USA up to 9th in FIFA standings

[Guinho]

Originally posted by VFish
The US breaking the top ten and New Zealand's dramatic move highlight the most glaring defect of FIFA's system... all Contential Championships are weighted equally.

actually, they're not. Games between UEFA teams are weighted 17% more heavily than any concacaf teams.

Guinho

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by united16


But it still troubles me that stiffs like Chris Sutton are scoring in the Champions League while Landon Donovan and Clint Mathis are not...

It troubles me that after all these years, Zidane has failed to prove himself in MLS.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by glove
Who cares about rankings? Anyone who knows the game will tell you they don't mean squat. Colombia is 15 and S.Korea 22? Who finished 4th and who did not even make a palyoff to go to the cup? These rankings make the BCS look like the second coming in comparision. Sure they are fun to look at but they don't even count(please someone correct me if Iam wrong) towards shi+.

Yeah, but Colombia is better than Korea.

[VFish]

Originally posted by Guinho


actually, they're not. Games between UEFA teams are weighted 17% more heavily than any concacaf teams.

Guinho
And... as was pointed out earlier, the European Championships are being discounted by 25% because they were held in 2000.

2002 Gold Cup weighting: 1.5 x .86 x (8/8)= 1.29
Euro 2000 weighting: 1.5 x 1 x (6/8) = 1.125

Face it, the 2002 Gold Cup wasn’t a Continental Championship, it was a tune-up tournament for the World Cup. Unfortunately, Gold Cup matches are over weighted which skews the results. Applying a .75 multiplier to Euro2000 results just adds insult to injury.

Here’s a simple solution: Don’t apply the age weighting to the most recent Continental Championships.

[VFish]

Originally posted by speedcake
I started to say something, but I won't. The idiocy in this thread might leak into my post and corrupt all things me.

Okay, I lied. Some of you need to get a grip. Do some research before you target the rankings in your retarded boo-hooing. No ranking will ever be perfect, this ranking certainly could be improved, it is a mathematical formula, no money is exchanged(prove that it is if you think so), the seedings in the World Cup DO depend on the rankings therefore you SHOULD F-ING care who is ranked where. Give some suggestions as to how the rankings can be improved cause your negative dribble makes you look silly.

One good thing about the rankings? It takes out the "idiotic opinion" factor. And thankfully, after reading some of these posts and posts from past rankings related threads.


so much anger, sheesh. SpeedCake…we’re just trying to improve the system. ;)

Despite my gripes, I actually like the FIFA rankings. As you pointed out, a mechanical system removes the opinion factor (not to mention the politics). Unfortunately, this system seems flawed, taking perfectly good input and spewing out seemingly random results. Case in point: it took France 4 years to ascend to #1 after winning the 1998 WC, yet Columbia dramatically rose to #4 after it’s Copa America victory.

Contrary to your assertions, I do understand the system and have made some suggestions on improving the it. Perhaps you’d care to share a few of your own?

[superdave]

Originally posted by VFish
spewing out seemingly random results. Case in point: it took France 4 years to ascend to #1
There was nothing random about it. France didn't even make WC '94, and that (plus the results from the WCQs) were reflected in the rankings.

[speedcake]

Well, for one I would like to see how the system looks under a four year rotation. I also agree with the idea that all Confederation championships be played in the same year. The problem with that though is that the Gold Cup for instance is normally contended every two years, while the Euro championship is contended every four years. So while our points might not count as much our teams would have twice the opportunity to gain those points.

The problem is that no matter what changes you implement there will come along new difficulties. There will always be other suggestions as to how the system can be bettered.

I just feel that as it stands now the ranking system is pretty close to as good as it can get considering the nature of International Football. There are over 200 teams listed in the rankings, and in your typical eight years most teams don't play against each other or in the same competition. And even while in the same competition they still might not play each other.

So you are left with attempting to determine which games should count for what. And honestly I don't think anyone can argue that the weighting of the confed championships is all that off. Yes, there is an apparent anomoly now and then concerning the ranking of a particular national team. And yes, any given day a national team of whatever ranking can defeat another. But all in all the rankings seem accurate ENOUGH to understand the heirarchy (sp?) of the international game during a relatively short time period with a simple glance.

There will always be argument over whether the actual position of, say, the top ten teams is DEAD ON. But it is hard to argue, usually, against the actual makeup of the top ten. Etc. etc. etc.

I'm rambling a bit, sorry. Too much soccer already today and the MLS match hasn't even begun.

[VFish]

Originally posted by superdave

There was nothing random about it. France didn't even make WC '94, and that (plus the results from the WCQs) were reflected in the rankings. That’s why I prefaced the statement with "seemingly random". Jeez, is everything here @ BS about "one upmenship"?