USMNT fans: In terms of importance, what events prevented the US from getting a seed?

[purojogo]

I know some people do not care about seeding, and really..... looking at the whole picture, not getting a seed is not such a huge deal.... But i do sense in these boards some sort of anger: first, towards Mexico, and how supposedly they were "undeserving" of the seed, and two, against S. Sampson and the 98 WC last place finish....

If i read info correctly, aren't other factors (besides France 98) also

-dubious confed cup showing in 2003?
-lack of points from not playing Copa America?

while also acknowledging that also thanks to Bruce and company, we had a nice showing in Japorea and Gold Cups.... even if that was not enough to get over the hump...but certainly helped being close....


and please, stick to reasons.... and not to use the issue to vent frustration.....

[ursula]

Well in games we played, finishing last in France was the biggest, no question. If instead we had made the second round there, we'd be seeded and the speculation would be about the possibility of FIFA seeding a second CONCACAF team (Mexico), which they should do.

I'm thinking winning the 03 Gold Cup wouldn't have been enough, though possibly winning that Gold Cup PLUS winning or making the knockout stages of this year's Confederations Cup might have done the trick. But winning that Gold Cup would not only have meant beating Brazil but also Mexico in Mexico City so I don't know how you can call our performance in 03 "dubious".

Speculation about what might have happened if we had entered the Copa America to me is getting on the silly side (the old what if the Confederacy had F-16's silly side) since possibly other teams we were in competition with for a seed could have garnered an invite too.


Someone said it best on another board though. It is hard to imagine FIFA giving seeds for the first time to two CONCACAF sides, especially for a WC held in Europe. They tweaked the formula just enough to have the same teams that qualified for a seed under the old formula get a seed under the new one.

However, like in 2002 when Mexico was in the exact same position as we are now (being the highest ranked team to not get a seed) FIFA is setting the USA up for getting a seed for South Africa. How they tweaked their formula makes this very clear. Basically all the US has to do to guarantee a seed in 2010 is to make the second round. (Under the old formula, the US would have still had the France millstone to contend with.) It's even possible for the US to get a seed if we lose in the group stages as long as we do respectable job of it. At this point, using the new formula, the US has an lead over Mexico, Italy, Argentina, France (in that order) and a big, big lead over Holland. (Brazil, Germany are practically guaranteed a seed next time already while England is slightly ahead of us.) Holland in fact probably needs to make the final to get a seed next time.

[purojogo]

Well in games we played, finishing last in France was the biggest, no question. If instead we had made the second round there, we'd be seeded and the speculation would be about the possibility of FIFA seeding a second CONCACAF team (Mexico), which they should do.

I'm thinking winning the 03 Gold Cup wouldn't have been enough, though possibly winning that Gold Cup PLUS winning or making the knockout stages of this year's Confederations Cup might have done the trick. But winning that Gold Cup would not only have meant beating Brazil but also Mexico in Mexico City so I don't know how you can call our performance in 03 "dubious".

Speculation about what might have happened if we had entered the Copa America to me is getting on the silly side (the old what if the Confederacy had F-16's silly side) since possibly other teams we were in competition with for a seed could have garnered an invite too.


Someone said it best on another board though. It is hard to imagine FIFA giving seeds for the first time to two CONCACAF sides, especially for a WC held in Europe. They tweaked the formula just enough to have the same teams that qualified for a seed under the old formula get a seed under the new one.

However, like in 2002 when Mexico was in the exact same position as we are now (being the highest ranked team to not get a seed) FIFA is setting the USA up for getting a seed for South Africa. How they tweaked their formula makes this very clear. Basically all the US has to do to guarantee a seed in 2010 is to make the second round. It's even possible for the US to get a seed if we lose in the group stages as long as we do respectable job of it. At this point, using the new formula, the US has a lead over Mexico, Italy, France, Argentina, and a big lead over Holland. (Brazil, Germany are practically guaranteed a seed next time already while England is slightly ahead of us.) Holland in fact probably needs to make the final to get a seed next time.
thanks for your response... but the one tourney i was questioning in terms of performance wasn't so much the Gold Cup in 2003 (which yes, was tough).. but the Confederations Cup of the same year.....

[ThreeApples]

World Cups 98 and 02. If the USA would have won these, they would definitely be seeded.

[csctn]

I know some people do not care about seeding, and really..... looking at the whole picture, not getting a seed is not such a huge deal.... But i do sense in these boards some sort of anger: first, towards Mexico, and how supposedly they were "undeserving" of the seed, and two, against S. Sampson and the 98 WC last place finish....

If i read info correctly, aren't other factors (besides France 98) also

-dubious confed cup showing in 2003?
-lack of points from not playing Copa America?

while also acknowledging that also thanks to Bruce and company, we had a nice showing in Japorea and Gold Cups.... even if that was not enough to get over the hump...but certainly helped being close....


and please, stick to reasons.... and not to use the issue to vent frustration.....

The ConFed Cup and Copa America issues would have only affected our Fifa Ranking and I do not believe they would have been enough to push us over the top...we needed 6 total spots from 2003, 2004 and/or 2005 to make a difference.
If we had made the second round in France we would have been seeded in Germany. We would have more points on the past WC performance part of the equation and the better showing would have also given us enough Fifa Ranking points.

[Pablo Chicago]

If you look at FIFA's seeding formula, finishing dead last in the '98 WC was the single most important event that kept the US from being seeded in '06.

No other single event (in terms of importance) comes close.

Nuff said.

[ursula]

thanks for your response... but the one tourney i was questioning in terms of performance wasn't so much the Gold Cup in 2003 (which yes, was tough).. but the Confederations Cup of the same year.....

Oh right! I misread your post! I'm not sure one way or another if a better showing in the 03 Confed Cup would have helped. That competition would have helped the US gather points in the Coke rankings for the year. So the question is, how many points would we have gotten if we had made the knockout round? Gotten to the finals? In December of 03 (which is the date used in the Coke rankings) the USA was ranked 11th down from 9th in July. Probably if we had done better in the Confed we might have been ranked higher. 9th? 7th? 3rd? We need someone to compute a change like this as I'm making dinner right now...

[UChicagoSoccer]

Steve Sampson.

Maybe they deducted more when they realized he's still part of USSF. ;)

[Neutral Fan]

Low TV ratings for the World Cup in the US. The World Cup is as much commerce as it is competition.

Aaron

[CrewDust]

Steve Sampson.

Maybe they deducted more when they realized he's still part of USSF. ;)

3-6-1.

[Metrogo]

Is common sense an event? Then that would be it. We are not one of the top 8 teams in the world.

[I. Tristeza]

Is common sense an event? Then that would be it. We are not one of the top 8 teams in the world.

oh yes we are...ok no we're not.

[Onionsack]

I know some people do not care about seeding, and really..... looking at the whole picture, not getting a seed is not such a huge deal.... But i do sense in these boards some sort of anger: first, towards Mexico, and how supposedly they were "undeserving" of the seed, and two, against S. Sampson and the 98 WC last place finish....

If i read info correctly, aren't other factors (besides France 98) also

-dubious confed cup showing in 2003?
-lack of points from not playing Copa America?

while also acknowledging that also thanks to Bruce and company, we had a nice showing in Japorea and Gold Cups.... even if that was not enough to get over the hump...but certainly helped being close....


and please, stick to reasons.... and not to use the issue to vent frustration.....

Pretty simple really. The formula weighted the 98 finals, and we finished last. Had we not finished last say..20th..we would have been seeded. The rest isn't important since we have been FIFA ranked in the top 11 since 2002 or so.

[Galaxian]

I think mexico got it form being pretty consistent and doing well in the Confed cup and showing they can compete with the best . Also , when the usa turned down playing in the Copa America a little while back while mexico went and played in it , we lost some points there definitely. France 98 is what screwed us over though..

[El_PoToSiNo]

I think mexico got it form being pretty consistent and doing well in the Confed cup and showing they can compete with the best . Also , when the usa turned down playing in the Copa America a little while back while mexico went and played in it , we lost some points there definitely. France 98 is what screwed us over though..


I agree with you with the reasons why Mexico got it......but France 98 being the only reason why U.S. didnt get it seems like a way to rationalize it instead of just saying that U.S. does not deserve it yet. Dont take it wrong im also a huge U.S. fan i do live here and I do support the NT, BUT as much as FIFA says that their decision is on what was it the last 2 WC and qualifiers and COCACOLA rankings im sure that reputations impacts their decision as well....so U.S. stills needs many MANY years to gain that reputation that Mexico has I mean "the team of everyone" (U.S.) as i like to call it did the worst possible in one WC and did ok on another(SO 98 did affect but is not the sole reason why mex got it instead) I personally do not think FIFA is very impressed with that I mean im proud of what they did (even if they did it to my Mexico) but it is going to take them many many years of WC to be considered if you know what I mean..... please do not get offensive I love both team s and im just putting in my opinion. I just think
FIFA considers reputations as well and it impacts their decisions more than we think so if it did that is the major reason why Mexico got it from CONCACAF over anybody ya know what im saying????? :D

[Asprilla9]

1. Freddy Adu running to Steven Goff to bitch about playing time.
2. Giuseppe Rossi spurning Bruce Arena's call-up.

these two catastrophes -- and i mean catastrophes -- were the biggest obstacle to the USA getting a seed.


---------


on another note, though, i just realised that (provided they use a similar formula) that 1998 WC last-place finish could keep us from getting a seed in 2010. granted, it's not guaranteed but it is a possibility.

DAMN YOU SAMPSON!!!

little did he know, with one ill-advised experiment with the 3-6-1 ... he was screwing an entire federation for the next 12 years.

[El Chuma]

I think mexico got it form being pretty consistent and doing well in the Confed cup and showing they can compete with the best . Also , when the usa turned down playing in the Copa America a little while back while mexico went and played in it , we lost some points there definitely. France 98 is what screwed us over though..


Why on earth would we turn down the Copa America?

[Asprilla9]

Why on earth would we turn down the Copa America?we've turned down every CA since the 1995 one in Uruguay.

after MLS formed in 1996, it really made it difficult for us to take 15 guys off their MLS teams for 4-6 weeks that it requires. if we get more talent playing in Europe, we should be able to make it work in the future. that thing is being relegated to a glorified U-23 tournament anyway ...

[goussoccer]

The Battle of Yorktown where we finally separated from being a European country! Anything else you point to here as keeping us from being seeded, forgets the fact that FIFA would have manipulated the seeding formula to keep us from being seeded anyways!!

Picking any event over the last 8 years forgets that the Europeans who run FIFA are thinking in terms of generations. I do believe that if we get through the first round this time and maintain our form in the interim years we will have a strong case for being seeded next time. If we make it to the quarterfinals again and maintain form between now and 2010, then I doubt we could be denied. Maintaining form means staying in the top 6 to 10 in the FIFA rankings.

[macheath]

Steve Sampson.

Maybe they deducted more when they realized he's still part of USSF. ;)

And he said in a recent interview that he'd like another shot at managing the US national team. This was heartily endorsed by all the other CONCACAF teams. :)