On 4 Oct 2000 05:37:33 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Hardman)
wrote:
> Readers in Britain might have noticed "alternative" medals
> tables in one or two of the newspapers. The Guardian (3rd
> October) carried a table which they said took into account
> the size and prosperity of individual countries, though as
> far as I could see it was actually only based on
> prosperity. ...
< snip, rest >
Has anyone looked at, "How many events did they enter?"
That is an indicator of how much they care, about how many sports.
Or someone might ask, "How many athletes got medals, per total
athletes sent?" I don't know what that would be an indicator of.
You might be able to distinguish where Sporting is a "national effort"
by virtue of the near-100% entry rate. Or the opposite, such as the
rate that is near 0% for India which is populous, but lacks that
nationalistic fervor of (say) Cuba.
I expect that any country with 50 entries won some medal. Or 20?
Here are questions from my curiosity. I think there were 300-400
medal events, with eleven or twelve thousand competitors "staying in
the Olympic village." Exactly how many were there, competing?
Then, how many medals were awarded? -- counting 12 or so for each
basketball team with a medal, 20+ for baseball, etc.
And, how many individuals were winners,
subtracting out the redundancy?
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
