http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...bb7f42-9750-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html
I'm thinking another year wasted, honestly.
I'm thinking another year wasted, honestly.
LA was the supposed front runner. I guess not.Boston? A town that, regardless how much time is between now and the Olympics, will still be antsy/anxious after the bombings and Tsarnaev? they will still be jittery about that, that it may impact the chances of them getting it.
I don't see it winning. SFO actually would have been a better choice, even if just based on access to the city alone.
BL.
They can't host a Superbowl easily, how can they host an olympics. I don't see them winning the bid.
Where are they going to put everyone. They don't have enough hotels. This is the main reason why they can't support a Superbowl. Who cares about climate. NY did it, Chicago wants to host one. The issue is not weather it's infrastructure.Boston has a hard time hosting a Superbowl because of the climate. The Olympics are held in the summer when it's warmer.
Just because "Boston" submitted the bid does not mean everything has to be downtown, or even within the city limits of Boston. They found a way to make it work in Atlanta, and Atlanta doesn't have "the T" that Boston does. The USOC must have figured out how the logistics would work out to make a viable bid. The IOC actually ACCEPTING those logistics on the other hand...
Rome is the only other city bidding at the moment. Germany will submit either Hamburg or Berlin, France and Hungary are also considering.Did anyone see what other cities Boston would be up against internationally?
A Wikipedia entry states that Rome and Boston are the only two applicants to date but also says that the initial 'Invitation Phase' doesn't actually start until 15 January.
I'd bet the farm on Paris if they actually submit a bid.