Interesting Problem
I work with nationally diverse group of people. Let see, in my little group we have one russian, one romanian, two british, one indian, and a handful of americans. This makes the olympics interesting. The conversation always slips to which nation is better. This leads to larger discussions: "Romania raised athletes from a very young age"; "Americans have more money"; "Americans have a large population"; etc. etc.
There is no easy way to determine the answer to this. Initially the medal to population ratio was determined to be the best way. This approach, however, takes away from countries like China. Then weighting each medal: gold = 3 pts, silver = 2 pts, bronze=1 pts and determining it that way. That doesn't work out well because events like swimming and gymnastics need a higher weight.
There is no simple answer the this question. Price Waterhouse Coopers have a way to predict but that isn't enough. How do you fairly compare? What criteria should be used? I was thinking some weighting on events, population and GDP.
Opinions on criteria?
There is no easy way to determine the answer to this. Initially the medal to population ratio was determined to be the best way. This approach, however, takes away from countries like China. Then weighting each medal: gold = 3 pts, silver = 2 pts, bronze=1 pts and determining it that way. That doesn't work out well because events like swimming and gymnastics need a higher weight.
There is no simple answer the this question. Price Waterhouse Coopers have a way to predict but that isn't enough. How do you fairly compare? What criteria should be used? I was thinking some weighting on events, population and GDP.
Opinions on criteria?