It’s safe to assume the U.S. Olympic Committee will try to convince the International Olympic Committee to award a Winter or summer Olympics to the U.S.

Should the U.S. pursue another Olympics? USA Today explores pros and cons:

The leaders of the U.S. Olympic Committee intend to bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics if certain criteria are met. In the next two months, the USOC will likely have a short list of three candidate cities and by the end of the year will be in a position to make its decision.

There’s also the possibility that the USA will consider bidding for the 2026 Winter Games, even though the Summer Games is the more prestigious prize.

Whatever the case, given the expense, security concern and politics – all central issues heading into Sochi – is it worth it? Does a country like the United States need the Olympic Games?

“It’s a big, heavy burden on cities and states,” USOC CEO Scott Blackmun acknowledged, given the federal government is only responsible for helping with security and transportation. “The payoff is what it does to transform sport in (a host city’s) community and what it does for the nation.”

Given the cuts in college sports programs, which serve as a feeder system for most summer Olympic sports, Blackmun said a Games in the United States would help boost those programs. “Bringing the Olympics back to the U.S. makes sure that the level of interest in those sports stays high,” he said.

Sochi spent a record $51 billion on these Games. Unlike Sochi, which had to build everything from nothing, the USA would have a far more developed infrastructure in place. On top of the list of potential bid cities are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, but of those cities, only Los Angeles has publicly expressed interest in hosting the Games.

Other cities around the world that have expressed interest in bidding for the 2024 Games include Paris; Doha, Qatar; and Durban, South Africa. The International Olympic Committee vote on the 2024 Games will be in 2017. …

Until recently the USOC was considered a four-letter word in IOC circles. Both American bids to host the 2012 and 2016 Olympics (New York and Chicago) failed miserably in large part to a revenue-sharing feud between the USOC and IOC. Two years ago the two sides resolved that dispute and under Blackmun the USOC is now in back in the IOC’s good graces. Both USOC chairman Larry Probst and Blackmun have spent significant time the past two years building friendships and support and Probst is now an IOC member.

Given the backlash over Russia’s anti-gay legislation, the IOC has been pressed to consider human rights issues as much as it considers venues and finances when awarding future Games.

“Our message well before the human rights catastrophes of Sochi has been you cannot have a successful Olympics where you have major human rights abuses,” said Minky Worden, the director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch.

When criticized for not forcefully speaking out against human rights issues in past and future host cities, IOC leaders have repeatedly said they rely on “quiet diplomacy,” reminding their critics that they are a sports organization, not a government or political body.

IOC president Thomas Bach made this clear in his opening and closing marks in Sochi. “Please understand what our responsibilities are and what your responsibilities are. Have the courage to address your disagreements in a peaceful direct political dialogue and not on the backs of the athletes,” Bach said in opening remarks.

Though he didn’t publicly named the Obama administration, the inference was clear. The White House named three openly gay athletes to its delegation for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Sochi Olympics, which was seen as a direct message of opposition to Russia’s anti-gay laws. Clearly this insertion of politics irked Bach, and other IOC members.

Dick Pound of Canada said that the White House’s response was unfortunate and unwise. “This is how the United States of America, the world’s most important, influential nation handles this issue? In an Olympic context, at a time when you’re thinking about bidding for the Olympic Games?” Pound told USA TODAY Sports.

USOC members went out of their way in Sochi to make nice. In their closing news conference, Probst said Russia did a “phenomenal job” mentioning everything from smooth transportation to Vladimir Putin’s presence throughout the Games. “We are very, very impressed,” Blackmun said.

So getting the IOC to award the U.S. a bid requires making nice to not merely the IOC, but the likes of Vladimir Putin. Americans should immediately lose interest.

Beyond that, there is the Olympics’ immense cost without corresponding long-term benefit. Obviously millions of tourist dollars get spent, arguably tourist dollars that wouldn’t otherwise be spent in a host area. However, the money spent on Olympic infrastructure is not money that magically appears out of nowhere, and it is often spent on buildings that don’t have use after the Olympics. The Olympics are a repeatable argument about whether sports facilities make economic sense every time a new one is built. Unless you’re planning to open a university, what do you do with an Olympic village? What do you with ski jumps, or speed skating tracks, or whatever you want to call the various extreme sports venues?

Hosting an Olympics makes sense if you already have the majority of the facilities on hand, or if you have future uses for the facilities. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics used the L.A. Coliseum (which hosted the 1932 Olympics) for opening ceremonies and track and field. UCLA’s Pauley Pavilion hosted gymnastics. The L.A. Sports Arena hosted boxing. The Forum hosted basketball. Facilities at other Los Angeles-area colleges hosted events. The Rose Bowl hosted soccer. Only two new venues, for swimming and bicycling, were built; the latter was torn down in 2003.

Can a U.S. city host an Olympics as well as Los Angeles did? The nightmare scenario is Montreal, whose Olympic Stadium doubled in cost between design in 1970 and (unfinished) opening in 1976. The stadium was paid off in 2006, finally being the second most expensive stadium in history.

Then there’s Atlanta, which did two seemingly clever things for 1996: It built the Georgia Dome, and used half of it for basketball and the other half for gymnastics. The new Olympic Stadium was partially disassembled to become Turner Field, the Braves’ new ballpark. Now, however, the Braves are leaving Turner Field, and the Falcons want out of the Georgia Dome. (The Omni hosted volleyball. It’s gone, replaced at the same site by Philips Arena, used by the Hawks and Thrashers.)

This list of caveats doesn’t include the bazillions in construction costs for upgraded roads and mass transit (the latter of which doesn’t get used after the event), not to mention the inconvenience for locals who may not be able to afford to go to Olympic events, but will be paying for them one way (taxes) or another (increased costs of sponsors’ products), not to mention the civil-liberties-infringing security in this post-9/11 world.

Who wants the Olympics? (Besides NBC, that is.)