How should we sort the medal list at the Olympics??

Some newspapers have opted for the worst way to display the medal tally. May be they want to put USA on top of all.

See NBC (http://www.nbcolympics.com/) tally taken on 21st Aug 2008



From NY Times (http://2008games.nytimes.com/olympics/medals.asp) on 21st Aug 2008




CNN (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/) on 21st Aug 2008



They have sorted the list based on total medals received by the country. But most other sites including official Beijing Olympics site sort them based on number of gold, then silver and then bronze (a partial correct model).

From Official Beijing Olympics site (http://en.beijing2008.cn/) on 21st Aug 2008



BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok) on 21st Aug 2008



Google on 21st Aug 2008



Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/news/sports/2008olympics/medals) on 21st Aug 2008



Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/) on 21st Aug 2008



Aren’t 45 gold’s won by China worth more than the silver and bronze won by USA??

Suppose a county has won 15 gold’s and another country 16 bronzes, whom should we put first in the list??

See the irony of the list. NBC has put Chinese-Taipei which has won 3 bronze medals ahead of many other countries which has won gold and silver.

See Chinese-Taipei (NBC rank:47, Official Rank: 71) and Estonia (NBC rank:48, Official Rank: 39).



See Slovakia (NBC rank:36, Official Rank: 18) and Armenia (NBC rank:35, Official Rank: 70)!!!



Or Jamaica (NBC rank:22, Official Rank: 14) and Cuba (NBC rank:15, Official Rank: 28)



A more appropriate model would be to assign points to each of the medal. Say 5 points for gold, 3 for silver and 1 for bronze. And them calculate the total points for the country based on the formula

Total points = 5 * number of gold + 3 * number of silver + 1 * number of bronze.

This I think would do more justice than the current system