New FIFA Rankings formula speculation

[scaryice]

I don't have any info, but I was thinking about this. Supposedly they're going to try and give more of an advantage to the teams from the best confederations. One of the problems is that CONCACAF and CAF both have 2 continental championships in the time every other confederation has 1. In order to make things fairer, maybe the solution will be to only count the last continental championship that the team played in?

Post any thoughts on what you think they might do here.

[dna77054]

I don't have any info, but I was thinking about this. Supposedly they're going to try and give more of an advantage to the teams from the best confederations. One of the problems is that CONCACAF and CAF both have 2 continental championships in the time every other confederation has 1. In order to make things fairer, maybe the solution will be to only count the last continental championship that the team played in?

Post any thoughts on what you think they might do here.

I suppose they could devise a system in which every team has the same theortical maximum available points in an X year period. One must take into account that while Concacaf does have 2 championships in a 4 year cycle, they only have one qualification (WC) from which to earn points. Europe has 1 championship, but 2 qualifications from which to earn points.

[Andy TAUS]

I suppose they could devise a system in which every team has the same theortical maximum available points in an X year period. One must take into account that while Concacaf does have 2 championships in a 4 year cycle, they only have one qualification (WC) from which to earn points. Europe has 1 championship, but 2 qualifications from which to earn points.What ever is chosen wrt confed championships, they must only take those games held at approximately the same time. EG, CONCACAF can still have their 2 championships, but only the one held at the same time (approx) as the other confeds championships count any points to the ratings.

Another thing is the assumption of confederations having played 7 games minimum per annum. Currently, if a confed has less games than 7 (say 4/5 games), the total of those actual games is used for the full year. My change would see the average game points over those 4/5 games need to be multiplied by 7, else you'll get statistical skewing, due to the original assumption. You can't get a rating system that treats two metrics differently (small apples versus large apples), in order to rate/rank between teams. Before anyone jumps on this, AUS went a number of years after the WCQ's for 1998 NOT being able to play 7 games per year, including friendlies. You could see the impact on few games played (just like CONCACAF's many games played) and their ratings for the period.

I'd also remove the confederation "quality" index that rates UEFA as 1.0 and AFC/OFC as 0.93 (IIRC), with the other confederations somewhere in between. A crappy team in UEFA should be 7.5% more rewarded than a good team from AFC/OFC for the same game results, NOT. This is just bullshit and is a deliberate fudge by FIFA to re-enforce their prejudice. Games are played on the field and relative strengths are determined by results on the field, not by some-one in FIFA sticking up a dirty, smelly, wet finger and using it to say one's confederation is better than the other's. The inter-confederational games (both competitive & friendly) prove this deliberate attrocity wrong.

[Mr Hanki's Throne]

Coefficients based on continental affiliation is non-scientific; whatever method that is worked out should take that into account on its own. This is similar to the problem of computerized college football ratings, where good information is to be found to rate teams within a conference, since most teams play most teams, but connections to teams in other conferences are spare, only 2-4 per team. Despite these problems, the computers usually working things out pretty well in creating relative worths of each conference without any outside interference.

Does the current FIFA rankings do an "optimization" to minimize some kind of error function, i.e., an upset will lead the computer to reevaluate all historical results to minimize the lack of understanding in the strength of the team? Or is it more of a constructive deal, i.e., an upset is a jolly good boost of points for that underdog, but the computer can't really go back into history and fix things?

[Andy TAUS]

Does the current FIFA rankings do an "optimization" to minimize some kind of error function, i.e., an upset will lead the computer to reevaluate all historical results to minimize the lack of understanding in the strength of the team? Or is it more of a constructive deal, i.e., an upset is a jolly good boost of points for that underdog, but the computer can't really go back into history and fix things?No. Individual results cannot directly & immediately effect FIFA's inter-confederational co-efficient.

The FIFA "computer", that eventually makes a change whenever they feel like it, is a person in the employ of FIFA. FIFA wraps this cynical bullshit pr event up in the form of a "committee" that never explains its decisions, other than by the puerile assertion that "from the facts we say so". With no release of "the facts", the decision cannot be challenged in a reasoned fashion, thereafter.

The so-called "relative confederational strength" co-efficient is changed rarely (IIRC one change in the last 4 years), normally to the detriment of the "weaker" confederations. The co-efficient is always applied to ALL games played, even though most games are played within the same confederation (eg AND v LIC is rated 1.0 whilst NZ v TAH is rated 0.93). So, a game played in the AFC/OFC is worth 7.5% total points LESS than one played in UEFA, no matter any other attributes of the two games.

Says it all, doesn't it. :(

[M]

What ever is chosen wrt confed championships, they must only take those games held at approximately the same time. EG, CONCACAF can still have their 2 championships, but only the one held at the same time (approx) as the other confeds championships count any points to the ratings.


And get rid of this nonsense of allowing teams like Mexico to rackup points as "guests" in another confederation's championship finals.


Another thing is the assumption of confederations having played 7 games minimum per annum. Currently, if a confed has less games than 7 (say 4/5 games), the total of those actual games is used for the full year. My change would see the average game points over those 4/5 games need to be multiplied by 7, else you'll get statistical skewing, due to the original assumption. You can't get a rating system that treats two metrics differently (small apples versus large apples), in order to rate/rank between teams. Before anyone jumps on this, AUS went a number of years after the WCQ's for 1998 NOT being able to play 7 games per year, including friendlies. You could see the impact on few games played (just like CONCACAF's many games played) and their ratings for the period.


Then play seven games a year. Almost all teams do, so I don't see why this is a particular issue. The lower the number of games ratings are based on, the more statistically dubious they are likier to be.


I'd also remove the confederation "quality" index that rates UEFA as 1.0 and AFC/OFC as 0.93 (IIRC), with the other confederations somewhere in between. A crappy team in UEFA should be 7.5% more rewarded than a good team from AFC/OFC for the same game results, NOT. This is just bullshit and is a deliberate fudge by FIFA to re-enforce their prejudice. Games are played on the field and relative strengths are determined by results on the field, not by some-one in FIFA sticking up a dirty, smelly, wet finger and using it to say one's confederation is better than the other's. The inter-confederational games (both competitive & friendly) prove this deliberate attrocity wrong.

Predictably you think it's due to FIFA's biases, but just as predictably you don't suggest a way of dealing with the massively different strength in depth of confederations. Aside from the top teams in each confederation, there are very few inter-confederation games on which to base a judgment. So although I agree that the weighting is obviously a fudge factor, how do you prevent a middling team from a strong confederation from being under-ranked?

[Andy TAUS]

M,

Far from just whinging about "FIFA's biases" below is what I posted elsewhere as to "what FIFA should do about the confederations & WC qualification issues". As it's a full package of changes, I wouldn't expect much out of such an organisation as FIFA, due to the rather obvious entrenched interests.

Now perhaps you could take my suggestions on the FIFA ratings methodology as trying to be helpful, rather than negative.

Here's what I would do to fix this FIFA created mess.

CONFEDERATIONS
Combine AFC & OFC (Asia/Pacific) as well as CONMEBOL & CONCACAF (Americas) giving FIFA 4 almost equal (in number of FA's) confederations.

HOST COUNTRY & PAST CHAMPION
Allocate host country & immediate past champion direct access to the finals (ie 2 spots, so far).

CONFEDERATION ALLOCATIONS & PRELIMINARIES
Allocate 16 places each to the 4 confederations, which they need to fill (via locally agreed & run confederational/regional qualification methods) in the 1st 18 months of a WC cycle.

SECOND PHASE - WORLDWIDE H&A
At the end of the 1st 18 months, schedule over the next 12 months a series of 16 groups of 4 teams (ie one per confederation) drawn in random (ie NO seeding allowed) to play H&A series in each group.

The 16 winners of the groups join the host country and immediate past champion directly into the finals (ie 18 spots, so far).

THIRD PHASE - CONFEDERATIONS CUP REPLACEMENT
After 6 months, the 16 second placed teams of these groups are joined by the top 8 third placed teams with 6 groups of 4 teams being created by strict blind ballot.

The 6 groups of teams playoff H&A in a tournament that takes the place of the Confederations Cup (as a shakedown for the next WC Host country's facilities), with the top 2 teams of each group qualifying into the finals (ie totallying 30 spots, so far).

Instead of the Confeds Cup next stage (ie semi-finals, 1/2 & 3/4 finals), the remaining 6 third placed teams play in two groups of 3 (by blind ballot) round robin only, with the winners qualifying into the finals (ie totalling 32 spots).

BENEFITS
This should solve probelms wrt:

(1) better allocation of fa's to confederations;
(2) confederational rotation of host country (4 confeds);
(3) replace Confeds Cup with a meaningful tournament AND Host country facilities shakedown;
(4) equal allocation of places by confederation to compete in the last phases;
(5) the best 30 teams in the field should qualify, not by political allocation;
(6) equally difficult for all teams trying to qualify;
AND
(7) Would take some of the politics & subsequent whinging out of the tournament.

[M]

M,

Far from just whinging about "FIFA's biases" below is what I posted elsewhere as to "what FIFA should do about the confederations & WC qualification issues". As it's a full package of changes, I wouldn't expect much out of such an organisation as FIFA, due to the rather obvious entrenched interests.

Now perhaps you could take my suggestions on the FIFA ratings methodology as trying to be helpful, rather than negative.

The entrenched interests of weaker confederations, presumably. And for thatreason, it's a non-starter. Plus WC quaification is only one part of the rankings conundrum.

[Sagy]

M,

Far from just whinging about "FIFA's biases" below is what I posted elsewhere as to "what FIFA should do about the confederations & WC qualification issues". As it's a full package of changes, I wouldn't expect much out of such an organisation as FIFA, due to the rather obvious entrenched interests.

Now perhaps you could take my suggestions on the FIFA ratings methodology as trying to be helpful, rather than negative.
Andy,

I choose to post a reply to your proposal here and not in the original thread since we are more likely to get intelligent contribution in this forum.

Overall, I think that your idea has some merit. The items that I don't like are:

Random/blind draws - with 64 teams (if I did my math right) there is about 10% chance of a group having no team in the top 50 (~ 0.72% per group and there are 16 groups). Even if the number is 5% it is too high in my opinion. With a random draw, you are next to guarantied to have a group without a top 32 team. Yes, seeding is problematic (e.g. we can agree that the current FIFA ranking shouldn't be used), but overall I think it will produce fairer groups.
Giving each confederation 16 slots - I think that giving each confederation 8 + (number of teams in the last WC) is a fairer solution. This will give CAF and new AFC 13 (8+5), FCA (Football Confederation of Americas) 16 slots and UEFA 22 (8+14, yes I know I counted Germany as a qualifier - it makes the math easier). I can't see the 14th team from CAF or AFC being in the world top 32 by 2010, but I can see the 22nd UEFA team causing a great deal of damage in 2010. As CAF or AFC teams start doing better in the World group qualifiers the number of their teams in the World Group will increase.
Groups of 3 teams - I really don't like groups of three teams, it is too easy for the last game to have a team that has already been eliminated playing a team that needs a result.

I think that the philosophical difference between us is that you want all teams to be treated equally (this is a great goal), my goal is to treat all teams fairly in order to get the best teams in the WC. What we can both agree on, is that the current system doesn't treat teams equally or fairly.


Back to the main point of the thread.

FIFA has already stated that they will go to a four years cycle (replacing the current 8). It is also likely that they will give WC, WCQ and CC higher weighting (FIFA tournaments). They are probably to change the game allocation formula to give a team credit based on the absolute strength of the opponent (not just the strength differential). Under the current system a 700 points team beating another 700 points team 1:0 is worth the same as a 300 point team beating another 300 points team by the same score. This will lower the value of beating on the minnows, to get into the top you will have to beat top teams or many high-mid tier teams.

[JG]

So although I agree that the weighting is obviously a fudge factor, how do you prevent a middling team from a strong confederation from being under-ranked?

They could try developing a rating system that actually works.

[Andy TAUS]

I think that the philosophical difference between us is that you want all teams to be treated equally (this is a great goal), my goal is to treat all teams fairly in order to get the best teams in the WC. What we can both agree on, is that the current system doesn't treat teams equally or fairly.Sagy, WRT your input, fair enough, but agree to disagree for the following reasons.

My concern is that what may be fair to one person/group could be perceived as unfair to another person/group, hence my view that all confederations & teams should be treated equally AT ALL STAGES (equal numbers & random draws). This methodology also goes somewhat towards eliminating the opportunity for FIFA (and its smooth operators) to try to influence, engineer or block match-ups (for whatever reasons) at various stages of the WC qualifications.

Only then will 30 of the 32 teams have legitimately earned the right in the field to a place at the WC Finals Tournament.

[Mr Hanki's Throne]

Regarding Mr. TAUS's proposal and Mr. Sagy's response:

Using current FIFA rankings as a basis, no group would have a team outside of the Top 50 because the lowest European team is something like #31, with a team as strong as Switzerland missing out.

This point actually would have me endorsing Mr. Sagy's point to push more qualifying teams from Europe. I thought too of an 8 team minimum. I'd say that every four years, after this qualifying tournament, the number of qualifying teams be readjusted by the performances of each continent in the previous tournament. I'd think each continent could lose at most two spots per reevaluation, and at most two spots could be transfered among all continents.

Worst case scenario, Europe starts hording spots so that their #40 team (Iceland) is considered about equal to the #8 teams from the Western Hemisphere (Ecuador), Asia & Oceania (Uzbekistan), and Africa (Ghana). Actually, while I typed that out, I don't doubt that Iceland COULD BE a coin flip against each of those teams!

BTW, it is interesting the Austalia is now officially a part of AFC, according to FIFA's website. OFC, dominated by New Zealand, is hardly more than a missionary effort in rugby-mad, little islets. I guess that is better than an Australian-col-de-sac.

[numerista]

My concern is that what may be fair to one person/group could be perceived as unfair to another person/group, hence my view that all confederations & teams should be treated equally AT ALL STAGES (equal numbers & random draws). This methodology also goes somewhat towards eliminating the opportunity for FIFA (and its smooth operators) to try to influence, engineer or block match-ups (for whatever reasons) at various stages of the WC qualifications.

You seem to be suggesting that "fair" is a subjective concept, while "equal" is an absolute; however, in practical terms equality may be even more controversial. For instance, a rich but isolated country like Australia might prefer having an "equal" system that requires lots of teams to travel huge distances in qualifying. After all, for Australia long-distance travel is an affordable and anticipated expense. However, such a system would have a negative impact on a poor nation like St. Vincent that has plenty of competition nearby. Sending them to face Chile would be an unnecessary and economically damaging expense.

[Andy TAUS]

You seem to be suggesting that "fair" is a subjective concept, while "equal" is an absolute; however, in practical terms equality may be even more controversial. For instance, a rich but isolated country like Australia might prefer having an "equal" system that requires lots of teams to travel huge distances in qualifying. After all, for Australia long-distance travel is an affordable and anticipated expense. However, such a system would have a negative impact on a poor nation like St. Vincent that has plenty of competition nearby. Sending them to face Chile would be an unnecessary and economically damaging expense.So, Australia can afford the travel time & expense, but St. Vincent cannot. That is your reason for penalising Australia & rewarding St. Vincent? WCQ's should be "fair" to St. Vincent but "not fair" to Australia? :rolleyes:

My proposal on this thread allowed local/regional WCQ's to sort out who the 16 teams were, to represent each of the new 4 confederations, in the second WORLD (group) stages. This covers your concerns wrt St. Vincent. All they need to do is make YOUR argument to the new Americas confederation (wrt their local/confederational WCQ methodology) and hope it holds more water there than it does here.

In my proposal, the random draw for the WORLD (group) stages would determine who travels (and to where), instead of geography and/or FIFA politics.

If a country wants to play in the WORLD CUP it must be prepared to put up the where-with-all to participate ANYWHERE in the WORLD.

[numerista]

So, Australia can afford the travel time & expense, but St. Vincent cannot. That is your reason for penalising Australia & rewarding St. Vincent?

You've proposed a system that would effectively force St. Vincent to travel unnecessarily, so might I suggest that you're the one cooking up a penalty? To repeat the point that you seem to want to ignore, there is no clear-cut "equal" qualifying system to choose.

My proposal on this thread allowed local/regional WCQ's to sort out who the 16 teams were, to represent each of the new 4 confederations, in the second WORLD (group) stages. This covers your concerns wrt St. Vincent.

No, it doesn't. Either St. Vincent has a realistic chance of advancing to face Chile (thus facing a stiff economic penalty for success), or else your proposed merging of confederations is bogus.

If a country wants to play in the WORLD CUP it must be prepared to put up the where-with-all to participate ANYWHERE in the WORLD.

That's easy for an Australian to say.

[Andy TAUS]

You've proposed a system that would effectively force St. Vincent to travel unnecessarily, so might I suggest that you're the one cooking up a penalty? All I'm saying is "if the cookie crumbles that way, so be it" but let's not cook up a solution that advantages one team to the detriment of another, by trying to be politically correct on this issue.

To repeat the point that you seem to want to ignore, there is no clear-cut "equal" qualifying system to choose. I'm not "ignoring your point", as (you may want to actually acknowledge) my post is a PROPOSAL to make it as EQUAL & NON-POLITICAL AS POSSIBLE qualifying process. I for that matter, have acknowledged the obvious ENTRENCHED interests that would be negative towards any change.

No, it doesn't. Either St. Vincent has a realistic chance of advancing to face Chile (thus facing a stiff economic penalty for success), or else your proposed merging of confederations is bogus.Yes it does. Either they play with the big boys, or they take their ball home & sulk.

That's easy for an Australian to say.Why, because we've ALWAYS had to travel the world like gypsies, to try to qualify ??? Nah, as some of the English posters here would say: Phffffffft!!!!!!

[numerista]

Why, because we've ALWAYS had to travel the world like gypsies, to try to qualify?

That's not true. In the past 12 years, Australia played a grand total of 6 away qualifiers. They traveled infrequently and had a problem with under-preparation. Relative to that, Australia prefers regular competition in spite of a huge travel burden.

I for that matter, have acknowledged the obvious ENTRENCHED interests that would be negative towards any change.

But surely this is spin ... is geography (and the practical and economic situations it creates) really an "ENTRENCHED interest?"

Either they play with the big boys, or they take their ball home & sulk.

Thankfully, the process isn't that simple. For example, over the past quarter century, the number of participants in African WC qualifying has doubled, and the number of qualifying games in the region has quadrupled. If a sink-or-swim attitude had been taken at the start, such progress would've been harder to achieve.

[scaryice]

Capitalizing words doesn't improve your argument, Andy.

[Andy TAUS]

That's not true. In the past 12 years, Australia played a grand total of 6 away qualifiers. They traveled infrequently and had a problem with under-preparation. Relative to that, Australia prefers regular competition in spite of a huge travel burden. I was talking since year dot (eg when AUS last qualified - 1974 - how much travelling did they have to do?) and since, not just the last 12 years.

But surely this is spin ... is geography (and the practical and economic situations it creates) really an "ENTRENCHED interest?"I'm sure that the CONCACAF minnows (via Warner) will readily give up their FIFA perks that come with their membership (and votes) in the Islands club.

Thankfully, the process isn't that simple. For example, over the past quarter century, the number of participants in African WC qualifying has doubled, and the number of qualifying games in the region has quadrupled. If a sink-or-swim attitude had been taken at the start, such progress would've been harder to achieve.Whilst AUS had to pay its own way over the same period, for the same development! FIFA must definitely be a very democratic & really spreads its largesse fairly. :rolleyes:

[Andy TAUS]

Capitalizing words doesn't improve your argument, Andy.I was EMPHASIZING without having to resort to bolding or italicizing. It's a valid form of enhancement in the written English language.

Just like this on BS: :p