Jump to content

Should The Usoc Go For 2016?

USA 2016  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the USOC bid for 2016?

    • Yes
    • No

Recommended Posts

Well although everyone knows 2016 seems prime for the USOC and everything, the USOC is still conteomplating whether to bid or not. Now the question for this poll is should the USOC go for 2016...this isn't asking if you support/don't support the US for 2016 or whether you want a Games there, but rather if you think the USOC should seize what you view as an oppurtunity or hold off for whatever reason....I ask this now since we have a very good idea what the likely city/cities will be bidding from the US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC should definitely bid. A lot of people are unsure because of stadium issues, but this is something that the US will always have to deal with any future bids. The red tape and stadium questions won't go away in 2020, 2024, or beyond, so there's no point in waiting.

There isn't a single major city in the US with an Olympic-ready stadium. With (American) football being such a big business, a premium has been set on have seats as close to the field as possible. So, none of the large stadiums being built these days have enough room for an Olympic track. Many existing major stadiums, such as the LA Coliseum and those are the Universities of Washington, Texas, and Ohio State have removed their tracks in recent years to get fans closer to the field.

So, the only option is to build a new stadium that can later house football or baseball. Well, the problem with that is that in the last 15 years or so, nearly every NFL and MLB team has built a new stadium, so there aren't a whole lot of options there, either. This is part of the problem with Chicago; they just dumped millions of dollars into renovating their crappy football stadium, so they aren't in the market for a new stadium. San Francisco, on the other hand, is in deep need of a new football stadium. Hopefully, they can make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ChiIn2016

It never hurts for any country to ask to host the games. The worst that can happen is that the IOC says "no". As far a the stadium issue(s) that continually comes up, has there been a city's bid that did not have a stadium issue at some stage of planning? Plans are always revamped and usually improved. The IOC will select a city, and that city will jump through hoops to provide the best venues, and the best games possible.

We always hear about the Olympic "legacy" that should be left behind. A legacy can be more than a new stadium that is used a few times a year. It can be a renovated neighborhood or even an improved public park space left at the site of some events for the enjoyment of future generations to come.

The USA should place a city up for bid for 2016. Chicago's Front Yard, the entire 30 some mile of lake front is public space and is a prime location for many Olympic events .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite ambivalent towards a US Olympics at the moment, I can't see that they can add anything new or exciting - there have already been two US Summer Olympics in recent years, and two Winter Games since the '80's, does the world really need another when there are so many other countries able to host a spectacular Games that haven't staged it for several decades if ever?

Neither San Francisco nor Chicago have ever staged an Olympics but I wonder whether they are significantly different from Los Angeles or Atlanta to make the whole Olympic experience interesting - an Olympics is not just two weeks of sport it's also a whole city on display to the rest of the world, and I just don't find the thought of it particularly enthralling. The USOC would need to offer something more than any of the other bidding cities in an attempt to capture peoples imagination as they are at a disadvantage having already played two of their cards in 1984 and 1996, although it's early days I can't really see this happening either - US cities seem paranoid about spending any public money and everything seems to have to be done cheaply with little regard for a lasting legacy for the local population as they were not paying for it anyway. How could they offer more than other cities in other countries promising the construction of architecturally magnificent venues in spectacular locations and a real passion for Olympic sports? I don't think they will be able to do so.

Despite this the US should bid as it is certainly their biggest chance to win the Games for geopoltical reasons alone - but I wouldn't be surprised if they failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ehm talking about ridicoulous thread, what about that? <_<

why USA shouldn't bid for 2016?.. they HAVE TO bid! it would be foolish renounce to this race, this time more than ever!

On the surface, one would think that yes, the US cannot pass up the chance to bid (and win) 2016. But that is easier said than done. THe USOC has (i) relations that have to be mended with the IOC -- that'll take some months to fix; (ii) the bidding has become so much more competitive and complex; (altho I think only Tokyo and the US candidate will be the serious front-runners).

So, Rei, we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure the USOC will do what's best for US interests. ANd if they don't bid, then lucky Tokyo!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...