Warren Hays and Devin McCarthy
2012 Olympics Final Medal Count / Christian Science Monitor
The American news media made constant note of the United States’ medal count during the 2012 London Olympics, often comparing the count to that of our largest rival in medals, the People’s Republic of China. In the end, Americans took home 104 total medals including 46 gold, while Chinese athletes managed 87 medals, of which 38 were gold. The London games marked the fifth straight Olympiad, beginning with the 1996 games, that the United States led in the number of both gold medals and total medals. Commentators insinuated that this unofficial marker of national strength places the United States as the dominant Olympic competitor in the world as of 2012, with China, Great Britain, Russia, and Germany rounding out the top five.

American athletes are to be applauded for their performances, of course, but this simple tally by itself does not account for a number of exogenous factors that strongly affected how each country fared in the Olympics. There are several ways to meddle with the medal count that would provide different perspectives on which nations really performed best at the Olympics.

As one example, The Economist, before this year’s Games, looked at national success over time based on the number of medals per competitor. It found that the former East Germany was the most successful nation by this measure, with the Soviet Union second and the United States third. Guatemala had the most disappointing Olympic history, sending 254 competitors without ever taking home a single medal.

Simon Forsyth of Australia’s University of Queensland considered a nation’s population in weighting the medal count. In the number of medals per capita, or the proportion of medals to the country’s population, the Caribbean island country of Grenada leads the pack. Although the country won just one Olympic medal, it has a population of only 104,000; the U.S., in contrast, has nearly three million citizens for every medal that it won. By the medals per capita barometer, Grenada is followed by three fellow Caribbean nations – Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, and the Bahamas – with New Zealand taking fifth place. The United States comes in at 50th, and China is 63rd.

Mr. Forsyth also considered medals per Gross Domestic Product (GDP) under the assumption that economic strength correlates well with indicators of national health and therefore athletic prowess. Grenada and Jamaica again take the top two spots in that order, followed by Mongolia and Georgia in third and fourth place, while the United States is 67th.

The Atlantic Magazine has published two simple charts in which it lists medals won on the vertical access and two horizontal axes – one with population and the other with GDP. Social Europe Journal joined the Atlantic in analyzing what factors are most likely to forecast medal count success, with “home country” advantage and past performance joining population and GDP as the key factors. According to the Journal, “everything else – different training structures, better equipment, and so forth – is pretty much noise.”

The Wall Street Journal’'s Tony Olivero wondered how the Olympic medal count would work if it were scored like the Electoral College, treating sports like the winner-take-all states in our presidential elections. In his “proposal,” the nation that won the plurality of medals in a sport would win all the medals for that sport in the final medal count. Like the Electoral College itself, though, this system has the flaw that it leaves many countries and athletes without representation in the medal count if they are in the minority in their sports.

A better American political analogy on which to base a medal count system might the U.S. Senate. Aside from the enormous demographic and economic differences among countries competing at the Olympics, another issue with the straightforward medal count is that there are more medals awarded in some sports than others. The United States dominates Olympic swimming, which holds 34 total events between men’s and women’s competitions, whereas China has historically done well in table tennis, although only four medals are awarded in a single Olympiad. Furthermore, some sports are team events that may result in only a single medal being counted, on par with any event awarded in an individual competition. Situations such as these give undue weight to countries with dominant individual competitors, such as Michael Phelps of the United States in his many swimming events, and marginalize nations and individuals competing in sports with few events. The U.S. does not get appropriately rewarded for the success of its basketball teams in the medal count, for instance.

One way to address the problem of different sports having unequal weight is to simply have a medal count in which every sport is worth a fixed number of “points”—say, nine points per sport. Those points could be split among gold, silver and bronze winners (five points for gold, three points for silver, and one point for bronze). That way if the U.S. won half of all swimming medals, they would only win roughly 4.5 points for the swimming “event.” The U.S. would also get 5 points for winning the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. Such a system, while more complex and less intuitive than the medal count, would treat sports much more equally than the current predominant method. Like the Senate, it would give sports equal representation in the medal count regardless of the "population" of their events.
The medal count is not technically a “rule” of the Olympics, but it is an unwritten rule of the media’s Olympics coverage. There is no official method, nor should there be, in determining who “won” an Olympiad and how the countries objectively rank against one another. The Olympics are intended to be an open gathering of the world’s best athletes to compete in fair competition and promote mutual understanding, and the games accomplish just that. Those who choose to rank the nations by Olympic success will persist in doing so, however, and thus credit should be given to those nations who do well in terms of more than just simple dominance of the total medal count. It also make following the Olympics that much more interesting – and gives more nations a spot on the final podium.
By Devin McCarthy and Warren Hays
Disqualified Chinese badminton pair / Reuters
On Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Olympic officials threw out four badminton pairs for deliberately losing their matches in order to advance against an easier opponent in the next round. Two teams from South Korea, one from China, and one from Indonesia faced boos and catcalls from the audience during their matches and were expelled by officials who determined they had violated two separate sections in the Players’ Code of Conduct by purposefully serving into the net and hitting the shuttlecock out of bounds.

This was not a typical case of throwing a match. The banned competitors did not decide to lose in order to benefit outside the competition, like the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox," who threw the World Series to claim a share of the money from winning bets. These badminton teams tried to lose to increase their chances of winning the competition itself. It was good strategy, not corruption, though it was not in the spirit of the Olympics. The players were placed, by the structural rules of the tournament, into a very difficult decision--try to win the match and sabotage their chances of medaling, or deliberately lose and violate the Code of Conduct.

It is the fault of the structure of the tournament that they were forced to make such a decision. In previous Olympics, a single elimination system was used, such that if a team lost a match they were out of contention. If these rules had still been in place there would have been no incentive to lose. A pool system was established for London to ensure that all competing countries played more than one match, which led to the problem.

Efforts to create greater inclusiveness already contributed to injustice and a diminished quality of competition in the women's all-around gymnastics event. Allowing countries to compete as much as possible in the Olympics is an admirable goal, but it should be a secondary concern to ensuring that all events are credible and legitimate. A structure that commonly causes scenarios in which it is in the athletes' best interests to lose is not legitimate, and an event in which top competitors have been disqualified for trying their hardest to win is not credible.

The preliminary round should be eliminated in a sport where seedings are so crucial to ultimate success. One option is for badminton to go back to the previous system of single elimination. If the sport wants to include more countries  in the tournament for more than one match, there are other possible structures that would never incentivize losing. One alternative is a double elimination tournament with a winner's and loser's bracket. 

Either way, badminton and other sports with similar tournament structures need to make a change.
By Devin McCarthy and Warren Hays
On July 29, 2012, Jordyn Wieber of the U.S. Olympic gymnastics team failed to qualify for the women's individual event competition at the 2012 London Olympics.  She scored 0.233 points lower than her closest competitor, fellow U.S. gymnast Gabby Douglas, for fourth place out of 60 total competitors from 42 countries.  Yet an Olympic rule instituted in 2004 specifies that only the two top-scoring gymnasts from any one country may qualify for the 24-competitor final round of the individual competition, controversially ending the medal hopes of Jordan Wieber, who had been heavily favored to win the gold.

While the spirit of inclusion is important to maintain in the Olympics, this rule does little to achieve that end. No country had more than three competitors in the overall event, so there was no risk that one country would completely dominate the final round. At most, only 12.5% of the 24 final round competitors could have come from one team. 

This year, three gymnasts other than Wieber failed to qualify for the finals because they finished behind two teammates, from Russia, Great Britain, and China. Meanwhile, the two gymnasts with the lowest scores who qualified as a result of the rule hailed from Japan and Australia--both of which already had competitors in the final round anyway. Effectively, this means that while the U.S. should have had three competitors in the finals and Australia one, they each ended up with two despite the clearly superior American performance. 

The all-around individual women's gymnastics will be an inferior competition because Wieber is excluded. The rule that allowed this to happen should be scrapped. It is not only unnecessary in an event which would regardless include a wide variety of countries, but also decreases the legitimacy of the contest in determining the best female gymnast in the world.