From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:56 -0400, John Beamish  wrote:

> More opportunity for "surprises"?  Almost certainly.
>
> More need for "surprises"?  Definitely.
>
> The US relay team members come from four separate states.  If each state
> had
> its own relay team, the silver would have to come from a surprise simply
> because the US's best team would have been broken up.
>
> The same would likely hold true for most team events.  I say "likely"
> because I can't say, for certain, that all team members came from
> separate
> states in the case of each an every team competition.
>
> Net result:  fewer medals (not more) for the US.
>
> We'll ignore the economic aspect.  Rhode Island, for example, would be
> unlikely to send a full complement of athletes.  And, before you suggest
> it,
> California can't send 10 100m sprinters even if they can afford it.
> Regulations limit the number of entrants from a given country for certain
> (most?) events.
>
> ">
>> Phil is comparing a collection of individual nations, each with their
>> own
>> teams to a single nation with a single team.  There would be a lot more
>> opportunity for "surprises" with 50 teams instead of one.
>>
>> --
>> Gary Wiltshire
>
>

There are certainly more athletes of "Olympic caliber" in the US
than there are slots on the team.  In fact SOME of those athletes compete
for other countries for which they have some affiliation.

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5