basketball At The 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's Tournament

MrArticleOne (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe after they're done with the group stage? Also are the PCT columns since they're not ranked by PCT. Several intercontinental tourneys articles have PCT, though. --Howard the Duck 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Even during the group stage it seems unnecessary. Anyway, I just wanted to throw it out there. If they were playing 50 games or something and it'd be hard to quickly do the mental math to compare how many games played everybody has, it's fine. When they're all playing 5, I just think it takes up extra space unnecessarily and it's confusing. When I look at standings, I expect the first column to be "wins," not "games played." MrArticleOne (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Many leagues outside North America has a "games played" column; and with a points system (2 for a win, 1 for a loss) and not PCT as basis for rank, the GP column comes in handy while the tourney is ongoing but once it's over I'd support its removal. --Howard the Duck 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The real unnecessary column is the points difference, unless it comes into play as a tie-breaker in the absurdly unlikely situation of teams having the same goal average but difference points differences. I just copied the tables from the main article in order to include the goal average. However, in the process I lost the red line between 4th and 5th.Alanmjohnson (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a need to have an article for Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics, and then separate articles for the Men's and Women's tournaments? It seems extraordinarily duplicative. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics is the main article, so only the scores will be there, plus maybe the rosters of the medalists. The daughter articles such as this will have the stats, time started, referees, etc. --Howard the Duck 08:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
All of the articles have standings tables and a tournament bracket. That's what I was thinking was unnecessarily duplicative. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Of all the information to be duplicated, those should be the ones. One way to avoid "duplication" is to put the standings in a template so that you don't have to edit twice replacing it with current info. --Howard the Duck 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you assume that duplicative articles are even necessary. Couldn't we just have the separate articles for the men's and women's tournaments? MrArticleOne (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the people at UEFA Euro 2008 -- they even have separate articles for each group. And I don't think the people at WP:OLY will allow the deletion of the main article. --Howard the Duck 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
For an example of how this main/subarticle works, see UAAP Season 70, UAAP Season 70 basketball tournaments and UAAP Season 70 men's basketball tournament; each of those have roughly identical info but the subarticles get more detailed the more specific the subject is. --Howard the Duck 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes all of the three, four, five... separate articles are silly. Just make two: Men's basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Women's basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Write efficiently, and don't ever bow over to people in some foreign lands where they didn't even invent basketball. (They can write about things like team handball, soccer, field hockey, fencing, etc., as they please.) Let the Canadians decided how to do it in ice hockey, and then Americans and Canadians would decide how to do in in lacrosse if that ever became an Olympic sport. Give credit where credit is due.

"Games Played" is silly because this is wins + losses + ties, and there aren't any ties in basketball, softball, tennis, volleyball, and some other sports. Two points for a win and one point for loss is silly. Just give them 100 points for a win and zero points for a loss. Otherwise two points for a win, one point for a tie, and zero points for a loss.
98.67.96.19 (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I foresee this coming up, I thought I'd ask about it now: is it necessary to put multiple teams onto the knockout bracket once some have been eliminated and others are still alive? E.g., saying that some arbitrary slot (B2 or something) will be "USA/CAN" (or whatever). It just seems too likely to be riddled with mistakes that won't get caught, and nobody will care too much because at any given time many of the mistakes will be rendered irrelevant by additional game results that reduce any further ambiguities about who may or may not be eligible to appear on any given line. I propose that we avoid putting a team on a line until that team and no other can go there. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what was done on UEFA Euro 2008 -- the team will only be placed on the bracket if it is 100% confirmed. --Howard the Duck 08:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It didn't look like that's what was going on at the FIBA wildcard tournament, and I remembered it happening for other events in the past, so I just wanted to have the discussion now instead of in the middle of the tournament. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it since they will be sorted out in a matter of days anyway (it's not that they'll be like that after the tourney ends). --Howard the Duck 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right that it's not a major issue. It is, however, a smaller-scale concern if we're interested in trying to keep the encyclopedia accurate all the time. Even if we know it'll eventually shake out (even over a short duration), if we can foresee the problem creeping in, we ought to make a decision on how to handle it now. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll just ignore it until the problem goes away in a matter of hours. --Howard the Duck 06:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no excuse for tolerating any manure in the tables, etc., even for one minute. Nothing should go here until it is absolutely confirmed to be TRUE. Doing otherwise is just being a slacker.
98.67.96.19 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is attendance at each of the games based on? For each game it shows: 11,083 people.
That seems very unnatural for the number of people not to change from game to game.
Could someone confirm these numbers they dont seem to be on the website listed at the bottom of the page.
147.72.234.5 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It comes from the official Olympics Web site. 119.95.18.135 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They come from that Web site, and they correspond to the number of tickets sold (all games were sold out), which doesn't necessarily reflect the number of people actually in the game, as anyone watching a game live can attest, seeing the great number of unoccupied seats, but this latter number would be probably impossible to report. Maybe a note stating this should be added? --Fd88ar (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting such information here is just a bunch of baloney that paractically bobody cares about. It is also information whose validity and accuracy are both very questionalble. This is no place to be dealing in fiction.
98.67.96.19 (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a wiki account, so I can't make the edits myself. But people are jumping the gun here. A 3-0 team has not necessarily mathematically qualified for the knockout rounds, and an 0-3 team is not necessarily mathematically eliminated. I haven't done the math for the 3-0 teams, but I can assure you that there are a set of possible results whereby each group will end up with three 2-3 teams (for example, if Angola beats Greece & Spain, Germany beats China, China beats Greece & USA beats Germany), which means that a team currently 0-3 can still advance with a lot of help and a good scoring differential the rest of the way. It's unlikely, but the point of the "eliminated" coloring is for teams mathematically eliminated, not just teams that are long shots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.33.223 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, somebody fixed Angola. But Iran isn't eliminated either. One scenario that puts them in a tie for fourth place is Iran beating Argentina & Croatia, and Croatia beating Argentina. I'm also almost positive that none of the 3-0 teams are technically qualified either (since there can be a five-way tie at 3-2), so we need to remove that also unless somebody can prove that the nature of the match-ups precludes such a finish in one of the groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.33.223 (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to correct myself. An American win will advance both them and Spain, while a Croatian win later today would advance Croatia and Lithuania. A Croat loss, though, would keep Lithuania from clinching today. I say that because once you have two 3-0 teams that have yet to play each other, you guarantee that somebody will win a fourth game, which means that you can't have that 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 0-5 finish that can eliminate a 3-win team. But until that happens, these 3-0 teams haven't assured a spot in the knockout rounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.33.223 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Iran, but Lithuania IS qualified (ARG-CRO are playing as I write this). Iran can't pass Lithuania. AUS and RUS have one win each, two games left, and have to play each other. So they can't both win their two remaining games. --Fd88ar (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Iran isn't out, at least until ARG-CRO is over.
Iran could finish with two wins, ARG and AUS have already played each other and have one win each, so they could lose their two and three remaining games and finish behind Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fd88ar (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When Spain won to get to 3-0, that meant that Angola couldn't catch them. Additionally, China and Germany play each other; only one of them can get to 3-2 (the other being stuck at 2-3). That means 2 teams can't catch Spain, irrespective of the outcome of USA/Greece, and thus Spain qualified. The same logic applies to USA; with a 3rd win, Angola cannot catch USA, and China and Germany cannot both finish 3-2. On the other hand, by my math Angola is not yet eliminated, because it would be possible for a 4-way tie in Group B at 2-3, and I believe it would eventually implicate the "goal average" tiebreaker. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, also, that the winner of USA/Spain on Saturday will determine the 1st-place team in Group B, and they can be placed on the Medal Round/Knockout bracket accordingly. The loser will not necessarily be the 2nd-place team, though. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If ESP loses, they'll be group's #2 even if they lose on ANG since ESP beat GER, GRE and CHN. –Howard the Duck 19:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who's good at math may edit it correctly. I've momentarily removed the colors at the main 2008 Olympic basketball article (since no team has qualified to the semifinals/eliminated) although by day 4 we'd see eliminations and qualifications.
P.S.: Does anyone know how to break three-way-plus ties when all of the games among tied teams aren't done? Are we using the default point difference? –Howard the Duck 19:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure there's any hard and fast rule. I think there's consensus that we order the teams in terms of the number of standings points they have (so a 2-1 team is ahead of a 2-0 team, with 5 points instead of 4). As for tied teams that haven't played each other yet, I've been ordering them by point differential, but I always also calculate the so-called "goal average" (PF/PA) to see whether they go in order, too, because for whatever reason, FIBA's first tiebreaker after head-to-head (which would seem to most logically apply if two teams have yet to play) is that seemingly worthless "goal average" statistic. Thus far I haven't run into a situation where the team that has the bigger differential has a more advantageous average. I have mostly been hoping it won't come up so we need not have a debate about it. Good catch on ESP being assured of a finish no worse than 2nd, by the way. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that you can probably tell from what I said there that I see no reason at all to mention goal average unless it is actually utilized to break a tie in the final standings. I would definitely not have it be a column in the standings. I fail to see what value it actually has in terms of giving the viewer of a standings table any information about the team; if FIBA didn't use it as a tiebreaker, I'd say the statistic was worthless, and I am confident in saying that, other than its use in that context, it is pointless. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Points is the first "tiebreaker" so five points with a 2-1 record goes first before a team with four points with a 2-0 record. –Howard the Duck 04:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Points isn't a tiebreaker. It is the first basis upon which the teams are ordered. No tiebreakers are even invoked or relevant until two teams have the same number of points in the same number of games. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All basis for which the teams are ordered are technically tiebreakers... –Howard the Duck 06:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes sense. How can two teams be "tied" until there is a first-order, fundamental method by which they are ordered? There is no tie to break until you've applied some basic method of ordering the teams and two (or more) of them end up with the same statistic (standings points, win percentage, whatever you like). MrArticleOne (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If we look at the head-to-head of tied teams China, Greece, and Germany (currently 1-2), then Greece should be top at 1-0 (two points), followed by Germany at 0-1 (one point) and China (0-0 and 0 points.Alanmjohnson (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my request to omit it, I see someone has added a goal average column anyway. Can we please remove this? MrArticleOne (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it. I can't imagine why it shouldn't be there. It's certainly more relevant than points difference.Alanmjohnson (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't at all relevant, other than that FIBA declares that it is a tiebreaker. When it's absolutely necessary to express it (as, for example, when two teams finish tied in the final standings and the goal average tiebreaker is necessary), it's fine to put it in another column, as was done at the 2006 FIBA World Championship article. The statistic itself is absurd. I have no idea why FIBA uses it, and it's misleading. If Team A beats Team B 60-40, and Team C beats Team D 120-90, there is no doubt that Team B has the "better" victory in terms of just an examination of the scoring, because Team B's opponent had a bigger deficit to overcome. It is small consolation to Team D that, although it would take at least 10 possessions to get back into the game and force OT (assuming they allow no points in the interim!), at least Team B only has 4/3 more points than them. Team D's concern is (obviously) the margin, not the ratio. I have no idea why FIBA uses it and at any rate I think it is misleading to put it in the chart, since it suggests the statistic is informative, when it isn't. The only time it is informative is when two teams end up tied in the final standings, and it actually gets used to break the tie. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an absurd statistic and a ludicrous way to break a tie. That's hardly the point. There's a non-trivial chance that it could be used to break a tie in this tournament, and on that basis it IS informative.Alanmjohnson (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that this is irrelevant to whether or not this should be included, and this is probably not the place to discuss whether using scoring avg is a good tiebreaker, but I believe the rationale is that slow-tempo teams will tend to score less and concede less. So, while in the 120-90 game you need more possessions to turn the result that in a 60-40 game, the latter is likely to be played with a slower tempo, or more emphasis on defense than offense, so you COULD argue that the 60-40 victory is better. Fd88ar (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But, the current figures won't be used to break the tie. Only whatever the final figure ends up being will be used to break the tie. Since it's such an absurd statistic, and since the interim statistic conveys virtually no useful information, the statistic ought only be displayed when it is absolutely necessary (i.e., when a tie in the standings makes use of it to break the tie). Putting it in the table suggests to the uninformed reader (and there are many, particularly when the Olympics roll around) that it actually expresses useful information, when it doesn't; it offers no helpful information about the team's performance to date in the tournament, nor does it offer much insight into which team would win the tiebreaker, should resort to that tiebreaker be necessary, since it can shift around in counterintuitive ways. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Australia is qualified because Iran and Russia must finish below them (the latter due to Australia's win in the head-to-head encounter), and Croatia is also likewise qualified due to beating the Russians. Jxp (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now that the IRI-ARG game is done, I think Group A qualifiers have filled out. Because Russia lost to Croatia and Australia, it loses the tiebreaker to either of them and is eliminated with one game to go.Jxp (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What to include

...and how to display it. I guess W, L, Pts., PF and PA should stay. PD isn't used and GA is the one used by FIBA. –Howard the Duck 10:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PD, though, is at least somewhat useful in terms of an indicator of how a team is playing and a natural "tag-along" statistic to go along with PF and PA. I continue to emphasize that we ought to do like we did with the 2006 World Championship, where we tacked on an extra column for Avg when it ended up being necessary to resolve a tie. Until that point, I daresay nobody cares what the Avg. statistic is, since it's so pointless. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Avg. should go. Also Pld. when the group stage is over. How about PCT? –Howard the Duck 04:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Pld and PCT can go now. PCT is pretty pointless, since we order the teams by their number of standings points, not their percentage. Pld is unnecessary, even now, because it is so easy on a brief visual inspection to note it. A Pld column is useful for a professional league that will play dozens of games; it is easily possible for teams to be off 2 or 3 or 4 or even 5 games played. A brief visual inspection of their records may make it hard to compare unless you know the number, and we provide the Pld column to save the reader the hassle of doing the mental math of 38-17. Such considerations are not in place here. When USA and Spain were both 3-0 and the rest of the teams had already played four games, anybody who did anything to look at the chart would have been able to easily tell that without a Pld column. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Pld should stay at least when the prelims are over since it's SOP to include them. Even the football (soccer) articles include them long after the tournament is over. But after the prelims are over they can be removed. Another thing that should go when the prelims are done are the red colors since it's pretty clear that the greens qualify. –Howard the Duck 05:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. I think the red is useful in order to indicate a team that we know is out before the games are over, but once the games are over, there's no need to indicate a team that's definitely eliminated; it is just as adequately expressed by showing the only 4 teams that definitely advanced. I think it's worth noting that this whole discussion should apply equally to the women's tournament, which is all messed up (the PD column has totally disappeared). MrArticleOne (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be fixing that once the prelims are over, or unless someone gets there first. I think we can also apply the nifty tooltip footnote used in the football articles to effectively show what PF, PA and PD are.

And how about Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics? Are we going to use the full standings previously used there or the complete standings currently? If the standings end up 5-0, 4-1... 0-5 (and there's a high chance of that happening) there's no use in displaying the full standings, not to say if some teams end up tied we should use the full standings. –Howard the Duck 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I oppose the very existence of that page, I am not going to express an opinion either way. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to debate how to handle the "parent" article. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't fix it myself but the knockout stages are incorrect, Australia may not play USA if Argentina loses, and Argentina isn't the second qualifier from Group A. Mighyt be more wrong too. 58.161.113.30 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are sure it's wrong? The only things that are certain are the group winners and Spain being #2 in Group B. –Howard the Duck 05:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous editor is wrong. USA will play Australia in the next round. If Australia loses, obviously they will finish as A4 and play USA. If Australia and Argentina both win, Australia would finish tied with Croatia at 3-2, and Croatia has the tiebreaker (head-to-head). Even if Australia beats Lithuania and Argentina loses to Russia, it would be a 3-way tie at 3-2. Within that group of 3 teams, Argentina is 2-0, and would finish at the top of that group of 3 teams (and in 2nd place in Group A). Croatia would be 1-1, and Australia 0-2, meaning Australia would be A4 (and play USA). The pairing was finalized when Croatia beat Iran. Australia needed to beat Lithuania and have Croatia lose to Iran to climb to the A3 position and avoid playing USA in the Quarterfinals. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia won already so the Aussies will be 4th no matter what? –Howard the Duck 05:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am saying, unless FIBA is using different tiebreakers than they used at the 2006 tournament. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the FIBA Rulebook, Appendix D.1.3: "If more than two teams are equal in the placing, a second classification will be established, taking into account only the results of the games between the teams that are tied." Note that FIBA uses that odd word, "classification," for standings (e.g., D.1: "Teams shall be classified according to their win-loss records, namely two (2) points for each game won, one (1) point for each game lost (including lost by default) and zero (0) points for a game lost by forfeit." or D.1.1: "If there are two teams in the classification with equal points, the result(s) of the game(s) between the two teams involved will be used to determine the placings."). MrArticleOne (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess the point is, it's conceivable that someone other than Australia will play USA on Wednesday morning, but for it to happen, FIBA will have to ignore their own rulebook to follow some other, unannounced set of rules they're using. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The tiebreak method should be described on this article page. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is explained on the Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics already, and considering repeated info is somewhat brought into question, I don't think it's a good idea. –Howard the Duck 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been thrashed out above, but speaking as someone who doesn't usually read the international basketball articles: having two long articles (this one and Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics) makes it very hard to follow. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to sort this out. I'll also be removing winning percentages unless someone reverts me. –Howard the Duck 07:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the controversy came from some wrong articles on the FIBA website. Their game recap of Lithuania/ Australia that was posted last night moments after the game said something about Australia waiting for the result of ARG/RUS and the standings coming down to "point differential" if it was a 3-way tie at 3-2. But that was already suspect, because it said something like, "Australia is almost certain to face USA because of the Boomers' extremely poor point differential." That didn't make any sense anyway; their PD at the time was +52, the same as ARG, and if ARG lost their game, it would have had to go down to at least +51. If you look at the recap of the game on FIBA's website now, it no longer hedges on who Australia is going to play in the Quarterfinals; it just says next up for them is USA. MrArticleOne (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to work on the stats table once this ARG-RUS game is over? Maybe there should be a GP (games played) column as well now, since eliminated teams won't play 9th-12th place/5th-8th place classification matches like in FIBA tournaments. Fortunately updated stats are available at Individual Statistics and Team Statistics. Jxp (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We can boldface the players whose teams are still in contention like what was done in the football articles. –Howard the Duck 07:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
eventually, can we add team stats? No hurry but it'd be informative.Jxp (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does every game have the same attendance?--Steven X (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several possibilities: 1) they don't bother to keep track of attendance figures and simply put the capacity of the Wukesong Stadium; 2) the authorities/Communist Party bought up tickets to distribute to family, friends and "trained spectators", who mostly didn't show up but counted in the total of sold tickets; 3) it doesn't look good to publicize poor attendance figures on the Internet (though the empty seats are obvious on TV); and a host of other possible reasons. This has been discussed above Jxp (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix up the game numbers? Apparently the game numbers include the women's tourney. In reality the maximum number that should be there is Game 30. –Howard the Duck 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's possible BOCOG decided to number all of the basketball games continuously. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, this should be made parallel with the women's article -- in that article, the games were numbered 1-30.
Also, in the BOGOC website, there are actually 3 officials: 1 referee (the "crew chief" in NBA parlance) and 2 umpires. –Howard the Duck 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh sure, I just meant that maybe it's the women's article that should change to reflect the game numbers. As for the referee thing, that's something I've been wondering about myself. It's clear there are 3 officials working each game, I was wondering where the other 2 names were. Since in basketball, there are no distinctions in terms of which officials can call which sorts of violations, it doesn't make a lot of sense to only mention the "referee"/crew chief. MrArticleOne (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The umpires can be found at the BOGOC website. It's up to anyone if they'd want to list them too, or to make a distinction between referee and umpire (they're listed separately on the TV broadcasts). –Howard the Duck 13:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

according to http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/basketball/ , 22:15-24:00 Men's Quarterfinal - Match 68 B1 vs. A4 (that should be: USA vs. AUS - no?) Here, in this page, the schedule shows different ... Where dod you get the info from? it might be incorrect ... Csabadapp (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal round = if you win, you win medals, ergo, "medal round". In the QF if you win, you receive nothing (well maybe free food at the Athlete's Village). Ergo, it's NOT the medal round. –Howard the Duck 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really so sure it's that simple. The label "medal round" could just as easily mean that it's no longer the Preliminary Round. It's clearly another phase of the tournament. I have read enough references to this as the "Medal Round" that I don't find it all that jarring. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I mean, I see what you're saying, but I am just not really sure that it is clear-cut in either direction. I personally find "Knockout stage" somewhat awkward to my own "reader's ear," but that's just me. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to admit "knockout stage" is not that used in the U.S. although it is predominantly used elsewhere such as the rest of team sports articles in the Olympics and the 2006 FIBA World Championship. Plus, "knockout stage" is more straightforward than "medal round". In the term "medal round," if you win, you win a medal. In knockout stage, if you lose, you're knocked out of the competition. Which best describes the tournament format? Also, if "medal round" will be used, either change it to "medal rounds" (which sounds more silly) or "medal stage," since "stage" means multiple rounds. –Howard the Duck 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And what pisses me off is that User:CMJMEM (the same user that jumped the gun), absolutely won't stop on edit warring -- there is no consensus to use "Medal R/round/s" anywhere and the default is to use the current convention. –Howard the Duck 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that CMJMEM has been obnoxious. As for "round," I think it is a versatile word. The QF, SF, and GMG are each a "round." But the "knockout" portion of the event is a "round" of it as contrasted with the Preliminary "Round" (which in fact consisted of many games as well). "Stage" is probably better English, in that as you say, it consists of multiple games/rounds/whatever, but it is also not used often, at least in American English, and to my ear sounds rather stilted. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The preliminary round (aka the group stage or pool play elsewhere) is one round, and one stage. The quarterfinals, semifinals and the medal round are all different rounds in one knockout stage. If we'd be even using "Medal round" as a term, it'll have to refer to the gold and bronze medal games (currently, FIFA uses "Finals" as a term to denote the "medal round").
P.S. The term knockout stage is used at Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Field hockey at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Handball at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Baseball at the 2008 Summer Olympics, 2006 FIBA World Championship, etc. You won't see it on U.S.-based leagues since they'd probably use "playoffs". –Howard the Duck 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of those other pages are sports that have much less American interest, so it does not surprise me that another English-language variant ("knockout round") is what is employed. Football/Soccer, Field Hockey, Handball, even Baseball: these are not sports that are (a) especially popular in the United States, or even in some cases (b) sports where the U.S. fields a national team. I think the clash is here in part because Basketball obviously does have a prominent USA national team as well as (relatively) strong interest in the sport there. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Since football used "Stage 2" since FIFA per se uses it, I guess a good compromise is to use what FIBA uses; they use neither "knockout stage" and "medal round." Instead they used "brackets". Instead of the current convention:
1. Medal/knockout round
   1. Quarterfinals
   2. Semifinals
   3. Finals (aka the "correct" Medal round)
To:
1. Bracket
2. Quartefinals
3. Semifinals
4. Finals
–Howard the Duck 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Bracket" is fine by me. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting for CMJMEM's response on this... –Howard the Duck 10:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

i'm down with it.CMJMEM (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I created a table/section with the final team standings. As of now 2 of 4 quarterfinal games have been completed, and I filled in the eliminated countries' final placings according to the tiebreaker format listed above. Will update again after other quarterfinal matches.Jxp (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think those should only be used on tourneys that divide the game exclusively into two halves (like the NCAA). Since FIBA's main division is by quarters, having quarter and by the half scores is redundant. –Howard the Duck 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects they'll be gone. –Howard the Duck 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone write a summary of the game? I haven't seen it in its entirety so my summary would be bad... This is needed so that it'll be poster at ITN. –Howard the Duck 14:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The officiating should be mentioned in the summary (that's the main reason of the mentioned "frustration" and the technical fouls awarded to the US), especially taking into account that some months later, French referee Chantal Julien (who did not officiate the gold medal game) declared in the media that there was some kind of fear when calling traveling on the US Team.
Chantal Julien: You don’t call the same things on the Americans than you do call on other teams. You have to call the most evident of the evident things. If you call a travel every time that Kobe Bryant starts a drive, you will get a call, you as the referee… During the final, the Spanish team has been penalized on the US travels. With the consequences that we know at the end with the two technical fouls on non-called traveling violations. This was embarrassing… [1]
That's what happens when a FIBA referee is forced to officiate in an "NBA style", I guess. All things considered, it's absolutely clear (for anyone accustomed to FIBA basketball under FIBA rules) that there were many "strange" things in the officiating of that game, and there are "dark points" that, hopelly, will be lightened in the future. Frustration was legitimate and easily understandable. --NNTH (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This is nonsense. The officiating in the GMG was fine. I do not think we should make this article a forum for a single French referee's observations. Given the general unpopularity of the American basketball team, the state of U.S.-French relations in particular, and the resounding lack of mainstream criticism of the officiating (certainly nothing on the order of, say, the 1972 debacle), I don't think that this has enough relevance to be included as something of a "dissenter's veto" of the legitimacy of the game's officiating/outcome. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Listing the scores of basketball games Whether you care about it or not, the way to list the scores of basketball games is with the winner on the left or the top, and the loser on the right or the bottom. We read from left to right, and then top to bottom. Actually, this rule should be followed for ALL team sports. Listing the teams by alphabetic order; the higher ranked or seeded team; or at random simply will not do. Make things user-friendly and easy to read and comprehend, notwithstanding any other consideration you might dream up.98.67.96.19 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)