Jump to content

USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid


Recommended Posts

Toronto potentially has most of the Americas vote up especially considering the 2015 Pan Ams. The USA needs to definitely put up a city (ie Chicago or NYC) to get some of those votes to sway.

Also Runningrings

There is a potential for a pattern when comparing 1968-1992 and what could likely happen between 2008-2032:

1968 - Mexico City/ 2016-Rio

1972 - Munich/ 2012 - London

1976 - Montreal/ 2016 - ??

1980 - Moscow/ 2020 - Istanbul (both the two major European fringe cities)

1984 - Los Angeles/ 2024 - North America

1988 - Seoul/ 2028 - Beijing 2008 (both governments were not democratic when awarded)

1992 - Barcelona/ 2032 - Europe ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't see why a hypothetical "back up" scenario should rule out LA hosting! Olympic hosts don't fail these days; the closest we got recently was Athens and that turned out to be a great Games despit

When you type B followed by a parentheses, the board interprets it as an emoticon. Has happened to me plenty of times before

baron, it's fruitless to argue with him. Unless you can prove him wrong, he must be right! Even though I disagree with this statement.. if the USOC loved the 2026 candidates and saw slim pickings fo

There is a potential for a pattern when comparing 1968-1992 and what could likely happen between 2008-2032:

1968 - Mexico City/ 2016-Rio

1972 - Munich/ 2012 - London

1976 - Montreal/ 2016 - ??

1980 - Moscow/ 2020 - Istanbul (both the two major European fringe cities)

1984 - Los Angeles/ 2024 - North America

1988 - Seoul/ 2028 - Beijing 2008 (both governments were not democratic when awarded)

1992 - Barcelona/ 2032 - Europe ?

That barely qualifies as a pattern. Let alone that it's relying on predicting the next 4 sites in a row. If all 4 of those happen like that, maybe I'll give it to you, but that's a serious stretch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, so there it is. Plus, USC would be involved in a big way anyway, with another Olympic bidding and hosting as well. So, there would be no problem...whether short or long-term notice. Both parties understand they may have no control over a timetable.

I don't think it's that cut and dry. The agreement says that USC has to make the Coliseum available subject to negotiations. It doesn't mean that an L.A. organizing committee and come in and take it as they see fit. And that's to say nothing about whatever modifications/renovations need to be made to use it as an athletics venue. It's 1 thing to give it a 7-year lead up. It's another if there's no control over a timetable. This is the same issue of ownership that a lot of people here seem to forget about. It's a little less black and white here because of this agreement, but it still makes all this less than automatic.

And again.. this seems similar to the issues surrounding Qatar 2022 and what happens if FIFA needs a back-up to replace them. I wouldn't want the United States to take that over. Let them get their own World Cup and make that into their own. Ditto with a Los Angeles Olympics. Is it really what the USOC will want to rush Los Angeles into position? And then what happens going forward? Which goes back to what we're saying. The IOC may want Los Angeles in their back pocket as a supposed plan B, but that doesn't mean the USOC is going to play along if they don't want to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a potential for a pattern when comparing 1968-1992 and what could likely happen between 2008-2032:

1968 - Mexico City/ 2016-Rio

1972 - Munich/ 2012 - London

1976 - Montreal/ 2016 - ??

1980 - Moscow/ 2020 - Istanbul (both the two major European fringe cities)

1984 - Los Angeles/ 2024 - North America

1988 - Seoul/ 2028 - Beijing 2008 (both governments were not democratic when awarded)

1992 - Barcelona/ 2032 - Europe ?

U're forgetting the OBVIOUS vacancy - Africa. I mean 3 African cities have already bid in the past; the IOC has again met in South Africa 2 years ago; Durban was encouraged highly to go for it. The RSA didn't want to seem to be too much of a prestige-grabber so soon after 2010. But it'll just be a matter of a year or 2 before they declare for 2024 -- let me tell u that. And that'll blow that whole similar scenario out of the water.

I don't see why a hypothetical "back up" scenario should rule out LA hosting! Olympic hosts don't fail these days; the closest we got recently was Athens and that turned out to be a great Games despite the deadlines that were looming scarily large in 2002. I can't imagine the IOC letting a host city get into a Delhi-esque mess. If LA is rejected it'll be for other reasons. The IOC isn't going to reject a host city because they might provide a useful (almost certainly never to be called upon) insurance.

I'm NOT saying it will. It's just that again...if people (IOC'ers and not) are looking for a reason to deny LA an outright hosting, that could be a hidden, insiduous reason NOT entirely unreasonable. Oh wait, the scenario is too complicated for some of you. Fuggedaboutit.

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

I didn't forget Durban. It just didn't fit in with any of those pairs.



That barely qualifies as a pattern. Let alone that it's relying on predicting the next 4 sites in a row. If all 4 of those happen like that, maybe I'll give it to you, but that's a serious stretch


Wasn;t me who proposed it. Runningrings did and I gave my version of it lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, so there it is. Plus, USC would be involved in a big way anyway, with another Olympic bidding and hosting as well. So, there would be no problem...whether short or long-term notice. Both parties understand they may have no control over a timetable.

So there what is? That agreement says nothing about a timeframe or LA as a pinch-hitting eleventh hour host. It just makes it clear that Olympic Games take precedence over USC (which is excellent, btw).

I still argue that there isn't a shred of evidence that the IOC wouldn't vote for LA because they want to save it "in case of emergency." Nor is there any evidence that LA would be their first or even second choice in such a scenario. That's just your singular belief.

Your hypothetical situation isn't complicated, just odd. Among other things, the IOC doesn't need to justify their vote. They usually focus in why they voted for the winner, not why they passed over the loser. If pressed, they can simply say they felt it was still too soon for the US and they preferred to go to "X". No need to reach for outlandish excuses.

When push comes to shove, there maybe any number of reasons a given IOCer might prefer another city to LA, but your "backup theory" is not one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would classify LA with NYC and Chicago. But if I had to choose between the 3 I would pick LA last because of 32 and 84. That would be the only reason.

I hear you. If presented with enthusiastic, competitive bids from all three cities, I can certainly understand that.

However, it doesn't seem fair to compare LA's present plans to two phantom bids that may never materialize. It's also such a shame that LA's past success would be perceived as the primary reason to pass them over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you. If presented with enthusiastic, competitive bids from all three cities, I can certainly understand that.

However, it doesn't seem fair to compare LA's present plans to two phantom bids that may never materialize. It's also such a shame that LA's past success would be perceived as the primary reason to pass them over.

The reason why I used if. If La is the only option it would be the best option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hypothetical situation isn't complicated, just odd. Among other things, the IOC doesn't need to justify their vote. They usually focus in why they voted for the winner, not why they passed over the loser. If pressed, they can simply say they felt it was still too soon for the US and they preferred to go to "X". No need to reach for outlandish excuses.

Then don't start wailing ad infinitum (like so many of you did with Chicago) if LA is passed over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the Pan Ams have to do with an Olympic bid race. It's been said before that "continental block" votes are not really a way to try & gauge votes.

If Madrid were to go at it yet again, some of those Latin American votes could go their way. Not to mention how many would be compelled to vote for South Africa, particularly those caribbean votes. It's too much of a mixed bag to predict with certainly how those votes would play out, let alone for any one particular candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then don't start wailing ad infinitum (like so many of you did with Chicago) if LA is passed over.

What? Total non-sequitur.

Any time a bid loses, it's painful for the loser. It's normal to try to understand why -- particularly in a situation as surprising as Chicago's. The IOC still doesn't offer up all the reasons why they didn't vote for the loser. Regardless, your backup theory won't be one of them.

Seriously, can you imagine anyone from the IOC saying, "We love LA, but we voted for Berlin because we wanted to have LA as an insurance policy in case Berlin can't hack it." That just makes absolutely no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, can you imagine anyone from the IOC saying, "We love LA, but we voted for Berlin because we wanted to have LA as an insurance policy in case Berlin can't hack it." That just makes absolutely no sense.

That's the whole thing that defies logic here. Like you said, the IOC voters don't have to justify their choices. But in this case, they'd basically be saying "not now Los Angeles, we'll tell you when we need you." Again, I get the logic where the IOC would want LA as a just-in-case, but that's out of their control if LA is presented for a 2024 bid. I mean, that's as outlandish as an organization like FIFA refusing to award a World Cup to the United States because they want them on the ready in case something goes wrong with the country the chose. Oh wait..

It's different when you're talking about a city (or country) like Innsburck in `76. They were a very recent host and had no aspirations of trying again in the short term. That's not the case with Los Angeles. The argument over whether it's been long enough since 1984 aside, it's a different story when a city/country is actively pursuing an Olympics on their terms. If they want that, then they can't be your insurance option. I can't see Los Angeles accepting a fate like that where they back off because they're worried the IOC might have to find a new "back-up city"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. U've taken this whole tack all too literally, distorted it and bent it out of shape. Fuggedabout it. Too complicated for u guys.

Go with whatever suits u.

I'm sorry. Should we be considering LA as a non-literal backup? Which subtlety are we missing? Philistines that we are, we'd appreciate any enlightenment you might offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nashville contacted about 2024 Summer Olympics bid

It might seem farfetched, and its chances slim, but Nashville is

among 35 cities the United States Olympic Committee has contacted to

size up interest in making a proposal to host the 2024 summer Games.

The New York Times first reported Wednesday that the committee sent letters to mayors of

cities as small as Rochester N.Y. and as large as New York City in its

quest to select a U.S. city to make a bid. Also named on the list –

which includes the nation’s 25 largest markets – is Nashville.

The International Olympic Committee is scheduled to pick a 2024 host city

in 2017. The United States’ two most recent attempts to host the Summer

Games – New York in 2012 and Chicago in 2016 – both failed.

“Our objective in this process is to identify a partner city that can work

with us to present a compelling bid to the IOC and that has the right

alignment of political, business and community leadership,” a uniform

letter signed by the the USOCs CEO Scott Blackmun reads.

Nashville Mayor Karl Dean’s office confirmed receiving the letter but didn’t seem to embrace pursuing the event.

“We got the letter, along with 34 other cities, and it’s nice they thought

of us and asked,” the mayor’s press secretary Bonna Johnson said.

“Hosting the Olympics is a massive undertaking and would be extremely

expensive.”

...

WELL, IT'S NOT A NO!

and also according to the NYT, nashville is having a MOMENT.

and you can't spell MOMENTUM without MOMENT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't forget Durban. It just didn't fit in with any of those pairs.

Wasn;t me who proposed it. Runningrings did and I gave my version of it lol

lol, don't put this back on me. I think my original post pointed out a potential pattern from 1968 to 1992 that could be mirrored 2008 to 2032. Still completely fail to see the pattern in your version, however.

Quaker - It's quite obviously speculation, if you read my original post you'd see it was clearly meant to be only that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1968 - Mexico City/ 2016-Rio: Both games go to an Americas country with booming economies.


1972 - Munich/ 2012 - London - Western Europe Games


1976 - Montreal/ 2016 - ??


1980 - Moscow/ 2020 - Istanbul (both the two major European fringe cities)


1984 - Los Angeles/ 2024 - North America (La is in North America)


1988 - Seoul/ 2028 - Beijing 2008 (both governments were not democratic when awarded)


1992 - Barcelona/ 2032 - Europe ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated at the heads up from FYI - Boston and Miami now blue, and Nashville now red. If anyone else wants to contribute and alter the list as news comes in, feel free.



Los Angeles



Dallas


San Diego


San Francisco


Boston


Miami



Phoenix


Sacramento


Denver


Washington


Jacksonville


Orlando


Atlanta


Baltimore


St. Louis


Las Vegas


New York City


Charlotte


Columbus


Tulsa


Portland


Philadelphia


Pittsburgh


Memphis


Austin


Houston


San Antonio


Seattle



Nashville


Rochester


Minneapolis


Detroit


Chicago


San Jose


Indianapolis


Edited by runningrings
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to read that Blackmun says that they're not predisposed, either way, of a repeat host candidate or a newcomer. That a former host is not considered a disadvantage, his words.



Would like to read more on San Francisco, though. Last I read, they (along with Miami) were only considering exploratory committees.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to read that Blackmun says that they're not predisposed, either way, of a repeat host candidate or a newcomer. That a former host is not considered a disadvantage, his words.

Would like to read more on San Francisco, though. Last I read, they (along with Miami) were only considering exploratory committees.

Of course, he is not going to bash LA, because that may be their only plausible option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, he is not going to bash LA, because that may be their only plausible option.

Blackmun's position denies him the luxury of being totally transparent with his opinions. It's impossible to know how he really feels. As head of the USOC, he must consistently appear as positive and open as possible.

Perhaps he's secretly delighted and felt LA was the best bet all along. Perhaps he's bitterly disappointed with Chicago and is ready to call it quits for 2024. Or perhaps he really means what he says and sees potential for positive developments but isn't going to rush to judgment.

I'm inclined to believe that the latter is closest to the truth, but there's no way to know.

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...