Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

I wasn't talking about fairness, I was talking about what the easy narrative would be for the international media that would be covering a Games in any of those cities. I'm from NYC (and now live in Boston), so I know the negatives of both those cities all too well. But what I'm saying is, yes, the foreign media will focus almost exclusively on Dallas' negatives: car dependence, open carry gun laws, megachurches, its lack of history and charm, JR Ewing-like businessmen (a complete fiction, of course), strip malls, interstates, McMansions... To the foreign media, Dallas will epitomize everything that the world dislikes about the US - conspicuous consumption, wasteful with resources, guns, bravado, ignorant of anything outside the US, and that will be the image projected around the world. Could they do the same with NYC, San Francisco or Boston - absolutely, but those cities' negatives are not nearly as damning to their overall reputation or as difficult to overcome as Dallas'. Again, I didn't say it was fair.

And let's be honest, while you deride Times Square (I happen to agree), the media coverage around the Games often looks like and serves as a long tourist advertisement for the host city and host country. If the US wants positive media on that front, I cannot see how Dallas is even close to the other three.

I am not talking about the merits of any of the cities' bids or their transportation or security plans. I'm simply talking about what image of each the media will project. Dallas' would overwhelmingly reinforce negative stereotypes, IMO.

The foreign media will always look for the negatives, and they'll find them even in a city like Boston. Again, you're framing this comparison (and yes, I know it's probably moot since neither city is likely to beat out Los Angeles) to focus on the negatives of Dallas while glossing over the negatives of Boston. Should have guessed you're from there given the 617 in your name and far be it from me to assume someone lacks objectivity in something like this, but if you're going to harp on the negatives of Dallas, let's look at some of the negatives of Boston..

This is the city of the Big Dig. The foreign media will have a field day with that one in relation to a project as large as hosting the Olympics. Yes, Boston is a college town and that's a plus for youth sports, but is that what the IOC is looking for?

Again, you're largely right about what the 2 cities project. In that regard, Boston has a huge edge over Dallas. But like Athensfan noted, that's only half the equation. If Dallas's biggest problem is a negative image, that's something they might be able to work on if they have a decent plan to host the Olympics. Whereas if Boston doesn't have a decent plan, all the charm in the world isn't going to land them the Olympics. Of course, like I said, it's probably moot anyway since Los Angeles is in the running. If we were to group cities together with regard to their Olympic host prospects, IMO there's the top 4 with NYC, LA, Chicago, and SF. After that is the next group of all the 2nd tier cities. With all due respect to Boston, I would much sooner put them in that second group than I would to try and insert them with those top tier cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Boston going to be able to put together a plan that might entice the IOC? I don't see that coming together in a city like Boston. I find it hard to imagine then being able to offer up all that's necessary to host a Summer Olympics. It's probably moot anyway since LA is in the mix and has the upper hand on both, but if we were talking simply about a head to head battle of Boston versus Dallas, that's a closer battle than it would first seem. Boston's alpha status only means so much until they have to put up the goods. Dallas may or may not have it either, but in terms of which city is more likely to put together a more coherent plan, I'm still expecting more from Dallas than from Boston.

Obviously, that's stating the obvious. Of course Boston needs some sort of coherent plan. But apparently, going by today's "unofficial" Olympic news leak of the 2024 short-listed cities (since the USOC hasn't officially announced it as of yet), it looks like Boston does indeed have a better plan than Dallas did.

But then again, iffy (technical merit wise) San Francisco & Washington DC seem to be on that short-list, while Dallas (presumably with a "better technical concept") was cut. So that seems to tell me that the 'image' of these cities was also a huge factor is the USOC's decision making. Go figure. :-P

If Dallas's biggest problem is a negative image, that's something they might be able to work on if they have a decent plan to host the Olympics. Whereas if Boston doesn't have a decent plan, all the charm in the world isn't going to land them the Olympics.

Apparently, that's not how the USOC is looking at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, that's stating the obvious. Of course Boston needs some sort of coherent plan. But apparently, going by today's "unofficial" Olympic news leak of the 2024 short-listed cities (since the USOC hasn't officially announced it as of yet), it looks like Boston does indeed have a better plan than Dallas did.

But then again, iffy (technical merit wise) San Francisco & Washington DC seem to be on that short-list, while Dallas (presumably with a "better technical concept") was cut. So that seems to tell me that the 'image' of these cities was also a huge factor is the USOC's decision making. Go figure. :-P

Apparently, that's not how the USOC is looking at it.

Obviously I was being obvious. :lol:

To me, this is like the old judging in figure skating. There's a score for technical merit and one for artistic impression. If these 4 cities are indeed the short-list, I think it's clear which of those 2 is more important. Boston may or may not have a plan yet. Personally I don't think they do. But apparently the USOC has more faith in working with them than with Dallas. I understand that. I know I've probably brought up Dallas more than anyone here (surprised you haven't accused me of being a Dallas lover :P) because I thought they had something there. The USOC seems to think otherwise. Can't say I'm overly surprised. I just believed the USOC would keep Dallas in this process at least into the next round.

Associated Press now reporting the news about the shortlist (and not sourcing it to the Boston Globe). So I think the initial report was indeed correct..

Boston, LA, SFC and DC in running for 2024 Games

So much for this staying a secret. Figured there would be a leak somewhere before the USOC made the announcement themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I was being obvious. :lol:

To me, this is like the old judging in figure skating. There's a score for technical merit and one for artistic impression. If these 4 cities are indeed the short-list, I think it's clear which of those 2 is more important. Boston may or may not have a plan yet. Personally I don't think they do. But apparently the USOC has more faith in working with them than with Dallas. I understand that. I know I've probably brought up Dallas more than anyone here (surprised you haven't accused me of being a Dallas lover :P) because I thought they had something there. The USOC seems to think otherwise. Can't say I'm overly surprised. I just believed the USOC would keep Dallas in this process at least into the next round.

Associated Press now reporting the news about the shortlist (and not sourcing it to the Boston Globe). So I think the initial report was indeed correct..

Boston, LA, SFC and DC in running for 2024 Games

So much for this staying a secret. Figured there would be a leak somewhere before the USOC made the announcement themselves.

Well what would you expect in the digital age...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston, LA, SFC and DC in running for 2024 Games

Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington are the cities still in the running for a possible U.S. bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics.

A person briefed on the U.S. Olympic Committee's decision-making process told The Associated Press on Friday that all four cities are still in consideration. The person requested anonymity because the USOC has not made an official announcement.

Los Angeles hosted the 1932 and 1984 Olympics. The other three cities would be first-time hosts.

But there's an arduous and expensive process facing any potential bid city before the International Olympic Committee awards the Games in 2017.

Over the next six months, the USOC will decide whether it even wants to try to host the Olympics. The last two U.S. candidates both suffered humiliating fourth-place finishes: New York for the 2012 Olympics and Chicago for the 2016 Games that went to Rio de Janeiro

If the USOC goes ahead with the bid, the U.S. city would find itself in a spirited battle. Paris, Rome, Doha and Istanbul are among those that could enter the race. The IOC has also long stated a desire to bring the Olympics to Africa for the first time.

Some inside the USOC feel the time is right for a bid, now that the federation has made progress in shoring up some of its international relationships, which were frayed in 2009 when Chicago finished last in the voting for the 2016 Games.

The USOC is waiting to see what sort of changes the IOC might make in the bidding process when it meets later this year. New IOC president Thomas Bach is asking the committee to build a new roadmap for the Olympics, and the way the IOC handles bids is expected to be on that agenda.

"We clearly want to see output from that working group and what changes are adopted before we push the 'go' button on 2024," USOC chairman Larry Probst said earlier this week.

AP

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/boston-la-sfc-and-dc-running-2024-games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More and more i think the US should sit it out. Not because there are not great host city options, more because the whole event seems less magical and it's value more questionable.

....just not feeling it yet.

if somebody bids it'll be interesting but i'd just as soon watch Durban or Paris get raked over the coals for 7 years and pay billions for the honor. I don't imagine any US games is going to win any favor for the US or the city it's in.

my least favorite of the 4 options put forward is Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this is like the old judging in figure skating. There's a score for technical merit and one for artistic impression. If these 4 cities are indeed the short-list, I think it's clear which of those 2 is more important.

Boston may or may not have a plan yet. Personally I don't think they do. But apparently the USOC has more faith in working with them than with Dallas. I understand that. I know I've probably brought up Dallas more than anyone here (surprised you haven't accused me of being a Dallas lover :P) because I thought they had something there. The USOC seems to think otherwise. Can't say I'm overly surprised. I just believed the USOC would keep Dallas in this process at least into the next round.

Still didn't stop you before-hand, though, from arguing that Dallas wouldn't be compared to Atlanta (as far as image goes) when it came down to it. Right or wrong, fair or not, it looks like that element gauged in there somewhere.

Apparently, that was indeed a factor & it wasn't being that "over-rated" here. Since if Dallas did indeed have a better techical concept, then this USOC short-list decision is no different than how the IOC conducts it, since it is these Euro-centric individuals that they're so interested in impressing TBW.

^ sorry, I didnt notice that Quaker already posted it

You're starting to lose your early news touch! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still didn't stop you before-hand, though, from arguing that Dallas wouldn't be compared to Atlanta (as far as image goes) when it came down to it. Right or wrong, fair or not, it looks like that element gauged in there somewhere.

Apparently, that was indeed a factor & it wasn't being that "over-rated" here. Since if Dallas did indeed have a better techical concept, then this USOC short-list decision is no different than how the IOC conducts it, since it is these Euro-centric individuals that they're so interested in impressing TBW.

We don't know what the USOC's reasoning was for dropping Dallas. You and others keep saying it's because it's like Atlanta. I still don't buy that even after this news. I will certainly grant you and aquaman and others that Dallas could be a tough sell. But the reasons that have been given (well, at least the smarter ones) have everything to do with Dallas and little to nothing to do with Atlanta. Clearly I was wrong on Dallas, and I don't doubt at this point the image issue came into play and that the USOC didn't want to put them up to the IOC. My opinion remains unchanged on the Atlanta aspect of it though. That's not what lost this for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "we don't know" what the USOC's reasoning was to eliminate Dallas, then how can you cite what it wasn't. You don't know that, either. If eliminating a city with a presumably better technical plan over others that still seem very iffy (other than Los Angeles), then what else could it be.

Obviously a "sole" Atlanta comparison wasn't what did Dallas in. No one aspect ever does a bid in. But it was certainly part of the equation. If a city, with a presumably viable venue plan, simply gets passed over others that would face greater challenges, then something else tilted the scale. Especially when you look at the initial list of six cities, & the only two that were cut are the ones that would have the image obstacle to overcome. But let's just "agree to disagree" on this one, shall we.

*greater 'logistical' challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should've eliminated more cities.

DC? No way.

San Francisco? I can't imagine them getting their act together.

Boston is a nice idea, but I can't really see them coming up with a comprehensive plan and eclipsing LA.

Obviously the USOC has more information to work with than I do, but I have to believe that LA is head and shoulders above the rest. Why drag it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "we don't know" what the USOC's reasoning was to eliminate Dallas, then how can you cite what it wasn't. You don't know that, either. If eliminating a city with a presumably better technical plan over others that still seem very iffy (other than Los Angeles), then what else could it be.

Obviously a "sole" Atlanta comparison wasn't what did Dallas in. No one aspect ever does a bid in. But it was certainly part of the equation. If a city, with a presumably viable venue plan, simply gets passed over others that would face greater challenges, then something else tilted the scale. Especially when you look at the initial list of six cities, & the only two that were cut are the ones that would have the image obstacle to overcome. But let's just "agree to disagree" on this one, shall we.

*greater 'logistical' challenges.

If I can't cite it wasn't, why are you trying to cite that it was? I thought that Dallas's committee and their potential plan would be enough to keep them in the running. I was wrong. And I agree with you it's probably the image of the city that led to that decision. I just don't see the Dallas-Atlanta comparisons (which barely ring true in the first place) as being a significant factor in the decision. But you're right that this isn't worth debating further. So yes, let's agree to disagree. That I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should've eliminated more cities.

DC? No way.

San Francisco? I can't imagine them getting their act together.

Boston is a nice idea, but I can't really see them coming up with a comprehensive plan and eclipsing LA.

Obviously the USOC has more information to work with than I do, but I have to believe that LA is head and shoulders above the rest. Why drag it out?

They probably could have gone lower than 4, but it's too early in the game to anoint LA as the preferred choice. As much as we've heard the USOC talk about how they may or may not bid for 2024, to essentially choose LA now is an indication to the rest of the world this is their city and that they want to bid for 2024. To do that would definitely catch the eye of their competitors, and on that one, I'd agree with your earlier assertion that it may not be wise to play your cards too early. Chances are, if the USOC does get far enough to pick a city, than yes, it's going to be Los Angeles. So maybe it's a little unfair to string those other cities along. At the same time though, it could give the USOC a baseline as to just how good or bad that LA bid is if they have something domestically to compare them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we didn't see what Dallas submitted, we haven't a clue why they were dropped. Do we even know for sure Dallas submitted anything? Maybe they submitted a great plan, but with Jerry Jones and Mark Cuban to run the show.

We know Dallas had something resembling an organizing committee. We know that committee had a leader (who was not Jerry Jones or Mark Cuban). We know that a proposal had been created centered around Fair Park.

So yes, we know all that for sure. Remember the nature of this process.. the USOC isn't accepting submissions in the traditional sense. What L.A. put up on their website wasn't necessarily submitted to the USOC. It was more "this is what we've got, tell us what you think." Dallas had something in the works, but I guess the USOC wasn't interested. To that end..

AP: Dallas out of the 2024 Summer Olympics race, maybe a World Cup chance

I’ve left a message for Matt Wood, who heads the Dallas bid effort. I will update with his comments when I reach him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

god this just sounds like an unappealing mess still, i can totally see Boston being the 3rd US bid to be eliminated in early rounds by a fncked up ioc full of pretentious euroholes, especially with Bach who seems to be a joke of some odd sort. The prestigious thing would be to not be involved.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can't cite it wasn't, why are you trying to cite that it was?

I thought that Dallas's committee and their potential plan would be enough to keep them in the running. I was wrong. And I agree with you it's probably the image of the city that led to that decision. I just don't see the Dallas-Atlanta comparisons (which barely ring true in the first place) as being a significant factor in the decision. But you're right that this isn't worth debating further.

So yes, let's agree to disagree. That I agree with.

Bcuz I'm not the one arguing "we don't know" what the USOC's reasoning was to eliminate Dallas, you are. Although, I am kinda surprised (but not really at the same time) by their elimination. Because like you, I thought that perhaps their technical merit would get them to the next level.

And for the record, I'm not the one that made the direct comparison with Atlanta & Dallas. It was runningrings. I also never said that it was a "significant factor" as much as you emphasizing that it wasn't a factor at all.

You're the one on here that's always talking about how this is a "competition". Well, let's take a look at those possible 2024 international contenders, shall we; Paris, Rome, Berlin, South Africa, Istanbul.. Dallas? Which one of those would stick out like a sore thumb & resemble more of a particular 1996 host city, especially when that city is already located in the same country as that previous host. Not too hard to figure that one out.

So yeah, let's just agree to disagree finally. But didn't I say that already? :-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

god this just sounds like an unappealing mess still, i can totally see Boston being the 3rd US bid to be eliminated in early rounds by a fncked up ioc full of pretentious euroholes, especially with Bach who seems to be a joke of some odd sort. The prestigious thing would be to not be involved.

Still upset that they didn't pick San Diego? You were really high on the USOC taking a nice long look at them awhile back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still upset that they didn't pick San Diego? You were really high on the USOC taking a nice long look at them awhile back.

Well yes I know the emotion, potential and pleasure of San Diego, but that's not a factor, they were deemed too small for the current debacle and I accept that completely.

I’ve just come to think it's not worth any US city paying for and hosting this party in these times.

We will move forward with plans regardless of an Olympics in any city, and those plans may be more fitting for the city WITHOUT a games consideration.

Does the US hold referendum votes????? I bet there would be a resounding NO THANK YOU.

........from EVERY city considering a bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They probably could have gone lower than 4, but it's too early in the game to anoint LA as the preferred choice. As much as we've heard the USOC talk about how they may or may not bid for 2024, to essentially choose LA now is an indication to the rest of the world this is their city and that they want to bid for 2024. To do that would definitely catch the eye of their competitors, and on that one, I'd agree with your earlier assertion that it may not be wise to play your cards too early. Chances are, if the USOC does get far enough to pick a city, than yes, it's going to be Los Angeles. So maybe it's a little unfair to string those other cities along. At the same time though, it could give the USOC a baseline as to just how good or bad that LA bid is if they have something domestically to compare them to.

I'm not suggesting they should've anointed LA, but I think they should've stuck to their own number of "2 or 3."

2: LA, Boston

3: LA, Boston, SF

The prestigious thing would be to not be involved.

That's an odd way to phrase it, but I agree. The IOC needs the US more than the other way around. The sad thing is that neither the IOC, nor the USOC appear to see it that way. I would have no problem if the USOC declared a moratorium on bidding.

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...