USA 2024

[Quaker2001]

1) Louisville beats NYC/LA/etc. if it puts forth a quality bid and those cities don't. You can't write off a city saying it can't beat NYC until NYC actually puts out a bid.

2) Two ways Louisville beats those cities. Either (A) The IOC voters do something wacky... whenever you have less than 100 people voting, strange things can happen, or ( Elimination. To put this in Olympic context, I'm watch Apolo Ohno sitting in 4th behind 3 Koreans. The 3 Koreans all wipe out on the last turn. Stuff happens.

It's not a matter of beating NYC or the other prospective bid cities though. Even if Louisville has the best bid (by whatever measure), it doesn't guarantee the USOC is going to put them up to the IOC. They don't have to submit a bid (and probably won't) if they don't think that city can win. And in the current climate of the IOC wanting big and glamorous, is the USOC really going to put up a city like Louisville (and there's a lot of room between Louisville and bigger cities that could have a shot but are still very unlikely)? I can't see it.

[zekekelso]

The IOC loves it.

I've always been amazed at how some of you know for certain how the IOC will pick the next host city. Now you take it a step further and know for certain the IOC loves San Francisco.

How do you do it?

The Winter Games & Summer Games R apples & oranges when it comes to selecting the host cities. The Winter Games hardly ever get picked by 'glamourous' locale. Last 6 Summer Games have gone to global cities (including the 2020 finalists). Let's get the perspectives here clear, shall we.

The claim was a city needed to be glamorous. Summer games in 1988, 92 and 96 went to cities that lacked glamor.

[FYI]

Are we really going to be this simplistic without looking at the bigger picture. Like I said on the rest of that post that u didn't quite, the IOC only had TWO cities to pick from for 1988. It it could still be argued that the IOC still chose the most desirable choice of the two. Barcelona was the hometown of then IOC preseident JAS, & other than Paris, the other cities werent anything to speak of either. Same scenario for 1996. Again, let's keep things in proper perspective.

[PotatoChips]

I've always been amazed at how some of you know for certain how the IOC will pick the next host city. Now you take it a step further and know for certain the IOC loves San Francisco.

How do you do it?

The claim was a city needed to be glamorous. Summer games in 1988, 92 and 96 went to cities that lacked glamor.

Love is probably an exaggeration, but the IOC has said many times they would enjoy a SanFran games.

[intoronto]

I've always been amazed at how some of you know for certain how the IOC will pick the next host city. Now you take it a step further and know for certain the IOC loves San Francisco.

How do you do it?

The claim was a city needed to be glamorous. Summer games in 1988, 92 and 96 went to cities that lacked glamor.

In 88 the best choice was picked (largest city in a country vs third largest) in 92 I believe Barcelona was the hometown of JAS and an emerging city, it did beat Paris but Albertville was awarded the WOG before the Summer city was chosen. In 96 is where a city lacked glamour but won and beat world class cities (Melbourne, Toronto and Athens).

[MIAOlyfan20]

I like the idea of Miami, but they too have logistical issues and have shown no interest in bidding. That's why I left them off.

I'm glad you like the idea of Miami! You're right it does have logistical issues, but there has been some interests about the Games. A few years back The County Commission has set up an exploratory committee to look in to the City and County hosting a Games in the future and the County and City's develop plans has hosting the Games as a priority in help Miami emerge as true global city.

[PotatoChips]

I'm glad you like the idea of Miami! You're right it does have logistical issues, but there has been some interests about the Games. A few years back The County Commission has set up an exploratory committee to look in to the City and County hosting a Games in the future and the County and City's develop plans has hosting the Games as a priority in help Miami emerge as true global city.

It may be a nice city, it may have a better chance then Tulsa or Cincinnati, but it is not going to host anytime soon.

[PyroKinesis]

What is the latest quote of the IOC saying they would love a San Fran Games? If so, why didn't we bid with San Fran for 2012, 2016, and so on?

[Athensfan]

Now you take it a step further and know for certain the IOC loves San Francisco.

How do you do it?

The USOC polled the IOC years ago and the IOC said they liked SF. Rogge has been quoted as saying the same thing. The news stories are now many years old so it's hard to find online references, but we're not making this up.

If so, why didn't we bid with San Fran for 2012, 2016, and so on?

NYC 2012 was intended to play on post 9/11 sympathies. SF dropped out of 2016 because of internal bid problems including, but not limited to their stadium issues. They removed themselves from the USOC's consideration. As for "and so on" -- meaning the future, that's what we're discussing now.

I'm glad you like the idea of Miami! You're right it does have logistical issues, but there has been some interests about the Games. A few years back The County Commission has set up an exploratory committee to look in to the City and County hosting a Games in the future and the County and City's develop plans has hosting the Games as a priority in help Miami emerge as true global city.

I think Miami would be a blast. I just doubt they'll come up with something workable for 2024.

[PyroKinesis]

So just like that? We bid with San Fran and we get the Olympics?

Fine. Let's do it. Would be a beautiful Olympics.

Here is the theme song.

[PotatoChips]

What is the latest quote of the IOC saying they would love a San Fran Games? If so, why didn't we bid with San Fran for 2012, 2016, and so on?

The articles that the quotes were in are very old. It will be very hard to find them. I'm telling the truth.

[PyroKinesis]

I'm not denying that you're telling the truth, believe me, I believe you, I was just wondering when it was said. Like, would it still hold merit today if we were to bid for 2024?

[PotatoChips]

I'm not denying that you're telling the truth, believe me, I believe you, I was just wondering when it was said. Like, would it still hold merit today if we were to bid for 2024?

It's a hard decision. The IOC said they like SanFran however they have not shown interest. If SanFran were to show interest in the 2024 games I could see them in the international bidding process. However that means they have a solid bid and were superior to all American cities that wanted them as well.

[Sir Rols]

I've tried searching back for the articles too - but it seems to be from 2006, so no wonder they're hard to hunt up. I did find this, however, mentioning how the USOC surveyed the IOC members before deciding on their 2016 bidder:

USOC Has Analysis Report Of Five 2016 Bid Cities

Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:00am EDT GB Staff

The U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) has received a technical committee’s analysis of the five cities – Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and San Francisco – that want to become the U.S. candidate for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. The USOC will forward details to its board members within a few days spokesman Darryl Seibel. told the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday.

Four experts on Olympic venues, finance, telecommunications and marketing were asked to study proposals by the five bid cities which will help the USOC decide if it will submit a candidate city for the 2016 Games.

Board members will also receive the results of a survey of International Olympic Committee members, international sports federation leaders and other international sports figures regarding the five cities.

Seibel said, “we asked how a U.S. bid would be received internationally, and we asked them about their impression of each of the five cities. The international polling and the information we received from the technical team will be shared with the board of directors who will determine what our next step will be”.

GamesBids - USOC Has Analysis Report Of Five 2016 Bid Cities

and from the Boston Globe:

Though the USOC has eliminated Houston and Philadelphia from consideration as a 2016 summer bid city, that doesn't mean it has decided to enter the chase. The committee wants to see more details from Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago before making its choice. In an unprecedented twist, the USOC asked 100 prominent members of the Olympic family, including 58 IOC members, for their input. After New York's early exit from the 2012 balloting, the committee wants a heads-up on any potential drawbacks well before the Lords of the Rings make their choice in 2009. The race for the 2014 Winter Games, meanwhile, is down to three Salzburg (Austria), Pyeongchang (South Korea), and Sochi (Russia) now that Sofia (Bulgaria), Jaca (Spain), Almaty (Kazakhstan), and Borjomi (Georgia) have been cut from the field. Salzburg is the early favorite over Pyeongchang, the obscure resort that nearly upset Vancouver for the 2010 nod. The IOC will decide at its meeting in Guatemala City next year

Boston Globe Archive

[Quaker2001]

The IOC says lots of things. Didn't Rogge say he wanted the United States to bid for 2020? Didn't mean they were going to win. Rogge and the IOC can say whatever they want about San Francisco, but drop them into an actual race against competition also trying to make a case for themselves and see what happens. They can love a city all they want, but unless that city comes up with a good enough plan to host the Olympics, they're not going to win no matter how much the IOC loves them.

[PotatoChips]

The IOC says lots of things. Didn't Rogge say he wanted the United States to bid for 2020? Didn't mean they were going to win. Rogge and the IOC can say whatever they want about San Francisco, but drop them into an actual race against competition also trying to make a case for themselves and see what happens. They can love a city all they want, but unless that city comes up with a good enough plan to host the Olympics, they're not going to win no matter how much the IOC loves them.

But if SanFran had bid in 2016 instead of Chicago, I think the bidding process would've been much different.

[PyroKinesis]

Yeah, we would have lost in the second round instead.

No changing the IOC hated America that year. America could have had the only bid and they would have cancelled the Olympics that year rather than give them to us.

[Sir Rols]

Yeah, we would have lost in the second round instead.

No changing the IOC hated America that year. America could have had the only bid and they would have cancelled the Olympics that year rather than give them to us.

Definitely disagree - Not so much they hated the USA, but they, and the world, loved the idea of Rio more. Understandably IMO.

[Quaker2001]

But if SanFran had bid in 2016 instead of Chicago, I think the bidding process would've been much different.

Yeah, we would have lost in the second round instead.

No changing the IOC hated America that year. America could have had the only bid and they would have cancelled the Olympics that year rather than give them to us.

Would it have been different though? First off, it's assuming that San Francisco had the technical merit that Chicago did which, aside from this hypothetical, they didn't. Beyond that, it just seems like they wanted Rio and it was Rio's time. So I can't see them, for however much they love San Francisco, for them to have picked them in a competition against other cities. The geo-politics just weren't in the USOC's favor.

[PotatoChips]

Would it have been different though? First off, it's assuming that San Francisco had the technical merit that Chicago did which, aside from this hypothetical, they didn't. Beyond that, it just seems like they wanted Rio and it was Rio's time. So I can't see them, for however much they love San Francisco, for them to have picked them in a competition against other cities. The geo-politics just weren't in the USOC's favor.

I'm not saying that SF would've won. But I do think that the IOC would not of eliminated them first. But you're right. They were other factors that played apart in the decision, not just the actual city chosen.

[Quaker2001]

I'm not saying that SF would've won. But I do think that the IOC would not of eliminated them first. But you're right. They were other factors that played apart in the decision, not just the actual city chosen.

Who knows. The theory with 2012 is that New York might have gone out first but enough voters picked them over Moscow. That it didn't happen in 2016 indicates to me it had little to do with the city and even the most ideal bid may not have won and possibly would have gone out first anyway. I could see the IOC folks looking more favorably upon San Fran than Chicago (and that's not to knock on Chicago), but still think it wouldn't have made a huge difference.

[PyroKinesis]

Just curious, do we know what stadium San Fran would have used for the Olympic Stadium? The Colliseeum?

[PotatoChips]

Just curious, do we know what stadium San Fran would have used for the Olympic Stadium? The Colliseeum?

They would've replaced Candlestick park with a new olympic stadium.

[PyroKinesis]

Of course...

[PotatoChips]

Even though the IOC likes SanFran, I don't think we're going to see the games there in 2024. SanFran has not said they will be bidding for the games much less they want them. Bidding doesn't start for another 3 years but still. Also they don't have many venues currently and what would the new venues be used for if they win the olympics. I'm not trying to rule them out, I'm just wondering.........