[dwar0123]

wyman, on 2012-August-02, 19:11, said:

And @dwar, of course it's contrived, but it's a proof of concept.

I wonder if it this scenario still makes sense if instead of 100% A over B over D still works if it was a more realistic 66%.

Then you can describe the scenario as 66% A over B over D over A!

[billw55]

barmar, on 2012-August-02, 19:08, said:

"Marketplace" on NPR had a story about Chinese Olympic athletes, and they suggested that the government may be indirectly responsible for the badminton incident.

Apparently, Olympic success is a major propaganda issue for the Chinese government, and only gold medals are acceptable. Athletes who only bring home a silver or bronze are scorned: they mentioned one athlete who came home to find his windows broken, and another who was in tears during an interview after the event, apologizing for his failure when he only earned a silver.

This extreme pressure may have prompted the Chinese team to try dumping, since their homeland really doesn't care how well they play in general, if they don't bring home the gold.

This logic doesn't make sense to me. Valuing silver or bronze is the reason to dump matches. If only gold matters, then you have to beat the perceived top team eventually anyway, so what use is dumping? But if you assume this top team will beat you, you can go for silver or bronze by avoiding them in the early knockout rounds.

Also, I don't believe this was a player decision. Naturally competitive people are unlikely to dump a match of anything on their own, never mind eight of them dumping at the Olympics. My nickel says coaches/administrators made the decision and instructed the players to dump.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2012-August-03, 07:12, said:

This logic doesn't make sense to me. Valuing silver or bronze is the reason to dump matches. If only gold matters, then you have to beat the perceived top team eventually anyway, so what use is dumping? But if you assume this top team will beat you, you can go for silver or bronze by avoiding them in the early knockout rounds.

Also, I don't believe this was a player decision. Naturally competitive people are unlikely to dump a match of anything on their own, never mind eight of them dumping at the Olympics. My nickel says coaches/administrators made the decision and instructed the players to dump.

I suspect silver is fine as long as China win the gold as well, they lose the possibility of gold/silver if they end up in the same side of the draw (and depending on exactly how the draw worked, may lose the possibility of gold/bronze). My guess is the officials told them to do it to maximise China's medal haul.

[gwnn]

Federer-Del Potro 17-17 btw, 4h15m into the match. Neither player is trying to lose.

[gwnn]

gwnn, on 2012-August-03, 09:41, said:

Federer-Del Potro 17-17 btw, 4h15m into the match. Neither player is trying to lose.

Spoke too soon.

[Fluffy]

ArtK78, on 2012-August-01, 11:04, said:

Clearly, this is a minority viewpoint. There was a discussion on Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio this morning about this controversy. The apparent conclusion was that, while there was some sympathy for the competitors in dumping a match to better their chances in the overall event, athletes are under a moral and ethical obligation to perform their best at all times. So dumping a match was unethical.

Following this logic they should eject Usain Bolt for not doing his best and not breaking 100m record in Pekin '08 before the final stopping to run the last few metres.

ArtK78, on 2012-August-02, 14:15, said:

The only format that truly guarantees that one cannot gain by losing is single elimination.

The only thing you need to do is to change how the ko draws are formed after round robin, let the best qualified teams pick their draws, do them randomly or a combination of both.

[Fluffy]

Phil there is a big problem with dumping, people pay a lot to watch matches, and tv alo pay to show them. Dumping is horrible for spectators.