Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

As for 4 Games in 22 years, don't you think it's probable that the IOC feels they are presently balancing the scales and righting injustice by making the US wait? 4 Games in 44 years is still far more frequent than any other country (I think this is one of George's objections).

Not entirely. You've said (and most of us agree) that 2012 and 2016 weren't the right time for the United States to host another Summer Olympics. And as we all know, USOC/IOC relations weren't so great. I don't think you can necessarily read into the voting results that it was about "righting injustice" (which the IOC created in the first place.. you can't fault the USOC for being selected more than they should have as if they control that) moreso than making any other recent host wait their turn. Even still, once we get into the 20s and beyond and those 4 hostings in 22 years become more a thing of the past, it probably won't be an issue so much anymore.

If the SOG comes first, the WOG can follow more closely. I still think 10 years is a stretch, but 14 might work. (I've said this many times.) Because there are fewer WOG options, the IOC is more likely to overlook proximity of Games -- as long as the SOG comes first. This does not hold true if the order is reversed because there are more viable SOG options. I believe the IOC will consider the US to be satisfied with a Winter consolation prize and will make them wait.

And there we disagree again. Torino, Vancouver, Sochi.. all 3 of those came on the heels of those countries bidding for a Summer Olympics 2 years prior. I doubt they look at it as a consolation prize. If that was the case, why would Rome, Toronto, and Moscow all taken a back seat? Yes, those countries had to wait, but Italy and Canada are certainly in the discussion for Summer bidding and Russia could be too before long.

Both Quaker and Zeke: If you are waiting for the IOC to come out and say, "The USA has hosted too often. They need to wait decades before we give them more Olympics" -- you never will. They talk with their votes. Not only are they not choosing American bids, they ARE choosing new frontier bids and seem to be making a concerted effort to rotate the Games around the globe. Plus, consider how internationals view the United States. The USA is no longer seen as the promised land of the free that it once was -- not even by allies such as Great Britain. The tone of the international media is much harsher towards the US than it was a couple of decades ago. You can pick up on this tone in IOC specific stories as well. Nobody is going to say, "We're putting the USA in their place," but that is exactly what I believe they're trying to do.

Well, maybe Rogge should come out and say it because then we know it would hold no meaning. Here's the thing.. they're choosing new frontier bids NOW because those options are being presented to them. It's not about a concerted effort to rotate the games, except that now there are more corners of the globe that are capable of producing suitable Olympic bids that weren't there before. But we don't know that trend is going to hold. What if Sochi and Rio and PC don't go over so well? Maybe the IOC changes their tune and starts going back to old familiar locations. That's why I keep saying.. we don't know what the future holds. To say that new frontiers are the big thing now does not mean that's going to be the case 10 or 20 years from now.

Of course Canada and Italy are not the USA. And of course George is not an IOC member. However, I do not think he is alone in his feeling that the USA should be brought down a peg. I do not believe the IOC will hand out special exemptions for the US. I actually think it is MORE likely that some other country (Russia, China, Italy, Canada) will be granted Games in close succession because the IOC can send a message about the US place in the relative world order by doing that.

Again, I don't buy that. First off, I don't know why you'd assume the IOC and their members will continue to have it in for the United States in the years and decades to come (I sure hope they don't for the same reasons as you). If they held a grudge in the 2012 and 2016 voting, we know USOC/IOC relations hurt the cause and at the time, the 4 hostings in 22 years were still pretty recent. I think they sent their message there and it doesn't need to have a lingering effect going forward, let alone that they'd throw another country a bone just to stick it to the United States. Until another country comes along that can offers the kind of sponsorship and television money that the United States offers (which as a percentage is less than it once was), that's a very dangerous game for IOC members to play.

Some of you are willing to gamble that the IOC will hand the US two Games in relatively close proximity. Even if you dismiss all my arguments, have you considered what will happen if you are wrong? Is it really inconsequential if there is a fifty-year gap between American Summer Games? Your gamble is way too risky for me.

I was thinking about that.. what exactly are the consequences of a 50 year gap between American Summer Games? I still fail to see why we need to have a Summer Olympics and in order to preserve that possibility, you would just as soon tell all potential Winter bidders to take a seat on the bench until at least 10-14 years after the next U.S. Summer Olympics, whenever that is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not Americas fault that they've hosted so many times. They seem to enjoy hosting the games, and can you blame them? They wanted the games, so they bid. They had the best bid, so they won. If you want to blame anyone, it's the IOC who awarded them the games so many times. I also still think America will be getting the games in the 2020's and there should be a certain time gap when COUNTRIES are not eligible to bid again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely. You've said (and most of us agree) that 2012 and 2016 weren't the right time for the United States to host another Summer Olympics. And as we all know, USOC/IOC relations weren't so great. I don't think you can necessarily read into the voting results that it was about "righting injustice" (which the IOC created in the first place.. you can't fault the USOC for being selected more than they should have as if they control that) moreso than making any other recent host wait their turn. Even still, once we get into the 20s and beyond and those 4 hostings in 22 years become more a thing of the past, it probably won't be an issue so much anymore.

You don't think that there's a sense of the IOC righting injustice? 4 Olympics in 44 years still averages out to one Games every 11 years. Nobody else has a record like that and the IOC knows it. True, this is not a controlled experiment and there are other factors in play (revenue deal, USOC relations, etc.), but the presence of those other factors certainly does not disprove the idea that the IOC wanted the US to sit out a few cycles. It can very easily be "both/and." I believe it is.

And there we disagree again. Torino, Vancouver, Sochi.. all 3 of those came on the heels of those countries bidding for a Summer Olympics 2 years prior. I doubt they look at it as a consolation prize. If that was the case, why would Rome, Toronto, and Moscow all taken a back seat? Yes, those countries had to wait, but Italy and Canada are certainly in the discussion for Summer bidding and Russia could be too before long.

Torino, Vancouver and Sochi all came on the heels of unsuccessful Summer bids. There isn't a single case there where a Summer bid succeeded on the heels of a successful Winter bid -- which is what you are arguing can happen if the US hosts 2026. There are plenty of voices on these boards saying Toronto has to wait, Moscow has to wait, even Rome has to wait. Yes, there are those who thought Rome was a favorite for 2020, but there were also a lot of people who saw Torino as a problem -- and that's with Rome's last summer Games being 60 years earlier. Obviously the gap between American Summer Games will be far smaller that that. I'd be interested in hearing whether the Canadians on these boards thought Vancouver scuppered Toronto's Summer aspirations. I thought it was a given that was the case.

Well, maybe Rogge should come out and say it because then we know it would hold no meaning. Here's the thing.. they're choosing new frontier bids NOW because those options are being presented to them. It's not about a concerted effort to rotate the games, except that now there are more corners of the globe that are capable of producing suitable Olympic bids that weren't there before. But we don't know that trend is going to hold. What if Sochi and Rio and PC don't go over so well? Maybe the IOC changes their tune and starts going back to old familiar locations. That's why I keep saying.. we don't know what the future holds. To say that new frontiers are the big thing now does not mean that's going to be the case 10 or 20 years from now.

The IOC is picking new frontiers because that's what's being offered to them? What about NYC, Paris, Moscow, Annecy, Munich, Salzburg, Madrid, Tokyo, Chicago? They could've gone with tried and true and they chose not to. Sure, anything can happen in the future, but expecting the trend to change when there's no evidence to suggest that it will doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Again, I don't buy that. First off, I don't know why you'd assume the IOC and their members will continue to have it in for the United States in the years and decades to come (I sure hope they don't for the same reasons as you). If they held a grudge in the 2012 and 2016 voting, we know USOC/IOC relations hurt the cause and at the time, the 4 hostings in 22 years were still pretty recent. I think they sent their message there and it doesn't need to have a lingering effect going forward, let alone that they'd throw another country a bone just to stick it to the United States. Until another country comes along that can offers the kind of sponsorship and television money that the United States offers (which as a percentage is less than it once was), that's a very dangerous game for IOC members to play.

The IOC would not throw another country a bone simply to "stick it to the United States" as you say. However, if there were credible bids that they wanted to reward, I can see where some members might consider it a nice little bonus if they were able to rankle the Americans. I really don't think most Americans understand how negatively the rest of the world perceives us. If you haven't spent a prolonged period of time overseas, I think it's really difficult to grasp just how unpopular we have become. The IOC will get their American money with or without American Games. They certainly don't love us for our money. If anything, they resent us for it.

I was thinking about that.. what exactly are the consequences of a 50 year gap between American Summer Games? I still fail to see why we need to have a Summer Olympics and in order to preserve that possibility, you would just as soon tell all potential Winter bidders to take a seat on the bench until at least 10-14 years after the next U.S. Summer Olympics, whenever that is.

I have no problem telling the Winter bidders to "take a seat on the bench" when they're such a rag-tag lot. It would be different if there were a stellar candidate chomping at the bit.

I've made my argument about the importance of Summer Games before and you always dismiss it, but I will do so again. I strongly believe that in the fast-paced internet age we live in, audiences, sponsors and eventually world-class athletes as well will dramatically decrease in number without Summer Games on home soil. Sure, the Games are going fine now, but will the interest hold in the United States if the Games stay away for 50 years? I sincerely doubt it. Americans are fickle and their attention spans are getting shorter with every generation. Home Games rekindle the fire and the excitement. They remind us why we love the Olympics. That's why we need them. I do not believe Summer athletes will get any bump at all from American Winter Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think that there's a sense of the IOC righting injustice? 4 Olympics in 44 years still averages out to one Games every 11 years. Nobody else has a record like that and the IOC knows it. True, this is not a controlled experiment and there are other factors in play (revenue deal, USOC relations, etc.), but the presence of those other factors certainly does not disprove the idea that the IOC wanted the US to sit out a few cycles. It can very easily be "both/and." I believe it is.

Actually, 1 country had a record kinda like that. Look up. 3 Olympics in 34 years = 1 every 11.3 years. And if Toronto were to somehow land 2024, that's 4 Olympics in 48 years. Not the most implausible scenario. Aside from that though.. what injustice? You make it seem like the USOC wronged the IOC by bidding as often as they did and then winning. That's not their fault. You said earlier that maybe some in IOC circles may want to stick it to the United States and drop them down a peg. Well, wouldn't scaring them out of the 2020 race and the 2022 race and potentially the 2024 race have served that purpose? You're the one who said 2012 and 2016 "weren't the right time." Add that to the fact they were less than compelling bids (with other more appealing competition), and I don't see evidence of some sort of IOC agenda beyond "those other factors."

Torino, Vancouver and Sochi all came on the heels of unsuccessful Summer bids. There isn't a single case there where a Summer bid succeeded on the heels of a successful Winter bid -- which is what you are arguing can happen if the US hosts 2026. There are plenty of voices on these boards saying Toronto has to wait, Moscow has to wait, even Rome has to wait. Yes, there are those who thought Rome was a favorite for 2020, but there were also a lot of people who saw Torino as a problem -- and that's with Rome's last summer Games being 60 years earlier. Obviously the gap between American Summer Games will be far smaller that that. I'd be interested in hearing whether the Canadians on these boards thought Vancouver scuppered Toronto's Summer aspirations. I thought it was a given that was the case.

There's no example of it going in the other direction though. Other than the United States' 2 winners, you have to go all the way back to 1972 to find the last time a Summer host had ever come from a country that also hosted a Winter Olympics. Just because it's never happened before is hardly conjecture that it couldn't happen that way in the future.

The IOC is picking new frontiers because that's what's being offered to them? What about NYC, Paris, Moscow, Annecy, Munich, Salzburg, Madrid, Tokyo, Chicago? They could've gone with tried and true and they chose not to. Sure, anything can happen in the future, but expecting the trend to change when there's no evidence to suggest that it will doesn't make a great deal of sense.

You can't predict these things going that far forward. Period. A trend is only a trend as long as it remains a trend. What happens if they go Tokyo 2020, Oslo 2024, and Paris 2024? Wouldn't that be something of a change in the trend? Every race is its own unique entity. Evidence of what has happened in past races means little for the next year.

The IOC would not throw another country a bone simply to "stick it to the United States" as you say. However, if there were credible bids that they wanted to reward, I can see where some members might consider it a nice little bonus if they were able to rankle the Americans. I really don't think most Americans understand how negatively the rest of the world perceives us. If you haven't spent a prolonged period of time overseas, I think it's really difficult to grasp just how unpopular we have become. The IOC will get their American money with or without American Games. They certainly don't love us for our money. If anything, they resent us for it.

Did you not say "I actually think it is MORE likely that some other country (Russia, China, Italy, Canada) will be granted Games in close succession because the IOC can send a message about the US place in the relative world order by doing that."? And I guess "stick it to the United States" and "rankle the Americans" are not that similar? You're right, I haven't spent a lot of time overseas. You're also right that the American money keeps flowing regardless of host location. But you're also talking about bids and voting that's going to happen years into the future. The more time that passes, the further and further we get from the whole "4 Olympics in 22 years" period and the easier it gets to justify an American win.

I have no problem telling the Winter bidders to "take a seat on the bench" when they're such a rag-tag lot. It would be different if there were a stellar candidate chomping at the bit.

That's a mighty massive if there. We have a while until 2024/2026 to see who emerges. If a Summer candidate emerges with the right plan, I'd certainly love to see the USOC to get behind them. But 1) I'll believe it when I see it and 2) geo-politics seem to set up because for a Winter win than a Summer win, and despite your preferences (which are not shared by all), that idea can't be discounted.

I've made my argument about the importance of Summer Games before and you always dismiss it, but I will do so again. I strongly believe that in the fast-paced internet age we live in, audiences, sponsors and eventually world-class athletes as well will dramatically decrease in number without Summer Games on home soil. Sure, the Games are going fine now, but will the interest hold in the United States if the Games stay away for 50 years? I sincerely doubt it. Americans are fickle and their attention spans are getting shorter with every generation. Home Games rekindle the fire and the excitement. They remind us why we love the Olympics. That's why we need them. I do not believe Summer athletes will get any bump at all from American Winter Games.

Judging by how many people watched, followed, tweeted, and everything else about the London Games and how much revenue NBC brought in when everyone was projecting losses, clearly something is still there. Athletes will still want to compete on that world stage, even if that stage is not in the United States. I think you're looking at the 50 years thing way too closely because who knows what that number is or will going forward, We saw what kind of commitment NBC was willing to make to the future of the Olympics. Again, I'm with you that it could drop off at some point and that not having a home Olympics could hurt that somewhat. I just think you continue to blow out of proportion how necessary it is to have a certain strategy when the dominoes may simply not fall that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh. Now I'm on my phone I can't do these lengthy responses. Of course the USOC didn't "wrong" the IOC, but others (including the likes of George) seem to feel its "unfair" that other countries haven't had their chance. It's not so much an American transgression as cosmic unfairness.

If you're going to do the math, make sure it's apples to apples. If you just measure from 1976 to 2010, you also need to measure from 1980-2002. Similarly, if you measure from 1980-2024, you also need to measure from 1976-2020.

44 years after Lake Placid is 2024. That's how long the US has to go without in order to drop to 4 Games in 44 years. 44 years from Montreal is 2020 and we're certain Canada won't host anything else in that time frame. So Canada only will have had 3 Games in 44 years to the USA's 4. Even without Games in 2024, nobody comes close to American frequency.

I'll have to deal with your other points later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument about SOG first followed by WOG is just based on common sense. The SOGs are more hotly contested, therefore it's easier to get 2 Games close together if the SOGs come first. just because something else is possible doesnt mean it should be expected, much less relied upon.

I am not predicting new frontiers as far as the eye can see. What I am saying is that the new frontiers are evidence that the IOC is committed to more global Games. They have clearly made a priority of diversity. That's not just a trend-- it's a value system. I think they'll pay attention to continental rotation and work hard to spread the wealth. That means nobody gets 2 Games close together -- least of all a reigning superpower. Everybody has to share: new, established, east, west, north, south.

It's not Americas fault that they've hosted so many times. They seem to enjoy hosting the games, and can you blame them? They wanted the games, so they bid. They had the best bid, so they won. If you want to blame anyone, it's the IOC who awarded them the games so many times. I also still think America will be getting the games in the 2020's and there should be a certain time gap when COUNTRIES are not eligible to bid again.

You're right it's not their fault. That doesn't mean other countries don't resent them for it though....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument about SOG first followed by WOG is just based on common sense. The SOGs are more hotly contested, therefore it's easier to get 2 Games close together if the SOGs come first. just because something else is possible doesnt mean it should be expected, much less relied upon.

I am not predicting new frontiers as far as the eye can see. What I am saying is that the new frontiers are evidence that the IOC is committed to more global Games. They have clearly made a priority of diversity. That's not just a trend-- it's a value system. I think they'll pay attention to continental rotation and work hard to spread the wealth. That means nobody gets 2 Games close together -- least of all a reigning superpower. Everybody has to share: new, established, east, west, north, south.

Did Atlanta expect to win 1996? Clearly not. I'm not using that as an example of how the US could win a Summer Olympics, but more how unexpected things could happen. Case in point the 2020 race. It looks like South Africa's to lose. Then they weren't there and Rome seemed like the frontrunner. Then they drop out leaving only 3. You never know how these things are going to shake out. Of course you can't expect or rely upon going up against a weak field. But the flip side of that is that the United States has hosted a Winter Olympics roughly ever 20 years. To some extent, you can rely on that a little more, even though the field of candidates is somewhat flawed. So to say that they're going to spread the wealth (this being the Euro-centric IOC) is hardly a guarantee. To say they have made a priority of diversity.. I don't know that we've seen proof that's going to continue if they don't get the candidates to support that trend.

Time for sleep for me now, I'll pick this back up in the morning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, of course unexpected things CAN happen. Just because something is possible (just about anything is) doesn't mean it should be expected or relied upon.

If the USOC bids for and wins 2026, they must do so with their eyes wide open, knowing that unless something surprising happens the US will most likely have to wait until the 40s or 50s for Summer Games.

It is probable that Toronto will slip into the rotation thereby further delaying American Summer Games.

If the USOC still believes it's in the best interests of the country to go for 2026 -- fine. My concern is that they'll bid for 2026 and naively think they've got a good shot at 2032 when they don't. THAT is what I most want to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hanging your hat on Atlanta -- the single most anomalous election in memory-- is an interesting choice.

Of course the IOC would come back to the US for WOGs -- their Winter options are limited and continental rotation is tricky for Winter Games. The WOGs will always be more attainable. It's the SOGs that are the problem. Banking on some sort of anomaly or miracle that clears the way for American Summer Games sooner than expected doesn't sound like much of a bid strategy to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the new frontiers are evidence that the IOC is committed to more global Games. They have clearly made a priority of diversity.

The IOC has changed. They are putting Olympics in new countries at the same rate - or a bit slower - than they always have. They haven't]/b] clearly made a priority of diversity.

But let me make sure I understand your new theory. You now seem to be saying the IOC is fine with close summer/winter games for other countries. And that the US could be granted close back to back games if the summer games come first. You theory only applies to the vary narrow case of (1) the united states and (2) a winter first, then summer combo. And you are so convinced that this is the way the IOC thinks that you passionatly preach that the US most forgo any thought of a winter games.

Forgive us if we all don't instantly see the windom in that.

If the USOC bids for and wins 2026, they must do so with their eyes wide open, knowing that unless something surprising happens the US will most likely have to wait until the 40s or 50s for Summer Games.

They can't *know* this and it's not *most likely*. It's just a theory you pullout out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is a big country, bigger than USA. I think they must host Olympics more often. 2028 is a good chance for them

"Must host"? Where is that written in the IOC Charter that someone must host because they are big?? :blink: Russia is the BIGGEST country in the whole UNIVERSE, yet they will only be having 2 Olympics. I don't see anyone saying they MUST host more because of their landsize.

China only has 2 votes in the IOC--same (or even less) as the other major nations. Where do you come off making these pronouncements as to who MUST host and who CANNOT? (U're quite cheeky, naive and... :rolleyes: at the same time.)

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Must host"? Where is that written in the IOC Charter that someone must host because they are big?? :blink: Russia is the BIGGEST country in the whole UNIVERSE, yet they will only be having 2 Olympics. I don't see anyone saying they MUST host more because of their landsize.

China only has 2 votes in the IOC--same (or even less) as the other major nations. Where do you come off making these pronouncements as to who MUST host and who CANNOT? (U're quite cheeky, naive and... :rolleyes: at the same time.)

Τhen why according to you and athensfan USA must host Olympics periodically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Τhen why according to you and athensfan USA must host Olympics periodically?

$4.4 billion in TV rights for the next 4 Olympics. That's why. It's not a matter of "must" moreso than it is a matter or "should." 4 Olympics in 22 years is more than the United States should be able to except. But once every 15-20 years or so seems fairly reasonable for a country in the position of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC has changed. They are putting Olympics in new countries at the same rate - or a bit slower - than they always have. They haven't]/b] clearly made a priority of diversity.

But let me make sure I understand your new theory. You now seem to be saying the IOC is fine with close summer/winter games for other countries. And that the US could be granted close back to back games if the summer games come first. You theory only applies to the vary narrow case of (1) the united states and (2) a winter first, then summer combo. And you are so convinced that this is the way the IOC thinks that you passionatly preach that the US most forgo any thought of a winter games.

Forgive us if we all don't instantly see the windom in that.

They can't *know* this and it's not *most likely*. It's just a theory you pullout out of thin air.

No.

First, my opinion isn't new at all. It's exactly what I've always said. Second, you totally twisted it.

1. I don't think the IOC will give ANY country 2 Games in close proximity. I think 14 years is probably the bare minimum.

2. IF the IOC gives ANY country 2 Games in semi close proximity (14 years) it is most LIKELY that the Summer edition will come first because SOGs are hotly contested.

3. I seriously doubt the IOC will give the US two Games in close proximity, but if they do I expect the Summer edition to come first.

4. In the unlikely event that the IOC gives any country two Games close together it could well be Canada, France, China, Italy or some country other than the US.

6. Finally, how anyone can look at the last decade and say the IOC has not made globally diverse Games a top priority is beyond me.

Τhen why according to you and athensfan USA must host Olympics periodically?

I NEVER said that. All I said was that it is in the IOC's best interests to send the Games to the USA periodically. The IOC will reap benefits by doing so. There's absolutely nothing to suggest they MUST go anywhere in particular. They can vote for any host they please.

I do think it's important for the USOC to target Summer Games, but that's a totally different issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, of course unexpected things CAN happen. Just because something is possible (just about anything is) doesn't mean it should be expected or relied upon.

If the USOC bids for and wins 2026, they must do so with their eyes wide open, knowing that unless something surprising happens the US will most likely have to wait until the 40s or 50s for Summer Games.

It is probable that Toronto will slip into the rotation thereby further delaying American Summer Games.

If the USOC still believes it's in the best interests of the country to go for 2026 -- fine. My concern is that they'll bid for 2026 and naively think they've got a good shot at 2032 when they don't. THAT is what I most want to avoid.

This is Olympic bidding we're talking about. Very little can be expected or relied upon. You continue to make this assertion that if the USOC doesn't follow the course of action you're suggesting, they're making a mistake. And then you frame the circumstances as if that then makes it the smart way to go. If the USOC bids for 2026, I'm sure they're aware of the consequences, even if they don't agree with your concept to "focus on Summer games."

That all said, what about the consequences of the USOC of solely going for Summer Olympics if that doesn't work out so well? Let's say they have a candidate for 2024, but they lose out to Paris. Then in 2028, South Africa is finally ready and they did. And in 2032, another new frontier gets in. Finally in 2036, the United States wins. That's already a 40 year gap from Atlanta. By your logic, they're probably waiting until at least 2046, if not 2050 for next Winter Olympics. That's more than a 40 year gap, when it could have been a Winter Olympics in 2026, Summer in the early 40s, and another Winter Olympics in the late 50s. Essentially you risk having 2 Olympics in a span when you could have had 3.

I know your priority remains the Summer Olympics and that the USOC should think that way as well. But I think it would be foolish for the USOC to forgo Winter bidding waiting to win a Summer Games. And what happens when if they were to lose another Summer bid or 2.. don't you think they'd get frustrated and go after the more obtainable Winter Olympics, even if in your mind that looks and acts like a consolation prize? I think it's an equally risky strategy to put all your eggs in 1 basket with the summer side and push off a Winter hosting when you can reasonably expect the USOC to land those once every 20-30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for the US to lose 2024, 2028 and 2032, the IOC would have to deny them 5 consecutive times. I don't see that happening -- especially in the wake of the revenue deal. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

What I'm hearing is that if 2026 is out of the picture, you're projecting the worst case Summer scenario -- 5 consecutive rejections -- which seems highly unlikely. However, if 2026 is in the picture, you're projecting the best case Summer scenario -- the IOC will award the US Summer Games in the 30s -- also highly unlikely.

Your two scenarios imagine two radically different IOCs -- one is outright hostile and spiteful towards the US, while the other is extremely generous and warm.

I find both of the above scenarios to be unrealistically polarized. The IOC knows that they need to keep the US happy (meaning American Games of some sort are in the cards sometime in the next few cycles). However, the IOC is not going to treat the US like the darling they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s (meaning American Games will be spaced farther apart).

I think the above is a pretty balanced view. Under the circumstances described above -- if you have to content yourself with one Olympics for several decades, why not go for Summer? Even if it means risking the possibility of waiting an extra 2 to 6 years? If you assume 2024 fails (and it could succeed), the distance between 2026 and 2028 and 2032 is 2-6 years. That's it. Why not be patient and get what you really want?

Especially when the winter candidates leave so much to be desired....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. Finally, how anyone can look at the last decade and say the IOC has not made globally diverse Games a top priority is beyond me.

Quick fill the the blank chart for you:

Number of Countries Picked to Host for the 1st Time:

60's: ________

70's: ________

80's: ________

90's: ________

00's: ________

10's: ________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick fill the the blank chart for you:

Number of Countries Picked to Host for the 1st Time:

60's: ________

70's: ________

80's: ________

90's: ________

00's: ________

10's: ________

Yeah. And why do you suppose that is? Could it be perhaps that they're starting to run out of new frontiers that are capable of hosting?

As I wrote before, I'm not expecting a parade of new frontiers. I'm expecting a concerted effort to move the Games around the globe. I'm sure hosts will be repeated. I just don't think anyone will host 2 Games 10 years apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...