Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Results if the pre-2004 regulation system would have stayed (2004-2017)

  1. Legend
    Croatia
    Hele.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    10,883
    #11

    Re: Results if the pre-2004 regulation system would have stayed (2004-2017?)

    Wow, so interesting! I had so much fun analyzing those results! Thank you @Schlagerman1
    Likes  Schlagerman1 liked this post
     

  2. Legend
    Sweden
    Schlagerman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,769
    #12

    Re: Results if the pre-2004 regulation system would have stayed (2004-2017?)

    I just made how 2017 would look like:

    Quote Originally Posted by Schlagerman1 View Post

    2017

    And these countries would be competing next year...

    Quote Originally Posted by Schlagerman1 View Post
    2018


  3. Guru
    Brazil
    Alaska49's Avatar
    Gender
    Male
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    818
    #13

    Re: Results if the pre-2004 regulation system would have stayed (2004-2017)

    lol russia suddenly withdrawing from the contest they won <3 although to be fair you could pretend russia did do it and it was ukraine who suddenly withdrawn because flame is burning would be lucky to get all of 11 points anyway
    Likes  Schlagerman1 liked this post
     

  4. Guru
    Brazil
    Guilep's Avatar
    Gender
    Male
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    923
    Location
    Brazil
    #14

    Re: Results if the pre-2004 regulation system would have stayed (2004-2017)

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska49 View Post
    lol russia suddenly withdrawing from the contest they won <3 although to be fair you could pretend russia did do it and it was ukraine who suddenly withdrawn because flame is burning would be lucky to get all of 11 points anyway
    what is you?

  5. Legend
    UK
    MyHeartIsYours's Avatar
    Gender
    Male
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    23,259
    Location
    United Kingdom
    #15

    Re: Results if the pre-2004 regulation system would have stayed (2004-2017)

    You forget what an awful system was in place before 2004 lol
    Likes  randajad, NemesisNick, Stiven liked this post
     

  6. Senior Member
    UK
    NemesisNick's Avatar
    Gender
    Male
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    472
    Location
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #16

    Re: Results if the pre-2004 regulation system would have stayed (2004-2017?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Schlagerman1 View Post
    I just made how 2017 would look like:
    2016 Sudden withdrawal Romania - fair enough, under the current two semi-final system, Romania were forced out close to ESC 2016 due to their debts. So I'll accept your hypothetical sudden withdrawal of Romania here.

    2017 Sudden withdrawal Russia - that's a tricky one. What criteria / excuse have you used for Russia withdrawing from the 2017 ESC after, under your hypothetical scores, they won the 2016 ESC? Having (hypothetically) won, did they not want to host in 2017? Under the real scheme of things (two semi-final system), the 2017 ESC was in Kyiv (due to Ukraine having won ESC 2016), and Russia suddenly withdrew from the 2017 ESC late (after selecting their song and artist) due to their chosen artist Yulia Samoylova not being allowed into Ukraine. That was the reason for Russia's unexpected late withdrawal from the 2017 ESC. However under your hypothetical analysis still using the relegation system, surely if Russia won in 2016, they'd have hosted the 2017 ESC from Moscow (or another Russian city), and then "Flame Is Burning", performed by Yulia Samoylova would have been the host entry (Russia). Surely Yulia wouldn't have had the problem performing at the 2017 ESC if it was in her home country Russia (despite having illegally travelled directly from Russia to Crimea prior to the 2017 ESC). I don't think it's fair to put a sudden withdrawal of Russia for your hypothetical 2017 results.

    The list goes on and on. Thank you for your "what if" analysis of all these years, it must have taken you quite some time. However the longer you continue with it, all sorts of problems are going to creep in which will distort your hypothesis / assumptions. Going right back to 2004, if the EBU wanted to stick with the relegation system 2004 onwards exactly as it was for entry into 2002 and 2003:

    1) Would they have allowed any new countries to join the "Eurovision Family" 2004 to 2008 inclusive? As it was, they seemed reluctant to let any newcomers in for 2003, they let Ukraine in but no more as that would have meant relegating too many other countries that took part in 2002 - even so it was necessary to have 26 countries for the first time ever in 2003, which was really a bit much. If the EBU wanted to stick with the 2002 / 2003 style qualification system from 2004 onwards, perhaps they wouldn't have wanted to have so many eligible countries that some would have to wait two or three years for their turn to come back again.

    2) Would Monaco have tried to come back in 2004 after their long absence? Maybe yes, maybe no, but if they suddenly wanted to come back in 2004, would the EBU have refused them a place as, by then, it would have been necessary to relegate too many countries that took part in 2003? We know how in the late 1980s Malta were trying to make a come back from their long absence, and were finally allowed the slot vacated by The Netherlands in 1991, but were warned they wouldn't be allowed back in 1992 unless another country dropped out.

    You've just got to accept that relegation (the various criteria for it) is now ESC history. The EBU abandoned it after the 2003 ESC so that more countries could take part. They introduced the one semi-final system in 2004, which was used until 2007. That wasn't quite fair, I noticed the semi-final qualifiers generally did better than the direct qualifiers those four years, and many of the semi-final qualifiers songs tended to sound better (to me anyway) than many of direct qualifiers' entries. Then the EBU introduced the two semi-final system in 2008, and that's still in use to this day. Unfortunately it does mean that a country can fail to qualify for several consecutive years (e.g. Netherlands 2005 to 2012 inclusive), but at least it means that, every year each eligible country can submit a song, perform it live (officially as part of the ESC - the semi-finals are officially part of the event) and vote in the Grand Final (and thus have their spokesperson appear during the results announcement) even if they fail to reach the Grand Final. A big improvement on relegation, and the "hidden" pre-qualifier of 1996 (the countries which submitted songs for the 1996 audio qualifier were judged on pre-recorded tapes, those that failed to qualify didn't get chance to perform live before an international TV audience).
    Likes  randajad, Stiven liked this post
     
    I am 8 ... with 38 years experience

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright © 2009-2016 escunited.com. All rights reserved. Designed by Trece All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:10.