Abaddon
Deity
England would never boycott it. Eurovision isn't about winning it, its about Terry Wogan's masterclass in snide remarks, and belittling those silly europeans.
Eurovision Song Contest 2007
- Thread starter Ingvina Freyr
- Start date
What I don't get is why everyone seems to think being forced to participate in the semi-final is a good thing. I just don't see it. The argument is supposedly that the entries from the semi-final do better than those that were directly qualified.
While that is true it's not so surprising. From the songs in the semi-final people have already voted once to keep the third of the songs they like. It would be very strange if they did not do any better than the 14 songs that have not been judged yet.
So, did this year's songs from the semi-final do well enough to justify this opinion expressed everywhere I see, that it really is an advantage to be in the semi-final? I took a look for fun and could not see any evidence for that.
The 10 songs from the semi-final made these placements: 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16
The 14 songs directly qualified made these placements: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17-24
So, there are lots of songs directly qualified in the bottom... could there be something to it after all? Let's look at the average placement: From semi; 9,2 Directly qualified; 14,9
Now let's suppose we add the same treatment for the directly qualified songs that those from the semi-final went through, keep the third people like the most. That would be the songs that placed 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11. The average placement for those songs would be 6,2.
Can anyone really make the argument that being in the semi-final is an advantage?
While that is true it's not so surprising. From the songs in the semi-final people have already voted once to keep the third of the songs they like. It would be very strange if they did not do any better than the 14 songs that have not been judged yet.
So, did this year's songs from the semi-final do well enough to justify this opinion expressed everywhere I see, that it really is an advantage to be in the semi-final? I took a look for fun and could not see any evidence for that.
The 10 songs from the semi-final made these placements: 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16
The 14 songs directly qualified made these placements: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17-24
So, there are lots of songs directly qualified in the bottom... could there be something to it after all? Let's look at the average placement: From semi; 9,2 Directly qualified; 14,9
Now let's suppose we add the same treatment for the directly qualified songs that those from the semi-final went through, keep the third people like the most. That would be the songs that placed 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11. The average placement for those songs would be 6,2.
Can anyone really make the argument that being in the semi-final is an advantage?
Masquerouge
Deity
Lambert Simnel
One across
Best Eurovision for years, IMHO.
I particularly enjoyed the Ukranian entry, and thought the Serb and French performances on the night were excellent. I was rather disappointed the Placebo-Steinman mix that the Swiss were offering didn't make it to the final, nor the Andorra entry which might have been They Might Be Giants on a sore throat day.
I particularly enjoyed the Ukranian entry, and thought the Serb and French performances on the night were excellent. I was rather disappointed the Placebo-Steinman mix that the Swiss were offering didn't make it to the final, nor the Andorra entry which might have been They Might Be Giants on a sore throat day.
People assumed there was another reason?
So why is it that everyone in newspapers and TV are saying "it's not a bad thing to be in the semi-final, it's probably even a good thing" I have seen this view expressed on dozens of occasions from several countries and not a single one to the contrary.
Not that I understand the point of the semi-final system anyway. It's not like last year's song has anything to do with this year's song.
I don't know why people keep saying that. I think they are just being willfully ignorant. I think all the countries (except the big 4, they bought their way in) should go through semi-final. That would increase the quality in final somewhat. I think the only problem with that is that then they'd have to have 2 semi-finals and it would cost more.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
What is this "big 4" stuff?
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
^ Four countries get auto-qualified in the final, regardless of their song, their presence last year, etc. These are UK and... I'm not sure.
Rossiya
Fridge Magnet Porn
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 6,981
France and Germany and somebody else.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Let me guess it for you... Vatican? Andorra? 
So they get autoqualification rights on what basis?
So they get autoqualification rights on what basis?
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
^ On no basis. On the basis that they are Germany/France/UK/the other one. 
Lambert Simnel
One across
Yes, Spain.
On the basis that Eurovision needs the viewing rights revenue from those countries to keep going, and the public in those countries just won't turn on the TV to watch a Eurovision Song Contest without their own entry.
On the basis that Eurovision needs the viewing rights revenue from those countries to keep going, and the public in those countries just won't turn on the TV to watch a Eurovision Song Contest without their own entry.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
Isn't that the second sign that heralds the Apocalypse ?
Rossiya
Fridge Magnet Porn
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 6,981
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
Tis the only reason I watch
Similar threads
