What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

We're going Rio..... de Janerio

Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

Zudnic said:
This article in Slate posits that to win the Olympics, you really have to make a right-brained argument - that it's about prestige, being in the spotlight, and civic pride. He suggests that that it's really hard to make a case for the Olympics on the facts alone.

I think the Olympics are an enormous waste of time and money. For every Barcelona you get four Athens - spending billions on stadia that sit empty, hiring rent-a-cops to chase away the graffiti artists.

One wonders if Athens would have been better off just paving the roads and building the subway lines (the benefits that article cited) - the things that really benefit the citizens there. If I lived in Athens, I'd want to see my tax dollars used for things that will benefit me - not to build huge stadiums so a TV network can make a few bucks over a few weeks in the summer.

(Tangental Simpsons reference: all these Olympic proposals remind me of Lyle Lanley.)
Click to expand...

I think your ratio of Barcas to Athenses is off - it's certainly not 4:1.

Sure, cities might be better off just building the subway lines and whatnot. The key, however, is that the Olympics force politicians to plan beyond their notoriously short timeframes. Things like subways are among the best assets a city can have, yet building a true system requires a long vision and the money to back it. Local politicians don't often have lots of either - but a common goal, like the Olympics or another big event, can help.

Montreal pushed to have their subway system completed before Expo 67, and largely expanded prior to the 76 Summer Games.

As noted above, Vancouver just opened a massive expansion of their rapid transit system for the 2010 games. The system opened initially prior to the city hosting Expo 86.

Salt Lake City's light rail system largely passed because of the Olympics, and and success of the initial line encouraged expansion, completed just prior to the games.

A common goal like that has immense political value that's not easy to quantify.

The argument that you can't justify these games on the 'facts' alone may be right, but you also have to understand the limitations of those 'facts.' Quantitative data can tell you some stuff, but not all stuff.
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

The Olympics are the "mother of all deadlines" and a great way for cities to remake themselves by taking on infrastructure projects like airports, roads, mass transit, waterfronts and urban renewal that would otherwise sit undone with out a major civic willpower driver.

Sure, you can overbuild on competition venues, but those costs are relatively minor in the long run, compared to the cost of infrastructure.

In a fiscally responsible world that was only concerned with efficiency and quality of a sports results, the best solution would be to use Athens as a permanent Olympic complex, and stop the travelling circus nature of IOC bids.

That said, I do see the Olympics as worthwile. A lot of recent cities have done very well with them - Barcelona retook its neglected waterfront and is now a huge tourist destination. Torino shed images as an industrial city with a more sophisticated image. Atlanta, despite an overcommericalized games that also had a bombing to boot, was able to turn slums into a popular downtown park and the Braves ended up with a terrrific stadium, and Georgia Tech got new dorms out of the Olympic Village. Salt Lake, even with the bribery scandal and operating in the shadow of 9/11, still put on a great show and got some nice new highways, upgraded its ski resorts, added new well-used light rail and sports facilities, etc. And don't forget that LA made a nice profit on their games, ran it well, and traffic was a non-issue.

Of course, a few cities have mismanaged the games (Montreal and Athens) and it's a little early to write the obit for Beijing.

On balance, there is more good than bad. If it were really that awful, no one would bid for them...
 
Last edited:
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

Zudnic said:
This article in Slate posits that to win the Olympics, you really have to make a right-brained argument - that it's about prestige, being in the spotlight, and civic pride. He suggests that that it's really hard to make a case for the Olympics on the facts alone. .)
Click to expand...

Its all about the money
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

walrus said:
Its all about the money
Click to expand...

If it were all really about the the money, Chicago would have won in a landslide, as the IOC would generate a much larger TV revenue check from American TV network bidding war.

No, this election was more about ensuring that Rio would win and giving a chance to South America to host the Olympics for the first time. Chicago was seen by the Eurocentric IOC as a threat to that opportunity. The early exit for Chicago in the election would suggest that the Asians and Europeans voted strategically to knock out Chicago by in the first round by voting for Tokyo and Madrid, knowing full well that once Chicago was knocked out ouf the picture, the majority of people would then support Rio in the second round, which is what happened...

Anyway, as much as I love Chicago, I think Rio will be a fantastic host. The setting is gorgeous, and the people, food and spirt of celebration will be amazing. It's also in a decent time zone for US TV, so lots of events will be live.
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

Puck Swami said:
No, this election was more about ensuring that Rio would win and giving a chance to South America to host the Olympics for the first time. Chicago was seen by the Eurocentric IOC as a threat to that opportunity. The early exit for Chicago in the election would suggest that the Asians and Europeans voted strategically to knock out Chicago by in the first round by voting for Tokyo and Madrid, knowing full well that once Chicago was knocked out ouf the picture, the majority of people would then support Rio in the second round, which is what happened...
Click to expand...
I don't see how that makes sense. If all these Asian and European voters wanted Rio to win, why not just vote for Rio all along and if Chicago comes in second then who cares? Though I guess it depends on the precise numbers.
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

Puck Swami said:
If it were all really about the the money, Chicago would have won in a landslide, as the IOC would generate a much larger TV revenue check from American TV network bidding war..
Click to expand...

Doesn't NBC already have the TV rights?
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

walrus said:
Doesn't NBC already have the TV rights?
Click to expand...

Not for 2016. That still needs to be negotiated.

There would have been (and still may be) a huge bidding war between NBC and ABC/ESPN, but had it been in Chicago, the money would have been enormous...

I really think this vote was about trying to extend the Olympic brand to a part of the world that has never hosted a games before....
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

Puck Swami said:
If it were all really about the the money, Chicago would have won in a landslide, as the IOC would generate a much larger TV revenue check from American TV network bidding war.
ic
No, this election was more about ensuring that Rio would win and giving a chance to South America to host the Olympics for the first time. Chicago was seen by the Eurocentric IOC as a threat to that opportunity. The early exit for Chicago in the election would suggest that the Asians and Europeans voted strategically to knock out Chicago by in the first round by voting for Tokyo and Madrid, knowing full well that once Chicago was knocked out ouf the picture, the majority of people would then support Rio in the second round, which is what happened...

Anyway, as much as I love Chicago, I think Rio will be a fantastic host. The setting is gorgeous, and the people, food and spirt of celebration will be amazing. It's also in a decent time zone for US TV, so lots of events will be live.
Click to expand...

Swami's right. I think the "first time in South America" bullet point was what prevailed here. I had thought Chicago was in a bad way and that the president's last minute interventio was a hail Mary. Not good enough. As a native I know Chicago would have put on a great games, but then, so will Rio.

This not my personal worst moment in Olympic site selection. That has to be when Denver was chosen to host the '76 winter games (with much infrastructure, including the Olympic village on the DU campus) and then backed out. Thank you once again Gary Hart.:mad:
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

jmh said:
I don't see how that makes sense. If all these Asian and European voters wanted Rio to win, why not just vote for Rio all along and if Chicago comes in second then who cares? Though I guess it depends on the precise numbers.
Click to expand...

Olympic voting is funny. A lot of voters cast votes for cities in early round that they think won't win as a sign of respect....

From Politico:

"Bill Mallon, who has consulted for the IOC and co-founded the International Society of Olympic Historians... said Chicago likely got eliminated in the first round because IOC members gave “sympathy” votes to the lesser bids in the first round, thinking those bids would get eliminated anyway, allowing them to shift support to a stronger bid in subsequent rounds. In fact, Madrid came out ahead in the first ballot with 28 votes, two more than Rio, six more than Tokyo and 10 more than Chicago.

“There are so many parts of the world, that sometimes IOC members don’t want to embarrass cities, and give a few votes to some of the lesser ones and then unfortunately the good bids drop away because of that,” Mallon explained. “Unfortunately, sometimes those token votes taken away from the good bids like Chicago’s add up. And in this case, that’s what happened.”


Also read the inrestting quote from Dick Pound in this article, which suggests a more deliberate Pro Rio bloc strategy

Another IOC member, Canada's Richard Pound (said):

"I don't know that it says anything to them (the United States and the USOC)," Pound said. "When you look at the margin, it was clear there was an effort to make sure Rio got this, and the only meaningful threat to Rio would have been Chicago. So all the friends of Rio were urged to try and make sure Chicago didn't get into that position.

"I think there were a lot of people saying, 'If we don't get it, we'll support you but we've got to stop Chicago.' And that's sport politics, not anything else. It's election management. The Europeans and the Asians are much better at this (in the IOC) than we are. They are better at managing elections and thinking strategically. We kind of think if you've got the best bid, the world will recognize that, and these decisions are made solely on the merits of the bid. Well, not solely."
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

For those who have never been to Rio, I highly, highy recommend it.

Especially if you like your food spicy, your beaches in the city, your stadium experience festive and raucous, your beer ice cold, your women gorgeous (and often half naked), and your music with a relaxed bossa nova or samba vibe.

Pretty much perfect.
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

I blame Chicago's failure on the Cubs fans at Daly Plaza this morning:

<img src=http://www.nmubaseball.net/uscho/ChicagoFail.jpg>
 
Re: We're going Rio..... de Janerio

Kepler said:
Isn't the US still alive for the 2018 World Cup?

I don't care about the summer games, but I'd love to see the US host another winter games in the east someday. Obviously it won't happen for quite a while with SLC in 2002 and Vancouver in 2010. Assuming the next 2 winter games after Sochi go to Asia and Western Europe, we should be in contention again in 2026. (2024 is the 100th anniversary of the first winter games, so that could be sort of significant, 2032 is the 100th anniversary of the first winter games held in the US).
Click to expand...

Minneapolis is the leading choice in the US for the 2020 Summer Games. It finished runner up to Helsinki in 1952 and was the 2nd US choice in 1996. However, I am willing to wager Johannesburg will get 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top