the fall of cameron

[kentonio]

Also I thought this thread was going to be about Avatar 2.

[Dauphin]

"When we fictitiously pretend 28 countries are one country, when they are not, then we edge out the US! "

Meanwhile, back in reality, the US got more medals than any other country.

Only three of EU countries (inc UK) are needed to surpass the U.S. - UK, Germany, France.

Take out swimming which hands out medals like candy and you just need the UK and Germany.

[Aeson]

The EU does have an innate advantage due being treated as separate countries instead of a single country. It allows them more competitors in many events than is possible for a single country.

[Dauphin]

Are limits based at the event or the total team level? If the latter, then I can understand the point, but if the former then you are talking about the likelihood of second tier U.S. Olympians (i.e. those who failed to make the cut) winning medals - how many medals are they likely to win. Some, but I'm not convinced it would be making a huge difference.

[Bereta_Eder]

My argument won again.
It gets tiresome after a while.

[Bereta_Eder]

(_BE come to the table your soup is getting cold
_oh ok mom)

[Aeson]

Are limits based at the event or the total team level? If the latter, then I can understand the point, but if the former then you are talking about the likelihood of second tier U.S. Olympians (i.e. those who failed to make the cut) winning medals - how many medals are they likely to win. Some, but I'm not convinced it would be making a huge difference.

There are hard limits per country in team (1) and individual (varies) events on top of the qualifying requirements. Given that injuries and upsets do happen, as well as very closely matched competitors or luck of the draw type influences, it is an advantage to any pan-national grouping.

Also the EU has a larger population.

I'm not saying that the US is the best, and wouldn't even if they were. I find nationalism rather backwards. But those are factors that would need to be accounted for if a comparison is to be made.

[Aeson]

For the most obvious example, the EU can potentially field 28 basketball teams, and the US just one. The US would be a consistent threat to sweep the basketball medals if allowed 3+ teams.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and having 28 basketball teams from EU vs "the best one" does not weaken the EU team?!?

Putting two Gasols, Dirk, Parker and Batum, add Dragic, Fournier, Bogdanovic, Teodosic, Spanoulis and a few other top picks on one team would not make the EU team stronger?

While not quite the same like the US in their best team sport, we'd surely be getting closer .

[Bereta_Eder]

For basketball, it just takes Greece

[Aeson]

and having 28 basketball teams from EU vs "the best one" does not weaken the EU team?!?

Putting two Gasols, Dirk, Parker and Batum, add Dragic, Fournier, Bogdanovic, Teodosic, Spanoulis and a few other top picks on one team would not make the EU team stronger?

While not quite the same like the US in their best team sport, we'd surely be getting closer .

The EU now can generally expect to get 1 or 2 medals in men's basketball. Combining they might have a better chance for gold, but would only get one medal at most.

As this is a discussion of medal count without the type of medal mattering, it would clearly reduce the expected EU medal count.

Aside from that, the US could field several teams that would likely beat the EU combined team or any other team (inc US teams) with enough consistency that all teams other than perhaps the top US teams would have a relatively low chance to medal. In such a scenario having more teams that are top tier improves the country's expected medal count.

The biggest advantage that the rest of the world has on US in basketball is the US goes with an all-star approach to the team without much thought into team makeup or how players fit in the international game. Then rely almost completely on individual talent with not much in the way of preparation. Having multiple teams would force the US to form more coherent teams for at least some of them, and likely lead to internal competition that would better prepare those teams for international competition.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well, as is - EU has 81 golds, vs 30 for the US, just a little less convincing lead vs total medal count, the lead which would grow if you could field the best EU teams.

Fewer bronzes, more golds - it's a fair deal.

[Aeson]

A combined EU benefit (for gold) would only pertain to team sports in which the EU countries are not already winning and which lend themselves to all-star teams. (I'm not sure even basketball qualifies as all star team adapted)

In all individual events it would reduce the expected number of medals of each type and total.

[Dauphin]

For the most obvious example, the EU can potentially field 28 basketball teams, and the US just one. The US would be a consistent threat to sweep the basketball medals if allowed 3+ teams..

The medal count is about on par when you just have UK+Germany. So a 28 to 1 comparison belies that it is closer to 2 to 1 in actual effect.

[giblets]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]178693[/ATTACH]

(-UK)

At least the EU was able to accomplish something before its disastrous collapse.