Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

It's really anybody's call. There are so many variables that you can't guess what the IOC's mindset will be 2.5 years from today.

Those odds are for the USOC decision bound to be made in the next 6 weeks, not the IOC decision in 2017. Nonetheless, I wouldn't allege that Vegas' odds are anything other than a curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those odds are for the USOC decision bound to be made in the next 6 weeks, not the IOC decision in 2017. Nonetheless, I wouldn't allege that Vegas' odds are anything other than a curiosity.

I know that. But the USOC has to think how their candidate will fare in 2017 -- how to sell the US rep vs. whomever else shows up at the selection in Lima. That is the end-game after all.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

OK. If I were on the USOC board this minute, and knowing what I know of the 4 candidates and the IOC's mindset, I would probably pick Boston. Why?

#1 - Least controversial of the Final 4. Its lack of an Olympic stadium puts it on a par with SF's chances but I think their city can handle it. Its collection of the leading universities of the world, also makes it very attractive but it would come from behind vs. the P-B-D-R bids.

For me, San Francisco is really iffy because:

1. There will be a very vocal anti-Games minority in the City.

2. Its main Stadium plans are too risky and still wasteful.

3. It offers a semi-compact venue playout.

In terms of int'l allure, SF could be a match for Paris-Berlin-Durban-Rome. But will its charms and beauty be enough to fend off the charges of P-B-D-R? .

Washington is too spread out; the weather in July-August can be wretched; and as the capital of the US, it's very much a lightning rod for the non-friends of the US. So I don't know why they are even considering DC.

LA is the tired old bridesmaid. She's also a cheap date; and that 2x-reputation will not count for much if Paris, Berlin and Rome are in there. Those 3 and Durban would surely survive the first round of voting.

Parsing everything, I think any USA 2024 bid will be an uphill battle vs. P-B-D-R, especially w/ 3 Olympics in a row in Asia and if Durban sits 2024 out, then they practically have 2028 written for them. US broadcast rights are NO leverage since NBC has already paid for the Games up to 2032. The USOC should never have allowed that. Dumb USOC.

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

OK. If I were on the USOC board this minute, and knowing what I know of the 4 candidates and the IOC's mindset, I would probably pick Boston. Why?

#1 - Least controversial of the Final 4. Its lack of an Olympic stadium puts it on a par with SF's chances but I think their city can handle it. Its collection of the leading universities of the world, also makes it very attractive but it would come from behind vs. the P-B-D-R bids.

For me, San Francisco is really iffy because:

1. There will be a very vocal anti-Games minority in the City.

2. Its main Stadium plans are too risky and still wasteful.

3. It offers a semi-compact venue playout.

Those negatives might not be enough to offset the chances of Paris, Rome, Berlin or Durban.

Washington is too spread out; the weather in July-August can be wretched; and as the capital of the US, it's very much a lightning rod for the non-friends of the US. So I don't know why they are even considering DC.

LA is the tired old bridesmaid. She's also a cheap date; and that 2x-reputation will not count for much if Paris, Berlin and Rome are in there. Those 3 and Durban would surely survive the first round of voting.

Look at what I bolded and underlined in your quote. That is future tense. Boston already has oppositions in motion. How can you say SF has a smaller chance because those things might happen when your declaration of Boston already has oppositions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at what I bolded and underlined in your quote. That is future tense. Boston already has oppositions in motion. How can you say SF has a smaller chance because those things might happen when your declaration of Boston already has oppositions...

They haven't come out yet because it's all been low-key and secretive. Did I discount Boston on that count? I KNOW there already is the opposition in Boston as there has been, and there will be for every City. But they (the anti-everything) make it an art and a science in the Bay Area. If SF is selected, they will COME out of the woodwork believe you me. And if SF is bypassed, then it ain't happening. So???????????

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

You have to figure how the USOC's city will stack up against these other prominent world cities. Based on that, simply on brand name and reputation alone, I think San Francisco gives them the best shot to win in a heavily loaded field. Obviously though there are a lot of hurdles that SF may not be able to overcome. Still though, in comparison to Boston, all 3 of those points that baron mentioned apply to Boston as they do to San Francisco. They make both iffy. That's why I think the city with the better international reputation gets the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to figure how the USOC's city will stack up against these other prominent world cities. Based on that, simply on brand name and reputation alone, I think San Francisco gives them the best shot to win in a heavily loaded field. Obviously though there are a lot of hurdles that SF may not be able to overcome. Still though, in comparison to Boston, all 3 of those points that baron mentioned apply to Boston as they do to San Francisco. They make both iffy. That's why I think the city with the better international reputation gets the edge.

That would be SOOOO GREAT if that came to pass. I just don't want to be disappointed; so I'm preparing for the worst and hoping for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everyone assuming Berlin will be Germany's bid? It's not yet a done deal here. And it shows that instead of playing mind games about potential competitors, USOC (or any other NOC) should focus on a bid relying on its own strength.

It's just preparing for the toughest competition. If not, then no sweat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't come out yet because it's all been low-key and secretive. Did I discount Boston on that count? I KNOW there already is the opposition in Boston as there has been, and there will be for every City. But they (the anti-everything) make it an art and a science in the Bay Area. If SF is selected, they will COME out of the woodwork believe you me. And if SF is bypassed, then it ain't happening. So???????????

.......I'm feeling like SFs activist reputation has become so cliche that it may not hold as much concern as in the past.........the city has moved forward in the most aggressive ways possible regarding development etc....maybe it's a little stealth (and expensive to get your way) but for a tiny city it's about as megalopolis-y as any.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......I'm feeling like SFs activist reputation has become so cliche that it may not hold as much concern as in the past.........the city has moved forward in the most aggressive ways possible regarding development etc....maybe it's a little stealth (and expensive to get your way) but for a tiny city it's about as megalopolis-y as any.....

Oh, the activist community in the area is just waiting for the next excuse to get them out on the streets at the drop of a hat. A few months ago, you had the Google buses; and then the whole series of Trayvon Martin, what's-his-face-Brown, etc., etc. True, they are less active or destructive than the Oakland crowd but Lee I think wields a stronger hand than that ineffective Jean Quan over there in OAK. Which is why she also lost. Of course the pro-Games forces could easily mobilize their supporters...but you know they are the ones toiling in Silicon Valley. If they can get the Hunters Point people on board, I think their voices will offset the regular "anti-everything" crowd.

OMG. Am actually PM'ing with a "friend" on FB who's just giving me her history on being an activist since the Vietnam War, etc., all that foolishness.

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

IMO I think that LA will be the USOC's candidate. First of all, they fit Agenda 2020 perfectly using existing venues (which Boston is doing too), sustainability, and a low cost games (which you can say for all the US cities for 2024). The reason I don't think Boston will be the candidate is because of the lack of experience Boston has. Remember, this only their first time bidding, and if they're going up against cities like Paris, Rome Berlin/Hamburg who have all bid before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, this only their first time bidding, and if they're going up against cities like Paris, Rome Berlin/Hamburg who have all bid before.

That's neither here nor there. Aside from Los Angeles, none of the other three U.S. cities have bid in the INTERNATIONAL phase of a campaign post Los Angeles 1984. And neither has Hamburg either. They were ony running in their domestic German campaign to be their NOC's 2012 nominee.

Paris, Berlin & Rome haven't bid in years either. I agree that Los Angeles would likely be the USOC pick, but Boston not making it bcuz they've never bid before is the least reason why they would get bypassed by the USOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an interested outsider.

I leave my heart in San Francisco, but my head says Boston.

SF easily would be my top preference. But it is one of my favourite cities of them all in the world, so I would think that.

Boston, I think, has shown some persistence and dedication, and could tick all the right boxes - it seems a reasonable plan in the ethos of Agenda 2020 and is something fresh to show to the IOC. I think it's definitely sellable on the world stage.

It's the domestic stage that will probably prove the tougher audience, though. Activism is inevitably going to be the challenge faced by whoever's chosen. And, yeah, while SF's reputation is what makes me lean towards thinking Boston would have the edge in the USOC pick, funnily enough from the reports I've perused, the general tone from SF seem a tad more positive than in Boston. But then again, maybe that's just because the Boston plans have been more public profile for longer. Still, neither's plan looks excessive or unsellable by any half-competent marketing campaign.

Washington? Risks local opposition merging with national activism and opposition to make for an inevitably turbulent ride if chosen. It looks the stark outsider to me.

LA? I'm sure it does tick all the boxes. Just doesn't excite me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If SF couldn't put together a plan to save their beloved 49ers, I just don't see them putting together an Olympic plan.

The Congressional feifdom of Washington will never be allowed to host.

Realistically, I see it was Boston vs LA. While I would love nothing more than SOG in Boston... the USOC has to put it's best city forward. And that is easily LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If SF couldn't put together a plan to save their beloved 49ers, I just don't see them putting together an Olympic plan.

The Congressional feifdom of Washington will never be allowed to host.

Realistically, I see it was Boston vs LA. While I would love nothing more than SOG in Boston... the USOC has to put it's best city forward. And that is easily LA.

Last I checked, SF kinda sorta already did put a plan together. Whether or not the USOC is interested is another matter. But it's more than Boston has right now. Interesting though how you're dismissing San Francisco because their football team moved 30 miles down the road and giving the #2 spot behind LA to Boston.. who's football team moved 30 miles down the road and never returned. At least San Francisco got AT&T Park built to get the Giants closer to the city (and that was much more of a 'save' than the 49ers since the Giants were on the verge of moving out of the Bay Area entirely at least once).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I checked, SF kinda sorta already did put a plan together. Whether or not the USOC is interested is another matter. But it's more than Boston has right now. Interesting though how you're dismissing San Francisco because their football team moved 30 miles down the road and giving the #2 spot behind LA to Boston.. who's football team moved 30 miles down the road and never returned. At least San Francisco got AT&T Park built to get the Giants closer to the city (and that was much more of a 'save' than the 49ers since the Giants were on the verge of moving out of the Bay Area entirely at least once).

Plus, the Warriors are actually moving back to town. So 2 outta 3 pros ain't bad. And the Earthquakes also gotta a new home, granted it's in SJ, but O football requires 4 venues anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting though how you're dismissing San Francisco because their football team moved 30 miles down the road and giving the #2 spot behind LA to Boston.. who's football team moved 30 miles down the road and never returned.

1. 1970 was a loooong time ago... the 49ers tells us more about modern thinking.

2. The "Boston Patriots" were a team nobody cared about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. 1970 was a loooong time ago... the 49ers tells us more about modern thinking.

Sure does. You know what it tells us? NFL owners are self-interested businessmen who often don't give 2 shits about working with the city they reside in or what grander plans they may have in store. I know baron has a serious grudge against the York family for pulling the plug on potential stadium plans that were intertwined with the 2016 SF Olympic bid. That's understandable. But I don't blame the city of San Francisco for not getting that one done, nor do I think it's a strike against them in terms of their ability to deliver again in the future. And I weigh it alongside their efforts to get the baseball stadium built when the Giants had 1 foot out the door to skip town (not unlike the Patriots in the late 90s.. and that was to stay in Foxboro, not Boston). So the fact that SF at least built a stadium (and likely has an area coming to get the Warriors back from Oakland for the first time in half a century) counts for something. What has Boston done in terms of sports infrastructure? Managed to keep Fenway Park from crumbling to the ground?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure does. You know what it tells us? NFL owners are self-interested businessmen who often don't give 2 shits about working with the city they reside in or what grander plans they may have in store. I know baron has a serious grudge against the York family for pulling the plug on potential stadium plans that were intertwined with the 2016 SF Olympic bid. That's understandable. But I don't blame the city of San Francisco for not getting that one done, nor do I think it's a strike against them in terms of their ability to deliver again in the future. And I weigh it alongside their efforts to get the baseball stadium built when the Giants had 1 foot out the door to skip town (not unlike the Patriots in the late 90s.. and that was to stay in Foxboro, not Boston). So the fact that SF at least built a stadium (and likely has an area coming to get the Warriors back from Oakland for the first time in half a century) counts for something. What has Boston done in terms of sports infrastructure? Managed to keep Fenway Park from crumbling to the ground?

Really, Bostons plan completely relies on crumbling college stadia built almost a hundred years ago...oh and temporary venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston, home to crumbling **** like Harvard, with its pitiful 36 billion dollar endowment. Did you know they dont even have an 90,000 seat stadium? Or MIT not smart enough to fix that GODDAMN FLICKERING LIGHT. Or the Boston Convention Center LEED certified. More like CrapEED. AND WHATS THIS ABOUT THE CHARLES NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCOMODATE ROWING? :angry: Forreal doe, I heard that there are leaks in the big dig :o

Hey Quaker (btw fenway wouldnt do **** for an olympics as it stands), if we wanna talk about crumbling stadiums why not talk about Cal's football stadium which is built over an active faultline. This leading to regular repairs so the stadium doesn't look...askew.

Or even better Los Angeles's Rose Bowl and Memorial Coliseum which are a combined 185 years old, and I don't see very many luxury boxes! In addition, what about that giant water main break by UCLA, now thats an actual example of **** infrastucture.

And what about that stupid dc? Raise your hand if you can set your river on fire. *DC solely raises hand in crowded room hand whilst lowering head in shame

Agenda 2020 is gonna have a fudging field day

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND WHATS THIS ABOUT THE CHARLES NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCOMODATE ROWING?

I've coxed on the Charles in the past. I know for a fact it would never work for what the IOC and FISA demands of it. The basin may be long enough for the 2000m course, but you're dealing with a river that narrows on either end of the basin. The amount of boats that need to get in and out would be mayhem if they tried to manage that in the Charles. Besides, the spectators would have to watch from the road basically, so using that course you wouldn't be able to build temporary spectator stands without blocking the roads on both sides of the river. Even though it's in the middle of Boston, the bad harshly outweighs the good in this case. If they do get chosen and go though to the end, not using the Charles is probably for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston, home to crumbling **** like Harvard, with its pitiful 36 billion dollar endowment. Did you know they dont even have an 90,000 seat stadium? Or MIT not smart enough to fix that GODDAMN FLICKERING LIGHT. Or the Boston Convention Center LEED certified. More like CrapEED. AND WHATS THIS ABOUT THE CHARLES NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCOMODATE ROWING? :angry: Forreal doe, I heard that there are leaks in the big dig :o

Hey Quaker (btw fenway wouldnt do **** for an olympics as it stands), if we wanna talk about crumbling stadiums why not talk about Cal's football stadium which is built over an active faultline. This leading to regular repairs so the stadium doesn't look...askew.

Or even better Los Angeles's Rose Bowl and Memorial Coliseum which are a combined 185 years old, and I don't see very many luxury boxes! In addition, what about that giant water main break by UCLA, now thats an actual example of **** infrastucture.

And what about that stupid dc? Raise your hand if you can set your river on fire. *DC solely raises hand in crowded room hand whilst lowering head in shame

Agenda 2020 is gonna have a fudging field day

Damn, did you have a bad New Year's last night or something? Yea, there are flaws to all those bids. Think you won't find them amongst the international competition? I'm sure you could have nitpicked Tokyo's winning bid like that as well. But someone out there, 1 of these bids (be it a US bid or someone else) will get their **** together and the IOC will vote them as host and they'll make it work.

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...