Jump to content

USOC Not Decided On 2024 Olympic Games Bid


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sure, in retrospect, it's easy to say that the USOC should have gone after a 20222 WOG, given the way the decent options for the IOC are dropping like flies. But, I'm not sure I think there was really enough time for the USOC to properly vet a 2022 candidate and come up with a winning, or even suitable, bid once they worked out the revenue-sharing agreement with the IOC. From that perspective, I can't say that declining to submit a 2022 WOG bid was the wrong decision.

It's fair to say, based on what little we've seen of the USOC's hand here, that submitting a bid for 2024 is not a guarantee simply because the cities they would prefer to bid have said they aren't interested and the other internationally appealing US cities do not have the ability/venues to submit a workable bid. If NYC, Chicago or San Francisco were viable candidates we wouldn't be getting these "oh, it's no guarantee we're going to bid for 2024" comments out of the USOC. And, unlike the UK, I don't think the USOC is all that interested in LA hosting a 3rd SOG before some of these other cities are given a proper chance.

I would like someone with more knowledge (and by this I mean factual information not subjective opinion) to explain to me why Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC or Dallas are not considered to be first tier cities but yet Miami is considered on par with NYC, Chicago, SF and LA. I can understand why San Diego isn't considered in the same class as those other 9 cities and won't disagree with those who dismiss it as a viable candidate city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says that Miami is "on par" with New

York, Chicago, San Francisco & Los Angeles. Bcuz someone mentioned it in one of their posts alongside New York & Chicago? Far from it. Actually, Miami fits right in with those other second-tier U.S. cities like Boston, San Diego, Dallas & DC. It has a top flair on its own, but it's certainly not one of the Alpha cities of the U.S.

And actually, yes there was enough time for the USOC to bid for 2022 had they wanted to. There were already Exploratory Committiees in Salt Lake City, Denver & Reno virtually in full-swing when the USOC told them all to "hold your horses. We're looking at Summer 2024 ATM, & not looking at Winter Games at this time. Especially Reno. They're almost like the L.A. in the winter category, virtually ready to get their feet wet as soon as the USOC tells them to.

I know Baron says it will never happen, but if you put up San Francisco as our bid, my goodness, how could it possibly be denied?

As Rols just said, put it up against Paris & Durban. Plus, San Francisco can't seem to get their act together anyway, & that's why Baron says as such. That new Levi stadium all the down in Santa Clara can't be the main venue, either. Unless you're prepared for a "San Jose" bid instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like someone with more knowledge (and by this I mean factual information not subjective opinion) to explain to me why Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC or Dallas are not considered to be first tier cities but yet Miami is considered on par with NYC, Chicago, SF and LA. I can understand why San Diego isn't considered in the same class as those other 9 cities and won't disagree with those who dismiss it as a viable candidate city.

Miami is not on par with NYC. Whoever led you to believe otherwise is wrong.

I know Baron says it will never happen, but if you put up San Francisco as our bid, my goodness, how could it possibly be denied?

My goodness, NYC was denied. Chicago was denied. Pretty sure San Francisco could be denied. If they had a plan and if they had the necessary support, maybe we could talk about them as a contender. But right now, all SF and the Bay Area is is a theoretically nice place to hold an Olympics. Doesn't seem like it's destined to happen though. They have bigger things to worry about, most notably how to fix and/or replace the literal toilet that is the Oakland Coliseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC will never host an Olympics. It's a dirty, ugly city, regardless of it's standing on the world scale of "that city is America".

Remind me again who won the domestic race for 2012? Remind me again how San Francisco did when they came back and tried again for 2024?

I'm not holding my breath to see an Olympics in NYC in my lifetime. I think it would be amazing if it happened, but I don't know that a plan will come together that works for the city, regardless of what happened back in 2005 and how the city moved on after that. If you want to insult New York, go right ahead. Not really interested in engaging in that argument where I say it's the greatest city in the world and you say it's a dirty, ugly city. All things being equal though, if both cities had their act together and were bidding for an Olympics, which of the 2 do you think would be more likely to curry the USOC's favor and be able to win over the IOC. Again I'm biased, but I'd take NYC in that showdown nearly every single time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC over San Francisco? Please. There is so much history in San Francisco. Everything in NYC is new and artificial.

Last I checked, the IOC seems to be a big fan of new. Pretty sure also that NYC is not lacking for history. You're not a fan of New York. Fine, not everyone is. I've lived here my whole life and I'm literally looking at my window right now at the Empire State Building, so I'll take this city almost over any other in the world. I've only been to San Francisco a couple of times before. I think it would make a nice setting for an Olympics (again, that's much easier said than done though), but yea.. NYC over San Francisco. That's not even a debate IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind me again who won the domestic race for 2012? Remind me again how San Francisco did when they came back and tried again for 2024?

I'm not holding my breath to see an Olympics in NYC in my lifetime. I think it would be amazing if it happened, but I don't know that a plan will come together that works for the city, regardless of what happened back in 2005 and how the city moved on after that. If you want to insult New York, go right ahead. Not really interested in engaging in that argument where I say it's the greatest city in the world and you say it's a dirty, ugly city. All things being equal though, if both cities had their act together and were bidding for an Olympics, which of the 2 do you think would be more likely to curry the USOC's favor and be able to win over the IOC. Again I'm biased, but I'd take NYC in that showdown nearly every single time.

Wouldn't go as far to say it's the best city in the world ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC over San Francisco? Please. There is so much history in San Francisco. Everything in NYC is new and artificial.

Are you F@U*ing kidding me? San Francisco is almost half the age and does not even come close to the importance of New York. NYC was founded by the Dutch and called New Amsterdam and many consider it the defacto capital of the US. It is the heart and sole of the American story and culture, in a sense it is the Paris of America. And as a final note NYC probably would still be the American Capital city if it was not for the nations earliest congressional compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just going to put it out there that it was and still is a good thing when a country has a capital district separate from the rest of the country. New York is an amazing city with history, culture and a vibe that is unique engaging.

San Francisco and New York present the two American cities that are most interesting to an international audience as perspective American hosts. Both have a lot of issues, but if they could be overcame both would make good Olympic hosts. Both cities need dedicated, compelling leadership a la Seb Coe and 'shocker' Billy Payne. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, whoever needs their Billy Payne to believe, to inspire and engage their cities in the Olympic dream to create the narrative and interest necessary to host the Olympics.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok just throwing my 2 cents worth in as someone from a different country.

New York City entices me much, much more than San Francisco.

Sorry but New York has just so many things i'd like to see; empire state building, statue of liberty, time square, central park.

As for San Francisco all I can think off is the Golden Gate bridge.

I know these things aren't connected to the sporting elements but it has much more of a better pull factor than San Fran.

Not to mention the fact that NYC is the largest city in the USA and is yet to host the games. It's probably one of a small few Global cities including; Tokyo, London, Paris and London.

NYC also ranked better technically for 2012 than Chicago did for 2016.

It's probably not worth much but I would much rather NYC host the games than San Francisco.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC will never host an Olympics. It's a dirty, ugly city, regardless of it's standing on the world scale of "that city is America".

I'm a bit perplexed by this. What part of New York did you find to be more dirty than Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc? I've only been to Manhattan, Brooklyn and Long Island, but all of those were better than average for a major city. I suppose if you went to New York in the 80's or early 90's you might have an impression of it being very dirty, though.

Ok just throwing my 2 cents worth in as someone from a different country.

New York City entices me much, much more than San Francisco.

Sorry but New York has just so many things i'd like to see; empire state building, statue of liberty, time square, central park.

As for San Francisco all I can think off is the Golden Gate bridge.

Personally I find landmarks underwhelming. The MET was the thing that impressed me the most when I first went to New York. Well, that and the fact that the people there are actually nice, contrary to popular belief.

Are you F@U*ing kidding me? San Francisco is almost half the age and does not even come close to the importance of New York. NYC was founded by the Dutch and called New Amsterdam and many consider it the defacto capital of the US. It is the heart and sole of the American story and culture, in a sense it is the Paris of America. And as a final note NYC probably would still be the American Capital city if it was not for the nations earliest congressional compromise.

I don't know about that, though. I personally think LA has more influence on American culture. New York prides itself on being different than the plebs in Nebraska and Tennessee.

Also, Philadelphia was the biggest US city when it declared independence, so even if D.C. hadn't been created to be the capital I think it would have been Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind me again who won the domestic race for 2012? Remind me again how San Francisco did when they came back and tried again for 2016?

All things being equal though, if both cities had their act together and were bidding for an Olympics, which of the 2 do you think would be more likely to curry the USOC's favor and be able to win over the IOC. Again I'm biased, but I'd take NYC in that showdown nearly every single time.

To be fair though, New York winning over SF for the 2012 USOC spot more than likely had much more to do that it was really a "Palo Alto" bid rather than a truly San Francisco one. That being the case, I was actually surprised that it got as far as it did. So I don't think it's as cut-&-dry as you're making it seem.

Apparently, when some IOC members are asked off the record, say that they would favor SF as a U.S. bid. If all things were equal on venue plans & technical merit, I really would say that both the USOC & the IOC would be torn. Both would be great in their own special way, & I seriously doubt that it would be such a shoo-in for NYC in such an 'equal' contest.

*New York 2012 offering up a brand-new stadium in Manhanttan, over an outdated Stanford one, I'm sure also had great influence over that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit perplexed by this. What part of New York did you find to be more dirty than Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc? I've only been to Manhattan, Brooklyn and Long Island, but all of those were better than average for a major city. I suppose if you went to New York in the 80's or early 90's you might have an impression of it being very dirty, though.

Personally I find landmarks underwhelming. The MET was the thing that impressed me the most when I first went to New York. Well, that and the fact that the people there are actually nice, contrary to popular belief.

I don't know about that, though. I personally think LA has more influence on American culture. New York prides itself on being different than the plebs in Nebraska and Tennessee.

Also, Philadelphia was the biggest US city when it declared independence, so even if D.C. hadn't been created to be the capital I think it would have been Philly.

I'm an amateur historian, NYC was the nations first capitol. After the revolution the city was being reconstructed and was named the nations capitol (Washington was inaugurated in the city and consecrated the nation afterwards in a chapel relatively close the WTC). Yet the city was in debt and the only way to get out of it meant giving up NYC as the capitol. Had the nation not been in debt I have no doubt it would still be the capitol.

I also disagree with you on the notion that LA has more influence today. Louisiana and it's capital Baton Rouge are starting to take that title away (Louisiana is now the international film capital, after it made more films then any city or country in the world last year). NYC on the other hand is the gateway into the nation, if you sell in New York you sell to the world. NYC is the undisputed American Paris and because it holds that title it has the most influence on American culture. It's skyline reflects our architecture through the years, it's fashion reflects that of America, and it's stores are envied by every American city, it's events spark excitement around the nation, and as we have seen it's tragedies are a direct assault on America and can unite the nation. New York is America, and America is New York.

*nation* Sentence three, paragraph one, third word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an amateur historian, NYC was the nations first capitol. After the revolution the city was being reconstructed and was named the nations capitol (Washington was inaugurated in the city and consecrated the nation afterwards in a chapel relatively close the WTC). Yet the city was in debt and the only way to get out of it meant giving up NYC as the capitol. Had the nation not been in debt I have no doubt it would still be the capitol.

I also disagree with you on the notion that LA has more influence today. Louisiana and it's capital Baton Rouge are starting to take that title away (Louisiana is now the international film capital, after it made more films then any city or country in the world last year). NYC on the other hand is the gateway into the nation, if you sell in New York you sell to the world. NYC is the undisputed American Paris and because it holds that title it has the most influence on American culture. It's skyline reflects our architecture through the years, it's fashion reflects that of America, and it's stores are envied by every American city, it's events spark excitement around the nation, and as we have seen it's tragedies are a direct assault on America and can unite the nation. New York is America, and America is New York.

*nation* Sentence three, paragraph one, third word.

Do you mean Capital?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an amateur historian, NYC was the nations first capitol. After the revolution the city was being reconstructed and was named the nations capitol (Washington was inaugurated in the city and consecrated the nation afterwards in a chapel relatively close the WTC). Yet the city was in debt and the only way to get out of it meant giving up NYC as the capitol. Had the nation not been in debt I have no doubt it would still be the capitol.

I also disagree with you on the notion that LA has more influence today. Louisiana and it's capital Baton Rouge are starting to take that title away (Louisiana is now the international film capital, after it made more films then any city or country in the world last year). NYC on the other hand is the gateway into the nation, if you sell in New York you sell to the world. NYC is the undisputed American Paris and because it holds that title it has the most influence on American culture. It's skyline reflects our architecture through the years, it's fashion reflects that of America, and it's stores are envied by every American city, it's events spark excitement around the nation, and as we have seen it's tragedies are a direct assault on America and can unite the nation. New York is America, and America is New York.

*nation* Sentence three, paragraph one, third word.

Ho.. ly... fu©k. Please tell me that you did not actually think when Nacre said LA that he was referring to the state of Louisiana in the context of influence of American culture. And then how Baton freakin Rouge is taking the title away from LOS ANGELES as the international film capital. Tell me I'm reading that wrong or else that might go down as 1 of the stupidest comments ever on these forums. And that's saying something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that, though. I personally think LA has more influence on American culture. New York prides itself on being different than the plebs in Nebraska and Tennessee.

Also, Philadelphia was the biggest US city when it declared independence, so even if D.C. hadn't been created to be the capital I think it would have been Philly.

LA certainly contributes to the entertainment industry more than any city in the country, so their contributions are probably more visible to many Americans, but maybe not as much to foreigners. But New York remains the financial backbone of this country (if not the biggest financial center of the world), so it's the home of big business in the United States. As much as those Midwestern fly-over towns can make claims about being the "real" America, and there's some relevancy to that claim, New York is still the country's most iconic and recognizable city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an amateur historian, NYC was the nations first capitol. After the revolution the city was being reconstructed and was named the nations capitol

Strictly speaking, that's misleading and not altogether accurate. The United States was founded in 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia -- not New York. New York didn't become the capital until 1785. Prior to that time the capital (Continental Congress) moved around a bit due to the demands of the Revolutionary War. The country had been in existence for 9 years before New York became the capital. New York was the first capital city after the Revolutionary War and was the location where the Constitution was signed, but I would not call it "the nation's first capital" as you did. If you give NYC that title, then you just changed the country's birthday.

And Tony is correct about the spelling. "Capitol" is the building. "Capital" is the city.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...