USA 2024

[Quaker2001]

Jeff.. Jed...same snake...diff name. Couldn't be bothered how they do. I DON'T follow any of the US pro sports leagues AT ALL.

I figured.. too much sweat for your tastes? The problem with Candlestick point has always been the weather. It was especially bad when they played baseball there and all the provisions they had to mitigate the effects of the wind and cold were never really as effective as they thought. So while the Olympic plan was pretty solid from an Olympic standpoint, it was anything but the solution the 49ers were looking for. And I probably don't need to remind you of this, but a lot more Americans follow the NFL on a regular basis than any sport that has even been in the Olympics.

I simply said that absence of public information is not an indicator that a bid is not in the works. I also said that if someone wants to keep a bid under wraps until it is advantageous to publicize it, it is possible to do so.

So then what is an indicator of when a bid IS in the works? I know it's early in the process, especially that the USOC has made it clear they're not taking phone calls yet, so like you've said, maybe it's not all that surprising we're not hearing much. But again, I know this is the argument we always have.. I don't presume that hearing/seeing nothing means we can't take anything from that or that if a bid is being worked out, the logical explanation is that they don't want anyone to know about it, because I still fail to see why that's supposed to be advantageous.

[Athensfan]

Quaker, it sounds like you want more information and I don't blame you. Just because we want data and don't have it, however, doesn't mean it's time to start over-analyzing every whisper and shadow or lack thereof. You asked what is an indicator that a bid is in the works. The only answer is a public announcement. We don't have one. We don't have information one way or the other. Like it or not, the only option is to wait.

[Athensfan]

I can think of several reasons why a city would wait.

1.) 2024 feels like a long way away in non-Olympic circles. Better to go public after the 2020 vote when people will be more ready to look ahead. Plus, perhaps the economy will be better later, leading to a more favorable public response.

2.) the outcome of 2020 could determine whether there is any bid at all for 2024. Better to wait.

3.) the prospective bidder could still be building foundational support, raising money, etc. and they may or may not achieve critical mass. An announcement is premature in case the bid doesn't get off the ground.

4.) a formidable opponent may join the race and cause the USOC to reevaluate.

5.) the USOC has told cities to fly under the radar while they determine a course of action.

I think it's really important to remember that the US has lost two high-profile Summer bids. It makes sense that they would want to be careful. They don't want to get all excited, go public and then have things fall apart again. They want to win and they're taking their time to develop the best strategy. In those circumstances, I understand why we aren't getting much information.

Just to clarify, the above are hypotheses. For example, I have no idea what the USOC has said to any city.

[FYI]

1) I can't see the economy being THAT much better by next year that people still wouldn't be very skeptical about another bid. Even in 2009 when things were better people had serious doubts.

2) I don't see how that's either here or there. Whatever continent doesn't win 2020, I'm sure that someone from those respective continents will surface.

3) Again, you can't build "foundational support, raising money, etc" by keeping things secret. That logic always escapes me.

4) ASnother aspect that's neither here nor there. A formidable opponent can pop up at anytime in any race. How do we know that the French, Italians, South Africans, etc aren't "waiting" to see what the U.S. does? If that's the case & they're all 'afraid of one another', no one bids & no one gets the 2024 Games.

5) Not really. All they've more or less said, is that they don't know what course to take.

[FYI]

This is regarding the stadium issue. If Paris were to bid for 2024 they would probably use Stade de France for track, ceremonies, etc. But the stadium isn't located in Paris. It's located a few miles from it. The point is, could a bid like that lead to other cities using a stadium not in the city as the olympic stadium? Like Metlife Stadium for NYC, or Cowboys stadium for Dallas.

Exactly, the Stade de France is located "a few" miles from central Paris. About 6 miles to be more precise. The new Cowboys Stadium is a whopping 20 miles from downtown Dallas, so that makes it too far away. Plus, it can't accommodate T&F. The Metlife is only 7 miles from Manhattan, so that's doable. But again, can that stadium accommodate T&F.

[Quaker2001]

Exactly, the Stade de France is located "a few" miles from central Paris. About 6 miles to be more precise. The new Cowboys Stadium is a whopping 20 miles from downtown Dallas, so that makes it too far away. Plus, it can't accommodate T&F. The Metlife is only 7 miles from Manhattan, so that's doable. But again, can that stadium accommodate T&F.

I think it's been proven that the main Olympic park doesn't need to be right near the city center to be viable. Sydney's Olympic Park is 10 miles from their CBD. If New York is going to bid, it won't be with MetLife and is more likely to use Flushing Meadows or possibly Sunnyside Yards. Not exactly in the heart of Manhattan, but it's close enough. Ditto with Dallas.. they might use Cowboys Stadium as a venue, but the more likely scenario would seem to be to use Fair Park in Texas with a renovation of the Cotton Bowl. Much closer to the city center than Arlington

[intoronto]

I think the IOC cares about compactness more so then location to the cbd of the Olympic park

[PotatoChips]

I think it's been proven that the main Olympic park doesn't need to be right near the city center to be viable. Sydney's Olympic Park is 10 miles from their CBD. If New York is going to bid, it won't be with MetLife and is more likely to use Flushing Meadows or possibly Sunnyside Yards. Not exactly in the heart of Manhattan, but it's close enough. Ditto with Dallas.. they might use Cowboys Stadium as a venue, but the more likely scenario would seem to be to use Fair Park in Texas with a renovation of the Cotton Bowl. Much closer to the city center than Arlington

I was talking about the olympic stadium. Stade de France and Metlife Stadium AREN'T in the actual city that is bidding. I'm asking whether or not a city could build of that. The main stadium not in the host city.

[Quaker2001]

Quaker, it sounds like you want more information and I don't blame you. Just because we want data and don't have it, however, doesn't mean it's time to start over-analyzing every whisper and shadow or lack thereof. You asked what is an indicator that a bid is in the works. The only answer is a public announcement. We don't have one. We don't have information one way or the other. Like it or not, the only option is to wait.

I'm just shaking my head at all this. It is the nature of a topic like this where its very slow to develop and especially this far out, there's not going to be a lot to talk about. I mean, they haven't voted on 2020 yet and here we are trying to have a full-fledged discussion on 2024. Of course we're not going to have a whole lot of known information. But, 296 pages or not, enough with selling us on "the only option is to wait." Pretty sure the USOC just laid down the gauntlet on that one, so I'm not waiting for them to say go before we continue to talk about 2024.

Not to get into another argument over semantics here, but let's not confuse a "bid in the works" with a fully formed bid. If I'm building a chair, I can gather all my materials and start putting it together. At that point, a chair is in the works. But I don't have a chair yet. Once I finish, at that point I have a chair, but no one else knows about it until I tell them (which could happen at any point while I'm building the chair or after I'm finished). So when you say a public announcement is the only indicator a bid is in the works, I don't consider that to be true. A public announcement is the indicator of an OFFICIAL bid. But it takes a lot less for a bid that hasn't been fully consummated yet and that's what I'm looking at and I certainly don't expect more than that from any potential bid city.

So I think we clearly have different definitions of where we expect bids to be at at this point. I'm not expecting fully formed exists to necessarily exist at this point in the way the Winter candidates have offered. It's early in the game.. there's no need for that at this point. But that's why I keep bringing up Dallas. Have they made any big public proclamations about their plans for 2024? No they have not. But is a bid in the works in Dallas? It is an indisputable FACT that there is. Giving reasons why a city would wait (and yes, I know these are your personal hypotheses, and I'll address those in a sec) does not offer an explanation from hearing nothing from potential candidate cities. When Soaring says he hasn't heard anything from Chicago and I haven't heard anything from New York, I can't just dismiss that as "absense of information is just absense of information." I choose to read something into that which tells me there is not yet a bid in the works, and not just that they haven't chosen to go public yet. It certainly doesn't preclude that from happening at some point between now and whenever the USOC makes a decision.

To your points; and I hope this isn't getting lost in semantics again, and sorry if I'm largely just repeating FYI here...

I can think of several reasons why a city would wait.

1.) 2024 feels like a long way away in non-Olympic circles. Better to go public after the 2020 vote when people will be more ready to look ahead. Plus, perhaps the economy will be better later, leading to a more favorable public response.

2.) the outcome of 2020 could determine whether there is any bid at all for 2024. Better to wait.

3.) the prospective bidder could still be building foundational support, raising money, etc. and they may or may not achieve critical mass. An announcement is premature in case the bid doesn't get off the ground.

4.) a formidable opponent may join the race and cause the USOC to reevaluate.

5.) the USOC has told cities to fly under the radar while they determine a course of action.

1) It does feel a long way away, but you can be working on a bid before you "go public." Sure cities like LA and SF are in a bad economic situation and that might hinder their efforts, but all the more reason that maybe you can look ahead 12 years and think if things do improve, this will be a good thing for our city.

2) Wait for what? Cities out there have bid before. If there's not a 2024 bid, maybe there's a 2028 bid. We've talked before about how great it would be for a city to have a long-term vision that isn't tied to bidding for just 1 Olympics and then giving up. Easier said than done, but they shouldn't need the USOC's official announcement to start working.

3) Again, who says they have to announce anything. Not announcing and keeping plans quiet are not 1 on the same. It's possible (and probably advisable) to do things openly without making big public pronouncements like the Winter candidates have all been doing, especially since the consensus here seems to be that it serves little purpose for them to do that.

4) So what? How many times have we both argued that the USOC needs to pursue want they want (whether that's 2024 or something else) regardless of what else might be out there? They can always decide not to bid if the situation doesn't seem favorable. Same goes for any potential 2024 city. Don't forget that Dan Doctoroff in 1998 originally had his eyes on 2008.

5) The USOC has told cities they're not ready to start taking calls yet. When that happens, whenever it is, don't you think it would be nice for those cities to have started making preparations rather than calling the USOC and saying "yea, we're interested, tell us what to do now?"

[Texas]

I think it's been proven that the main Olympic park doesn't need to be right near the city center to be viable. Sydney's Olympic Park is 10 miles from their CBD. If New York is going to bid, it won't be with MetLife and is more likely to use Flushing Meadows or possibly Sunnyside Yards. Not exactly in the heart of Manhattan, but it's close enough. Ditto with Dallas.. they might use Cowboys Stadium as a venue, but the more likely scenario would seem to be to use Fair Park in Texas with a renovation of the Cotton Bowl. Much closer to the city center than Arlington

In order for Track and Field to work in the Cotton Bowl, the lower level of seats would have to be removed based on the stadium configuration:

And even then it's a bit iffy.

As for Cowboys Stadium, Jerry Jones has said that Cowboys Stadium could be used for swimming. I don't know if that's feasible, but it's possible.

[zekekelso]

You'd certainly have to remove seats from the Cotton Bowl to make it work for T&F. But you are starting with 92k seats, so you have plenty to lose.

The Cotton Bowl has good public transportation links, including DART light rail... something that is pretty much mandatory for the IOC.

[Athensfan]

1) I can't see the economy being THAT much better by next year that people still wouldn't be very skeptical about another bid. Even in 2009 when things were better people had serious doubts.

2) I don't see how that's either here or there. Whatever continent doesn't win 2020, I'm sure that someone from those respective continents will surface.

3) Again, you can't build "foundational support, raising money, etc" by keeping things secret. That logic always escapes me.

4) ASnother aspect that's neither here nor there. A formidable opponent can pop up at anytime in any race. How do we know that the French, Italians, South Africans, etc aren't "waiting" to see what the U.S. does? If that's the case & they're all 'afraid of one another', no one bids & no one gets the 2024 Games.

5) Not really. All they've more or less said, is that they don't know what course to take.

1. It's not just the economy (which may improve) it's whether the public is ready to think that far ahead. Blackmun suggested an announcement might not come until 2014 anyway.

2. I'm sure the US would prefer to fight Tokyo (if they even try again) than a slew of European capitals for 2024.

3. It takes money to make money. You must start with a certain core before going public. You don't hold a press conference and say "we're looking for a few business tycoons to step up to the plate."

4. Of course others can wait too. I still see rationale for biding one's time in the hope that the competitive picture becomes clearer. There's no reason they HAVE to act now with little information and there's a good possibility they'll have more data to work with in a year or so. Why not wait?

5. As I said, the fifth point is merely a hypothesis. The USOC could have told cities to keep it quiet for the time being. That's plausible, but of course there's no proof either way.

And Quaker, I'm not trying to "sell" you on anything. Believe what you want. You seem intent on drawing particular conclusions from precious little information. Enjoy. That's not my thing.

As I said, the USOC doesn't want to go down in flames again. They're going to be very deliberate, very specific and very strategic. I wouldn't expect their approach to conform to the conventional wisdom of the schedule and style an Olympic bid should follow. Consequently, I disagree with many of the conclusions of others on these boards.

Meant to put "should" in quotes there....

[Texas]

You'd certainly have to remove seats from the Cotton Bowl to make it work for T&F. But you are starting with 92k seats, so you have plenty to lose.

The Cotton Bowl has good public transportation links, including DART light rail... something that is pretty much mandatory for the IOC.

The main issue with the Dallas bid is mostly political. Dallas politicians are known best for their constant bickering, resulting in numerous delays and scrapping of projects, one of which was Cowboys Stadium. When the Cowboys were looking at building a new stadium, they were looking at Fair Park and placing a new stadium where the Cotton Bowl was. Instead, Dallas wasn't interested and the Cowboys went to Arlington. There's also the much delayed Trinity River project, which is no where near completion. The only thing that has been completed along the Trinity River has been the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge. Now whether or not an Olympic bid will revive the project remains to be seen, but it's unlikely.

Another issue is that the venues needed for the Olympics are spread out. The Cotton Bowl (Track and Field if lower level is removed) and American Airlines Center (basketball, gymnastics and possibly swimming) are located in Dallas. Unfortunately, football (soccer) would probably be played at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington. There's also Allen Eagle Stadium in Allen, Texas that could be used for field hockey, Rangers Ballpark in Arlington that could be used for beach volleyball or for baseball/softball, FC Dallas Stadium in Frisco that could be used for football prelims and the Dr. Pepper Star Center in Frisco for boxing or wrestling. That may be an issue. There are also other venue issues as well.

DART light rail is limited. It does not connect all of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. There's also the issue of neverending road construction that has been going on it seems like since the Athens Olympics.

[Quaker2001]

And Quaker, I'm not trying to "sell" you on anything. Believe what you want. You seem intent on drawing particular conclusions from precious little information. Enjoy. That's not my thing.

As I said, the USOC doesn't want to go down in flames again. They're going to be very deliberate, very specific and very strategic. I wouldn't expect their approach to conform to the conventional wisdom of the schedule and style an Olympic bid should follow. Consequently, I disagree with many of the conclusions of others on these boards.

Meant to put "should" in quotes there....

Believe what you want and enjoy drawing particular conclusions seems like a far cry from "Like it or not, the only option is to wait." If you want to play it that way, that's fine. But remember that you were the one who started this thread and nearly 3,000 posts later, seems like there is another option and that's to offer conjecture and speculation. No one else seems to take issue with that. Just seems ironic to me that in the very post I'm quoting, in the 2nd paragraph you too seem to be drawing conclusions from precious little information. So I don't see how what I'm doing is so different from what you're doing.

I want to go back to 1 of your points. You said..

3.) the prospective bidder could still be building foundational support, raising money, etc. and they may or may not achieve critical mass. An announcement is premature in case the bid doesn't get off the ground.

There's an awful lot of middle ground between a city making a very premature announcement (like many of the Winter candidates have) and planning in secret, hidden away from prying eyes. You keep making it seem like it has to be 1 or the other and that if a city doesn't offer a big public announcement, the logical explanation is that they're planning, but they don't want anyone to know about it. That's why I still don't get your view on "going public." I keep bringing up the Dallas example.. we haven't heard any big public announcements from them. They certainly didn't hold a "we're looking for a few business tycoons" press conference either. But by the same token, nothing they've done has been secret or private. They haven't hidden what they're doing from anyone. Much like FYI, I still fail to see the logic where it's advantageous to do that. Let alone all your possibilities to explain why something could be happening as opposed to looking at what actually is happening.

[intoronto]

Swimming for Cowboys Stadium> that's crazy

[Quaker2001]

You'd certainly have to remove seats from the Cotton Bowl to make it work for T&F. But you are starting with 92k seats, so you have plenty to lose.

The Cotton Bowl has good public transportation links, including DART light rail... something that is pretty much mandatory for the IOC.

That might be the advantage the Cotton Bowl has.. it doesn't have a regular tenant and wouldn't require an NFL team to move in. Plus as noted, seating capacity is already very high, so even a full scale renovation likely would leave a lot of seats.

I know the pitfall remains that this is Dallas and not New York or Los Angeles, but at least they have something to work with rather than starting from scratch. We know that's the plan they're working with thus far, so from a technical standpoint, I think it gives them a small edge knowing this wouldn't be a very temporary venue like Chicago was planning. Not saying it makes them a viable candidate, but at least I think it puts them in the discussion.

[Texas]

That might be the advantage the Cotton Bowl has.. it doesn't have a regular tenant and wouldn't require an NFL team to move in. Plus as noted, seating capacity is already very high, so even a full scale renovation likely would leave a lot of seats.

I know the pitfall remains that this is Dallas and not New York or Los Angeles, but at least they have something to work with rather than starting from scratch. We know that's the plan they're working with thus far, so from a technical standpoint, I think it gives them a small edge knowing this wouldn't be a very temporary venue like Chicago was planning. Not saying it makes them a viable candidate, but at least I think it puts them in the discussion.

Plus the Cotton Bowl can go back to its regular intentions (since Texas vs. Oklahoma is going to be there for a long time).

[baron-pierreIV]

The whole point is tho, can Dallas win against the likes of Durban and Paris (if those 2 were to bid)??

I DON'T THINK so.

[Athensfan]

Believe what you want and enjoy drawing particular conclusions seems like a far cry from "Like it or not, the only option is to wait." If you want to play it that way, that's fine. But remember that you were the one who started this thread and nearly 3,000 posts later, seems like there is another option and that's to offer conjecture and speculation. No one else seems to take issue with that. Just seems ironic to me that in the very post I'm quoting, in the 2nd paragraph you too seem to be drawing conclusions from precious little information. So I don't see how what I'm doing is so different from what you're doing.

I want to go back to 1 of your points. You said..

There's an awful lot of middle ground between a city making a very premature announcement (like many of the Winter candidates have) and planning in secret, hidden away from prying eyes. You keep making it seem like it has to be 1 or the other and that if a city doesn't offer a big public announcement, the logical explanation is that they're planning, but they don't want anyone to know about it. That's why I still don't get your view on "going public." I keep bringing up the Dallas example.. we haven't heard any big public announcements from them. They certainly didn't hold a "we're looking for a few business tycoons" press conference either. But by the same token, nothing they've done has been secret or private. They haven't hidden what they're doing from anyone. Much like FYI, I still fail to see the logic where it's advantageous to do that. Let alone all your possibilities to explain why something could be happening as opposed to looking at what actually is happening.

I just don't enjoy these ridiculous tempests in teapots, Quaker. You fight so vociferously over minutiae and its just no fun.

Of course there's a whole range of middle ground between premature publicity and total secrecy. I never said those were the only two options. I've read a great many posts that say if Summer cities were interested they'd behave like the Winter hopefuls and I just don't think that's true. That's the point I contest. I also think there's a huge difference between actively keeping a secret and just not making things public. I genuinely don't think the mainstream American media (or public) cares a great deal about the early reconnaissance for 2024 or 3026.

We're arguing about a fact. Either someone wants Summer Games or they don't. I'm saying we don't know. You seem to be saying "No, we've got a pretty good idea."

I just don't care anymore. Just because I express a different view from yours doesn't mean I'm demanding your agreement. Couldn't care less. Weave your hypotheses. I just don't share them.

And Im sick of these inane debates. Time to enjoy the sound of one hand clapping. Bye.

Cue an onslaught by Quaker, FYI, Zeke and maybe Baron depending on his mood... So long.

[George_D]

I think USA must awarded 2024 and 2026 Olympics since they give the most money to IOC.

[FYI]

Wow, cry me a fricken river! Sounds to me like someone just needs to get off their damn high-horse! But then again, can't get much more "inane" then always arguing "we just don't know".

[Quaker2001]

Well, maybe a mini-onslaught. 2 observations..

You say "we're arguing about a fact." Again, no we're not. Most of us here are offering speculation. If that hasn't become clear more than a year later in a thread you originally started, I don't know how to make it more clear. And we're all okay with that except apparently for you. That's why we take issue with you constantly jumping in with "we don't know" and "we have to wait to find out." We all get that's how you want to view all this. We get that you seem to have a problem with us sharing our gut feelings when they're not backed up by facts (and I think you're lying to yourself if you try and tell us you're not at least a little bothered by that) The rest of us don't have an issue with that. So quit trying to steer this direction to where it's more acceptable for you when it's plainly obvious that the rest of us are okay to continue doing what we're doing. If you can't deal with that, that's your problem, not the rest of ours.

You also said "I've read a great many posts that say if Summer cities were interested they'd behave like the Winter hopefuls" Pretty sure I've read the same threads that you have and I don't remember too many people offering that conclusion. I know people have implied those cities should make SOME noise or ANY noise or at least have someone pick up on it to acknowledge they're out there, but to say they should take it to where they're doing what Reno and Salt Lake are doing seems like 1 of those intrepretation/extrapolation arguments where you're doing a bad job at assuming what everyone is thinking. So once again, let's agree to disagree on that one.

[zekekelso]

That might be the advantage the Cotton Bowl has.. it doesn't have a regular tenant and wouldn't require an NFL team to move in. Plus as noted, seating capacity is already very high, so even a full scale renovation likely would leave a lot of seats.

I know the pitfall remains that this is Dallas and not New York or Los Angeles, but at least they have something to work with rather than starting from scratch. We know that's the plan they're working with thus far, so from a technical standpoint, I think it gives them a small edge knowing this wouldn't be a very temporary venue like Chicago was planning. Not saying it makes them a viable candidate, but at least I think it puts them in the discussion.

Dallas has a chance of winning under the Winston Churchill formula: Being the worst bid... except for all the other bids. Dallas isn't going to beat a strong bid from a Paris... but there's not going to be such a bid in every competition.

Point being that, unlike Tulsa, Dallas has a chance at hosing, though its a longshot.

[Quaker2001]

Dallas has a chance of winning under the Winston Churchill formula: Being the worst bid... except for all the other bids. Dallas isn't going to beat a strong bid from a Paris... but there's not going to be such a bid in every competition.

Point being that, unlike Tulsa, Dallas has a chance at hosing, though its a longshot.

The thinking seems to be could Dallas win 2024 if they have to go up against Paris or Durban? Well, I don't think any American city is going to have a great shot if 1, let alone both of those cities are also in the running. If it's a weak field, then they could stand a shot (as opposed to Tulsa.. if they were the only city that offered a bid, they still probably wouldn't host the Olympics)

Again, aside from all the intangibles working against them, I think Dallas could offer a decent technical plan centered around Fair Park and the Cotton Bowl. The fact that they've already hit the ground running is certainly a help and I think the USOC will definitely want to listen to them, even if in the end it's not quite the bid they're looking for.

[PotatoChips]

The thinking seems to be could Dallas win 2024 if they have to go up against Paris or Durban? Well, I don't think any American city is going to have a great shot if 1, let alone both of those cities are also in the running. If it's a weak field, then they could stand a shot (as opposed to Tulsa.. if they were the only city that offered a bid, they still probably wouldn't host the Olympics)

Again, aside from all the intangibles working against them, I think Dallas could offer a decent technical plan centered around Fair Park and the Cotton Bowl. The fact that they've already hit the ground running is certainly a help and I think the USOC will definitely want to listen to them, even if in the end it's not quite the bid they're looking for.

Let's be honest, the bid isn't going to be the only thing that affects the outcome of voting. If Dallas has the "best bid ever" and Paris has a sub-pare bid. Paris would probably win, because it's Paris.