I feel like in Hockey the silver and bronze medals should actually be swapped. Theres something not right about giving a silver medal to a team for losing, so make the bronze medal the consolation prize. Team sports are really weird for being setup that way.

 

I'm sad that the Olympics are over.

 

Also, a props to our Canada 3 bobsled for going through with their third run (also happy they were alright. Was watching when that happened).

 

Also a props to someone I can't remember in one of the cross country events (not typically my sport, so not really good with remembering which sport is which , or who anyone is). In his final heat of 6, one of the guys had obviously had it right from the start but kept going. The Nordic Ski Gods rewarded the effort when 3rd place fell, taking 4th and 5th with him and holding them back just far enough for the guy in 6th to cross the finish line 3rd (where he collapsed and people ran over to make sure he wasn't having a heart attack). It looked like he was in his own personal hell the entire time, but he finished his way into a medal anyway.

 

EDIT: Mens Sprint Final - Emil Joensson of Sweden

If the medals were award the way you mentioned, it would be better for spectators in the sense that the level of competition would be elevated in the Bronze medal game, but it really wouldn't be fair to say give Sweden the Bronze after they've already played and beat Finland 2-1 in the semi-finals.

I seem to recall playing a few hockey tournaments when I was really young where there was one game was for gold / silver and another for silver / bronze. So 2 teams got silver, but it was a neat way of rewarding the winner of both games while still maintaining competitiveness.

 

Of course that was just one town, and they were crazy.

If the medals were award the way you mentioned, it would be better for spectators in the sense that the level of competition would be elevated in the Bronze medal game, but it really wouldn't be fair to say give Sweden the Bronze after they've already played and beat Finland 2-1 in the semi-finals.

Heh, might not have thought about the layout of that enough. I guess, it just seems wrong to give out a silver to the losing team. I do like the 2 silver method. Another way you could do it if you didn't mind having more games (and it prevents the gold medal match from being the last one) is to the have the loser from the gold medal round play the winner from what would be the bronze medal match, winner takes silver. Then the loser from that match, and from what would be the normal bronze medal match play for bronze.

 

SemiA winner and SemiB winner play for gold in FinalA.

SemiA loser and SemiB loser play each other in SemiC. (this kind of throws off the naming conventions, just go with it)

FinalA loser and SemiC winner play for Silver in FinalB.

FinalB loser and SemiC loser play for bronze in FinalC.

 

It's a bit laborious, and you could have teams facing each other again, but it means that every medal can only be earned with a win. As a spectator sport, I think that not having the gold medal match go last might be a bit of an issue though.

I like that idea a bit more, because I would agree that awarding a losing team with silver does feel a bit strange. I think you could fix the probably of having the gold metal match go last is use the original goal metal match at a chance at a bye to take you directly to the final Gold Medal Match. I choose to draw it on a sticky note real quick so I hope the idea translates.

 

 

This would basically allow for a bronze medal match, a silver medal match, and then a gold medal match.

Suck it usa!!!

 

Pretty sure that all people south of Chicago just plain do not care. And most people north of Chicago don't care either. Just saying.

 

Suck it usa!!!

 

Pretty sure that all people south of Chicago just plain do not care. And most people north of Chicago don't care either. Just saying.

"The NHL cites research from Scarborough and Simmons/PMB that shows its fanbase as 58 million people in the United States and 13 million in Canada. Of those, it considers 12 million in the U.S. and 8.5 million in Canada part of a growing “avid” cohort who watch games league-wide."

-http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/05/10/nhl-vs-nba-playoffs-marketing/

 

While that may not necessarily mean they care enough to watch Olympic hockey, there's certainly a sizable hockey fanbase in the US.

To make it more interesting, the loser has to keep Bieber.

Oh goddamn it

 

To make it more interesting, the loser has to keep Bieber.

Oh goddamn it

 

http://nesn.com/2014/02/u-s-canada-loser-keeps-bieber-sign-now-reads-worst-bet-ever-photos/

 

 

Suck it usa!!!

 

Pretty sure that all people south of Chicago just plain do not care. And most people north of Chicago don't care either. Just saying.

"The NHL cites research from Scarborough and Simmons/PMB that shows its fanbase as 58 million people in the United States and 13 million in Canada. Of those, it considers 12 million in the U.S. and 8.5 million in Canada part of a growing “avid” cohort who watch games league-wide."

-http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/05/10/nhl-vs-nba-playoffs-marketing/

 

While that may not necessarily mean they care enough to watch Olympic hockey, there's certainly a sizable hockey fanbase in the US.

 

So 6 million people from Chi-land are avid fans of the Black Hawks, 2 million people in Detroit are avid fans of the Red Wings, and the rest live in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

 

Got it.

 

We still don't care about curling, or any other Olympic sport (like I could name any :D)

This is true. The Olympics JUST aren't a big deal to most here.