Jump to content

USOC Forms Committee To Study Possible Olympic Bid


Recommended Posts

Surely no US city is going to successfully bid for the Olympics all the while that there's effectively zero US public interest in the Paralympics.

Zero? :blink: And where did you get these? Considering the smaller budgets of 1996 and 2002, the Paralympics movement GOT tremendous boosts from the success of both the last TWO Paralympics held on US soil: Atlanta 1996 and Salt Lake 2002. The US, being the 3rd most populous nation on the planet, with probably the most advanced sports programs on earth; with the largest number of injured and rehabilitated soldiers per capita, you say has "zero interest"? What planet are you on, Spiracle? Just because NBC doesn't carry it on primetime doesn't mean NOBODY out there watches or cares.

http://www.teamusa.org/US-Paralympics.aspx

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OMG I just read that and had to correct all the spelling, typing from my car! I have to be honest, I'ts gettng a little old hearing about how GREAT everything was in London (from locals mostly), it w

Here's the point: London's success as a games has been overstated. Great that the Paralympics had good attendance, I personally lost interest after the London Olympics games did not live up to the "f

Being on a budget and "feeling" like it was on a budget are 2 different things. It's particularly bad "feeling" like a budget-deprived games when the budget was not particularly tiny. Some of the best

There is quite a lot of buzz in LA about the 2015 Special Olympics that will be held here. Obviously it's not quite the same thing, but it's evidence that Americans care about more than just the world's most impressive able-bodied athletes.

Spiracle, the problem is that NBC doesn't really televise the Paralympics. That's a problem with NBC -- not the whole United States. I have no doubts at all that Americans will support the Paralympics wholeheartedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiracle, the problem is that NBC doesn't really televise the Paralympics. That's a problem with NBC -- not the whole United States. I have no doubts at all that Americans will support the Paralympics wholeheartedly.

Actually this is a problem in many countries. At least here -Guadalajara, México-, there's no a whole televised transmision of the Paralympics even when the people show interest. I think this is more economical and marketing problem than lack of support by the people. Also, there could be a problem for the dateline of the Paralympics, but still the people have good response by the paralympic athletes.

Anyway, I love the idea of the next American SOG in an iconic city like NYC... I don't know if they win in 2024, 2028 or 2032, but I strongly believe a new American SOG won't pass the 2032

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero? :blink: And where did you get these? Considering the smaller budgets of 1996 and 2002, the Paralympics movement GOT tremendous boosts from the success of both the last TWO Paralympics held on US soil: Atlanta 1996 and Salt Lake 2002. The US, being the 3rd most populous nation on the planet, with probably the most advanced sports programs on earth; with the largest number of injured and rehabilitated soldiers per capita, you say has "zero interest"? What planet are you on, Spiracle? Just because NBC doesn't carry it on primetime doesn't mean NOBODY out there watches or cares.

http://www.teamusa.o...aralympics.aspx

I don't think Atlanta 96 was considered a success by Paralympians. You only have to listen to David Weir talking about his experiences there to know this ("you could only see your teammates in the crowd"). The village was being dismantled whilst they were living there since the contractors were asked to start doing so after the Olympics had left town, the stadiums were pretty much empty and the ceremonies were a complete afterthought (to the extent that the BBC coverage at the time said the athletes had been "let down").

Sydney was the Games that changed all that a mere four years later, and London was the Games in which the Paralympics really came of age with them being a sell-out.

Having said that I very much doubt there would be a repeat of the Atlanta experience if the US were to host again, and nor do I see NBC's editorial decisions with regard to the Paralympics influencing the IOC's perspective on a future American Olympics and Paralympics. The US like all future hosts will latch onto the business model for the Paralympics refined in London and will pre-sell most tickets. That was the biggest thing. It created a buzz and a demand for tickets during Games-time. And if anything, a home Games could be the thing that changes NBC's mind.

So whilst I'm not convinced of the success of Atlanta's Paralympics at all, and whilst it'd be great to have NBC showing more of the Games, I don't think it's likely to influence the iOC when regarding a future American bid and nor should it be assumed the Atlanta Paralympic experience will be what the US will serve up again. The US will up its Game considerably, I'm sure.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Atlanta 96 was considered a success by Paralympians. You only have to listen to David Weir talking about his experiences there to know this ("you could only see your teammates in the crowd"). The village was being dismantled whilst they were living there since the contractors were asked to start doing so after the Olympics had left town, the stadiums were pretty much empty and the ceremonies were a complete afterthought (to the extent that the BBC coverage at the time said the athletes had been "let down").

U know they had Crristopher Reeve, Liza Minnelli and a live eagle as the main guest stars of the Opening. So how could that be a complete 'let down'? Please. I never heard of this "David Weir," so his comment(s) don't count.

Re the Village thing, I imagine they were housed in the new building which was technically not part of the Georgia Tech campus. (It was across the freeway.) Because school at GT was restarting quickly and the older dorms there were NOT handicapped-friendly, I imagine that part of the Village was being taken down and readied for the school year. So because the new bldg, I believe they were able to squeeze in 2,800+ Olympians there, must've been the main Para V because it was newer and complied with the Disabilities code, etc., etc., So that's what they were complaining about. (That new building eventually became housing for the Georgia State Univ. students who had to wait until the Paras were over, so that they could move in there.)

There are at least 2 sides to every story.

. The US like all future hosts will latch onto the business model for the Paralympics refined in London and will pre-sell most tickets. That was the biggest thing. It created a buzz and a demand for tickets during Games-time. And if anything, a home Games could be the thing that changes NBC's mind.

Oh, Rob. U actually bought that line? :lol: These last Paralympics were successful because many of the hungry local crowd were shut out of regular O tix, that they were willing to settle for the even lesser Games, just to partake of an "Olympic" glow, even if it meant dropping "O-" and substituting "Para-".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, Rob. U actually bought that line? :lol: These last Paralympics were successful because many of the hungry local crowd were shut out of regular O tix, that they were willing to settle for the even lesser Games, just to partake of an "Olympic" glow, even if it meant dropping "O-" and substituting "Para-".

Oh completely! But the fact that tickets were pre-sold in very large numbers allowed LOCOG's Paralympic ticketing team to strike while the iron was hot (i.e. while so many were pissed at not getting Olympic tickets). The Paralympic pre-sale was such a huge success partially because of the Olympic over-demand, but the fact of the matter is London was the first host to do this sort of pre-sale on such a scale.Other hosts could've, but they didn't. And that gave the organisers confindence in their budgets, and everything flowed from there. This was obviously not the case with Atlanta.

HOWEVER, the fact is, a future US Paralympics will emultate the business model used in London. So I've no reason to believe a US Paralympics can't or won't be successful with full stadiums, unlike Atlanta. I was actually disputing Spiracle's point.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be honest, I'ts gettng a little old hearing about how GREAT everything was in London (from locals mostly), it was OK games. Not the greatest, but not the worst either. The organization seemed good (except for security debacle, empty seats, horendously overhyped couldron, even more horendous treatment of the couldron - still can't believe they just PUT IT OUT to move it, logo, lack of dense city trim, undistinct venue interior trims.......and who can forget the CRAZY-BAD opening cerimony, etc etc etc.).

Sorry London the truth hurts to say but I can no longer keep my mouth shut.

p.s. Atlanta was help in 1996, I guess paralympics wasn't that important then, that was a loooooong time ago.

I love London (spent tons of time there) but I'm in Atlanta now and it's SOOOOOOOOO amazing here, I don't think it's cool to bash Atlanta, people that do seem sort of limited in their knowledge of whats happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG I just read that and had to correct all the spelling, typing from my car!

I have to be honest, I'ts gettng a little old hearing about how GREAT everything was in London (from locals mostly), it was OK games. Not the greatest, but not the worst either. The organization seemed good (except for security debacle, empty seats, horrendously overhyped cauldron, even more horrendous treatment of the cauldron - still can't believe they just PUT IT OUT to move it, logo, lack of dense city trim, indistinct venue interior trims.......and who can forget the CRAZY-BAD opening ceremony, etc etc etc.).

Sorry London the truth hurts to say but I can no longer keep my mouth shut.

p.s. Atlanta was held in 1996, I guess Paralympics wasn't that important then, that was a loooooong time ago.

I love London (spent tons of time there) but I'm in Atlanta now and it's SOOOOOOOOO amazing here, I don't think it's cool to bash Atlanta, people that do seem sort of limited in their knowledge of what’s happening.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you actulally got a point relevent to this thread Paul because I can/t find one in either of those posts?

I would be making the EXACTLY the same point holding Beijing up as the example of best practice were this discussion a few months ago. My points remain about the problems with Atlanta's Paralympics; it's not "bashing" (and by the way, those who post here often will know I am one of the first who'll defend Atlanta's Olympics from the needless bashing which does happen from time to time).

So my point remains about a future US Games, which will obviously look to emulate the most successful Paralympics to date (hopefully Rio by then, not London), They won't be looking to emulate Atlanta's Paralympics, so as I've said, earlier points about a US bid being in jeopardy because of Atlanta are not fair. Or do you disagree with this conclusion?

And Athensfan, since you "liked" that post, can I ask when you're going to stfu about how great Athens was? I mean, come on, London was only a couple of months ago and we're still on a come down, but what's your excuse fella? ;):lol::P

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the point: London's success as a games has been overstated.

Great that the Paralympics had good attendance, I personally lost interest after the London Olympics games did not live up to the "feeling" of past games. It just didn’t get me excited like ALL past games I saw. Not because I wasn't into it, but because SOMETHING WAS DIFFERENT......MISSING! I was personally shocked that that "feeling" did not happen as I had always experienced it in the past games.

Beijing was too amazing to follow for London, and both Athens and Beijing’s amazing ceremonies made London's look like a proper MESS.

THE BAR WAS SET TOO HIGH FOR LONDON.

I still can't put my finger on it but the London games were different and a let down.

I can work on a dossier later to try to examine all the problems that made London less than it should have been.

Here’s my Atlanta point:

A lot of people here sound VERY naïve about Atlanta. I hear comments about pickup trucks and some new technology that delayed scoring results in 96, well it was 96……….like, the dawn of technology. Oh and a bus driver was lost….I seem to remember the SAME THING in London.

London felt like it was on a budget; it was more a county fair on steroids (I read that somewhere). I also thing London lost stature due to the mediocre games exposure, those ceremonies really ignored so many things about out London that we love, any were SO self indulgent that I think they hurt games and the image of London.

The queen didn’t smile at your ceremony!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don’t say she never smiles, she smiles ALL the time………she did a reality show for god sake.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine Paul, but really none of that has anything to do with this thread or the context in which London was brought into this discussion (mainly as a case study for the Paralympic ticketing model in comparison with Atlanta). Whatever bug-bear you have with regard to people's opinions of London on this forum, this isn't the thread for it. You've filled this entire page up with rants irrelevent to the topic at hand, so please.don't bother responding to this post.

(By the way, if you feel the London threads are "imbalanced" that might be because the majority enjoyed the London Games a lot more than you seemed to. Adding your opinion - as entitled to it as you are - isn't going to add more "balance", just another voice)

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just be REAL about London (and fabulous Atlanta!). :)

As I mentioned I'll post it ALL in the London threads later, i won't be ther first here to commit thread drift, it kinda how this forum works but thank you so much for your guidance.

I'm thinking a LOT of people like me didn't want to rain (no pun intended) on Londons parade right away while all the "locals" were so excited.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets just be REAL about London (and fabulous Atlanta!). :)

We are being real. Your opinion is no more 'real' or objective than anyone else's. As I said, London was only brought up in this thread as a point of comparison with the Paralympics and specifically the ticketing models. I'm not quite sure what sparked your earlier posts in this thread - they seemed quite out of place to me.

Let's leave it at that eh? This thread's about the US' Olympic future and very little on this page has been about that.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no I'm not close to done discussing London.....I'm pissed these games werer so mediocre.

You (London 2012) blew it, and now sandwitched between RIO and BEIJING the stature of your games will continue to be revealed as less than expected or possible.

I will continue the rant elsewhere.

.....running to a plane.

Ah Paris....what could have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
London felt like it was on a budget; it was more a county fair on steroids...

Ah Paris....what could have been....

Lovely contradiction there.

A cornucopia of temporary venues and a budet a lot, lot smaller than London's is what Paris offered. Make your mind up Paul?! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being on a budget and "feeling" like it was on a budget are 2 different things. It's particularly bad "feeling" like a budget-deprived games when the budget was not particularly tiny. Some of the best results can come out of creativity applied to projects on a tight budget, in Londons case I think the oposite happened. I was speculating that Paris 2012, regardless of the budget may have created that "spirit" that London was missing, no garantee just an oportunity lost. In person the games may have been amazing, but just like the "insider" opening cerimony where the British "did it their way" and bedamed the international audience, therse games did not come across as significant as games of recent decades. They fell flat, and were often confusing (need I mention the cauldron again). These are just my opinions and I'm an EASY audience, I love almost everything Olympic.

p.s. This "US forms a commitee" thread is obsolete for the near future, might as well write anything in here, it's more interesting than any US Olympic news at the moment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
These are just my opinions and I'm an EASY audience,

You may be an easy audience, but if London did the apparently "easy" thing and pleased you, I wonder how many people whose tastes don't match yours would then feel as you do now. As they say, you can't please all the people all of the time. I haven't read an assessment as harsh as yours from many, and I doubt you have either (in fact I know you haven't which is why you were bemoaning what you perceive to be a lack of "balance" in the London threads). I'm not saying you should change your opinion, but I do wonder whether your tastes and expectations are unusual and whether you're not as easy to please as you think you are.

You (London 2012) blew it, and now sandwitched between RIO and BEIJING the stature of your games will continue to be revealed as less than expected or possible.

Rubbish argument I'm afraid which owes far more to sixth-form level analysis of current world politics than it does to any kind of real objective comparison.

Perhaps I should dismiss what Vancouver acheived on the basis of Sochi or Sochi on the basis of Pyongchang?

You entered this thread by being annoyed at the level of (in your eyes) irrational, praise London was receiving, but then, by implication, you dare to give a Games that hasn't happened yet glowing reviews. Wow! Can you tell me what you loved SO much about Rio's Games? How was THEIR cauldron lighting? I bet it was magical, yes?

And more to the point, can you tell me what chance such a statement gives me and others when trying to debate with you?

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Paul and I haven't met anyone apart from these boards who doesn't. All my real world friends and acquaintances who have talked about the Games said the same kind of thing. London didn't grab any of us and it was missing that "spark."

That doesn't mean the Games were bad. They had a great many obvious strengths. They just didn't excite us foreign tv viewers the way other Games have in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Horses for courses. As far as I'm concerned, if London didn't have a spark, no Games is going to in future and certainly no Games did in the recent past. It's a pretty meaningless term which is only going to lead the thread in circles anyway as we talk our way around it

(on that note, we haven't had a Religion/God thread for a while, maybe that's what this forum needs post-London!)

I'm still bemused at where Paul's rant came from and why he brought his feelings up in this thread of all threads though. It's not like London was being discussed at any real length. It feels like a dam just broke and this thread was drowned! :lol:

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other year, I would've loved to have gone to the London Games. In fact, knowing that LES MIZ was also being filmed (or the big crowd scenes) in Greenwich, I would've loved to maybe have stayed a stretch in London if I knew I could qualify as an extra on the film, then stayed on to probably volunteer too for the Opening Ceremony. Also, if the Greenwich accommodations had been availalbe earlier, I certainly would've gone. However, having been to London already 4x in the past -- and always not in the warmest of days (and I was much younger then), I didn't feel I had to go to London again.

I get a high dose of British dramas from the BBC and Granada on PBS, so I already do get my Anglophiliac fix sated there. No need to feel the London chill again when I can view all of it from the warmth of my sofa.

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

Yes a dam broke, I'm telling how I felt about London.

As I said I think the juice was squeezed out of London by Beijing and the Significance of South American first games in "magical" (to borrow you term).

Will Rio be fantastical? Maybe maybe not but the excitement about Rio is palpable, and I think it's going to be unbelievably beautiful, interesting and fresh.

London has been plagued by sorta badly timed games 3 times now, not an easy world mood to try to cheer this summer, the world depression has certainly contributed to avery heavy lift on London. It was well organized but I agree it didn't have that "spark".

Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. I didn't think Vancouver was the greatest either, maybe it's just too hard to organize and have magic at the same time these days.

But both screwed up their cauldron moments pretty bad, can't blame anyone but yourself for those problems and decisions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said I think the juice was squeezed out of London by Beijing and the Significance of South American first games in "magical" (to borrow you term).

In other words, London could never win in your eyes. Well, it sounds like you spoiled your own enjoyment in that case. Your loss, not mine.

London has been plagued by sorta badly timed games 3 times now, not an easy world mood to try to cheer this summer, the world depression has certainly contributed to avery heavy lift on London.

I was chatting to a friend who wasn't at the Games and like you watched on TV and they were quite certain they'd not seen a past Olympics with an atmosphere quite as good as London's. Why you let the political climate affect your enjoyment I don't know, because it didn't make a jot of difference for those who were there. Again, it sounds like a few minor blemishes aside (all Games have these and I can understand your point re: the cauldron), you spoiled the Games for yourself if you were viewing them like that the whole time.

Equally, it sounds like you've already convinced yourself of the success of Rio.

I basically don't understand your mindset, that's all.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really looking at it as arguing, sorry you may be. I think you were so right about the dam breaking, I've held it in till now wondering if I'd feel differently. I have strong deep connections and feelings for London through my in-laws who are prominent citizens there. They owned Selfridges, have a wing of the Tate Britain named after the family, funded significant development of the London Zoo, etc etc etc stuff like that. I’ve said I love London, but these games were not London, and they did not live up to the brilliant of London. I blame LOCOG not London.

Those comments by Seb Coe about the cauldron not being for public viewing (or some such) were a significant NAIL in London 2012’s coffin for me. There was an odd elitist edge to the organization that felt cold, and all the small flaws and design issues were difficult to overlook after that. The aquatic center was such an early bloated disappointment which stereotypically was a clunker compared to its fantastical renderings. The erector set stadium and it’s drawn out wrap issue and legacy confusion, not to mention the ridiculous price for a temporary stadium. However, the Velodrome was a dream come true. The “looks” potential really seemed to collapse at some point in planning, not sure what all happened but the resulting “safe” graphics were underwhelming and under exploited from what I saw. That really was disappointing after waiting all those years to see what AMAZING things London would do after LOCOG provoked us with their controversial logo, we were told what was to come was going to be groundbreaking, then they went super safe. Perhaps the gloomy weather was a drain on everything too.

But it really isn't the many physical flaws that left me cold, it was that intangible thing I have felt from oher games. But of course this is all my opinion and I know some here even called it "the greatest games ever". As you said, to each his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...