- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is there are more dumb way to judge Olympic success than medals per capita?
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:24 am
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:24 am
*A more dumb way that is actually taken seriously?
Counting "per capita", countries like Finland, Estonia, Hungary, Sweden, etc. are some of the "best" all-time at the Summer Olympics.
But it makes no sense considering countries are only allowed to send X number of athletes per event to the Olympics.
So countries like the USA are artificially held down per capita because they have athletes sitting at home who are better than athletes from other countries who are allowed to compete.
Also, being good at one particular event is inflated in countries with a low population.
And lastly, the number of medals available matters too. As an extreme example, imagine there were only 10 medals awarded in the entire Olympics. Imagine Finland happens to win 1 and the U.S. wins 9, Finland still far and away won more "per capita".
The U.S. has to win 64 medals for every medal Finland wins just to be even "per capita". The U.S. has a lot of overlap with their best athletes and Finland has virtually zero.
Makes zero sense.
Counting "per capita", countries like Finland, Estonia, Hungary, Sweden, etc. are some of the "best" all-time at the Summer Olympics.
But it makes no sense considering countries are only allowed to send X number of athletes per event to the Olympics.
So countries like the USA are artificially held down per capita because they have athletes sitting at home who are better than athletes from other countries who are allowed to compete.
Also, being good at one particular event is inflated in countries with a low population.
And lastly, the number of medals available matters too. As an extreme example, imagine there were only 10 medals awarded in the entire Olympics. Imagine Finland happens to win 1 and the U.S. wins 9, Finland still far and away won more "per capita".
The U.S. has to win 64 medals for every medal Finland wins just to be even "per capita". The U.S. has a lot of overlap with their best athletes and Finland has virtually zero.
Makes zero sense.
12
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:25 am to PrimeTime Money
It's not that serious
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:27 am to castorinho
quote:No discussion about sports is "that serious".
It's not that serious
Yet here you are with over 36,000 posts.
This post was edited on 8/8/16 at 9:28 am
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:27 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Yet here you are with over 36,000 posts.
Oh, snap. Post count burn!
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:28 am to PrimeTime Money
I have a limited amount of fricks to give today, your post will not receive any.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:29 am to LSUBoo
It never fails. 
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:30 am to LSUBoo
quote:Not a post count burn. Just pointing out that he obviously likes discussing sports. Acting like it's beneath him to have such a discussion about sports is silly.
Oh, snap. Post count burn!
This post was edited on 8/8/16 at 9:31 am
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:30 am to PrimeTime Money
It is important to consider that a select few sports can really dominate the medal totals in the olympics.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:36 am to DollaChoppa
quote:
It is important to consider that a select few sports can really dominate the medal totals in the olympics.
Yeah, like basketball for instance. All those games and players yet it is only 1 gold medal. They should have a dunk contest, a 3-point contest, and some sort of skills challenge.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 9:39 am to slackster
2 on 2 challenge... the US could sweep the medals in that one.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 10:03 am to LSUBoo
I don't think that was a post count burn
Posted on 8/8/16 at 10:04 am to PrimeTime Money
What would be your proposed way of measuring Olympic success then? Obviously total medal count is flawed too since bigger countries like China and the US are going to get more medals than Belgium or Poland. The per capita thing at least adjusts for that a little bit even though as you pointed out it isn't perfect
Posted on 8/8/16 at 10:17 am to LL012697
Honestly, I think only the big countries care about total medal counts so the argument is sort of moot. The smaller countries know they'll never compete for total medals, so they instead focus their attention to consistent success at specific events
Posted on 8/8/16 at 10:24 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
But it makes no sense considering countries are only allowed to send X number of athletes per event to the Olympics.
Yeah, when the US has the 3rd best all-around female gymnast but she cannot compete in all-around because #1 and #2 are also from the US, per capita is ridiculous.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 11:07 am to PrimeTime Money
"per capita" is used all the time to recognize the level of football talent here in Louisiana and Mississippi based on their producing more NFL talent per capita than the more populous states like California, Texas,etc.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 11:12 am to LSULaw2009
quote:But that makes sense because there are no limits on who can play.
"per capita" is used all the time to recognize the level of football talent here in Louisiana and Mississippi based on their producing more NFL talent per capita than the more populous states like California, Texas,etc.
The Olympic committee only allows a certain number of athletes in each country to compete in a specific event.
Nobody is limiting the number of football players from a big state like Texas from competing, for example.
This post was edited on 8/8/16 at 11:13 am
Posted on 8/8/16 at 11:13 am to PrimeTime Money
Eh, I guess it gives more depth and can rack up some bronze in sports that Americans dominate in.
But any body who didn't qualify in the top 2 in America isn't a huge threat to medal.
The bigger deal is only getting one team in team sports. USA could probably create 10 basketball teams who would medal.
But any body who didn't qualify in the top 2 in America isn't a huge threat to medal.
The bigger deal is only getting one team in team sports. USA could probably create 10 basketball teams who would medal.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 11:30 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:Yes, but a smaller country has a smaller pool of athletes from which to choose than a bigger country. Therefore, the competition is increased in the bigger countries, so they have a higher chance of sending someone who is better than a smaller country does. So the "per capita" metric is more valid than you seem to think.
The Olympic committee only allows a certain number of athletes in each country to compete in a specific event.
Posted on 8/8/16 at 11:33 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
But it makes no sense considering countries are only allowed to send X number of athletes per event to the Olympics.
I think the vast majority of those who failed to qualify would not have medaled anyway.
Also, I have never even seen 'medals per capita' ranking anywhere, so I think the OP is tilting at windmills.
This post was edited on 8/8/16 at 11:35 am
Posted on 8/8/16 at 11:39 am to TheSexecutioner
quote:
The bigger deal is only getting one team in team sports. USA could probably create 10 basketball teams who would medal.
Medal count should count team sports as the total number of players on the team, or at least the number who compete at a time. Something. It is idiotic that a medal in soccer or basketball (where dozens of people actually receive medals) counts the same as a medal in shot put.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News