It was a great debate that will never be settled: What would the Olympics have meant for Chicago?

With the announcement Friday, Oct. 2 that Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 games — and, perhaps more surprising, that Chicago’s bid was eliminated in the first round of voting — advocates and opponents will be left guessing what the Olympics would have had in store for the entire region.

Although the city would have hosted all the events and its name emblazoned the promotions, the impact of the international sporting event would have extended well into the suburbs.

In March, Chicago 2016 officials brought their campaign for the games to suburban business leaders. At a luncheon with 18 western suburbs chambers of commerce, Director of Sport Bill Scherr said the benefits of the Olympics would have been wide reaching.

About 12,000 athletes were projected to attend the games, and many thousands of spectators would have come to the region.

“Last time I checked, I didn’t count that many hotel rooms downtown,” he said in March.

Hotels as far away as Kane County and beyond guaranteed to reserve 85 percent of their rooms for those two weeks in 2016, and proponents talked about the Olympics’ lasting boon from tourism.

“There are 16,000 rentable rooms in DuPage County, and having those filled, or 90 percent full or 80 percent full for an extended period of time would have generated a lot of tax revenue,” said John Quigley, president and CEO of the Elmhurst Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

An independent analysis last September projected a $4.4 billion economic impact on Chicago and Cook County — almost $700 million from visitors and the rest from infrastructure development.

“There was a lot of urban development that would have gone with the Olympic sponsorships,” said Gerald Murphy, president of Cook County’s Chamber of Commerce. “I’m not saying we’re going to go downhill or anything, … but this would have helped a lot.”

The analysis study, completed by Anderson Economic Group, said the profits would have been enough to cover even modest cost overruns. “Significant” unexpected costs, however, could have hindered the benefits.

Chicago’s bid proposed using public dollars as a safety net in the event of funding shortfalls, though planners downplayed the likelihood of that. But the Olympics have a wavering history of profits.

Officials with the U.S. Olympic Committee often pointed out that American cities that have hosted the summer games — Atlanta in 1996 and Los Angeles in 1984 — turned a profit. On the other hand, Montreal only finished paying off the debt from its 1976 games three years ago. And in the ongoing recession, some aspects of the London 2012 Olympics, such as the athletes’ village, are being financed with public dollars after private investment became scarce.

With Chicago facing another looming budget deficit next year, Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica, R-16th District of Riverside, said he was worried the burden of supporting the games would have repercussions beyond the city limits.

A longtime critic of Chicago’s bid, Peraica said the selection of Rio was really a win for Chicago.

“I think the taxpayers of Cook County and the state of Illinois were spared a humongous tax strain,” he said.

But Chicago might not have missed out entirely on benefits.

Since it was chosen as the United States’ bid city two years ago, a massive marketing campaign has touted Chicago as a diverse world city.

“I think at the very least the campaign has increased awareness and has the potential to jump visitor traffic to Chicago,” said Quigley, Elmhurst’s Chamber of Commerce president. “If that’s only a 3 percent or a 5 percent bump, that’s still a considerable bump.”