USA 2024

[FYI]

What's important, Baron, is while you weren't that thrilled about Chicago's 2016 bid, you were still behind it, nonetheless. Just like I would be behind a 2022 Reno bid, if the USOC were to take such course, even though I wouldn't be "too thrilled" about that choice, either.

[baron-pierreIV]

What's important, Baron, is while you weren't that thrilled about Chicago's 2016 bid, you were still behind it, nonetheless. Just like I would be behind a 2022 Reno bid, if the USOC were to take such course, even though I wouldn't be "too thrilled" about that choice, either.

Well, I just changed my mind.

[Athensfan]

I'm guessing 2024 would be between Chicago and LA, with Chicago getting the nod. I don't see a stadium solution for NYC, the Games could easily get swallowed up by the city, plus I think most New Yorkers would just consider the Games an irritating hassle.

Having lived in all three cities, I think Chicago is BY FAR the best option. Diversity, art, architecure, theater - plus it's drop dead gorgeous. Watch "Source Code" and you'll see what I mean.

The reason I think LA will be in the running is that the will is here and we've got more to work with in the way of a stadium than any other US city. Still, I think Chicago will be the choice. Internationally speaking, it's an undiscovered treasure. The Games would change all that.

[Quaker2001]

Regardless, more of my IOC colleagues preferred New York to Chicago, There's NO comparison. One is a world-class city; the other is just a giant in the midwest; a regional giant.

Was never that thrilled about the CHicago plan. Really liked New York's.

Since you love to accuse me of being too pedantic, in order to further that line of thinking, I'll remind you that Chicago got 18 out of the 94 votes (just over 19%) while New York got 16 out of 100 votes (16%) and that number went down after the first round of voting. Don't let the facts get in the way of your theory though. Again, we know there were other circumstances involved, but still. And you're absolutely right that New York is a bigger, brighter city than Chicago (although what does that make Atlanta?).. but that doesn't mean it was a better choice for an Olympics.

I'm guessing 2024 would be between Chicago and LA, with Chicago getting the nod. I don't see a stadium solution for NYC, the Games could easily get swallowed up by the city, plus I think most New Yorkers would just consider the Games an irritating hassle.

Having lived in all three cities, I think Chicago is BY FAR the best option. Diversity, art, architecure, theater - plus it's drop dead gorgeous. Watch "Source Code" and you'll see what I mean.

The reason I think LA will be in the running is that the will is here and we've got more to work with in the way of a stadium than any other US city. Still, I think Chicago will be the choice. Internationally speaking, it's an undiscovered treasure. The Games would change all that.

Agreed on NYC. I don't think it needs to land an Olympics to justify it's place as a world-class city. And the way the city, especially Manhattan is laid out, it doesn't really seem like what the IOC is looking for. Whereas Chicago will do everything it can to prove itself as an alpha city, just as Los Angeles did once upon a time. I have no doubt Los Angeles will be looking at 2024 if the USOC is seeking a bid, but I'd still like to see another city get the nod over them, whether it's Chicago or someone else.

[baron-pierreIV]

Since you love to accuse me of being too pedantic, in order to further that line of thinking, I'll remind you that Chicago got 18 out of the 94 votes (just over 19%) while New York got 16 out of 100 votes (16%) and that number went down after the first round of voting. Don't let the facts get in the way of your theory though. Again, we know there were other circumstances involved, but still. And you're absolutely right that New York is a bigger, brighter city than Chicago (although what does that make Atlanta?).. but that doesn't mean it was a better choice for an Olympics.

Yeah, but only you looks at it that way. Most people, understandably and logically, process that going out in the 1st round is certainly more SHAMEFUL and TELLING than going out in the 2nd round is. Anyway, Chicago 2016 was a worse bid than New York 2012's IMO.

[Barcelona_'92]

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'll be very surprised if Chicago bids again in the near future. A lot of people in Chicago didn't want the 2016 Games, and there will be even less support after the failed effort. Given the massive economic problems in Chicago and Illinois, I just don't see the interest being there for the next several cycles.

[Athensfan]

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'll be very surprised if Chicago bids again in the near future. A lot of people in Chicago didn't want the 2016 Games, and there will be even less support after the failed effort. Given the massive economic problems in Chicago and Illinois, I just don't see the interest being there for the next several cycles.

I understand your point of view. You may be correct. I too hope that things play out differently. I definitely think a 2020 bid would've been a near impossible sell for Chicago. However, a lot can change in four years time. In my opinion it all hinges on charismatic leadership with great business acumen. If such leadership emerges in Chicago, I think they'll be able to win the people over. Plus, I do think that as the years go by and previous American Olympics fade in the memory, people will start getting the itch to see the Games on home soil. As of now, I think it's too soon to say that Chicago wouldn't be interested in 2024.

[Athensfan]

Incidentally, I think Chicago's 2016 loss could be a real advantage to the city in a future bid. The first round elimination for 2016 was so shocking that I think Chicago would garner more sympathy and warmth from the IOC a second time around. In fact, even if Chicago did face off against Durban, Chicago might be the only city in the world that would stand a chance of beating the South African bid. Just imagine the IOC saying to themselves, "Yeah, we need to go to Africa, but we can't leave the USA hanging much longer. Plus, we passed up Chicago last time for Rio because it was a new frontier. Can we really do the exact same thing to Chicago again -- this time with Durban?" I think Chicago would have a compelling case.

The IOC would know that if they spurned Chicago a second time for the same reasons, they'd probably never get a bid from that city again.

[Quaker2001]

Yeah, but only you looks at it that way. Most people, understandably and logically, process that going out in the 1st round is certainly more SHAMEFUL and TELLING than going out in the 2nd round is. Anyway, Chicago 2016 was a worse bid than New York 2012's IMO.

Come on baron, you know this process better than that. No question it was more shameful for Chicago than New York, but you know why that was?.. because people thought Chicago would win since they were believed to have a better bid. As opposed to New York who didn't have as strong of a bid, so it was far less surprising they lost early on. But in terms of "telling"? It is very widely believed that Chicago had a better bid than New York regardless of what the voting results were. As embarrassing as it was for Chicago to go out first, I don't think it looks much better for NYC that they survived a round and then lost votes the next time out. Either way, it certainly doesn't speak to which bid was better, Chicago or New York.

[nykfan845]

Incidentally, I think Chicago's 2016 loss could be a real advantage to the city in a future bid. The first round elimination for 2016 was so shocking that I think Chicago would garner more sympathy and warmth from the IOC a second time around. In fact, even if Chicago did face off against Durban, Chicago might be the only city in the world that would stand a chance of beating the South African bid. Just imagine the IOC saying to themselves, "Yeah, we need to go to Africa, but we can't leave the USA hanging much longer. Plus, we passed up Chicago last time for Rio because it was a new frontier. Can we really do the exact same thing to Chicago again -- this time with Durban?" I think Chicago would have a compelling case.

The IOC would know that if they spurned Chicago a second time for the same reasons, they'd probably never get a bid from that city again.

Right, because the IOC has always thought like that. LOL. Groupthink.

Just look at Istanbul and Madrid to see how sympathy votes work in the IOC.

We need to inject some old users into this thread.

[CanisMinor]

The IOC would know that if they spurned Chicago a second time for the same reasons, they'd probably never get a bid from that city again.

No way. The fact that the IOC stripped Chicago of the games in 1904 got it exactly ZERO sympathy for 2016. The IOC doesn't work in "sympathy" - I cannot think of a single instance where that has played a meaningful role in a decision.

On your other points, in my opinion I feel fairly certain we will not see a Chicago bid again in most of our lifetimes. Chicago ran a strong, professional bid. They spent a massive amount of money on it. Despite Baron's assertions (which are really just to get a rise out of folks), the Chicago 2016 bid is the best US bid ever submitted, and probably one of the best bids the IOC has ever seen. The only fundamental issues with the Chicago bid were

- no true Olympic legacy (but then, that hasn't stopped London)

- relatively low local citizen support (mid-70%s)

Despite the strengths, Chicago was humiliated. Chicago may be the "second city", but Chicagoans don't like being told that, and they don't like coming last. There is no way that in the next two generations we will see meaningful support from Chicagoans to give the IOC a party. Every now and then, some bored journalist or some small special interest group will speculate about a bid, but it is simply not going to happen.

[baron-pierreIV]

Either way, it certainly doesn't speak to which bid was better, Chicago or New York.

Of course it does, New York hung in there ONE MORE round than Chicago. I don't know why people keep saying Chicago was better; it got tossed even before anyone pressed the EJECT button. How 'good' could such a bid be? What? Just lining up the venues along the shore and packing them in at McCormick? How good could that be? At least New York spread them across four boroughs a little more. People here are/were kidding themselves that it was the 'best' American bid submitted. The results certainly don't prove that. Frankly, it was quite unimaginative. That's why it lost. It obviously didn't capture the imagination of even a plurarity of the IOC. You can't dispute that.

If it was such a grand plan, where's Cvrtlik these days? Still hiding with his tail tucked in?

[Quaker2001]

Of course it does, New York hung in there ONE MORE round than Chicago. I don't know why people keep saying Chicago was better; it got tossed even before anyone pressed the EJECT button. How 'good' could such a bid be? What? Just lining up the venues along the shore and packing them in at McCormick? How good could that be? At least New York spread them across four boroughs a little more. People here are/were kidding themselves that it was the 'best' American bid submitted. The results certainly don't prove that. Frankly, it was quite unimaginative. That's why it lost. It obviously didn't capture the imagination of even a plurarity of the IOC. You can't dispute that.

If it was such a grand plan, where's Cvrtlik these days? Still hiding with his tail tucked in?

Sounds like some good old-fashioned hindsight there. You're really not going to give any credit to the politics of the situation, are you? You, the guy who is practically screaming from the mountain tops about Denver. So BidIndex had it wrong that Chicago was neck and neck with Rio? It seems like ANY United States bid would have gotten the shaft for 2016 no matter how good it was. As opposed to New York (and not to split hairs again here, but New York has FIVE boroughs and all of them would have both home to multiple venues) which didn't rate well for the USOC race, finished right where it was slotted in the IOC race and had no less than 3 voters give them what reads like a sympathy vote in the first round only to switch to another city ("you're welcome New York, we ensured you didn't go out first, thanks for playing"). Maybe Chicago didn't "capture the imagination of the IOC" but that's as much timing as anything. Clearly they wanted nothing to do with the United States regardless of who the bidder was. It doesn't prove that NYC had a stronger bid (and since when does the IOC prefer spread out to compact, plus wasn't the NYC plan to 'pack them in' at the Javits Center).

I don't care what the results say.. Chicago had a better bid than New York. That's pretty widely accepted at this point (and it still would have been if not for the West Side Stadium debacle). If you disagree with that, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you know better than to look at the voting results so black and white as they prove anything about what was the best bid.

[FYI]

^Certainly FAR better than anything Reno would come up with.

I don't care what the results say.. Chicago had a better bid than New York. That's pretty widely accepted at this point (and it still would have been if not for the West Side Stadium debacle). If you disagree with that, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you know better than to look at the voting results so black and white as they prove anything about what was the best bid.

Exactly. Like Canis said, baron is trying to get a rise outta people. If he "thinks" that Chicago's bid was "poor", than his "precious" Reno is going to be up sh!t's creek without a paddle.

(and since when does the IOC prefer spread out to compact, plus wasn't the NYC plan to 'pack them in' at the Javits Center).

Another one of the convenient double standards. But yet it's "okay" if Reno prostitutes & spreads her legs out to Sacramento.

[baron-pierreIV]

Exactly. Like Canis said, baron is trying to get a rise outta people. If he "thinks" that Chicago's bid was "poor", than his "precious" Reno is going to be up sh!t's creek without a paddle.

Another one of the convenient double standards. But yet it's "okay" if Reno prostitutes & spreads her legs out to Sacramento.

COMPACT is out; spread-legs-as-wide-as-a-prostitute is in! That's what Chicago didn't get. But Rio and PyeongChang did!

So Tahoe-Reno-Sacremento is just going with the winning flow!!

[FYI]

The IOC doesn't work in "sympathy" - I cannot think of a single instance where that has played a meaningful role in a decision.

The IOC does seem to play that way with the Winter Games, though. (Turin) Italy, (Vancouver) Canada & (Sochi) Russia all had recent, previous respective Summer bid loses to add to their Winter bid intangibles.

[baron-pierreIV]

New York has FIVE boroughs and all of them would have both home to multiple venues) which didn't rate well for the USOC race, finished right where it was slotted in the IOC race and had no less than 3 voters give them what reads like a sympathy vote in the first round only to switch to another city ("you're welcome New York, we ensured you didn't go out first, thanks for playing"). Maybe Chicago didn't "capture the imagination of the IOC" but that's as much timing as anything. Clearly they wanted nothing to do with the United States regardless of who the bidder was. It doesn't prove that NYC had a stronger bid (and since when does the IOC prefer spread out to compact, plus wasn't the NYC plan to 'pack them in' at the Javits Center).

I KNOW THERE ARE 5 boroughs!! I lived there for almost 12 years. I just couldn't think of any venues being used for 2012 in the Bronx. So one isn't allowed to forget? Jeez.

[Quaker2001]

The IOC would know that if they spurned Chicago a second time for the same reasons, they'd probably never get a bid from that city again.

Not to re-hash Canis' points which I think are pretty spot on, here's my response to that.. so the heck what. If New York or Chicago don't bid again for decades, that's no skin off the IOC's back, they don't care. It's not like there's a lack of potential host cities. We haven't had a vote for a Summer Olympics that wasn't deep enough to require a shortlist since the 2000 host vote and we're decades away from the 1980s where the applicants were few and far between. I doubt we're going to see a 1984 anytime soon where the IOC basically told the USOC "no one else wants it, you guys pick the city."

Yes it's a shame that 1 or both of New York and Chicago have bowed out and won't be persistent enough to try until they win, but what can you do? Either way, the IOC isn't going to feel bad about spurning a city and then doing anything about it, especially if that city isn't persistent enough to keep at it.

[Quaker2001]

I just couldn't think of any venues being used for 2012 in the Bronx. So one isn't allowed to forget? Jeez.

You're allowed to forget. Now that this is an official debate or anything, but if you're trying to argue the merits of the NYC 2012 bid, you should know that all 5 boroughs were involved, even if you're not aware of any of them specifically (even I had to look it up since Yankee Stadium would have no longer been used with baseball now out of the Olympics, although there was at least 1 other venue in the Bronx they would have used).

[FYI]

but I'd still like to see another city get the nod over them, whether it's Chicago or someone else.

Yeah, but again, who? After New York, Chicago & L.A., who else is left that could possibly have a "decent" chance in the international arena? Boston? D.C.? Philly? Dallas? Houston? Seattle? Phoenix?

And we all know that San Francisco is just riddled with too much red-tape. And putting aside for now the politics & will within those cities to even get started, I still can't see any of them having that much of a 'decent' chance to score success, TBW.

[Athensfan]

Unless you're omniscient, you can't say with certainty that Chicago will never bid again. Repotedly they were even talking to the USOC about 2020. Maybe they won't bid again anytime soon, but there's no way we can know that now.

Sympathy does factor into Olympic bids. Just ask Rio and PC - not to mention Madrid with their Samaranch plea that helped them into the final round. I don't think sympathy would be the best word for a repeat Chicago bid. Perhaps good will would be better.

I think the IOC knows they can't keep shutting out the US without doing major damage. Some members would be wary of the effects of another high profile loss for Chicago. It would have very negative consequences.

None of that means Chicago will bid for 2024 or that they will win. I think the thoughts are worth considering though.

[FYI]

Repotedly they were even talking to the USOC about 2020. Maybe they won't bid again anytime soon, but there's no way we can know that now.

Uh, again. THE USOC was the one reportedly "talking" to Chicago about 2020, not the other way around. The USOC was the one holding their bated breath for that one last ditch effort for a bid from one of the big 3 to come to fruition. But it didn't. On the other hand, you had delusional wannabes like Tulsa & Vegas that were soliciting the USOC.

Like you, I think Chicago would make a great host for the Olympics. But at the same time, I try to be more a realist than a "what if, let's hold our breath & see" kinda attitude. Chicago 2016 was a bitter pill to swallow, & like many others that are actually on the ground there are saying here, I extremely doubt that the citenzenry & the political will would be there again so soon after the "shoved to the wayside" attitude of the IOC.

Yeah, none of us can say for sure they won't bid again. But it's just as foolhardy to think that they city would be so keen to drop another 80+ million dollars down the toilet bowl again so quickly. Not to mention all of the hard work, emotional investment & dedication that an Olympic bid entails. Of course one could argue "never say never", but I just see it. At least not for the 20's. Perhaps the 30's could be a different story altogether.

[Quaker2001]

Yeah, but again, who? After New York, Chicago & L.A., who else is left that could possibly have a "decent" chance in the international arena? Boston? D.C.? Philly? Dallas? Houston? Seattle? Phoenix?

And we all know that San Francisco is just riddled with too much red-tape. And putting aside for now the politics & will within those cities to even get started, I still can't see any of them having that much of a 'decent' chance to score success, TBW.

I've tried to sell Philly, but that's probably more wishful thinking on my part than anything. Again, I'd love to see New York in there again, but I know that's not happening anytime soon. I'd bet on Chicago again before NYC, although I think we're both in agreement neither one is that eager to try again sometime soon.

That all said, right now doesn't seem good for any US city in this economy. A lot can change in the next 2-4 years, especially if the USOC is committing to a full process to determine a candidate. I guess this is just 1 of those situations not unlike many a presidential election where it's too early to know who the serious contenders are, let alone who might eventually win the nomination.

Sympathy does factor into Olympic bids. Just ask Rio and PC - not to mention Madrid with their Samaranch plea that helped them into the final round. I don't think sympathy would be the best word for a repeat Chicago bid. Perhaps good will would be better.

Sympathy gets you further in the voting process. It does not win it for you. Rio won because the IOC decided they wanted to go to South America, not because they felt bad over not short-listing them for 2012 in what was a loaded field. Ditto for PC.. that was about them persisting and outlasting the other competition. A repeat Chicago bid isn't about good will, it's about them learning from their mistakes and hopefully improving their bid. The only time I would say there was a sympathy vote was Athens 2004 and even that was probably more about giving the Olympics back to their home after getting spurned in 1996.

I think the IOC knows they can't keep shutting out the US without doing major damage. Some members would be wary of the effects of another high profile loss for Chicago. It would have very negative consequences.

None of that means Chicago will bid for 2024 or that they will win. I think the thoughts are worth considering though.

We get it Athens.. you're not dealing in absolutes, you shouldn't have to keep reminding us like that. I don't think anyone could at this point. Here's the thing about the USOC.. the IOC just got their $4 billion check from NBC in spite of NYC and Chicago losing. Maybe it's sending a message that the USOC is skipping over 2020, but somehow I doubt the IOC is shedding a tear for Chicago or is immediately concerned about what that loss meant. Either way, I think if you're expecting the IOC to have a sudden change of heart after you've been telling us that 2012 and 2016 were too soon, I'm not sure I see that happening.

[Athensfan]

If I dont remind people I'm not dealing in absolutes people jump down my throat, misquote me and accuse me of making arrogantly definitive statements. So, yes, I'll continue to qualify my posts.

I think there's a world of difference between 2016 and 2024. Look at Vancouver, Athens, Beijing. What a difference two cycles made to those bids. That doesn't make 2024 perfect, but it does make it different.

FYI, you're entitled to think a Chicago bid is improbable. I'm entitled to think it's possible. Neither of us has our finger on the pulse of the powers that be.

Incidentally, according to a Gamesbids story Chicago was one of several cities that "expressed interest" - not the other way around, as you wrote. Different news stories phrased the information differently. It's just further proof that we do not have all the facts and shouldn't make arguments as if we did.

[FYI]

Of course another Chicago is "possible", I never said that it wasn't. But so is flying a manned space probe to Mars. But I don't see that happening in the next decade, either.

And as far as the GB article you're talking about, we been through how quite a bit of the information on it was inaccurate when other cities that the article mentioned as "expressed interest" were wondering where that false information was coming from. And Soaring also posted an article from the Chicago Tribune where the USOC was the one that approached New York, Chicago & Los Angeles, & not that those cities were actually soliciting.

Seriously, if any of these cities were thinking of another bid, & especially 2024, the wheels would be starting in motion now. And especially when Reno is extremely serious about 2022. Certainly the USOC would then have to make the call of which is it going to be; "2022 or 2024". Since we all know a good, winnable Olympic bid isn't drawn up on a napkin overnight.