you can tinker with the math to get results, say change the affect confed cup has in the ratings, bump up it's importance.. give wcq winners extra points..?? who knows
Respectfully, shut up. We are not getting a seed. These threads have been moronic for months. A tinker with the math doesn't do it for us, anyway you slice it (past WC performance or ranking) there are 7 teams WAAAAAYYYYYYY ahead of us. That doesn't include France, Portugal, or Mexico. FIFA has no reason to change the formula, as the traditional powers currently sit atop it. We don't deserve one, we won't get one.
It does not matter anyway. Whichever team is seeded in our group is not going to look at us as some pushover team. Besides, unfortunately, we often play better with our backs up against the wall. Starting out against a tough team, might not be the worst thing for us. I always prefer to rip off a band aid rather than pull it off slowly.
Pretty much what TrueCrew said, but explain to me again, why exactly would FIFA drastically alter the formula and upset a lot of people to get the US a seed at the expense of a traditional power?
If the US WERE to be seeded, it would have to be in favor of some traditional power that would otherwise get the seed under the current system. No argument there, right? Well, how hard is it to imagine that whichever team the US happens to displace would end up drawn in the US group anyway? I'd say this is highly likely, in fact, if you accept the premise that the draw is at least partially rigged (which I do). So what did the seed accomplish? Jack s---. The US has to beat a good team to advance. That will be true no matter what labels everyone has.
In Jorge Ramos show on ESPN they reported a rumor that Blatter had given the US a seed in exchange for CONCACAF's votes for the next elections. The immediate hole that I see in the rumor is why the US and not Mexico? On the other hand, it makes sense that Blatter now needs to pay off CONCACAF. He has Africa because of the next World Cup and he has Asia because of the increase in WC spots and the recent 2002 cup. But that's just pure guessing.
If the US gets a seed in 2010 it will grow to be a lush and mighty plant because that seed will be planted by Sepp Blatter's own grubby hands into deep and fertile bullshit.
Yet, US Soccer thinks that it is a possibility. And they might be in a position to know more than you. If you don't like the thread, then don't read it. Respectufully, shut up.
No. Everyteam has to beat at least one good team to advance. Its the World Cup, and while this one is shaping up to be a bit weak as far as the competition looks, all but a few teams will have a tough group. The key is that you don't have to beat two or three top teams to get out of your group.
It wouldbe a massive scandal if true, how can you seed a team that failed to win a game at the last World Cup? There's simply no logical basis for seeding the USA, it would have to be an outright fix.
Because of the information in this thread, I don't believe the US will get a seed. But to answer your question... I am pretty sure FIFA sees the vast potential of the still underpenetrated market for soccer in the U.S. A seed => greater chance US advances => greater U.S. sports media focus during WC => greater long term growth of the fan base in U.S. Another way to look at it. If you are looking at the WC primarily as a vehicle for growing the sport's popularity in attractive ($$$) markets, and if you have the unfettered ability to increase the odds that the market with the largest upside grows significantly, then why wouldn't you? Two big IFs in there, I know, but that is the answer to your question. There is little upside in giving a traditional power a seed.
i see giving usa the wc in 2018 being the method fifa uses to nurture the game here... usa gets a seed then
The concept of the CONCACAF Champion getting an automatic seed is akin to the thought of the champion of the Mountain West Conference getting an automatic bid to the BCS... Nice idea in theory...probably not happening anytime soon.
except, i want boise state playing cincinnati in the brawl for it all.... neanderthals in college football....give us a play-offs... fifa does... it's called the world cup...
The tradtional powers are the best teams, the more you depart from seeding the best 8 teams in the tournament, the less postive effect seeding has for the seeds. E.g. seeding 8 teams at random would confer no inherent advantage to the seed and seeding the worse 8 teams would be a positive disadvanatge for the seeds. Thats not to mention improving the quality of the later stages of the tournament and helping to increase the longetivity of public interest in the tournament.
It depends on how the figure it. It also depends alot on if Portugal and France get in. We were the ninth best team going into 2006 and that was with the horrendous 1998 World Cup factored into that. Had we advanced out the group stage in 98 we probably would have been a seeded team in 06. Right now, it looks bleak. But if FIFA were to figure in other possible factors or change the rules (not out of the question) than it might be possible. Bob Bradley seems to think it is within the realm of possibility and I have learned not to bet against Bob.
How could they possibly be doen without it being an outright fix? Even if let's say FIFA used their rankings entirely to pick seeds, which as far as I could see would be by far the most favourable method to the USA, they'd still miss out even if Portugual and France don't qualify. Can you think of any method that looks even barely credible that FIFA could use to put USA as a seed, I can't.
TimB4Last hit on a possible answer to this in another thread, and I think "barely credible" is an accurate characterization. Imagine this possible seeding method: use a formula analogous to the formula used in 2006, except that a team must win its World Cup qualifying group (or be the host) to receive a seed. Yes, I realized such a method is horribly unfair to CONMEBOL (even if we extend it to "must not finish behind an unseeded team in its World Cup qualifying group"). South Africa, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Spain, England, Netherlands, and... the USA. I don't, however, see any particular reason for FIFA to use such a seeding method.
Two immutable truths of WC 2010. First, the USA will not be seeded. Second, until the draw (or at least the seeding formula) is announced, there will be tons of these silly threads popping up, despite the best efforts of the reality-based posters to kill them.
Evidence However, Gulati says "performance over the last three World Cups", so he doesn't know what the formula was in 2006. So much for knowing more than TrueCrew. As posted by scaryice.
From the same folks that brought you Project 2010; a reality based series that, unfortunately, doesn't star Heidi klum.
I don't disagree, but I do wonder about reality-based posters who would waste their time trying to kill silly threads. Allow me to throw out my own silly question ... If France is deserving of seedy treatment, why didn't they win their WCQ group?