Originally posted by PhlabibitOlympic medal tables have worked from times of yore on no. of Golds as the first criteria, no. of silvers next etc.
5 for Gold
3 for Silver
1 for Bronze?
P-
So someone with 5 golds 4 Silvers (0 bronzes) beats someone with 5 golds, 3 silvers and 570 bronzes. So the USA are in the lead. 😠I should know - I'm related genetically to the person that devised them. We're even closer related than humans and chimps 😛
Originally posted by ViAHmmm, maybe the Germans use the same system? If they don't, I would advise them to start using it. Oh yes, and in case two countries are tied, they should be put in alphabetical order. Funnily enough, that would put Norway in 1st place in Norway, and Germany in Germany. 🙂
Norwegian newspapers has always used this system for counting Olympic points - 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (i.e. points for the 6 first). Is that only common here?
Example:
http://www.vg.no/sport/ol/2006/
Scroll halfway down to "Poengoversikt".
(and guess who is on the top of that table?)
Originally posted by darvlayI remember last time with Canada's double gold. I'd love to see us pull that stunt off again. (That, and it was the only time I payed attention to hockey. ^^; )
Yep.
That's gonna be a big game on Sunday and Canada's first real challenge (assuming we get by the Swiss without any hassle).
~The MCP
Originally posted by dottewellIf you're Canada, yes.
So it's two pools of six, and eight teams qualify for the quarter finals?
Kind of hard to get eliminated.
In 2002, we lost our first game to the Swedes 5-0 but went on to run the table for Gold. The Swedes actually won their group but lost in the Quarterfinals to the lowly Latvians when Tommy Salo let in a soft goal from deep in the zone over his head (!!!).