Talk:Basketball at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament

schedule of quarter finals is wrong

see: http://london2012.fiba.com/pages/eng/fe/12/olym/event-guide/p/competition_format.html

Winning the group

On Group B, RUS has won the group. No team can overtake them, even via tiebreakers. The teams that can tie them (ESP & BRA) have been beaten by them, so RUS have won the tiebreaker vs. those teams.

As for Group A, if ARG wins vs. USA, it could send the standings with up to 3 teams tied for 1st. With 3 teams having 1-1 recors vs. each other, it'll boil down to goal average, and ARG has to win big vs USA (somewhere around the vicinity of 17 points or more) to have a chance of winning the group. –HTD 15:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Quarter-Final is wrong. If Argentina win against USA & France lost v. Nigeria: 1) Arg 9 2)USA 9. France only 8!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.230.132 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

ARG has to win by ~17 to win the group; otherwise, USA wins the group even with the 3-way tie. –HTD 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

France can no longer win the group as they have the lowest differential (it's actually average but it has the same result with differential if there are up to 3 teams involved); they've also played against USA and ARG and they couldn't increase their differential. Only ARG can increase their differential so FRA won't catch ARG, although they can catch up vs. the USA if ARG beats USA by ~49 points.

Current standing on games among the three teams (this assumes ARG wins, so that all will have 1-1 records vs. each other)

Team   PF   PA  PAVG    PD
USA    98   71  1.380  +27
ARG    64   71  0.901   -7
FRA   142  162  0.877  -20

This is where it gets crazy. If ARG scores at least 100 pts and has a 48-pt. lead, USA still wins in GAvg (ARG wins 100-52, USA's GAvg will be .87719 vs. FRA's .87654; compared to ARG 99-51 win, FRA wins .87654 vs. .87647). Same for a 49-pt. lead when the scores approach 105 pts. Honestly, I dunno how big a margin is the safest.

For A4's berth, these are the standings for the affected 3 teams:

Team   PF   PA  PAVG    PD
LTU    72   53  1.359  +19
TUN    56   60  0.933   -4  
NGA   113  128  0.883  -15

–HTD 17:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Position A4

Pretty confused about the circumstances for each team fighting for position A4. On the basis of ties being settled by head-to-head record won't a Tunisia win and Nigeria loss be enough for them to progress? If it's on the basis of point difference, won't Tunisia need a 31 point win instead of 12, as listed on the page, and a Nigeria loss? What basis are ties even settled on? Could someone please clarify this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhysCassidy (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I know it's already happened and probably isn't much of an issue in your mind anymore, the reason why a Tunisia win and Nigeria loss would not have been sufficient for Tunisia to advance is because that would have resulted in a 3 way tie between Tunisia, Lithuania, and Nigeria, and each team would have beaten one of the other two teams and lost to the other one of the two teams. So, they would still be tied at 1-1 based on head to head record.

The second part of the confusion is that second tiebreaker isn't point difference (points for minus points against) it's point average (points for divided by points against), and it's not overall point average it's point average in games played between the the tied teams. In order for Tunisia to have overcome Lithuania's point average advantage in the relevant games, they would have needed to win by 12.

Also, a trick for figuring out point average when there are only 3 teams involved, they only play each other once each, and only the games against each other count. Point average ends up being the same thing as point difference. Except that in the case that 2 teams tie is point difference, the tie is settled by which team gave up(and by definition scored) fewer points in the relevant games.Sbell772 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I remembered in the 2010 Worlds, ESPN(?) commentators effed up on how the tiebreakers would've been decided. –HTD 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Bracket

It's supposed to be logical that the QF game involving A1 should be on top of the bracket. The order of matches depends on TV audiences, with the USA matches always being played last; compare to the GBR QF match in Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament being played last but since GBR is seeded A1, it's on top of the bracket. –HTD 04:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Team averages

Where are the team point averages coming from? I show USA scoring 817 points in 7 games, for an average of 116.7 a game. I have Argentina scoring 613 points in 7 games, for an average of 87.8 per game. Spain scored 547 points in 7 games, or 78.1 per game. I could go on, but the point is, these averages have nothing to do with reality. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand the query; maybe the averages are not updated? –HTD 04:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they aren't updated, but people are so rigorous about keeping these pages up to date that that possibility seemed unlikely to me, so I was left wondering if I was somehow doing the math wrong. MrArticleOne (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Listing the scores of basketball games

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.
98.67.96.19 (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

They're listed on the order presented by FIBA and the IOC on their websites? There's always a designated "home" team and I dunno if they're listed first (Euro style) or last (US style). –HTD 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again: Whatever it is, it is an arbitrary and/or random way of doing things.

The way to do it is NOT to do it for your convenience and in following someone's arbitrary ways.

The way to do it is FOR THE CONVENIENCE and THE SIMPLE UNDERSTADIBILITY of the READER.

The notions of Home court and Away are meaningless because these are all neutral courts for everyone except for the British, and the British lose every basketball game, anyway.

Even in Atlanta in 1996, every game was played on a neutral court for every team. Even the American national team did not have a home court because they did not play in Atlanta regularly. Games in the Georgia Dome were expecially neutral courts for obvious reasons. (Basketball is not usually played there.) Even if you counted the American team as playing on a "home court" in every game, that makes no difference because the Americans won every game.

I repeat myself now. They whole arrangement needs to be for the convenience of the reader, and to H*** with the FIBA, the AOC, to you, and everyone else.
98.67.96.19 (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's always a "designated home team" in tournaments such as this, even in leagues where there are no "home teams" (such as the US NCAA Tournament). See The privileges of the home team is they can pick which side of the court to play first, what colors of the uniform they'd wear, etc. This means that the British team is the "designated home team" is some games, while they're the "road team" in the others.

As for the arrangement of the teams, they appear on how they appear in reliable sources; they appear to be random at the prelims, and the higher seeded team should be first (haven't checked) in the knockout round. Anything else is WP:OR. I don't think this is big of an issue. The team with the larger score wins, it's easy to discern that (actually it's easier to spot the winner vs. football scores as there are more than 1 digit). And listing all of the winners first would be an eyesore if all of the winning teams (which are boldfaced) are to the left. The argument of "to H*** with the FIBA, the AOC, and everyone else." isn't very convincing.

If the arrangement of the teams is very important to you, you should probably assess which things are really important, such as the lack of prose and references, for example. –HTD 10:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Howard the Duck, you need to reflect on the thought of how disconsiderate you are to other people - people who are presumably in your reading audience. Sports scores have been reported in winner - loser order for 100-plus years, and this createa a uniformity of presentation that people have every right to expect. For an example:
NEVER: Notre Dame 24 - University of Southern California 55
ALWAYS: University of Southern California 55 - Notre Dame 24
Also, there is absolutely no reason for putting any scores in boldface, and newspapers do not do this.
If you do not want to follow the uniform, standard way of doing things. you need to find something else to do.
98.67.96.19 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry as there has been a misunderstanding. You were referring to news headlines. In news headlines, yes, it is the case, but in boxscores, not so. In boxscores, the home team is always at the bottom/last to be mentioned (U.S.; elsewhere it's top/first). See this for an example. Your suggestion would be acceptable as a section title for individual games, if someone writes some prose for them. –HTD 18:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings!

The spellings with hyphens like "quarter-final" and "semi-final" are competely antiquated and they are not used anymore. See the up-to-date ones: quarterfinal, semmifinal, semiarid, semicircle, semiconscious, semidemiquaver, "semimajor axis", semiskilled. Actually, "quarter" is rarely used as a prefix, but "semi" is used as one often. Still, they should follow the same rules.
These prefixes also mean "one-half": demi and hemi, and in hemisphere. However, "quarter-final" is completely obsolete. Use "quarterfinal" all the time.<

It's a British English rule. See for example, FA Cup semi-finals. Please see WP:ENGVAR on how to deal with this: as the unhyphenated words were used before the dispute, the unhyphenated ones should be retained. –HTD 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Most IFs, including FIBA, use British English, or at least an internationalized pastiche that is closer to British English than American English. I think the hyphen is appropriate. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right (at least on FIBA's part), but snooping around at the other WP pages, the unhyphenated ones are the norm. See, for example, Handball at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, Volleyball at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, and even Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Dunno if they unconsciously just ditched the hyphens or there was a discussion before hand. FIBA EuroBasket 2011 also uses unhyphenated ones. I won't oppose either way, but there has to be a good reason for any change. –HTD 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:B-BALL

You're invited to take part in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. The latest most pressing issue is what statistical categories should be included in the team group standings tables, aside from Pld, W, L, PA and PA, and Pts. –HTD 09:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basketball at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106012237/http://www.comiteolimpicoportugal.pt:80/media/60891/basquetebol.pdf to http://www.comiteolimpicoportugal.pt/media/60891/basquetebol.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)