Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well aside from the anecdotical Saint-Louis, the Games have been to LA and Atlanta, so southern California and the Old South. There are many other stories to tell in the US.

Fine, but do those cities want the Games? Are they willing to do what it takes to win them and stage them? If not, it's a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've wondered about... In the US, we tend to give up after one try. Other countries run bids for the same cities 2-3 times in a row in an attempt to keep improving and tweaking their bid. In the US, if a city doesn't win, they seem to get disgusted and not want to bother again.

On one hand, you might argue that a lot of countries only have one or two viable cities to bid with, unlike the US. So they just keep bidding with the same cities.

But on the other hand... I wonder if the USOC could tell a city: we're going to stick behind you and keep bidding with you until you get it, if it would be more productive than completely switching cities and starting from scratch every bid cycle. I also wonder if part of it comes from a bit of a sense of entitlement about the Olympics... like, oh yeah, you didn't give it to us? Well screw you! Maybe understandable somewhat, but does it shoot the US in the foot?

Personally, I have to admit that a LA Olympics doesn't excite me that much... would rather see it go to a different US city. However, it seems LA is the only truly viable US candidate that wants to bid for 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US bid for 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928 before LA hosted in 1932.

The US bid for 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1980 before LA hosted in 1984.

Atlanta hosted in 1996 without any unsuccessful bids immediately preceding the victory.

The US lost bids for 2012 and 2016 and then chose not to bid for 2020.

The only time in Olympic history that an American Summer bidding streak ended without a win was the decision not to bid for 2020.

I call that a track record of persistence. I don't think it's at all appropriate to say "In the US, we tend to give up after one try."


I failed to mention St. Louis in 1904, but, like Atlanta, there were no unsuccessful bids preceding the victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've wondered about... In the US, we tend to give up after one try. Other countries run bids for the same cities 2-3 times in a row in an attempt to keep improving and tweaking their bid. In the US, if a city doesn't win, they seem to get disgusted and not want to bother again.

On one hand, you might argue that a lot of countries only have one or two viable cities to bid with, unlike the US. So they just keep bidding with the same cities.

Interestingly, when I first came to this site almost (gulp) nine years ago, it was generally accepted that the USOC's unofficial policy was to let its bidders have two bites of the cherry before moving on to another. I guess this was based on the consecutive bids done by Anchorage and salt lake City through the 80s and 90s. A few people used this notion to argue that NYC would likely be given a chance to run again for 2016 after losing out for 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US bid for 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928 before LA hosted in 1932.

The US bid for 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1980 before LA hosted in 1984.

Atlanta hosted in 1996 without any unsuccessful bids immediately preceding the victory.

The US lost bids for 2012 and 2016 and then chose not to bid for 2020.

The only time in Olympic history that an American Summer bidding streak ended without a win was the decision not to bid for 2020.

I call that a track record of persistence. I don't think it's at all appropriate to say "In the US, we tend to give up after one try."

I failed to mention St. Louis in 1904, but, like Atlanta, there were no unsuccessful bids preceding the victory.

How many of those from 1944-1984 were consecutive bids with the same city, though?

I would also argue that perhaps 1944-1984 was just a different era that's not comparable to the current situation.

Selfishly, I guess I'm just kind of upset Chicago doesn't want to bid again... We have a lot of friends there and would likely more easily be able to go to a Chicago Olympics than a LA one. Of course... it's all pie in the sky at this point, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of those from 1944-1984 were consecutive bids with the same city, though?

I would also argue that perhaps 1944-1984 was just a different era that's not comparable to the current situation.

Selfishly, I guess I'm just kind of upset Chicago doesn't want to bid again... We have a lot of friends there and would likely more easily be able to go to a Chicago Olympics than a LA one. Of course... it's all pie in the sky at this point, right?

Yeah, definitely different era. Detroit had its hand in for most of those (hence it's rep as the most persistent failing bidder), But in some of the races, particularly in the 50s, there were multiple US bidders for the same games. That wouldn't happen today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 2020 race culminated 11 days ago, this argument of "the U.S. needs to stick to 'one' city 'til it wins" appears to be nothing but a complete fallacy. Out of Tokyo, Istanbul & Madrid, the ultimate winner was the one that had bid the least often. Tokyo 2020 was their second attempt, while Madrid was at it's desperate third time & Istanbul was presenting for the fifth time overall. Going by merely that logic, then Istanbul should've won 2020.

Not to mention all those other big repeat bidders that failed to get the Games, like Paris, Ostersund, Sion & of course Detroit, the epitome of repeat bidders to ultimately fail at getting the Games. But then you do have the countries that switched off their cities & finally won on their third try, like the U.K. & Australia are the ones that recently come to mind.

I think that Sebastian Coe (former head of the London 2012 Games) said it best, "being a repeat bidder or a first-time bidder, is 'neither' an advantage or a disadvantage. What's important to the IOC is 'WHY' a city really wants to host the Games". Going by that, even a hypothetical New York bid that bids two or three times isn't guaranteed anything if the all-important 'why' isn't attached to it. Yet if a repeater like Los Angeles could come up with that great narrative, then that is what could make the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 2020 race culminated 11 days ago, this argument of "the U.S. needs to stick to 'one' city 'til it wins" appears to be nothing but a complete fallacy. Out of Tokyo, Istanbul & Madrid, the ultimate winner was the one that had bid the least often. Tokyo 2020 was their second attempt, while Madrid was at it's desperate third time & Istanbul was presenting for the fifth time overall. Going by merely that logic, then Istanbul should've won 2020.

Not to mention all those other big repeat bidders that failed to get the Games, like Paris, Ostersund, Sion & of course Detroit, the epitome of repeat bidders to ultimately fail at getting the Games. But then you do have the countries that switched off their cities & finally won on their third try, like the U.K. & Australia are the ones that recently come to mind.

I think that Sebastian Coe (former head of the London 2012 Games) said it best, "being a repeat bidder or a first-time bidder, is 'neither' an advantage or a disadvantage. What's important to the IOC is 'WHY' a city really wants to host the Games". Going by that, even a hypothetical New York bid that bids two or three times isn't guaranteed anything if the all-important 'why' isn't attached to it. Yet if a repeater like Los Angeles could come up with that great narrative, then that is what could make the difference.

It's always predictable that as soon as one bid race ends, people (particularly newcomers) start immediately to forecast the next one through the dynamics of and as a repeat of the one just concluded. In the past 11 days I've seen a few statements that "it's now the era of only megacities winning" (compare that to four years ago when a common statement was that "it's the era of only new frontier cities winning"), and now it seems we're getting "you have to be a repeat bidder" (I've seen a few posters dismissing Durban, for example, in terms of they have to bid and lose first before they can win).

I know many people are after that elusive magic formula, prescription or template that ensures a winning bid (and even the site's reason to be, the Bid Index, tries to do that mathematically) but IMO if there's one thing you can learn by observing bid races, it's that there's no "one-size-fits-all" surefire strategy for winning, and patterns and precedents are usually just coincidence, or a "rule" just waiting to be broken..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait until one race ends? We did no such thing! We were prognosticating 2024 well before the results of the 2020 bid. We just have a new and very useful piece of information in order to look at 2024 now. That said, a few thoughts here..

One thing I've wondered about... In the US, we tend to give up after one try. Other countries run bids for the same cities 2-3 times in a row in an attempt to keep improving and tweaking their bid. In the US, if a city doesn't win, they seem to get disgusted and not want to bother again.

On one hand, you might argue that a lot of countries only have one or two viable cities to bid with, unlike the US. So they just keep bidding with the same cities.

But on the other hand... I wonder if the USOC could tell a city: we're going to stick behind you and keep bidding with you until you get it, if it would be more productive than completely switching cities and starting from scratch every bid cycle. I also wonder if part of it comes from a bit of a sense of entitlement about the Olympics... like, oh yeah, you didn't give it to us? Well screw you! Maybe understandable somewhat, but does it shoot the US in the foot?

Always? As noted, it's only twice that a city was one-and-done. Going back a ways, you had Los Angeles that persisted and won. Detroit, when they were a higher profile city, was in it time and time again. You're right that other countries tend to push 1 city. But most of those countries have a clear city (or maybe 2) to bid with. And in spite of that, you still have among others.. Great Britain, France, Japan, Australia all had one-and-done cities. Even Spain put up Seville twice before they finally got a little wiser and went with Madrid.

Point being.. the economics of United States bids make it a lot different than other countries who have a stronger backing from their NOC and can more easily make multiple runs at an Olympics. It's been said here before that it probably would be beneficial for the USOC to have a city that would come back again after a loss. Easier said than done though. I'm sure the USOC would have loved to get New York in the bidding for 2016. But that wasn't an option. They simply weren't interested. I wouldn't call it a sense of entitlement though. As a New Yorker, the theory from the city is "we tried, but not worth going through that again, let's more onto something else." Don't know if Chicago had the same thought. Either way, I think it does hurt the USOC somewhat, but there's not all that much they can do about that.

Interestingly, when I first came to this site almost (gulp) nine years ago, it was generally accepted that the USOC's unofficial policy was to let its bidders have two bites of the cherry before moving on to another. I guess this was based on the consecutive bids done by Anchorage and salt lake City through the 80s and 90s. A few people used this notion to argue that NYC would likely be given a chance to run again for 2016 after losing out for 2012.

As I understand it, the USOC's plan in the mid-80s to stick with Anchorage as long as they wanted. Come the late 80s, the USOC came to the realization that Anchorage wasn't their best option, so they gave the nomination to Salt Lake and I believe they got a similar deal that the USOC would put them up for at least 2 cycles and likely stick with them as long as they were interested. I don't know what the USOC would have done with New York if they were still interested in going after 2016. Needless to say the stadium deal pretty much ruined any shot at a return bid.

I think that Sebastian Coe (former head of the London 2012 Games) said it best, "being a repeat bidder or a first-time bidder, is 'neither' an advantage or a disadvantage. What's important to the IOC is 'WHY' a city really wants to host the Games". Going by that, even a hypothetical New York bid that bids two or three times isn't guaranteed anything if the all-important 'why' isn't attached to it. Yet if a repeater like Los Angeles could come up with that great narrative, then that is what could make the difference.

This. I think this is 1 of those areas where we are guilty of over-analysis. And that we have a tendency to put too much into who is a repeat bidder versus who isn't. Or what cities/countries have hosted before versus which haven't. A lot of people look at Paris and Los Angeles and say 'look at London, they hosted 3 times, that's good for Paris and LA.' In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing. Los Angeles can't campaign for an Olympics on that notion. It doesn't them no good whatsoever to do so. That's not a narrative. A narrative is what London had with a revitalization of part of the city. Or Rio with their desire to bring the Olympics to South America. That's going to make for a winning bid. Not, as Rols noted, bids that get trumpeted here because of largely meaningless past precedents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning the games is all about narrative. That's why London beat Paris against all odds, why Rio won over better prepared cities, why Tokyo beat the new frontier candidate, & why Durban will win on their first attempt, whenever that'll be. The US, & any country, has to think about what their narrative will be before deciding to bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that narrative is what tilts the favor towards the winning city over the others. Athens, Beijing, London, Rio and Tokyo all had a purpose for wanting the games and the legacy it would leave behind. A lot of cities put forth a bid just because they feel like it's their turn to host the games but have no real purpose for it besides showcasing their city to the world. That pretty much sums up the description for most US cities attempting to bid, with a few exceptions. New York had a narrative for 2012, similar to Tokyo, but NY's lack of a backup plan doomed their chances leading up to the vote. Chicago had no real narrative, probably having the first black president coming from Chicago was it's greatest asset but bidwise there was nothing extraordinary or transformative, so it lacked the emotion and passion that Rio had. San Francisco is sort of America's showcase city and would make a great contender but it lacks a compelling story as well, so that's why I believe LA is that one city with the greatest chance of bringing the games back to the US this particular time.

I know everyone feels that LA would be a boring choice and lack excitement but think about it, what city can the Olympic Games truly transofrm? There isn't another city the Olympics can leave a lasting impact any more than LA. It's a city in the midst of transformation right now, growing up from a strictly car culture to one that's beginning to embrace alternatives, and the Olympics can usher it closer to sustainability on the same level as other world class cities. LA needs a lot of infrastructure improvements more than any other city, more transit options, more parks, revitalizing the urban core and the LA river. It's not what we see LA as right now, but what it can be after it gets the push that it needs. LA has been the one city that has always been enthusiastic about bidding for the Olympics win or lose, and the timing's just right for 2024. If NY had more passion and purpose for an Olympics, there would be no better city, but after 2012 there hasn't been much excitement coming out of NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning the games is all about narrative. That's why London beat Paris against all odds, why Rio won over better prepared cities, why Tokyo beat the new frontier candidate, & why Durban will win on their first attempt, whenever that'll be. The US, & any country, has to think about what their narrative will be before deciding to bid.

Yeah, thanx for pointing out pretty much the obvious there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of cities put forth a bid just because they feel like it's their turn to host the games but have no real purpose for it besides showcasing their city to the world. That pretty much sums up the description for most US cities attempting to bid, with a few exceptions.

Agreed. Not just the U.S. but this also applies to a certain other city north of the border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that narrative is what tilts the favor towards the winning city over the others. Athens, Beijing, London, Rio and Tokyo all had a purpose for wanting the games and the legacy it would leave behind. New York had a narrative for 2012, similar to Tokyo, but NY's lack of a backup plan doomed their chances leading up to the vote. Chicago had no real narrative, probably having the first black president coming from Chicago was it's greatest asset but bidwise there was nothing extraordinary or transformative, so it lacked the emotion and passion that Rio had.

This I don't agree with. What narrative did New York exactly have that was similar to Tokyo's? Cuz it's certainly not comparable. And I'd say that Chicago did have more of a narrative than New York did.

New York's public support was also the lowest compared to the other 2012 bidders & never recovered from that unlike Tokyo. So that made the New York 2012 bid also lack the emotion & passion that London had. So I don't see that comparison whatsoever.

If New York's 2012 bid really have a narrative & what 'doomed' them was a lack of a back up plan, then they would've done much better than finishing second to last. Bcuz they did have a back plan when the main WestSide Manhattan stadium deal fell apart. It just wasn't an ideal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of those from 1944-1984 were consecutive bids with the same city, though?

I would also argue that perhaps 1944-1984 was just a different era that's not comparable to the current situation.

Selfishly, I guess I'm just kind of upset Chicago doesn't want to bid again... We have a lot of friends there and would likely more easily be able to go to a Chicago Olympics than a LA one. Of course... it's all pie in the sky at this point, right?

It was a different era, but you can't say "The US gives up after one try" when the only Summer bidding streak in history that ended without a win came with the decision to pass on 2020.

Hell, St Louis didn't even bid. They just took the games from Chicago.

Yes, but it's neither here nor there. The point was that the US doesn't "give up after one try" as previously alleged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Saw this article on a potential San Diego bid yesterday:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Oct/01/olympics-2024-summer-games-san-diego-usoc-tijuana/

Man, Bob Filner is delusional to still think the San Diego-Tijuana bid still has a chance, when the USOC has specifically said no way.

Filner was delusional to think that he could stay as a "model" big city mayor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this article on a potential San Diego bid yesterday:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Oct/01/olympics-2024-summer-games-san-diego-usoc-tijuana/

Man, Bob Filner is delusional to still think the San Diego-Tijuana bid still has a chance, when the USOC has specifically said no way.

The Filner part of the story is old news, not recent. The USOC was clear months ago that a solo San Diego bid is viable and a binational bid is not. Nothing in the story suggests that Filner has renewed his quixotic campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an article yesterday too from Tijuana, they interviewed one of the USOC members and he said that the only cities interested in bidding are Dallas, Washington, Los Angeles and New York City, including San Diego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an article yesterday too from Tijuana, they interviewed one of the USOC members and he said that the only cities interested in bidding are Dallas, Washington, Los Angeles and New York City, including San Diego.

What article is saying New York? Because it's certainly not the one breathes linked to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's the article.. I used Google translator for you guys. It was published yesterday. Maybe they are talking in private with the City of New York, but we'll see.

Descarta Comité Olímpico de EU candidatura de Tijuana-San Diego para JO 2024

Tijuana.- Tijuana. - In an interview with the U.S. newspaper San Diego Union Tribune, Scott Blackmun, United States Olympic Committee Director (USOC), ruled out the possibility of the Tijuana-San Diego bid for the 2024 Olympic Games.

The director told the San Diegan newspaper that the chances of a joint bid led by former Mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner, are zero.
He also mentioned that the United States will seek to host the 2024 Olympics, and that the cities have raised interest for the [uS] nomination are Washington, Dallas, Los Angeles and New York.
He noted that San Diego could also be a candidate, but independently and reaffirmed that a joint bid is very unlikely to happen.
He added that the U.S. Olympic Committee is seeking cities with the largest sport infrastructure to host the 2024 games.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...