Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's not a matter of If Houston "can't handle it". It's more of a question of how well would they be able to handle it in the international competition. Which in that sense, Dallas would the edge over Houston. And even then, many outside still question how well even Dallas could hold its own over the likes of Big international cities. Even this article cites how Atlanta was not regarded by the IOC too highly. So trying to stay away from that image as best they can is what is what is mainly being referenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Australian, they're really much of a muchness to me. I recognise them as the two major Texan cities, but even off the top of my head I couldn't tell which is larger, or more important. Most people here would associate Houston with "we have a problem", and Dallas with a certain 1980's television series.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

City proper wise, Houston is larger. But metro wise, Dallas is larger. My perception has always been that Dallas is the more cosmopolitan, vibrant one. I've been to Houston, & while I've never been to Dallas, Houston left me with no real big impression, compared to other cities I've been to. Sure, it's a big city, but that's about it.

It's almost akin to Sydney & Melbourne. Both are Australia's two largest cities but one is more important than the other. Both Dallas & Houston have financial muscle, & like Mr. Frazier pointed out in the read, Texas is in the best state financially right now in the country that could perhaps pull off this huge money endeavor. And like he also said, If the Texans really want this & want in, then why not. Like some on here like to say about certain other cities, you can't win if you don't play!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of If Houston "can't handle it". It's more of a question of how well would they be able to handle it in the international competition. Which in that sense, Dallas would the edge over Houston. And even then, many outside still question how well even Dallas could hold its own over the likes of Big international cities. Even this article cites how Atlanta was not regarded by the IOC too highly. So trying to stay away from that image as best they can is what is what is mainly being referenced.

So Houston doesn't have the culture and history of London or Paris or have the star power that L.A. has but Houston can compete and hold it's own with Dallas,New York or Chicago and Tokyo. Of course, our city is famous for "Houston, We have a problem" because of Apollo 13 and we are home of NASA but everyone is thinks we can't pull off a big international event like the Olympics or an Pan American Games which many people believe that Houston should be better off hosting before the city bids for an Olympics. But, Houston can put on big events like a Super Bowl which were bidding for now in 2017. Houston to many people eyes believe that all we do is ride horses and our roads are dirt and the only international sport we care about is the NFL. But, Houston is not Atlanta because Atlanta was too heavy commercialized for the games by IOC standards and plus Coca Cola is a Olympic Sponsor but Houston has more Fortune 500 companies beside New York and Chicago so Houston has financial incentive to host but there are a lot of things to do in Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting to the point where I'm losing enthusiasm for any American bid.

I doubt any of them will be well-received by the IOC. I just don't think the IOC cares for the US. I also think the Games have gotten to the point where they just don't make financial sense.

I really don't want to see a Winter bid any time soon, but I think I'm arriving at the point where I'd prefer not to see a Summer one either. I love the Olympics, but I'm tired of IOC politics and the astronomical price tag.

Frankly, if the US doesn't contemplate a bid of any kind for decades, it's fine by me. Yes, the athletes and sponsorship will suffer, but there are more important things in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston (and Texas for the most part) has HORRIBLE summer weather. Out of pity for the athletes and visitors, I would NOT vote for Houston even if I am American and were on the IOC. Nor Miami nor Dallas. I don't know why some people don't consider this.



IFrankly, if the US doesn't contemplate a bid of any kind for decades, it's fine by me. Yes, the athletes and sponsorship will suffer, but there are more important things in life.

Agreed. But a Winter bid is far more attainable than a summer one -- being you don't need a billion-dollar stadium (or even a $500 mil temporary one) nor a huge village that all of a sudden unloads 3,000 units on the local market right after the Games close. And most of the other venues are natural.

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

Well, all bids have to deal with astronomical costs and IOC politics. If the US is tired of this and ducks out for a while it'll be a shame, but I'm sure there'll be plenty happy to take their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you.

There's less competition for Winter Games, but the potential American candidates are hugely flawed. There's also a lot less payoff with Winter Games.

As the ATR article suggests, the preference is clearly for Summer within the USOC anyhow.

"Attainable" is not the point anyway. The question is, would the Games be good for the city, region, country and for the broader international Olympuc movement? My belief is "no".

Let somebody else spend themselves silly for a two-week ego trip. Hand the Games to Doha, for all I care. Until the priorities are reordered within the IOC, I don't think any bid makes much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's less competition for Winter Games, but the potential American candidates are hugely flawed.

But the continental rotation factors in more strongly in the Winter awarding and who's to say the other rivals might not. Plus, the winter awarding also tends to become a consolation prize for what cannot be achieved in the summer skirmish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all bids have to deal with astronomical costs and IOC politics. If the US is tired of this and ducks out for a while it'll be a shame, but I'm sure there'll be plenty happy to take their place.

My previous post was aimed at Baron, not you. Sorry about that.

I don't know why you say "it will be a shame." The IOC has given American bids the cold shoulder. The revenue deal is not good for the US at all. It's flat out lousy. The IOC has shown zero appetite for American Games.

Why would it be a shame if we didn't bid for a while? Because the IOC won't have a dummy American bid to bring in revenue and drive up international interest in the race? That's their loss, not ours.

If there are "plenty of others" as you say who agree with the way the IOC operates and want to foot the bill, let them. Personally, I have questions about that assertion. 2020 is the smallest field in some time and 2022 isn't likely to be much better.

The IOC has created a situation where the Games are for countries with "something to prove" who are willing to spend extraordinary sums on self-promotion. I'd just assume the US didn't participate in that approach to the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the continental rotation factors in more strongly in the Winter awarding and who's to say the other rivals might not. Plus, the winter awarding also tends to become a consolation prize for what cannot be achieved in the summer skirmish.

You're missing the point. Just because you CAN land the Games (and I'm not sure I even agree with you there), does not mean it's worth doing. You act as though the Games are a good in themselves. It doesn't matter which edition, when, where, or how much it costs, just grab any Olympics you can because IT'S THE OLYMPICS!! You've swallowed what Jaques and the others are peddling hook, line and sinker.

I'm not buying into that. I don't think the Olympics are a good in themselves. Just because the US CAN land them (if that's even true, which I doubt) doesn't even mean it would be wise or beneficial to do so.

You're dazzled by the glitter, and that's fine, but I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, in order...

The IOC has created a situation where the Games are for countries with "something to prove" who are willing to spend extraordinary sums on self-promotion. I'd just assume the US didn't participate in that approach to the Games.

Well, one feeds off of the other. I mean the IOC says...these are the minimum stadia, hotel rooms, etc., we need for the Games. But all the extra stuff that a host nation wants to expend on the Games is really the host nation's choice. How can the IOC say...no, your Tourism advertising budget tied into the Games must be no more than $500!! No; you can ONLy build subway lines that connect the major venues. How can the IOC say and do that???



You're missing the point. Just because you CAN land the Games (and I'm not sure I even agree with you there), does not mean it's worth doing. You act as though the Games are a good in themselves. It doesn't matter which edition, when, where, or how much it costs, just grab any Olympics you can because IT'S THE OLYMPICS!! You've swallowed what Jaques and the others are peddling hook, line and sinker.

I'm not buying into that. I don't think the Olympics are a good in themselves. Just because the US CAN land them (if that's even true, which I doubt) doesn't even mean it would be wise or beneficial to do so.

You're dazzled by the glitter, and that's fine, but I'm not.

Maybe I am; maybe I'm not. If you don't even "...think the Olympics are a good in themselves," then I'm wondering why you are hanging around here for? I mean "glitzy or not," some of us hang around here because of an attraction to this unique thing called the Olympic Games and staying germane to the raison d'etre of the site -- the jockeying & jostling to grab and host them. But if you've "soured" on the whole idea, then I am almost questioning your sanity? :blink::blink: Y r u hr???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it be a shame if we didn't bid for a while? Because the IOC won't have a dummy American bid to bring in revenue and drive up international interest in the race? That's their loss, not ours.

It'd be a shame because - believe it or not - I'd like to see an American Games in amongst the next few host cities. Don't read any more into my post than that! It was a compliment.

The IOC, despite not having a US host since 2002, was last year valued at the second most valuable brand in the World behind Apple (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Global/Issues/2012/07/24/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Olympics-Brand.aspx). US broadcasters seem to be happy to show Games in other countries and pay for the privilege. How much of a loss would it really be if the US skulked out and didn't bid for a while? A European Games, South Africa, maybe Tokyo, Istanbul in there somewhere...that'd keep things going nicely. It might mean less competition in the bidding phase, but I doubt the quality of the Games or their value would decrease. And I don't know why you're saying "hand the Games to Doha for all I care", because the IOC has been knocking them back every time they bid!

You're right though.....if no US city can find a compelling reason to host a Games then they won't put a bid forward, that's fair enough. And that's no different from most developed nations (London wouldn't have bid but for the regeneration potential that the Mayor saw in it, and Paris won't without the support of their Mayor). But if one US city does have a compelling bid that'd improve its city, one that is capable of winning against international competition, it should be put forward.

I don't want to put words in you mouth Athensfan, but your change of attitude, from being pretty gung-ho about an American Games to your most recent posts, seems to have come as a result of what'd happening in the US rather than what's happening in the IOC. I mean, not much has changed in the IOC in the nearly four years since Chicago's defeat, yet until recently you've been the biggest cheerleader for a US Summer Games. What has changed recently is that very few US cities are showing much interest. I'm not sure I believe your "well, I'm not that bothered now anyway" posts. ^_^ I still think if a really strong bid from a big hitter came forward, you'd be once again banging the drum. I hope so anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Houston doesn't have the culture and history of London or Paris or have the star power that L.A. has but Houston can compete and hold it's own with Dallas,New York or Chicago and Tokyo. Of course, our city is famous for "Houston, We have a problem" because of Apollo 13 and we are home of NASA but everyone is thinks we can't pull off a big international event like the Olympics or an Pan American Games which many people believe that Houston should be better off hosting before the city bids for an Olympics. But, Houston can put on big events like a Super Bowl which were bidding for now in 2017. Houston to many people eyes believe that all we do is ride horses and our roads are dirt and the only international sport we care about is the NFL. But, Houston is not Atlanta because Atlanta was too heavy commercialized for the games by IOC standards and plus Coca Cola is a Olympic Sponsor but Houston has more Fortune 500 companies beside New York and Chicago so Houston has financial incentive to host but there are a lot of things to do in Houston.

Chris, again it's not about Houston's inability to host an event like an Olympics. They are certainly capable. As are probably about a dozen American cities. The question is whether or not they would be selected by the IOC in a competition against other cities, particularly if the field includes other international heavyweights. Let alone getting the nod over bigger U.S. cities for that same reason. Atlanta got lucky. There was little interest from the big U.S. cities for the `96 Olympics, so they got the nod from the USOC and they faced a field of underwhelming candidates that featured and under-prepared Athens bid that otherwise would have been the sentimental favorite. Is a city like Houston likely to see the same circumstances and get selected by the IOC? Maybe not impossible, but it's highly unlikely it will come together like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting to the point where I'm losing enthusiasm for any American bid.

I doubt any of them will be well-received by the IOC. I just don't think the IOC cares for the US. I also think the Games have gotten to the point where they just don't make financial sense.

I really don't want to see a Winter bid any time soon, but I think I'm arriving at the point where I'd prefer not to see a Summer one either. I love the Olympics, but I'm tired of IOC politics and the astronomical price tag.

Frankly, if the US doesn't contemplate a bid of any kind for decades, it's fine by me. Yes, the athletes and sponsorship will suffer, but there are more important things in life.

Just like that you're giving up? You've been so fervent in your support of landing a Summer Olympics but now you just don't care anymore giving the old "there are more important things" cop-out of an excuse?

For me, I don't think it's about how the IOC perceives the U.S. The problem is that what the Olympics require don't always fit into the plans of a major city here. Combined with the expense, not to mention a less than ideal economy, it's hard for a city to justify that kind of effort.

For all the reasons we've gone over here so many times over, it just doesn't seem like it's in the cards for a U.S. Summer Olympics bid right now. That could change 4 years from now. If you're giving up on 2024 only, I can understand that. But a lot can change from one Olympiad to the next. Besides.. would you really prefer not to see a Summer Olympics in this country? It'll happen again eventually.. I hope. And when it does, folks like us here who have waited for it for years will embrace it, I'm sure.

As the ATR article suggests, the preference is clearly for Summer within the USOC anyhow.

"Attainable" is not the point anyway. The question is, would the Games be good for the city, region, country and for the broader international Olympuc movement? My belief is "no".

Let somebody else spend themselves silly for a two-week ego trip. Hand the Games to Doha, for all I care. Until the priorities are reordered within the IOC, I don't think any bid makes much sense.

Had a feeling you would mis-interpret that. Take a closer look at the article. The preference for Summer Games is an opinion of A.D. Frazier, not necessarily a preference from the USOC.

Again, if you want to give up on the United States landing an Olympics, that is a shame as you were the "America must focus on Summer Games" guy for a long time here. You're right it may not be good for a city/region/country. But it still could be. Ask the folks in London how that worked out for them. An expensive endeavor for sure, but so far as I can tell, they still got a great deal out of it other than merely a 2 week long party where they're now left to clean up the mess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be a shame because - believe it or not - I'd like to see an American Games in amongst the next few host cities. Don't read any more into my post than that! It was a compliment.

The IOC, despite not having a US host since 2002, was last year valued at the second most valuable brand in the World behind Apple (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Global/Issues/2012/07/24/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Olympics-Brand.aspx). US broadcasters seem to be happy to show Games in other countries and pay for the privilege. How much of a loss would it really be if the US skulked out and didn't bid for a while? A European Games, South Africa, maybe Tokyo, Istanbul in there somewhere...that'd keep things going nicely. It might mean less competition in the bidding phase, but I doubt the quality of the Games or their value would decrease. And I don't know why you're saying "hand the Games to Doha for all I care", because the IOC has been knocking them back every time they bid!

You're right though.....if no US city can find a compelling reason to host a Games then they won't put a bid forward, that's fair enough. And that's no different from most developed nations (London wouldn't have bid but for the regeneration potential that the Mayor saw in it, and Paris won't without the support of their Mayor). But if one US city does have a compelling bid that'd improve its city, one that is capable of winning against international competition, it should be put forward.

I don't want to put words in you mouth Athensfan, but your change of attitude, from being pretty gung-ho about an American Games to your most recent posts, seems to have come as a result of what'd happening in the US rather than what's happening in the IOC. I mean, not much has changed in the IOC in the nearly four years since Chicago's defeat, yet until recently you've been the biggest cheerleader for a US Summer Games. What has changed recently is that very few US cities are showing much interest. I'm not sure I believe your "well, I'm not that bothered now anyway" posts. ^_^ I still think if a really strong bid from a big hitter came forward, you'd be once again banging the drum. I hope so anyway.

Let's be fair about something.. 2 years ago, NBC and Comcast invested well over $4 billion in the future of the Olympics. They broke even on London after what was a very severe over-bid 9 years earlier. So there is clearly interest in this country in the Olympics. Hosting obviously is a different story. And as we've discussed ad nauseum here, the economic structure of an Olympic bid from a U.S. city makes it difficult in the best of economic times and even harder when the economy is not so strong.

That said, I still don't buy into the theory that the IOC is trying to scorn the United States. They know how valuable this country is to their organization. I don't look at 2012 and 2016 (despite the first round loss, which I think many people read more into than what they should) as evidence the IOC wants nothing to do with this country. After all, 2012 especially was a loaded field and it hadn't been all that long from Atlanta.

I can understand how Americans (especially those of us who follow these things) have become jaded towards the Olympics. Part of that having comes from winning a lot of bid or at least being in the discussion consistently for decades. Of course it's disappointing that the big cities aren't interested, including the 2 that may have been scared away. If 2024 isn't in the cards for the United States, I'm fine with that. You've got all these new frontier types wanting a piece of the action. I don't see that as the IOC looking for an excuse to avoid the United States. It's just that right now, there are a number of cities and countries that are trying to get in line ahead of the country that just hosted a Summer Olympics 17 years ago. At some point (hopefully) the right U.S. city will come along with the drive and determination and the resources to put themselves up to the USOC. Maybe it won't happen for the 2024 Olympics. But I agree to give up all hope like that seems like too much of a defeatist attitude for someone who was really energized about the prospect just a couple of months ago.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not trying to be pessimistic, but I am going to be a realist....

If Tokyo wins 2020, I don't think the U.S. should waste its time and money with a 2024 bid. There is just too much probabilty in my mind that a European city or South African city has the best chance in that race. Europe has NEVER gone more than two cycles without hosting, and the IOC will not give the Games to both of the Americas without returning to Europe. I know that the "Two cycle rule" will be broken someday, but the U.S. is not going to break that cycle, only a new horizon (e.g. South Africa) has the best chance of changing that dynamic.

Now if Istanbul wins 2020, it becomes murkier for who has the best chance for 2024 in my opinion, and there could be more of an opening depending on who gets in the 2024 race, and what U.S. cities decide to bid.

But at the end of the day, I don't think any city outside of NYC, LA, SF or Chicago should be seriously considered by the USOC. Dallas, Houston, Philly, Seattle, Miami, Boston, etc. are either not recognized enough internationally or are big enough to be considered. If none of the big four are interested in bidding, than the USOC should just sit out the race. Simple as that.

Edited by Soaring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's make up our minds here. One of the Big-4 IS interested, but already L.A. is being dumped on as "still too soon". And I at least would like to see first what places like Boston, Philadelphia & Dallas have to offer before I would say "If the Big-4 aren't interested, then the USOC should just sit it out. Simple as that".

If any of those three could provide some sort of urban renewal legacy, ala London, then we could have something here. Especially in the unlikely event event that Madrid does clench it, then that puts off many of the Europeans chances (Istanbul is ambiguous enough that we'd still see some (Western) Europeans emerge). So then we start to have a recipe where the competition is not as stellar & where we could see a second-tier U.S. do better than expected. So lets not jump the gun here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see a US Summer Games happening at the very earliest 2028 or 2032, more realistically. The thing is, no major US city today has the patience to go on a repeated, multi-bidding effort that Detroit engaged in in the 50s through 1972. Those days are gone. The IOC's timetable is NOT major US cities' timetables. We cannot move according to when the IOC tells us to blink. Why people here AND the current USOC administration can't see that, is beyond me.

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

The United States needs to step away from hosting. It was a stupid move to cave in the sharing deal with the IOC to gain nothing real. Once again we get to plays the fool funding the party to a greater extent than anyone on the globe while simultaneously taking smack from players we are supporting. We seem to somehow be the focus of the world’s frustrations however unfair, and I think it’s largely unfair. The United States government will never and should never bankroll an Olympics extravaganza like some other governments, all our games require a successful business plan and partnerships that many bidders are not burdened to coordinate. That alone required a much higher level of planning and coordination. The current level of divisive international pressure makes the whole endeavor seem overly burdensome.



The most successful and interesting-to-watch scenario might be to sit it all out till the IOC (once again) starts to collapse on itself, and then the US step in as the savior. Problem is we’ve now funded them for the foreseeable future, but continued fruitless bids would only be bad for business and postpone the IOCs need for US.



-Or-


China can host every year...I did LOVE their amazing show! :lol:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most successful and interesting-to-watch scenario might be to sit it all out till the IOC (once again) starts to collapse on itself, and then the US step in as the savior.

Interesting for who exactly? :blink:

The last few Olympics have gone just fine without the US hosting, and so will the next few, and probably the ones after that too. The IOC shows no sign of collapsing any time soon. You might be waiting a while.

Edited by RobH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States needs to step away from hosting. It was a stupid move to cave in the sharing deal with the IOC to gain nothing real. Once again we get to plays the fool funding the party to a greater extent than anyone on the globe while simultaneously taking smack from players we are supporting. We seem to somehow be the focus of the world’s frustrations however unfair, and I think it’s largely unfair. The United States government will never and should never bankroll an Olympics extravaganza like some other governments, all our games require a successful business plan and partnerships that many bidders are not burdened to coordinate. That alone required a much higher level of planning and coordination. The current level of divisive international pressure makes the whole endeavor seem overly burdensome.

The most successful and interesting-to-watch scenario might be to sit it all out till the IOC (once again) starts to collapse on itself, and then the US step in as the savior. Problem is we’ve now funded them for the foreseeable future, but continued fruitless bids would only be bad for business and postpone the IOCs need for US.

It's not the US, Paul. It's NBC. If they didn't have such LOUSY programming during the 2.5 years between Winter and Summer Games, then they wouldn't be tripping over themselves in propping up the IOC. Look at CBS and Disney-ABC...they have OTHER things going for them, so they don't have to dance to the IOC's pipes. NBC just lives for the Games so they can unveil their newest, still-mediocre programs during the Games. Thank God I needed to sell my GE stock sometime ago.

Let PBS be the only US bidder with a $5 million bid, and the IOC will dance a different tune. I mean,we (in the US) could all watch Olympic live-streaming on the net from Canada or the BBC. I don't even have to turn on my NBC channel.

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

Yep...NBC is the IOCs partner who's funding it, so we'll see if the US public stays interested in foreign festivals in countries that continue to tell us how bad we are. I think the process has become way to tedious to endure. Even London couldn’t provide anything beyond it’s lackluster fair in the park due to the enormous requirements of the IOC, only government sponsored games can be truly spectacular now like Sochi or Beijing. I’m expecting either some future host will fail completely or some world event will derail a games, and then the IOC will come running. I feel no particularly rush to bid, I prefer to wait and watch.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...