USA 2024

[Athensfan]

I just dont want you or anyone else eon here to think I in any way disagree with that view... I don't... I do believe that my beloved country is in for a very painful 15-20 years... but 40-50-60 years down the road I am optimistic that after most of the Arab states have run out of oil (and any other useful resources like water) and after China has reverted to a third world famine-stricken ecological wasteland, America will experience a renaissance of invention, spirit, and prestige. We just have to get past a slumping economy, what will be a 20 trillion dollar (plus) debt and the ensuing fall of the American economic system... after a few years of this society most likely reverting to something resembling the USA in "The Postman" and the subsequent elimination of "The 1%" through public hangings and/or deportation to Canada... America will again be the "Shining city on the hill" and ready to host the 2092 Summer Games...

Sounds like you disagree pretty vehemently.

We've weathered a rocky colonial beginning, civil war, a depression and a host of other ills. If our predecessors had made the kind of prognostications you did, where would we be?

Because we've been so blessed for so long, the current generation is totally befuddled and overwhelmed by adversity. Ok, there are challenges. Are we going to lament our circumstances for a few decades or are we going to do our best to get moving again?

The rest of the world isn't in great shape either. None of us can afford to throw up our hands and wait for another generation to pick up the pieces.

Expectations have a way of becoming reality. Be wary of dragging yourself and others down with self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Quaker2001]

Quaker, I've already addressed the fact that Summer candidates look at 2012 and 2016 and are afraid they're seeing themselves in the mirror. The summer contests are much more competitive, much higher profile and there's a whole lot more at stake. It's not surprising at all that aspiring Winter candidates would be far less dissuaded by the losses. Rightly or wrongly, they assume the winter Games are different enough that the issues surrounding the Summer contests will simply not apply to their bids. They don't see themselves in New York and Chicago.

No question there are cities out there afraid of being the next sacrificial lamb after what happened to New York and Chicago. But you being the optimist should know that a lot of those cities are looking in the mirror and thinking they find Atlanta 1996, not 2012 and 2016. You're right that the Winter candidates view the bid process differently (and that's not an assume, they ARE different enough), but you continue to assert that prospective cities out there are simply waiting for the USOC to green light the process. That's simply not the case. It's not with Denver and Reno. And any look back at the 2020 race reveals the same thing. Just because you haven't heard anything publicly (and again, there were cities where it was well known they were in the planning stages for 2020, long before the USOC made the announcement in August they weren't fielding a bid) doesn't mean there aren't scraps of information about committees being formed and studies being conducted. These things are happening and are the base of virtually any successful bid. It's a long way from planning/evaluation to publicly announced before of course, the latter of which obviously wouldn't happened before the USOC announced their intentions. But the former can and will happen long before the USOC makes anything official.

[FYI]

Quaker, I've already addressed the fact that Summer candidates look at 2012 and 2016 and are afraid they're seeing themselves in the mirror. The summer contests are much more competitive, much higher profile and there's a whole lot more at stake.

And like I said earlier as well, this kind of thinking doesn't make any sense to me. When the Summer contests are much more competitive, much higher profile & there's a whole lot more at stake, then it doesn't sound logical to be "afraid" & wait that much longer to start working on a Summer bid that requires a lot more hard work, determination & cooperation to get everything running smoothly & efficiently than a Winter bid.

In today's political, dire economical climate, one can't expect Summer Olympic bids to just come together at a whim & expect everyone to be on-board. Yeah, 2024 is 12 years away, but the decision is 5 years away. And the competition for those Games will start in 3 years. So any worthwhile interested cities with any Summer Olympic ambition should start pondering & working on a feasibility commission real, real soon. So if/when the USOC says "go", the potential cities will be ready to jump, & not ho-hum along.

[FYI]

No question there are cities out there afraid of being the next sacrificial lamb after what happened to New York and Chicago. But you being the optimist should know that a lot of those cities are looking in the mirror and thinking they find Atlanta 1996, not 2012 and 2016.

I'd have to agree with this. The cities that did show signs of interests for 2020 all had the visions of Atlanta in mind, & not how New York & Chicago lost. Because most of these communities aren't die-hard Olympic fans, like we are here, & don't even think how the IOC awards these things. They just see themselves as "what can the Olympics do for them", instead of the other way around.

[Athensfan]

I'm not asserting that all cities are just waiting for the USIC. Ive said over and over again that it is possible no one is interested. It's also possible they're sitting tight.

Im not stipulating a time frame either. Others have ruled put the possibility of an American summer bid until 2036 at the earliest and I think that's far too dour a projection. Whether or not we see one for 2024, I don't know.

I think the real potential contenders are too smart to bother going public without a more solid plan and USOC support. For PR reasons, they can't afford to. Of course the Tulsa's of the world will liken themselves to Atlanta and make noise. I suspect some of them use the prospect of a bid just as a way of trying to get on the map. There's publicity to be had from the mere possibility. A serious Alpha city is not going to go public unless they feel the foundation is firmly in place. With the lack of a revenue deal and no word on the USOC's intentions, such a foundation is not possible.

Second and third tier cities and winter hopefuls can make noise because they have do much less to lose. If the US doesn't bid, or the bid fails, at least they raised their profile and got some publicity.

For a major Alpha city to go public now, they'd have to have all their ducks in a row and be ready to answer a lot of hard questions. Because of the stature of Alpha cities any declaration carries far more weight and is far riskier. Unlike the lower tier and winter hopefuls, the Alphas have a lot more to lose. They cannot risk going public until they know the USOCs intentions otherwise they risk getting serious egg on their face. The lesser hopefuls face no such risk, so of course they're noisier.

[FYI]

A foundation needs to be in place first, though, before the USOC can even think about taking a city seriously, & this includes the Alpha cities. TBH, if cities right now are "afraid", then they have no business in even thinking about the Olympics to begin with. The Olympics aren't for pansies.

Going public is neither here nor there. Since at somepoint, something so big would leak out eventually. Something like that you couldn't keep secret for very long in very big cities. And especially in areas where the IOC demands that certain guidelines be met. Cities can't & won't be able to do such things in a short amount of time.

[Athensfan]

In this economy and this political climate with people occupying everything from Wall Street to the Rose Parade, going public is a HUGE deal.

Tulsa can get away with it and people think "what a quaint aspiration." If any of the Alphas tried it they'd encounter a firestorm. I think they might be willing to take that on, bur only if they knew the USOC was going forward and could be trusted.

How and when an Alpha city goes public is of vital importance-- especially now.

[Quaker2001]

I'm not asserting that all cities are just waiting for the USIC. Ive said over and over again that it is possible no one is interested. It's also possible they're sitting tight.

Isn't that exactly what you're asserting? Your words, not mine.. "We're in a holding pattern right now because everybody is waiting to see what the USOC does with the revenue deal and what their plans are regarding future bids." "Sitting tight" though doesn't mean doing nothing. If you're a figurehead in a city (a local politician, businessman, etc.) interested in bringing the Olympics there, there are things you have to do just to start up. Those things ARE happening. In some cities that were looking at 2020, that part of the process is done, but these things don't wait for when it's convenient.

Im not stipulating a time frame either. Others have ruled put the possibility of an American summer bid until 2036 at the earliest and I think that's far too dour a projection. Whether or not we see one for 2024, I don't know.

Good for them. Here's what I say to/about them.. who gives a $#!+. I don't know why you put any credence into their opinions if you think they're that far off base. For anyone to project that far ahead like that, haven't we all decided that no one can predict that for into the future? It's 1 thing to say "I don't think the United States is landing a Summer Olympics before the 40s" It's another for someone to say it's definitely not happening. Which of those 2 is worth listening to.

I think the real potential contenders are too smart to bother going public without a more solid plan and USOC support. For PR reasons, they can't afford to. Of course the Tulsa's of the world will liken themselves to Atlanta and make noise. I suspect some of them use the prospect of a bid just as a way of trying to get on the map. There's publicity to be had from the mere possibility. A serious Alpha city is not going to go public unless they feel the foundation is firmly in place. With the lack of a revenue deal and no word on the USOC's intentions, such a foundation is not possible.

Now this I agree with. With Tulsa (still irks me to even have to bring them up), all you had is a couple of wide-eyed businessmen who are probably thrilled just to get whatever press they can. As opposed to NYC2012, a well-thought out endeavor that spent years in planning and preparation before the domestic race for 2012 was ever on the table. But that's what it takes to even start up an Olympic bid in a larger city because eventually, the only way to bid is to get city officials on board. Contrast that with cities like Dallas and Minneapolis. They were ready to jump into a 2020 race and now probably have their sights set on 2024. All they have to do is change the website and maybe tweak some of their planning

[FYI]

Again, I'm not taking about going public. I'm talking about 'leaks'. You can't say that someone. somewhere wouldn't talk if there were any behind-the-scenes activities going on. Someone would break it at some point.

Considering what Mayor Daley had to go through to finally get the financial guarantees in place to suffice the IOC, I can't see any city in this economic climate being able to pull such strings now. Not New York, not Chicago, not San Francisco. Perhaps when things start to get better something could be worked out. But for the time being, I don't see any cities squandering any few resources that they do have on a 3-week party when other much more pressing daily matters need to be adhered to first. Maybe 2028 or 2032, but not before. The Olympic signs aren't there.

[FYI]

Contrast that with cities like Dallas and Minneapolis. They were ready to jump into a 2020 race and now probably have their sights set on 2024. All they have to do is change the website and maybe tweak some of their planning

From what I read in the Minneapolis Star Tribune back in June, Minneapolis had no plans to bid for the Olympics. Other than a few tycoons & business people in Dallas, Vegas & Tulsa, & perhaps maybe Los Angeles, I really don't think that anybody else was seriously interested in the 2020 Games.

[Athensfan]

Quaker, you're quoting me out if context taking bits and pieces and ignoring others.

I don't know why I bother posting. I should just let you write my posts for me since you know my thoughts so much better than I do.

[FYI]

Second and third tier cities and winter hopefuls can make noise because they have do much less to lose. If the US doesn't bid, or the bid fails, at least they raised their profile and got some publicity.

Why does Denver, though, need to raise their profile & get some publicity? They're far from a Tulsa. Denver already has facilities, an NFL team, is a great Winter resort destination & is a well-to-do city already. I think that they R the "Alphas" for Winter candidates. And forming an Exploratory Committee is more than just making "noise". They're seriously considering this with some sort of goal. Whether or not to bid, & highly doubt it simply just for PR.

[Athensfan]

Again, I'm not taking about going public. I'm talking about 'leaks'. You can't say that someone. somewhere wouldn't talk if there were any behind-the-scenes activities going on. Someone would break it at some point.

Considering what Mayor Daley had to go through to finally get the financial guarantees in place to suffice the IOC, I can't see any city in this economic climate being able to pull such strings now. Not New York, not Chicago, not San Francisco. Perhaps when things start to get better something could be worked out. But for the time being, I don't see any cities squandering any few resources that they do have on a 3-week party when other much more pressing daily matters need to be adhered to first. Maybe 2028 or 2032, but not before. The Olympic signs aren't there.

You may be exactly right.

As for leaks, if the circle of those in the know is small enough and committed enough, I think it's possible, but I admit it's very, very difficult.

Its interesting to me, though, that people see LA as a potential 2024 contender when they haven't made any noise either. It just goes to show how much guessing is going on.

There are a lot of blanks to be filled in yet. It's certainly reasonable to say that there's no reason to expect a bid for 2024. I think I'm also justified in choosing to wait a while longer before saying I expect there will not be a 2024 bid.

[FYI]

Its interesting to me, though, that people see LA as a potential 2024 contender when they haven't made any noise either. It just goes to show how much guessing is going on.

Because it's reasonable to assume that outta the Alphas, they'd most likely still have the Olympic appetite. They afterall, have their own permanent SoCal Olympic Committee (or whatever it's called), were bypassed by the USOC for 2012 & 2016 (so there is no recent defeat under their belt) & always seem to have that Olympic desire (based on their previous hostings). Something which I think lacks in the other 3 Alpha U.S. cities.

[Quaker2001]

Quaker, you're quoting me out if context taking bits and pieces and ignoring others.

I don't know why I bother posting. I should just let you write my posts for me since you know my thoughts so much better than I do.

I'm just trying to understand what your thoughts are because I still can't tell sometimes.

But I'm not going down that path right now because we've done this before and it's going to be the same argument we've had before and I'd probably wind up saying exactly what I've said in the past. So I'll leave it alone. However, I will say.. if you don't want me or others to mis-interpret your thoughts and opinions, I don't think you or anyone else needs to determine what is or isn't "reasonable to say," especially when it's a matter of opinion.

Because it's reasonable to assume that outta the Alphas, they'd most likely still have the Olympic appetite. They afterall, have their own permanent SoCal Olympic Committee (or whatever it's called), were bypassed by the USOC for 2012 & 2016 (so there is no recent defeat under their belt) & always seem to have that Olympic desire (based on their previous hostings). Something which I think lacks in the other 3 Alpha U.S. cities.

Took the words right out of my mouth, I mean keyboard. LA, more than any other city in the United States, seems ready to jump at an Olympics on a moment's notice. They don't have to make noise because the organization and planning is already in place like no other US city has right now. So if the USOC wants a 2024 bidder and can't get New York or Chicago and none of the second tier cities present a compelling argument, LA is next in line. I've said plenty of times already though that I don't like their chances and if that's the best the USOC can do that maybe they should stay on the sidelines, especially if the economy doesn't start heading in the right direction.

[Athensfan]

There may be an "organizing committee," but they've been in place for decades. I can promise you they're not fine tuning their bid book on a daily basis. As of now LA has less of a plan than Chicago does. There's no telling what the mayor, governor, state legislature or local corporations would have to say either.

Yet the assumption is that LA is close to a sure thing (should the USOC want to bid) and nobody else will get near the race. People can hold any opinion they like, but in this case there are few facts and the opinions are highly subjective. Hence, my contentment with a wait and see approach.

If we're not allowed to discuss what is and isn't reasonable then we might as well shut down the forum. Almost every post takes a position and argues why a point is or isn't reasonable. It's what we do.

[FYI]

L.A. may not be fine-tuning their bid on a 'daily basis', but they definitely did brush-it-up for the 2012 & 2016 cycles. And probably have at least looked at their plans since then as well. While Chicago's I doubt has been even looked at since their stingy defeat.

And so it appears that when you speak of "Alpha", what you really mean is just Chicago. Not New York, not San Francisco, N even not Los Angeles, just Chicago. All of these assumptions based on just one city is no different than any others based on different cities. I'll still say that L.A. is most likely the one left with the most appetite out of the Alphas.

[Athensfan]

No. Alpha is Alpha. Including NYC and the rest. I just used Chicago as a comparison on that one point. I've already agreed with you that it's highly doubtful that they'll jump into 2024. Their plans for 2016 were still far more developed than LA's though.

[Soaring]

Considering what Mayor Daley had to go through to finally get the financial guarantees in place to suffice the IOC, I can't see any city in this economic climate being able to pull such strings now. Not New York, not Chicago, not San Francisco. Perhaps when things start to get better something could be worked out. But for the time being, I don't see any cities squandering any few resources that they do have on a 3-week party when other much more pressing daily matters need to be adhered to first. Maybe 2028 or 2032, but not before. The Olympic signs aren't there.

It also didn't hurt having an insurance tycoon as the head of Chicago 2016. That is where their guarantees came from in the end - a bunch of insurance policies...

[Soaring]

L.A. may not be fine-tuning their bid on a 'daily basis', but they definitely did brush-it-up for the 2012 & 2016 cycles. And probably have at least looked at their plans since then as well. While Chicago's I doubt has been even looked at since their stingy defeat.

And so it appears that when you speak of "Alpha", what you really mean is just Chicago. Not New York, not San Francisco, N even not Los Angeles, just Chicago. All of these assumptions based on just one city is no different than any others based on different cities. I'll still say that L.A. is most likely the one left with the most appetite out of the Alphas.

At this stage, I think appetite from an Alpha city is more important that tangible plans. If there's no desire or support, than past plans are meaningless. Pat Ryan (Chicago 2016 CEO) did say they "left things in place" for any future bids, and that their plans would be a nice little package to unwrap at a future time...

[Athensfan]

But an Alpha city can't risk exposing their appetite until they have tangible plans and are confident they can work with the USOC.

The only ones who can get away with that are smaller cities who either cannot realistically contend for Summer Games or are focused on Winter prospects instead.

[FYI]

Regardless, in today's economy islets foolhardy for even the smaller cities, if thats the case, to "expose" their plans. People would be in an uproar no matter where it was. People aren't going to have in the minds, "alpha, beta, gamma" only that the Olympics would cost a fortune to host N that their cities efforts N resources be better spent elsewhere than on a 3-week sports gala extravaganza.

[bgdrewsif]

Regardless, in today's economy islets foolhardy for even the smaller cities, if thats the case, to "expose" their plans. People would be in an uproar no matter where it was. People aren't going to have in the minds, "alpha, beta, gamma" only that the Olympics would cost a fortune to host N that their cities efforts N resources be better spent elsewhere than on a 3-week sports gala extravaganza.

Yup... 100% agree.

[bgdrewsif]

Besides, the USA has already hosted the games more than any other country by far... 1904 St. Louis, 1932 Lake Placid, 1932 LA, 1960 Squaw Valley, 1980 Lake Placid, 1984 LA, 1996 Atlanta, 2002 Salt Lake... we have hosted 8 Olympic games between summer and winter... we can afford to spread the cheer (and cost) around to the rest of the planet...

[Athensfan]

I'm fine with spreading the cheer and cost. That's happening. I'm a lot less fine with a 50 year gap between American Summer Games.