Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

I'm inclined to expect, now that it's four cities, more cuts within the next few months, once these cities start to further give their details. Seems to me that the USOC is holding out for hope, by including more cities than initially claimed, that viable plans could come forth from the ones that seem the most unlikely at this point. I wouldn't be surprised by a Boston/LA final showdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I know it was runningrings who first brought up the comparison. The reason I've harped on the point so much is that I think it's a misguided viewpoint to think that Dallas is culturally similar to Atlanta. And that the concern is that IOC members would make the connection to Atlanta (again, to be fair, they have the propensity to be idiots with these sorts of things) is worrysome. Does Dallas belong in that list of cities you mentioned? Probably not. But does Boston? Maybe DC. Certainly San Fran could complete.

1 thing worth noting and this is to everyone, not just to you.. there's an Olympic city that Dallas is similar to, but it's not Atlanta. That city would be Calgary. I know it's different countries and 2 vastly different climates, but I think culturally there are a lot of similarities. You did bring up the rodeo/cowboy culture. They have those in Calgary. Not so much in Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The logic we've been talking about here still rings true.. if it makes sense for the USOC and more importantly, so long as it makes sense for the city involved, then they should bid for 2024. If either of those 2 conditions aren't met, there should not be a bid. I certainly would have no problem with them sitting out either, although I don't think that will be the case.

I'm inclined to expect, now that it's four cities, more cuts within the next few months, once these cities start to further give their details. Seems to me that the USOC is holding out for hope, by including more cities than initially claimed, that viable plans could come forth from the ones that seem the most unlikely at this point. I wouldn't be surprised by a Boston/LA final showdown.

Agreed. I think they're just giving these cities enough lead time. We've seen how Boston is taking their time to get their ducks in a row. Right now it's not about who has the best plan but about who has the most potential. When the day of decision comes (which probably isn't for another year), that's when these cities and their plans will truly be put to the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas gives me that feeling of Atlanta too, and I think the USOC doesn't want that.

See, I'm curious about this.. you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not questioning that. But what is it that you didn't like about Atlanta that you think would be replicated with a Dallas Olympics? Is it that you think the USOC can do better than Dallas (which they can) or is it something more specific?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, is not that i did not like it. It's the fact that i found Atlanta just like meh, boring and not very appealing to an international audience. And the fact that some members would probably think it would be too soon for the United States, so why selecting a city that could lead to another lost?? If they can bid with another city with a better image?? Im sure Dallas is very capable of hosting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that there was a lack of leadership in Dallas. I can't remember where. To me, that's a far bigger problem than the city's image.

Just to clarify, the article was referring to a lack of leadership specifically where an Olympic bid was concerned.

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?

Because the USOC might not be sold on LA only 40 years after 84.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that there was a lack of leadership in Dallas. I can't remember where. To me, that's a far bigger problem than the city's image.

Just to clarify, the article was referring to a lack of leadership specifically where an Olympic bid was concerned.

Sure about that one?..

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/ap-dallas-out-of-the-2024-summer-olympics-race-maybe-a-world-cup-chance.html/

“We would like to express our gratitude to the cities of Dallas and San Diego, which will not be moving forward in the bid process,” said USOC Chairman Larry Probst. “Dallas had a great bid and matching leadership, along with a well-established sporting community. We have no doubt about the ability of Dallas to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and look forward to working with them in the future to enhance the international awareness of the city. Also, we very much appreciate the high-quality proposal from San Diego, a city that truly embraces sport and has a long history of supporting Team USA. Both of these world-class cities are committed to working with the USOC to enhance the Olympic Movement in the United States.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it was runningrings who first brought up the comparison. The reason I've harped on the point so much is that I think it's a misguided viewpoint to think that Dallas is culturally similar to Atlanta. And that the concern is that IOC members would make the connection to Atlanta (again, to be fair, they have the propensity to be idiots with these sorts of things) is worrysome. Does Dallas belong in that list of cities you mentioned? Probably not. But does Boston? Maybe DC. Certainly San Fran could compete.

I don't think, though, that it's that "misguided". For all the back-&-forth that goes on around here with Reno (that it would be "the Winter Atlanta" according to some here), & how the USOC has passed them over every time they bid for a Winter Olympics, the same could be said now about Dallas (& Houston). The USOC has chosen to bypass these two, big Texan cities every time they come up & raise their hand. That should say something there.

1 thing worth noting and this is to everyone, not just to you.. there's an Olympic city that Dallas is similar to, but it's not Atlanta. That city would be Calgary. I know it's different countries and 2 vastly different climates, but I think culturally there are a lot of similarities. You did bring up the rodeo/cowboy culture. They have those in Calgary. Not so much in Atlanta.

Yeah, and? Is Calgary bidding for a Summer Olympics? And like you said earlier, it's already been done. So Dallas would've needed a new angle.

I read somewhere that there was a lack of leadership in Dallas. I can't remember where. To me, that's a far bigger problem than the city's image.

Just to clarify, the article was referring to a lack of leadership specifically where an Olympic bid was concerned.

And San Francisco & Washington have superb leadership? I think that we've all come to the agreement here, that those two cities are anything but meticulously organized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the USOC might not be sold on LA only 40 years after 84.

Again, I'm not saying they should've crowned LA. I'm saying the list should've been shorter.

And San Francisco & Washington have superb leadership? I think that we've all come to the agreement here, that those two cities are anything but meticulously organized.

Did I say that?

I don't know who is spear-heading each of these cities' campaigns. Do you?

And San Francisco & Washington have superb leadership? I think that we've all come to the agreement here, that those two cities are anything but meticulously organized.

Did I say that?

I don't know who is spear-heading each of these cities' campaigns. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such "great bids" with "matching leadership" but both were snubbed by the USOC! How on earth! So what tipped the scale then! :o



Quote


“We would like to express our gratitude to the cities of Dallas and San Diego, which will not be moving forward in the bid process,” said USOC Chairman Larry Probst. “Dallas had a great bid and matching leadership, along with a well-established sporting community. We have no doubt about the ability of Dallas to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and look forward to working with them in the future to enhance the international awareness of the city. Also, we very much appreciate the high-quality proposal from San Diego, a city that truly embraces sport and has a long history of supporting Team USA. Both of these world-class cities are committed to working with the USOC to enhance the Olympic Movement in the United States.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And San Francisco & Washington have superb leadership? I think that we've all come to the agreement here, that those two cities are anything but meticulously organized.

Did I say that?

I don't know who is spear-heading each of these cities' campaigns. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say that?

I don't know who is spear-heading each of these cities' campaigns. Do you?

I didn't say that you did. But you mentioned that you remember reading that Dallas' bid didn't have good leadership. If that was the case, all I'm saying is that a couple of more cities on that roster probably should've been nixed as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such "great bids" with "matching leadership" but both were snubbed by the USOC! How on earth! So what tipped the scale then! :o

Quote

They're just being pleasant and making nice. Probably a foreign concept to you.

It wouldn't be politically savvy to publicly spell out their deficiencies.

Sorry for the multi-post there. Not sure what happened.

I didn't say that you did. But you mentioned that you remember reading that Dallas' bid didn't have good leadership. If that was the case, all I'm saying is that a couple of more cities on that roster probably should've been nixed as well.

I never said anything about leadership in SF or DC.

I mentioned a dim memory of an article I read long ago about Dallas because it might have helped explain the decision to eliminate them. According to the IOC, that article was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I'm curious about this.. you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not questioning that. But what is it that you didn't like about Atlanta that you think would be replicated with a Dallas Olympics? Is it that you think the USOC can do better than Dallas (which they can) or is it something more specific?

I think that's a much more interesting question for IOC members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're just being pleasant and making nice. Probably a foreign concept to you.

Should I attribute this to another one of your snarky comments?

It wouldn't be politically savvy to publicly spell out their deficiencies.

I was being facetious, considering the thread.

I never said anything about leadership in SF or DC.

I mentioned a dim memory of an article I read long ago about Dallas because it might have helped explain the decision to eliminate them. According to the IOC, that article was wrong.

Again, I didn't say that you named San Fran or DC. Other than if cities were excluded due to lack of leadership, then San Fran & DC probably should've been cut as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Dallas is the same as Atlanta, but I think it would have been perceived that way by the IOC. A decent number of IOC members weren't even familiar with Chicago at the start of the 2016 bid. If they don't know Chicago, they're certainly not going to know anything about Dallas. Given the relative proximity of Dallas to Atlanta, I think many IOC members would have assumed there are a lot of similarities between the cities. That would be hard for Dallas to overcome.

I've always thought that Dallas was a non-starter and am glad that the USOC isn't moving forward with them. Dallas is not the face that the USOC should be presenting to the USOC when they have better options. It's better to cut Dallas now than string them along and have them waste millions of dollars on a bid that won't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say that?

I don't know who is spear-heading each of these cities' campaigns. Do you?

Dallas - Matt Wood

Which makes it ironic that the 1 city where there was a very definitive leader is 1 of the ones that just got cut

I don't think Dallas is the same as Atlanta, but I think it would have been perceived that way by the IOC. A decent number of IOC members weren't even familiar with Chicago at the start of the 2016 bid. If they don't know Chicago, they're certainly not going to know anything about Dallas. Given the relative proximity of Dallas to Atlanta, I think many IOC members would have assumed there are a lot of similarities between the cities. That would be hard for Dallas to overcome.

I've always thought that Dallas was a non-starter and am glad that the USOC isn't moving forward with them. Dallas is not the face that the USOC should be presenting to the USOC when they have better options. It's better to cut Dallas now than string them along and have them waste millions of dollars on a bid that won't win.

Dallas to Atlanta - 730 miles

Chicago to Atlanta - 606 miles

And for reference.. New York to Atlanta - 760 miles

Again, part of this discussion stemmed from a foreigner's perception of these U.S. cities. Americans tend to have a poor understanding of geography. Let's not further that stereotype by not acknowledging where things are on a map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so shall we start handicapping the four? I honestly think the two contenders will be LA and Boston because they represent such different directions for both the USOC and the IOC should it get there. After Athens, Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo, does the IOC continue down the path of mega cities, mega budgets, mega spectacles (and limit its pool of candidate cities - I mean, look at the reluctance at hosting 2022), or do you dial it back a bit and present a more humanly scaled Olympics in a walkable, charming place?

1) LA - likely the USOC's choice. Pro's: Is more a natural fit in the Beijing-London-Rio-Tokyo parade than any other candidates, great weather, big city, big media market, big money. Con's: Nothing really new here, very auto-dependent, on the edge of time zone acceptability (an 8 pm gymnastics event in LA wouldn't start until 11pm in NYC, 4 am in London); could continue the IOC's problem of ever-larger ($$) spectacles.

2) Boston - could run an inside game against LA and win (smaller = better). Pro's: Fresh and new as a US host, New England summers are sublime, sits in the middle of the media time zone for the entire western hemisphere (9 pm events will be live at 11pm in Sao Paulo, 10 pm in Caracas, 9 pm in Santiago, 8 pm in Chicago, 7pm in Calgary, 6pm in LA). Con's: needs a big infrastructure infusion, would need a build few centerpiece venues from scratch.

3) San Francisco - Pro's: by far, the most jaw-droppingly beautiful of the four. Con's: not the best reputation for organization, same time zone issues as LA, potential problems with venue siting.

4) DC - Pro's: same time zone advantages as Boston; great city; would be a fresh host. Con's: DC's weird political structure makes the city beholden to Congress and would also require coordination of two neighboring states, essentially, a tri-"state" bid. Those are a lot of balls to juggle successfully.

Just my opinion. All are free to disagree (and you will! LOL).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, part of this discussion stemmed from a foreigner's perception of these U.S. cities. Americans tend to have a poor understanding of geography. Let's not further that stereotype by not acknowledging where things are on a map.

Toronto is also much closer to Miami than to Vancouver. What's being discussed is city planning and culture rather than geographical distance.

I have nothing against Dallas or Houston, but if you set out to find the most extreme mismatch possible it would be hard to find a worse fit than the snobs in the IOC and jingoistic Texans. Anyway Dallas didn't get shortlisted, so let's forget about it.

2) Boston - could run an inside game against LA and win (smaller = better). Pro's: Fresh and new as a US host, New England summers are sublime, sits in the middle of the media time zone for the entire western hemisphere (9 pm events will be live at 11pm in Sao Paulo, 10 pm in Caracas, 9 pm in Santiago, 8 pm in Chicago, 7pm in Calgary, 6pm in LA). Con's: needs a big infrastructure infusion, would need a build few centerpiece venues from scratch.

I really wonder how much public support there will be in Boston for the idea of spending billions on the mega projects required to host after their experience with the Big Dig. Of all the cities in the running Boston's bid seems the most likely to be killed by an initiative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes... I obviously need the 400-level class on how to post other's quotes here. (Or the buttons just don't work?)

Nacre thinks Boston would be most likely to defeat an effort by initiative. I think you're WAY underestimating San Francisco's ability to simply come out and riot the effort to death, not to mention the non-violent who would definitely go initiative petition at the earliest possibility...

...which is why, for Athensfan, the USOC didn't leave a big enough list. The point is to maximize competition to get more out of the bid city. In the current environment, you'll probably see attrition. 2 cities may not even last 4 months, for all we know. So perhaps (even though my previous post was an assessment that the USOC thinks the IOC wouldn't accept Dallas... which, when it rightly gets scrubbed, it was better to say here anyway) nothing should have been cut at this point. Dallas would probably, at least, hold its bid to the end of the USOC process. A Los Angeles anointment is not the optimal solution unless the IOC watches everyone else fall by the wayside.

  • Like 1
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...