Jump to content

Tulsa To Bid For A Future Olympic Games


GBModerator

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ummm...NYC and Chicago may have failed, but they made it through the extensive USOC vetting process and then again through the tougher IOC shortlisting process. Tulsa will never have to worry about facing the IOC because it won't get anywhere with the USOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on Gamesbids for years and years and years and heard all the arguments for and against almost any city in the United States. And in my time here, I would conclude that there are four cities that come out consistently on top as places that have the appeal, resources, infrastructure, ability, and international stature to host the Summer Games.

They are:

New York.

Chicago.

Los Angeles.

San Francisco.

If any one of them told the USOC they wanted to bid for the Olympics, all the Tulsas, Cincinnatis, Clevelands and Pittsburghs of this world would be pushed aside in a New York minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that Tulsa is a very well-known city across the world, which will prevent them from being a successful bid. The only thing I know the city for is Route 66, although I heard that they want to use a Native American theme as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that Tulsa is a very well-known city across the world, which will prevent them from being a successful bid. The only thing I know the city for is Route 66, although I heard that they want to use a Native American theme as well.

Ya think?? <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

How if Tulsa by fluke is the only one to put its hat forward. Does the USOC bid with it?

Did they bid with it in 2020? I know the revenue issue was still hanging out there, but if Tulsa is the only option, there is no way the USOC bids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One word sums up this idea: WHATEVER! :rolleyes:

The last time I heard news from there, there were racially-motivated murders that went viral on American news networks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tulsa of today doesn't even compare to the Atlanta of 1990. Atlanta had much, much going for it even back then than Tulsa ever has. The two R like night N day, really. If if by chance, they were the only city to express interest for 2024, the USOC would simply say, 'thanks but no thanks', Just like they told Reno, Denver & SLC no to 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tulsa of today doesn't even compare to the Atlanta of 1990. Atlanta had much, much going for it even back then than Tulsa ever has. The two R like night N day, really. If if by chance, they were the only city to express interest for 2024, the USOC would simply say, 'thanks but no thanks', Just like they told Reno, Denver & SLC no to 2022.

Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How was Atlanta selected for the 96 games?

Fairly and squarely. It was up against Minneapolis and the USOC felt it was an opportune time to bid...altho they did not expect to win. But then, Atlanta's winning bid cost around $7.8 million vs. the $76 million Chicago spent, only to lose. So in about 20 years' time, the cost was 10x over!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly and squarely. It was up against Minneapolis and the USOC felt it was an opportune time to bid...altho they did not expect to win. But then, Atlanta's winning bid cost around $7.8 million vs. the $76 million Chicago spent, only to lose. So in about 20 years' time, the cost was 10x over!!

So basically the USOC had to pick the best of a not very desirable selection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the USOC had to pick the best of a not very desirable selection.

The standards were different then. It wasn't all about world capitals. My sense is that the USOC thought, "LA was a great success. Centennial Games are coming up. Why not bid? Who knows what will happen?"

If you look back at history, the US bid constantly with an assortment of cities until they won with LA. It seems frequent bidding was their m.o. After LA they just hopped back in the saddle again.

To everyone's surprise -- including the USOC -- Atlanta won.

With the increased cost of bidding and the bigger profile of the Games, the stakes are now much higher. I don't think the USOC would even bid with Atlanta in today's climate -- much less Tulsa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the Tulsa of today with the Atlanta of 1990 is just laughable. In 1990, Atlanta had a growing metropolitan area whose population exceeded 3 million people. It had one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. It had more Fortune 500 companies that every U.S. city except New York, Chicago, and Houston, including the headquarters of Coca-Cola. The city had at least some international reputation as the home of Martin Luther King, Jr., and it was known for being more progressive on civil rights than other Southern cities. Finally, it had a significant sports tradition with 3 professional sports teams. Tulsa can claim none of this today.

Atlanta was a desirable selection for the USOC in 1990. The bidding climate was very different back then, with very few "A-list" cities bidding. As the capital of the South, Atlanta offered a very different narrative than Los Angeles in a city that, at the time, looked like it would be a major player in the 21st century. Would Atlanta win today? No. Would the USOC even bid with Atlanta today? Probably not. But at the time, it made sense, and it certainly had a lot more to offer than Tulsa.

Tulsa is just a joke, period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't believe that we're still talking about fricken Tulsa. At this point, it has to be taken into account that these buffoons over there R just doing this for PR stunts. If they're not, then they R the biggest mental midgets in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...