Code: [U]G[/U] [U]S[/U] [U]B[/U] 1) China 45 14 20 2) USA 26 28 28 3) Great Britain 16 10 11 4) Russia 13 14 18 5) Australia 11 12 13 6) Germany 11 8 9 7) South Korea 8 10 6 8) Japan 8 6 9 9) Italy 6 7 7 10) Ukraine 5 5 8 11) France 4 12 14 12) Netherlands 4 5 4 13) Jamaica 4 3 0 14) Romania 4 1 3 15) Spain 3 5 2 16) Poland 3 4 1 17) New Zealand 3 1 5 18) Slovakia 3 1 0 19) Canada 2 6 5 20) Kenya 2 4 2
60? USA, you're better than that! I was talking with my friend the other day, and we were discussing that there should be multiple basketball medals - like one for 3 point shooting, free throw shooting, etc. - either decided by contests or from stats in the game. Maybe even have a defensive medal, offensive medal, etc.
The ideas for multiple medals are iffy, especially for best defensive and offensive teams...they definitely wouldn't work at all. However, the fact that there's only one medal for basketball and multiple medals for all the other events is pretty lame. Hope that answers your question.
Basketball has one event. The sports of Track and Swimming have multiple events (per gender). So, no I don't agree with you.
I've always wondered how they do the rankings? Is it by # of medals, most gold medals?? what is the criteria? It seems depending on what website you go to it's different. There are two national news channels in Canada, one has Canada 17th, the other 15th.. that's plain annoying. IMO is there should be a point system 3 pts for gold, 2 silver, 1 bronze. that way having 5 golds and 2 silvers and 1 bronze is NOT better than 3 gold, 6 silver and 8 bronze medals. Conversely having 1 gold 11 silver and 15 Bronze is not better than 6 gold, 8 silver and 10 bronze. Doesn't that make sense?
It's ranked by # of gold medals, then if teams are drawing, they sort them by silvers and then by bronzes. The problem with a points system is that it benefits countries capable of putting forward a massive number of competitors unfairly.
most of those countries are at the top anyways.. you know because they have more opportunities to win gold but winning 5 gold 1 silver and 1 bronze should have you ahead of country with 16 medals but only 4 are gold IMO. Success shouldn't be measured soley on Gold medals.
13 medals! Canada's finally getting it together now that we're past the swimming and gymnastics (which we usually suck at). We got 16 in Athens. Wonder if we can past that mark this time.
I thought this too. Maybe 5 silvers is equivallant to 1 gold and 5 bronzes to 1 silver.but as Chingy said Countries would just put forward lots of competitors.
well if we weight the gold to be 3 points and the bronze 1... 99X3 = 297, 100 X1 = 100 however 100 bronze>10 Gold
They rank them both ways and usually tell you what their ordering the countries by when they show a ranking. I don't really care either way. There's no way to come to some sort of definitive equation for how to rank countries. A gold medal for India (which has no sports program whatsoever) is probably as impressive as 20 gold medals for America (which has the best funded athletics programs in the world). You can do the same from event to event if you wanted. When rating the performances of countries, I like to compare their medal totals (both gold and overall) to their average performances in the past.
