What I found most interesting is the detailed analysis of the expect costs and benefits. What I strongly disliked is how it was cast in jocks vs nerds theater.

I understand that Slate's readership isn't HN's readership, and that just the facts aren't enough, that there needs to be some kind of emotional story to hold the reader's attention.

But is jocks vs nerds really it? Is that the most interesting thing? Wouldn't a more generic dreamers vs. hard nosed realists be something a wider audience can identify with?

Perhaps you're also looking for strong passion, not just the widest general interest? But even in that case, the jocks vs nerds cliche? Nerds hate any kind of sports related activity so much they won't even allow their home city to host the Olympics?

It just feels tired and forced. But the economic analysis was great.

I came here to say just that. It's a juvenile classification system that thoughtful people ditch once they leave high school. I had difficulty pushing my strong dislike of that characterization aside so I could understand the good analysis of the downsides of Chicago hosting the 2016 Games.

Great points!

I understand the dislike for "jocks vs. nerds" theater, however:

a) It's more immediate than dreamers vs. realists. Everyone can relate to jocks vs. nerds , even if it ticks them off (as in your case). Doesn't PG have several essays breaking down the jocks vs. nerds divide?

b) That's my read on the situation, having hosted dozens and dozens of debates about the Olympics over on my site, WindyCitizen.com. The whole jocks v. nerds angle actually originated in a thread over there. A few local bloggers picked up on it, which got me thinking about it as a great way to explain why both sides could say so much and yet hear so little.

c) It's funny. If you don't find it funny, that's perfectly fine. I and the editors there were busting up about it when I pitched it to them. Extending the metaphor out to include Obama was too perfect. Learning the head of the bid committee is part owner of the Chicago Bears made my day.

Thank you for reading the piece. I respect and understand it wasn't your cup of tea and thank you for telling me so on here.

I wonder if the same people opposing the Olympics would oppose, say, an economically dubious high-speed rail line?

I would! I can't speak for anyone else, though.

The nerd angle seemed a bit forced.

> What I strongly disliked is how it was cast in jocks vs nerds theater.

I agree. I don't like those terms because well, they are labels. And in the article jocks and nerds were essentially, for lack of better terms, dumb and smart people.

Great article. I'd love to hear more about what it's like to try to get pieces in Slate, if you ever get bored and want something career-negative to write about.

I thought it ended a little abruptly, though.

Much like Chicago's bid.

Nice work, but the attached photo gallery ("Olympic Village") is an absolute mess - the photos didn't follow the theme, and some of the pictures were downright horrible (the TV shot from the '84 Olympics - what was that??). You might mention it to your editor.

But again, nice article.