Support NeoGAF

[Burai]

Yes; things are changing. However airing them "Live" at 3-5PM in the afternoon.. you think that gets higher ratings among young people, or anyone overall?

The same young people probably wouldn't sit and watch the Olypmics in the afternoon en masse' and would probably still get their fix from Facebook clips. And you'd lose the older viewers who do enjoy their later-in-the evening fluff presentation. (or have to broadcast things multiple times, raising costs.)

The BBC managed all of this just fine. Everything (literally every session of every sport) was either broadcast live across two network stations and six dedicated sports channels or streamed online with regular highlights packages.

If NBC don't want to go to the expense and effort to make a relevant product out of the Olympics for their viewers they really should stop bidding for the rights in the 21st century and leave it to someone who can.

 

[numble]

How am I moving goalposts when the post that kicked off this whole argument was the one in which you tried to argue in defense of the IOC's $6B figure?

And if you're going to try and claim that this post was not defending it, I must honestly ask why you ever brought it up in the first place.

As I said before, the Olympics are not 100 Super Bowls - so even the average of the total cost 100 Super Bowls would still cost far more than it would reasonably cost to host the Olympics in LA - which you yourself admit. I'm fully aware that that figure was only for security. My point is that the rest of the supposedly "necessary" costs are not actually necessary - they don't need to remodel the stadiums, they don't need to block off entire lanes of 405 for IOC members, they don't need to do any of that shit.

The Olympics would have a higher threat of terrorism than a sporting event? What in the entire fuck are you talking about? The Olympics are a sporting event. The presence of international athletes would not suddenly cause us to double security - our country is so paranoid that they assume every major sporting event is already a target of such relevance. The Atlanta bombing was pre-9/11, which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to explain to you. After 9/11, any major public event of significance in this country gets the same amount of security that an Olympics would get.

I was correct when I said that the murders would not change what they do for sporting events - if you think San Bernadino was some tipping point or something new rather than just another data point in decades and decades of similar events you're sadly mistaken. Costs for security go up because things in general cost more dollars as time goes on - plus the NFL can't keep asking TV networks for ever-increasing amounts of TV revenue if they cut spending

The $6 billion figure is not IOC's figure, it is the LA organizing committee figure. Please stop making things up.

The post that kicked it off was you saying that it costs the same to host 2-4 NBA games as it costs to hold the Olympics. I brought up $6 billion quote that LA has provided to explain why it is not the same.

You claimed that the $6 billion was for hotel perks and releasing doves. I explained that the $6 billion was not for hotel rooms and perks for IOC members, and told you the what some of the cost points were.

The Olympics do have a higher threat of terrorism than a regular sporting event. History proves so. The Olympics and Paralympics are 4 weeks of events over multiple venues and events--that is of course presents higher targets and threat levels.

A marathon is particularly expensive to secure--do you really think that security for the Boston Marathon is at the same level it was right after 9/11? It is not just 9/11 that has triggered increased security.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4850...ty-costs-quadruple-since-2013/?#sp=show-clips

Boston Marathon security costs quadruple since 2013

Security costs have gone up because of higher threats of attacks:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/25/h...owl-xlix-will-leave-glendale-debt-says-mayor/

The AP reports that officials see the higher [Super Bowl security] cost as necessary after “previous security threats” – such as the Boston Marathon bombing – have increased risks.

 

[eizarus]

I didn't watch any of it because all the best bits were posted as videos or gifs on Twitter.

Bite me.

This. All the exciting stuff was posted on social media so I don't have to sit through the boring crap.

 

[cdyhybrid]

The $6 billion figure is not IOC's figure, it is the LA organizing committee figure. Please stop making things up.

Where the fuck do you think they got the figure from? You think they're going to spend money the IOC doesn't want them to spend just for the hell of it? You're incredibly naive.

The post that kicked it off was you saying that it costs the same to host 2-4 NBA games as it costs to hold the Olympics. I brought up $6 billion quote that LA has provided to explain why it is not the same.

Outright false. My post had nothing to do with any monetary figure:

The Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup all manage to put on massive sporting events without shitting on poor people in the city they happen to be hosted in.

Why shouldn't we expect the same from the Olympics and the World Cup?

"Ease back on the hyperbole"? Nah, fuck that. Ease back on the putting sports before human fucking dignity.

Money never entered the discussion until you brought it up.

You claimed that the $6 billion was for hotel perks and releasing doves. I explained that the $6 billion was not for hotel rooms and perks for IOC members, and told you the what some of the cost points were.

And for the one-thousandth time, those "cost points" are equally as frivolous as releasing doves and keeping hotel rooms at a specific temperature at every second of the day. They. Are. Not. Necessary. It doesn't cost $6B to pay security for Olympic events.

The Olympics do have a higher threat of terrorism than a regular sporting event. History proves so. The Olympics and Paralympics are 4 weeks of events over multiple venues and events--that is of course presents higher targets and threat levels.

A marathon is particularly expensive to secure--do you really think that security for the Boston Marathon is at the same level it was right after 9/11? It is not just 9/11 that has triggered increased security.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4850...ty-costs-quadruple-since-2013/?#sp=show-clips

How many Olympics has the United States hosted since 9/11? That's your sample size, because everything else frankly takes place in a different world than an Olympics in LA in 2016 and onward would exist in.

The answer is one, by the way. And that somehow managed to go off without any terrorist attacks at the cheap, cheap price of only $2.7B - and that's even with the doves and only-69F-hotel-rooms for the IOC!

Security costs have gone up because of higher threats of attacks:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/25/h...owl-xlix-will-leave-glendale-debt-says-mayor/

You're not understanding me. We're already paying for the increased terror threat for our normal events. The Olympics warrant nothing different.

 

[numble]

Where the fuck do you think they got the figure from? You think they're going to spend money the IOC doesn't want them to spend just for the hell of it? You're incredibly naive.

They can bid a lower amount if they want. Paris is bidding a higher amount. Rome has bid a lower amount.

Outright false. My post had nothing to do with any monetary figure:

I asked if holding 2-4 NBA events is the same as holding the Olympics. Your answer was this:

Do you agree or disagree that LA holding the Olympics is different than LA hosting 2-4 NBA Finals games?

It's no different. LA has more than enough facilities to hold an Olympics with zero construction necessary. Traffic is always awful no matter what. LAX is awful no matter what.

By saying it is no different, you are also claiming that there is no difference in costs between holding the Olympics and holding 2-4 NBA Finals games.

Money never entered the discussion until you brought it up.

And for the one-thousandth time, those "cost points" are equally as frivolous as releasing doves and keeping hotel rooms at a specific temperature at every second of the day. They. Are. Not. Necessary. It doesn't cost $6B to pay security for Olympic events.

Again, I said it cost $300 million for security. This is my 3rd time saying it. Where did I say it cost $6 billion for security?

How many Olympics has the United States hosted since 9/11? That's your sample size, because everything else frankly takes place in a different world than an Olympics in LA in 2016 and onward would exist in.

The answer is one, by the way. And that somehow managed to go off without any terrorist attacks at the cheap, cheap price of only $2.7B - and that's even with the doves and only-69F-hotel-rooms for the IOC!

The security cost of the Salt Lake City Olympics was also around $300 million.

You're not understanding me. We're already paying for the increased terror threat for our normal events. The Olympics warrant nothing different.

It is not true that security costs are already paid for. If the US does not host the Olympics, the money to pay for security for the 4 weeks is not already spent.

 

[SPCTRE]

The wife and I did watch the Olympics basically every day, but I'd say we did use the streaming offerings by German public broadcasting roughly 80% of the time.

Way more interesting if you get to choose which live event to follow (especially when there's, like, 5 or so going on concurrently), which basically has killed my interest in the traditional broadcast feed.

 

[cdyhybrid]

They can bid a lower amount if they want. Paris is bidding a higher amount. Rome has bid a lower amount.

So I ask again - where do you think these countries got these bid numbers from? Do you think they just pulled a number out of a hat?

I asked if holding 2-4 NBA events is the same as holding the Olympics. Your answer was this:


By saying it is no different, you are also claiming that there is no difference in costs between holding the Olympics and holding 2-4 NBA Finals games.

Correct! But you assumed that meant that I was saying that the costs would be the same if they met the IOC's demands - which is obviously ridiculous. They don't have to remodel the Coliseum or build a $100M pool to hold 2-4 NBA Finals games, so why would any reasonable person assert such a thing? They can hold the Olympics on the existing infrastructure just fine.

Again, I said it cost $300 million for security. This is my 3rd time saying it. Where did I say it cost $6 billion for security?

I never said you said that, I have no idea where you're getting that.

You: It would cost $6B to host the Olympics in LA!

Me: No it wouldn't, they don't have to remodel the Coliseum or build a $100M temporary pool. The existing infrastructure can easily handle it.

You: But they have to pay for security!

Me: It doesn't cost $6B for security, so that number is obviously not what it would cost.

Are we all caught up now?

The security cost of the Salt Lake City Olympics was also around $300 million.



It is not true that security costs are already paid for. If the US does not host the Olympics, the money to pay for security for the 4 weeks is not already spent.

My point is that it's not some grand undertaking. Does it cost more than spending nothing? Yes. Is it some ridiculous amount that will drive the surrounding neighborhoods into poverty? No. Is it what the IOC says it would be? No. Is it going to cost more for security for a venue holding an Olympic event than it would cost for a venue holding an NBA/NFL/whatever game? No.

 

[Enter The 36 Chambers]

I watched a good bit on BBC. I had no complaints about the coverage.

So easy to get sucked in and end up watching whole events.

 

[numble]

Double post.

 

[numble]

So I ask again - where do you think these countries got these bid numbers from? Do you think they just pulled a number out of a hat?




Correct! But you assumed that meant that I was saying that the costs would be the same if they met the IOC's demands - which is obviously ridiculous. They don't have to remodel the Coliseum or build a $100M pool to hold 2-4 NBA Finals games, so why would any reasonable person assert such a thing? They can hold the Olympics on the existing infrastructure just fine.



I never said you said that, I have no idea where you're getting that.

You said "It doesn't cost $6B to pay security for Olympic events."
You also said "Saying the Super Bowl (the biggest sporting event in the country) cost $4.8M (for security) and then making the leap to $6B (for security) is fairly flimsy."

If you admit you are just arguing against a straw man when you are arguing it doesn't cost $6 billion for security, that is fine.

You: It would cost $6B to host the Olympics in LA!

Me: No it wouldn't, they don't have to remodel the Coliseum or build a $100M temporary pool. The existing infrastructure can easily handle it.

You: But they have to pay for security!

Me: It doesn't cost $6B for security, so that number is obviously not what it would cost.

Are we all caught up now?



My point is that it's not some grand undertaking. Does it cost more than spending nothing? Yes. Is it some ridiculous amount that will drive the surrounding neighborhoods into poverty? No. Is it what the IOC says it would be? No. Is it going to cost more for security for a venue holding an Olympic event than it would cost for a venue holding an NBA/NFL/whatever game? No.

The bid numbers come from the candidate cities based on what they want to do to host the games.

I brought up the $6 billion figure because it is a quoted figure in contrast to your statement that there would be no difference versus holding 2-4 NBA games. Stop focusing on the $6 billion if you agree with my point that hosting the Olympics is more than hosting 2-4 NBA games.

By the way, I do think that certain Olympic events would cost more than holding an NBA game. The opening ceremony, the marathons, the triathlons, the soccer finals, the track and field events, would all cost more than holding an NBA game.

Look at the Salt Lake City Olympics:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._security-plan-security-bill-olympic-security

Now consider the estimated $320 million bill attached to Olympic security, an unprecedented price tag for the use of AWACS radar planes, F-16 fighter jets, Black Hawk helicopters and 15,000 law-enforcement and security personnel whose presence is unavoidable at the Salt Lake City Winter Games.

Then toss in the $12.7 million spent to upgrade security at Salt Lake City International Airport, establishing it as a model for aviation safety for airports throughout the nation.

That is not the same as a NBA game.

 

[KRod-57]

NBC coverage of the Olympics is terrible.. I love the Olympics, but hate their coverage of it. Maybe their ratings wouldn't dip if they didn't delay the broadcasting of medal events for 10 hours so they could air it in their prime time slot

 

[Vitten]

THB I do feel the olympics are a bit too bloated with disciplines that were perhaps once relevant 50 years ago but have slipped into obscurity ever since. I'm sure there's an audience who likes seeing prancing horsies or people running 50 kilometers with a silly walk but I can't imagine it being a large one.

 

[numble]

THB I do feel the olympics are a bit too bloated with disciplines that were perhaps once relevant 50 years ago but have slipped into obscurity ever since. I'm sure there's an audience who likes seeing prancing horsies or people running 50 kilometers with a silly walk but I can't imagine it being a large one.

I agree with equestrian events, but racewalking has actually gotten more and more popular:
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2014-07/14/content_32924084.htm

I worked near a park in Guangzhou for awhile and there was this huge mass of racewalkers every night.

 

[cdyhybrid]

You said "It doesn't cost $6B to pay security for Olympic events."
You also said "Saying the Super Bowl (the biggest sporting event in the country) cost $4.8M (for security) and then making the leap to $6B (for security) is fairly flimsy."

If you admit you are just arguing against a straw man when you are arguing it doesn't cost $6 billion for security, that is fine.



The bid numbers come from the candidate cities based on what they want to do to host the games.

I brought up the $6 billion figure because it is a quoted figure in contrast to your statement that there would be no difference versus holding 2-4 NBA games. Stop focusing on the $6 billion if you agree with my point that hosting the Olympics is more than hosting 2-4 NBA games.

By the way, I do think that certain Olympic events would cost more than holding an NBA game. The opening ceremony, the marathons, the triathlons, the soccer finals, the track and field events, would all cost more than holding an NBA game.

Look at the Salt Lake City Olympics:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._security-plan-security-bill-olympic-security



That is not the same as a NBA game.

So we can all agree that the $6B total is unreasonable. Fantastic.

Speaking of strawmen, why are you so fixated on NBA games (other than the fact that you tried to frame the argument purely in terms of NBA games when that's clearly unreasonable for an event that involves soccer, track, etc.)? They clearly would need to use football stadiums for the larger/outdoor events - fortunately, the Coliseum and Rose Bowl as they exist now and normally operate would be just fine for those types of events.

Again, the Olympics could be held in LA without exorbitant cost or any unreasonable inconveniences to the residents of the city using nothing more than what's already there - that's my entire argument and it's been my entire argument since post 1 in this thread.

 

[Nipo]

You are incorrect. The host countries pay for renovation and construction yes, but that is supposed to pay for itself later on.

The member countries don't pay anything to participate, the IOC is entirely privately funded with nearly half its funding coming from broadcast rights around the world. NBC by far pays the most in broadcast rights, in fact, as all the video feeds are produced by the IOC, you could argue that without NBC, these other countries countries coverage would suffer. Also the USOC doesn't rely on donations, some individual athletes might, but they are by far the best funded OC in the world. Most of their funding comes from sponsorships at like the above poster said, get a cut of the broadcast revenue. Fundraising is a minor source of funding. Now what they do with funding is something that may need to be looked at.

Also your point makes no sense as zero American tax dollars goes into the Olympics(except for local tax dollars in the event of a hosting city, but that's more of an investment than just spending tax dollars in nothing)

Stop trying to take some made up high road to justify your piracy.

My original point, that the Olympics couldn't happen as they are today without public funding, stands. If you disagree with that I didn't know what to tell you because how the games and athletes are funded is well documented.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

They should get youtubers to comment over it live

Should they also stream Twitch chat alongside?

 

[Cday]

No one should be tortured by endless Mr. Clean and Geico commercials, or Water Polo.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Caught about 40 minutes of the Olympics when I was at a restaurant last week. That's about the most I could be bothered to give a fuck about the games.