Jump to content

a "What If..." Game


baron-pierreIV
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, baron, I didn't really phrase it well, what I should have said was a list of links to all the ceremony clips/complete shows that we have found on YouTube. So we wouldn't have to search, potentially in foreign languages, or go back through dozens of thread pages. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that simple. It can be easily argued that Athens beating Atlanta for 1996 pushes Salt Lake into the winner's circle for 1998. That's the ripple effect I was talking about because now the United States has a much stronger case to bid for their next Summer Olympics in 2008 or 2012. So I disagree.. I think an Athens win in 1996 changes a lot more than just the 2 hosts.

Nagano had bribery to their advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nagano had bribery to their advantage.

They also had the advantage of not having had an Olympics awarded to their country less than a year before the `98 vote. Even with what should have been a huge disadvantage, Nagano only beat out Salt Lake by 4 votes.

So if we're playing a game of revisionist history, it might have changed the outcome of the `98 vote to not have Atlanta fresh off a win. Also, think about this.. what happens with Toronto if Atlanta doesn't win 1996. Do they come back for 2000 or maybe 2004? What happens to their prospects if the United States doesn't land 1996 but then comes back to get a Winter Olympics in 1998?

Either way, with regard to 1998.. we can say the result would have been the same, but the dynamics of that race (and again, remember it was less than a year between the `96 vote and the `98 vote) probably would have been a lot different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that Nagano had more time to prepare for 1998 than Atlanta did for 1996.

In fact, by late 1991, more cities were preparing to host an Olympics than ever before: there were three Winter Olympics in the planning stages (Albertville, Lillehammer and Nagano) and two Summer Games (Barcelona and Atlanta).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll play...

Athens gets 96, SLC gets 98.

Being loses 2000 to Sydney by 2 votes and raises a stink, they accuse the IOC of bias and threaten a boycott. They eventually cool their heals and bid for 2004; but with Nagano happening only 2 years earlier, and their hissy fit still fresh in the IOC minds, they lose to Rome.

Torino backs out because of Rome and Sion gets 2006. Beijing bids for 2008 with a field of European cities as their competition. They win by a small margin

Vancouver gets 2010

2012 comes down to Rio, London, Paris, Madrid, New York , Moscow. Rio wins

2014 goes to Sochi

2016 comes down to London Tokyo Paris Chicago.. Chicago wins

so...

1996- Athens

2000- Sydney

2002- Nagano

2004 - Rome
2006 - Sion
2008 - Beijing
2010 - Vancouver
2012 - Rio

2014 - Sochi
2016 - Chicago
2018 - Pyeongchang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll play...

2012 comes down to Rio, London, Paris, Madrid, New York , Moscow. Rio wins

How? What changes in your timeline that going against the exact same cities as they actually did and with the previous 2 hosts exactly the same, how does Rio win that contest when in reality they failed to make the shortlist? To say nothing of the fact that if you're removing Paris from that mix having won 2004, what happens to Rome, especially that Torino didn't get 2006?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the fun of such a game is to come up with wildly different scenarios, rather than have everything turn out almost exactly the same (which i doubt would happen - IMO, if any changes had happened, the entire dynamics of every succeeding bid race would change).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the fun of such a game is to come up with wildly different scenarios, rather than have everything turn out almost exactly the same (which i doubt would happen - IMO, if any changes had happened, the entire dynamics of every succeeding bid race would change).

Exactly. The intent was to have one change and then see spiralling results that spin out of control!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How? What changes in your timeline that going against the exact same cities as they actually did and with the previous 2 hosts exactly the same, how does Rio win that contest when in reality they failed to make the shortlist?

Well Rio finished behind Doha in the evaluation and still made the shortlist for 2016. And 2012 would come on the heels of 3 Euro games, a NA games and two Asian games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Rio finished behind Doha in the evaluation and still made the shortlist for 2016. And 2012 would come on the heels of 3 Euro games, a NA games and two Asian games.

But again, in your timeline, 2008 and 2010 are the same cities that actually won it and 2004 and 2006 came from the same continent as the actual winners. Europe still won that race in 2012. You still would have had London, Madrid, Moscow, New York, and either Paris/Rome (whoever didn't win 2004). So that's what I'm trying to figure from your scenario.. what is different about 2012 than the actual 2012 race that allows Rio to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By 2012, the games would have made the rounds of the familiar locations, and with the 2012 race again featuring familiar locations (with 3 cities who have previously hosted), the urge to go to a new frontier would have swayed the vote towards Rio.

But the point is, in reality the 2012 race WAS featuring three bidders who had previously hosted, with Rio in the race in the applicant stage. And they still didn't make the short list, much less win. Yet, on your list, the only major change in the real summer hosts is Rome instead of Athens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Sydney 1996? Ha. If Sydney was chosen, it could have ended up much like Athens 2004. Given that there was only 6 years to prepare, assuming that they don't start their main stadium construction until after Barcelona 1992 ended, there would have been the rush to build all those purpose built venues at Homebush Olympic Park. They would have been scrutinized much like Melbourne 1956 and told to get their act together and hurry up construction.

This is why Melbourne was the Australian Olympic Federation's (now Australian Olympic Committee) choice thanks to many pre-existing venues and good general infrastructure. Not to mention a key venue like the main stadium (Melbourne Cricket Ground) was already slated to undergo major upgrades which would be completed well before the Games by 1992 for the Cricket World Cup. Only specific venues such as the Albert Park Sports Complex (Melbourne Sports and Aquatics Centre) and where the Exhibition Centre would have been the major venues being completed as the Games drew near.

NYC 2008? Remember, the SLC bid of 2002 was marred by the bid scandal, which was a deciding factor (aside from weaker competition) in them getting those Games. If SLC got 1998 (thanks to no Centennial Olympics for Atlanta), members of the IOC will definitely remember that the US (would have) hosted an "Olympics" recently as 10 years ago by 2008, even if the gap between Summer hosts would be as little as 24 years.

Pyongyang? You must mean PyeongChang. Pyongyang is the capital of North Korea.

Christchurch? Highly unlikely even if one could use the bid to help morale in the city and as a rebuilding effort. The fact that no Southern Hemisphere city has bid before for a Winter Olympics, we are yet to see if the IOC are willing to bend the rules and permit them to host outside the ideal Northern Hemisphere Winter calendar.

If Australia had the slopes (800 meter vertical for men's downhill) or we were willing to create one at Perisher Valley, we could have bid using Canberra as a base. But it's unlikely that will ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Earthquake aside, even if one considered a pre-earthquake Christchurch, the city had what, a 7,500 seater arena, an athletics stadium that could have served speed skating alongside the adjoining pool which might have been expanded for Curling... as well as a 50,000 seater stadium which could have served ceremonies, as well as naturally the slopes.

Where would other key venues such as a 10,000 and 12,000 seater arena for Ice Hockey I and Figure Skating/Short Track have fitted in? As well as other factors too.

Even with their "strengths" had or should Christchurch bid it's not exactly going to be a strong one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1996 - Athens

1998 - Nagano

2000 - Sydney

2002 - Salt Lake City

2004 - Cape Town: With Barcelona and Athens (Europe in a row), no biddings cities from there. So the competition is among Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Istanbul and Rio de Janeiro.

2006 - Ă–stersund: They decide to bid because they realised they had a lot of chances this time.

2008 - Beijing

2010 - Vancouver

2012 - Rio de Janeiro

2014 - Sochi

2016 - Istanbul

2018 - PyeongChang

2020 - New York

2022 - Santiago

2024 - Paris

2026 - Almaty

2028 - Nairobi

2030 - Turin

2032 - Dubai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Right OK, what would've happened if JAS hadn't fixed the 92 elections...

Winter 92 - Falun

Summer 92 - Paris

Winter 94 - Salt Lake City

Summer 96 - Melbourne

Winter 98 - Torino

Summer 00 - London

Winter 02 - Nagano

Summer 04 - Beijing

Winter 06 - Munich

Summer 08 - New York City

Winter 10 - Oslo

Summer 12 - Madrid

Winter 14 - Vancouver

Summer 16 - Rio

Winter 18 - Almaty

Summer 20 - Tokyo

Winter 22 - France somewhere :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Melbourne followed by London would be a bit of an Anglosphere overload!

Yeah, I would have been more inclined to put Beijing down for 2000, and then maybe London for 2004, but still, it's one of the more plausible, if not too adventurous, lists posted here lately.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say Sofia for 1992, since they were considered the favorite for those Games. Falun suffered with the distance to the Alpine events. And 1994 wouldn't have been Salt Lake since Anchorage was the USOC candidate for those Games. For 1998 it was Aosta as the Italian candidate, so don't really see that as being any different. And PyeongChang would've probably clenched 2010 if Beijing didn't have 2008. Almaty I still couldn't see. The rest of that list seems plausible.

I think Melbourne followed by London would be a bit of an Anglosphere overload!

That's what some still have said over Atlanta followed by Sydney.

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...