clear out before they even take a shot. Certainly doesn't mean they should put forth a bid they don't think can win, but I'm not buying into the logic that the IOC has already tried to map out the next decade worth of Olympic hosts.

[Athensfan]

I totally agree with Quaker that the IOC has not mapped out the next decade's worth of Olympic hosts -- or beyond -- as some argue.

Just to clarify, all my posts about the timing of American bids are solely evaluating the distance of US bids from previous American Olympics. In other words, I'm really not talking about the competition in those races at all. No matter who else was in the running (assuming they were capable of hosting)I didn't see NYC as having any shot at winning because it was just too soon. I had similar concerns about Chicago, though they were nowhere near as strong as my feelings about NYC. Whether Rio was in the picture or not I think there were probably a good number of IOC members who would think twice about awarding the US another Olympics just 20 years after Atlanta and 14 years after Salt Lake -- particularly considering the fact that the US hosted 4 times between 1980 and 2002. This will be much less of a concern for 2024.

Again, just to address the argumentative types, that does NOT mean I think the US will coast to victory in 2024. It just means that one of several previous strikes against American bids is not likely to factor in to 2024. I'm sure there will be plenty of other challenges...

[Quaker2001]

Just to clarify, all my posts about the timing of American bids are solely evaluating the distance of US bids from previous American Olympics. In other words, I'm really not talking about the competition in those races at all. No matter who else was in the running (assuming they were capable of hosting)I didn't see NYC as having any shot at winning because it was just too soon. I had similar concerns about Chicago, though they were nowhere near as strong as my feelings about NYC. Whether Rio was in the picture or not I think there were probably a good number of IOC members who would think twice about awarding the US another Olympics just 20 years after Atlanta and 14 years after Salt Lake -- particularly considering the fact that the US hosted 4 times between 1980 and 2002. This will be much less of a concern for 2024.

I still think you're over-selling just how much of a factor that was in the NYC and Chicago losses. NYC had a bad bid and faced strong competition, I don't think it goes much beyond that, especially for a European-centric IOC. For Chicago, of course you felt better because it was a far better bid, but again, minus Rio look at the competition. Would Madrid have been a better option with Barcelona still in fairly recent memory? Ditto for Tokyo with an Asian Olympics just completed in Beijing. We know how the IOC feels about the USOC and maybe some of that stems from multiple Olympics held in the US in a short timespan, but again, whose fault is that? If those relations were better 2 years ago, Chicago might have stood a better chance. Of course, if those relations don't improve, then the IOC will still look at the US and want to say no thank you and the passage of time still won't make a difference.

Again, just to address the argumentative types, that does NOT mean I think the US will coast to victory in 2024. It just means that one of several previous strikes against American bids is not likely to factor in to 2024. I'm sure there will be plenty of other challenges...

I don't think anyone is reading that into your posts. I know I'm not. By the same token, it would be foolish to think past 2024 just because South Africa MIGHT be out there.

[Athensfan]

I still think you're over-selling just how much of a factor that was in the NYC and Chicago losses.

I don't think anyone is reading that into your posts. I know I'm not. By the same token, it would be foolish to think past 2024 just because South Africa MIGHT be out there.

I'm not saying frequency of American hosting was the only factor or the biggest factor or even one of the biggest factors. I'm just saying I think the frequency of US hosting is A FACTOR that won't be an issue for 2024. That's it.

My last statement was directed towards another poster who accused me of saying that 2024 was perfect timing for a US bid -- which I did not say. I do think 2024 is a race the USOC should seriously consider entering and I hope they do. That does not mean they will coast to an easy victory.

[baron-pierreIV]

For Chicago, of course you felt better because it was a far better bid, but again, minus Rio look at the competition. Would Madrid have been a better option with Barcelona still in fairly recent memory? Ditto for Tokyo with an Asian Olympics just completed in Beijing. We know how the IOC feels about the USOC and maybe some of that stems from multiple Olympics held in the US in a short timespan, but again, whose fault is that?

I thought Chicago was a poor, boring bid. I LIKED New York's better. The results spoke for themselves. Chicago OUT - round one. New York, at least got to Round 2.

Chicago WILL NEVER make it if they resubmit that 2016 bid. It was poorly conceived. That's why it went out IMMEDIATELY.

[FYI]

That's quite disingenuous to say, BP. When you know better that other crucial elements were involved for Chicago's early exit than the bid itself. Which in fact was dubbed by many pundits as the best Olympic bid ever put forth by an American city.

And okay, New York made it to round two. But it's all relative anyway, since there were 5 cities in the 2012 race & 4 in the 2016 race. So it's like New York hypothetically went out first, too.

[Quaker2001]

I thought Chicago was a poor, boring bid. I LIKED New York's better. The results spoke for themselves. Chicago OUT - round one. New York, at least got to Round 2.

Chicago WILL NEVER make it if they resubmit that 2016 bid. It was poorly conceived. That's why it went out IMMEDIATELY.

The results aren't that black and white though and how often are the bid results simply a reflection of how good the bids actually are. From what I heard about New York (and take it from someone who has lived in this city his entire life.. that was not the most technically sound bid and that was before the West Side Stadium plan blew up on them), the only reason they didn't go out in the first round was that they managed to gather enough support to make Moscow the low vote total in round 1 and avoid the embarrassment of a US bid being the first city eliminated. Then in 2016, a lot of people were expecting Chicago vs. Rio in the final and when Chicago went out first, I put that more on the politics of the situation than the merits of their bid. I agree that the Chicago 2016 bid was lacking, in part (at least IMO) because of the stadium plan which I really disliked.

If 1 of these 2 cities winds up getting the nod from the USOC for 2024, I'd bet on Chicago well before New York. If Chicago can get over the 2016 loss (that's not an easy pill to swallow), maybe they can regroup and try again. I don't see it happening here. And I know someone will tell me not to be so down on my city. I'm just trying to be a realist. I would love to see an Olympics here in my lifetime. But at least in the short term, I just don't think it's going to happen.

[Quaker2001]

That's quite disingenuous to say, BP. When you know better that other crucial elements were involved for Chicago's early exit than the bid itself. Which in fact was dubbed by many pundits as the best Olympic bid ever put forth by an American city.

I didn't want to say it, but thank you for saying it for me. Agree 100%

[baron-pierreIV]

Regardless, more of my IOC colleagues preferred New York to Chicago, There's NO comparison. One is a world-class city; the other is just a giant in the midwest; a regional giant.

Was never that thrilled about the CHicago plan. Really liked New York's.