Resident Americans: A Question

[*End Is Forever*]

Someone directed me to the NBC Olympics website today and commented on the medal table. Is it really necessary to use a different way of collating the medals to every other country involved just so that you stay on the top of it...?

It smacks of something that China might do, or North Korea. "Look, we're winning really..."

http://www.nbcolympics.com/

[Kontiki]

I'm not sure that's exclusively an American thing, and ranking based purely on gold medals seems kinda silly too. I mean, who had a better Olympics: a country that won a silver in every event or one that won a single gold medal and nothing else? They should really be ranked on a points system (x points for gold, y for silver, z for bronze)

[SlowwHand]

It's always something. USA can't do anything right. That's why we don't care. Well, Texans don't care. Some may, we don't.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm not sure that's exclusively an American thing, and ranking based purely on gold medals seems kinda silly too. I mean, who had a better Olympics: a country that won a silver in every event or one that one a single gold medal and nothing else? They should really be ranked on a points system (x points for gold, y for silver, z for bronze)

Yup, care to come up with a few fair values? 3/2/1? 4/2/1? π/e/i?

[Lorizael]

I'm going to have to agree with Slowwhand here, actually. Seriously, who gives a **** how countries count their goddamn medals?

[DirtyMartini]

6/3.67894322/0.0000023841

[chequita guevara]

Winning is what the Olympics are all about. That, and celebrating the glory of Zeus.

[Lord Avalon]

196.97 / 107.87 / 70.17

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Krill


Yup, care to come up with a few fair values? 3/2/1? 4/2/1? π/e/i?

3/2/1 seems the most reasonable.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm not sure that's exclusively an American thing, and ranking based purely on gold medals seems kinda silly too. I mean, who had a better Olympics: a country that won a silver in every event or one that one a single gold medal and nothing else? They should really be ranked on a points system (x points for gold, y for silver, z for bronze)

+1... I'd say 3/2/1, or 5/3/1, I suppose. To me, silver is quite a good achievement, as is bronze; so 3/2/1 seems reasonable. Having the 2nd fastest person in the world from your country seems like something you should care about...

Also, we should rank the events. Basketball gets X5 points, for example, as does football, while Mens Indoor Archery With Hats With Pointy Ears should get X0.005 points. Etcetera.

[DanS]

I don't know whether US news outlets have always sorted on total medals. Certainly, this year all of the lists that I have seen from US news outlets have sorted on total medals. Some allow you to sort on other columns. Yahoo! allows that, f.e.

[SlowwHand]

If you have 6 athletes in the Olympics and 1 wins Bronze, relativity says they did damn well. All the scenarios, all the ways of tracking. Total medals. Color of medal. Medals vs. athletes. If you spent the money to send 250 athletes and you get a Bronze only, that doesn't tie the nation that sent 6 athletes, or it shouldn't.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't know whether US news outlets have always sorted on total medals. Certainly, this year all of the lists that I have seen from US news outlets have sorted on total medals. Some allow you to sort on other columns. Yahoo! allows that, f.e.

Canada's sites sort by # of golds, even though it hurts our ranking.

But it looks like NBC has always used "# of medals" as their metric.

2004: http://web.archive.org/web/200408300...om/id/3032113/

[Zkribbler]

I haven't been watching the Olympics, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I haven't been watching the Olympics, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why would a union man watch a competition where we reward individual excellence?