2012 Olympics

Yorkshire finishes twelfth in medals table at Olympics | Olympic Games 2012 | The GuardianYorkshire is a county of about 6m people (the uk is divided up into sections, there are 83 counties in England.) As a result of their success, they are now asking for independence.

There aren't 83 counties in England, if Yorkshire is considered a county. This is the count after the subdivision of traditional counties, of which there are only about 30 or 40. You only get 83 is Yorkshire is divided into South, East, North and West Ridings.

Whatever......... Counties of England - Wikipedia

Er, yes, but Yorkshire makes up four of the 83 counties, not one of them.

yes, yes but ffs.......

Unless you are suggesting that the US had a load of athletes sitting at home who could have beaten the rest of the world if only they had been at the London Olympics I’m not sure how having a bigger team would have helped you.If the entire population of America had taken part and the US team had consisted of 300 million people I still don’t see how this would have made any difference to the eventual winners of individual events.

Of course it would have made a difference. The obvious one is that they would have won more bronze and silver. The US got the gold in Women's Eight rowing, for example, an event in which each country is only allowed one entrant. If the second best team of eight in the world is also American (I have no idea if it is), then they might well have won gold and silver had there been no limit on entry.Even in events where the US didn't win gold, suggesting their entrant or entrants weren't the best, they're still likely to win more if they have more competitors, for the simple reason that the best team or individual doesn't always win every event. There are all sorts of lucky (and unlucky) coincidences that can contribute to a win or loss in any sport. If 70% of the competing hockey teams were American, their chance of winning medals would be vastly increased just because of the hugely increased number of chances for an American team to fluke a lucky win.

So you are saying that the US had a load of elite level olympic athletes (that could have beaten the medalists of other countries if they had been there) sitting at home? Do you think that the reason the US didn't do the "size equivalent of Britain" that Bluegenes talks about was because it didn't send as many athletes as it had available?Surely, in terms of medal winning, the issue is how good the athletes are rather than how many you send? Lets say that the US can enter 4 hockey teams and all the other countries can enter just one. How does this change which country has the best team?Men's Hockey Results
Germany - Gold
Netherlands - Silver
Australia - Bronze
(Britain came 4th losing to Aus in the bronze medal playoff)I still don't see how the US having 4 inferior teams somehow gets it a medal here? Please explain.

Germany won the men's hockey. That doesn't mean Germany had the best team. There is no way to objectively determine the 'best' team. If we could replay the Germany-Holland final a thousand times, do you think Germany would win it a thousand times? Of course not. We don't know what the final outcome would be, but Germany would certainly lose several matches.The more teams you have, the more chance you have to win. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this. Would it help to provide a list of thousands of sporting fictures won by an inferior team?As for whether the US had athletes at home who could have beaten other country's medallists, of course they did. So did several other countries. Olympic events typically allow between one and three entrants per country. In some of the events where more than one is allowed, we can see that the same country wins two or three medals.

I agree, and I'd thought of that. But the occasions on which the "fourth person", the fourth choice would medal would be rare. I reckon that it might cost you about one bronze medal per. Olympics at most in all events, and this would be outweighed by the disadvantage of splitting up your relay teams.In the examples you give, the 3rd choice in the 100 metres is already an outsider, as are the second choice and above in the 200 (going by their times).As for the beach volleyball, I've just had a look at it. The fact that only two teams go through does deny the big countries an (unlikely) clean sweep, but this is easily counterbalanced by the ability of big countries like Brazil, the USA and Germany to put together more than one top 5 or top 10 pairing. Latvia sneaked in for the men's bronze, but all other medals went to those big countries.Still, I agree with your point, and limited entry could cost you the occasional bronze.

If we changed the athletics conditions to one athlete per country, this year it would have cost the US 4 silvers and 4 bronzes this year. That's just athletics. If we did the same with all disciplines in all events, it would lose the US a further four silver and three bronze - so eight silvers and seven bronzes in total.

Suggest just that. There are plenty of wrestlers, a sport I follow very closely at the NCAA level, who could medal with no problem. But we aren't allowed to send that many. There are limits to the amount of athletes that can compete in a single event from a country.For example, we could have sent two more basketball teams and gotten silver and bronze too.- Oni

Hi, Bluegenes. I think it would be more than just an occasional bronze, but I agree that it probably wouldn't have brought us up to the level we should have reached under the weighted standards you were talking about.-----Also, I've never quite understood the inclusiveness people use when talking about the Olympics. Americans are always so proud when we win a lot of medals. But, I didn't win any medals, and I'm pretty sure that nothing I did made any difference at all in the final medal count at the Olympics.Even if I were part of a great sporting culture, I didn't have a hand in making it so great, so I have a hard time feeling any pride about what my countrymen do in the Olympics. I'm happy for them, sure: but pride feels like taking credit for what other people did, just because my house is somewhat near theirs geographically.Well, I guess I did run 2 miles today in 17:22, which is close to a personal best. That's only a little more than twice the world-record time. How that contributes to America's medal haul at the Olympics, I don't know: but I'll come up with something, I'm sure.

The US came 5th in Olympic wrestling. The very best US wrestlers weren’t as good as those from other countries so the claim that the second tier US wrestlers would have mopped up the remaining medal positions away from other countries seems a bit optimistic to me. But lets say our hypothetical extended US team gets a couple more in the wrestling. And basketball I will give the hypothetical extended US team all three medal positions in.It still doesn’t really equate to a dynamic per-capita performance does it?Any more US medal winners sitting at home because there wasn’t room on the plane?

Yes, but we haven't. As three medals are on offer it makes sense that countries can enter three individuals in the individual events.In team events, you suggested above that the U.S. might theoretically have a second women's rowing eight that could medal. They haven't. With that depth, they could have stopped our women rowers from picking up three golds! But if they had been allowed a second eight, they'd have missed out on their bronze in the quadruple sculls, and weakened any other teams in the fours, double sculls etc. (none of which they medalled in). They are a traditional rowing country, but only picked up that gold and two bronzes. None of the successful rowing countries would argue for doubling up in specific events, because none of them can achieve medals in all the existing ones.