Should host teams get #1 seed?

[BocaFan]

I've always had a problem with host teams getting #1 seeds automatically (for European championships and World Cups). Does anybody else think this is stupid?? What's the reasoning behind this? I mean, getting automatic qualification helps and getting home-advantage during the tournament really helps. So on top of all this, should the home team also be getting a #1 seed?

[kevbrunton]

No, I don't think that they should. It was totally rediculous last year to have Japan and SoKo getting seeded. As you said, having the tournament at home is enough of an advantage.

I don't remember who the 7th and 8th ranked teams were, but to have them have to potentially face one of the top 6 is not right.

Imagine in 2010 when it's going to be in Africa.

Right now, you have bids from Nigeria, South Africa, Morocco, and Egypt on the table and a joint bid from Tunisia & Libya.

Right now, Japan & SoKo are 23rd & 29th ranked respectively, so they're at least within the top 32 in the world.

However, the teams with current bids are ranked at
27 - Nigeria
33 - South Africa
36 - Morocco
39 - Egypt
44 - Tunisia
83 - Libya

Can you imagine if the Tunisia & Libya bids are successful? First off, it'd likely mean they'd give 6 spots to Africa and if those 2 are seeded, it'd be a joke.

[afgrijselijkheid]

HELL NO!!! if the champ cant even get an automatic entry, why should the hosts benefit?

[IASocFan]

Playing against the host nation is probably as tough as playing against one of the other seeds. In K/J 02, both Korea and Japan won their groups, and France and Argentina not only didn't win their groups, they failed to finish second. Italy also failed to win their group. So it's hosts 2/2 and other seeds 3/6. This is even more impressive in the fact that South Korea and Japan had never won a World Cup match before.

For '04 and '06, Portugal and Germany are reasonably seeded teams. For '08, neither Switzerland or Austrian would likely not be seeded, much less likely to qualify. (Austrian last qualified for France '98, and Switzerland for USA '94. Switzerland is top of their group for '04 and Austria will finish 3rd in their group.) With four seeds, they will just have the advantage of bypassing two top teams - who will also have the advantage of bypassing the two hosts.

[BocaFan]

Originally posted by IASocFan
Playing against the host nation is probably as tough as playing against one of the other seeds. In K/J 02, both Korea and Japan won their groups, and France and Argentina not only didn't win their groups, they failed to finish second. Italy also failed to win their group. So it's hosts 2/2 and other seeds 3/6. This is even more impressive in the fact that South Korea and Japan had never won a World Cup match before.


This is a decent point you make - by looking at the match-difficulty level of the host team's opponents. Nevertheless, I think a seed must be earned! Otherwise we can just give the Netherlands and Spain automatic seeds because someone perceives them as difficult opponents (even though both of them will probably be un-seeded in Euro 2004).

You can also argue that Argentina and France did not win their group in WC 2002 because of Korea and Japan getting seeds. This created 2 extremely weak groups, forcing the other 6 groups to be stronger than normal (especially Argentina's).

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by BocaFan
...You can also argue that Argentina and France did not win their group in WC 2002 because of Korea and Japan getting seeds. This created 2 extremely weak groups, forcing the other 6 groups to be stronger than normal (especially Argentina's).

A good point with Argentina, but I don't think you can claim that France's group with Senegal, Denmark, and Uruguay was that tough. Korea, Euro group winners Portugal and Poland, and the US was not a particular easy group. I'll agree that Japan did get the easiest group with Russia, Belgium, and Tunisia.

[Germanshepherd]

What are you talking of?

A tournament without the team from the host-country?

Do you know how that would decrease the interest in this tournament? Stadiums half filled etc.

Think again.

[afgrijselijkheid]

Originally posted by IASocFan
A good point with Argentina, but I don't think you can claim that France's group with Senegal, Denmark, and Uruguay was that tough


what?!? france was in an extremely solid group - not that they shouldn't have played better, but come on!

[afgrijselijkheid]

Originally posted by Germanshepherd
What are you talking of?

A tournament without the team from the host-country?

Do you know how that would decrease the interest in this tournament? Stadiums half filled etc.

Think again.

that is not what we're discussing - the issue is whether the host nation(s) should be among the top 8 seeds

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by bluedaddy19
that is not what we're discussing - the issue is whether the host nation(s) should be among the top 8 seeds

Or 4 seeds in the case of the Euro championships.

[Germanshepherd]

Originally posted by bluedaddy19
that is not what we're discussing - the issue is whether the host nation(s) should be among the top 8 seeds

You are discussing not to seed the home team.

That would lead to an early "going out" of the home team.

Do you think Japan would have advanced into the second round in 2002 if they wouldn`t have been seeded?

Or the US in 1994!

[cosmosRIP]

Originally posted by Germanshepherd
That would lead to an early "going out" of the home team. No earlier than they should go out.

[Germanshepherd]

That says an American? Do you remember 94?

It is important for a succesful tournament that the host nation is in it as long as possible.

A seed for the host nation is neccessary to gain this.

[SwissGCZ]

Originally posted by IASocFan
For '08, neither Switzerland or Austrian would likely not be seeded, much less likely to qualify. (Austrian last qualified for France '98, and Switzerland for USA '94.
Little correction. The last big tournament we qualified for was England '96...


I personally like the hosts getting the seeding advantage (and I'm not just saying that because of 2008)...

[worldsoccer-Jeff]

I have looked at this as much as anyone has, and I have no problem with a seed for the host team.

[BocaFan]

Originally posted by Germanshepherd
You are discussing not to seed the home team.

That would lead to an early "going out" of the home team.

Do you think Japan would have advanced into the second round in 2002 if they wouldn`t have been seeded?

Or the US in 1994!

And if you go out to watch your favorite local sports team sometimes they're gonna lose! That's sports!

The worse part that came out of the Korea-Japan WC is that now Asia thinks they should get another World Cup spot because they did so well in WC2002 (even though the tournament is designed for them to do well)! Like 4.5 spots is not enough?? It should be more like 2.5, imo!