I might be all wet because I haven't really studied the situation but how about seeding and grouping the Gold Cup in such a way that some games, probably at group level which are givens, count both for Gold Cup and qualification? Could that work?
Definitely not fair in sporting terms but could be argued more than fair in financial terms since the money raised when those two play in any CONCACAF tournament is split by all. A very weird confederation where only two countries can sell out big stadiums when they meet. Most of the CONCACAF countries don't even have a big stadium. Maybe Canada can join them and add a third team. Costa Rica is close but not sure they sell out a big 75k+ stadium in the US or Mexico if they're in the final.
Why isn't it fair in sporting terms? The NCAA Tournament is seeded. The US Open tennis tournament is seeded. Neither is seeded based on anything any more sophisticated than FIFA rankings. The World Cup itself is seeded by FIFA rankings. Using FIFA rankings to seed a tournament would put the USA and Mexico on either side of a bracket.
The US and Mexico aren't always #1 and #2. It would be unfair if Costa Rica and say Panama were having their golden generations and had to face each other when they were truly # 1 and #2. Won't happen often but it could. Mexico almost didn't make the 2014 WC and the US didn't make the 2018 WC. No way they were always the top two teams throughout those years.
Probably Serena Williams was not the 8th best player in the world last year when she was seeded 8th. So what of it? You have to base the seeds on something. FIFA ranking is at least uncorruptable from a CONCACAF standpoint (as opposed to the secretary general deciding or a panel of three from the US and Mexico and Canada). If you are arguing the Gold Cup, always in the USA with USA the #2 seed, is unfair, that is different. But if a tournament, right now, had to be seeded, what would you use? Feelings?
You're changing the argument. Someone said that the US and Mexico are always set up to meet in the final. That is different than if someone asked me if they deserve the top to rankings right now. Always isn't fair but I get why they do. Right now? Yes, right now they should be #1 and #2.
I assumed in the "Hex" thread and a discussion of replacing the Hex with a tournament, you were talking about that. Again, I was not sure and that is why I put in the caveat about maybe you are off topic. I guess you were, so no problem. I agree, there really is no way to do it (replace Hex with tournament) without using FIFA rankings to seed the participants.
The issue is not the initial seedings (though it could be on occasion), the issue is the distribution of the teams after the first round. Regardless of the format or the number of groups, 1st and 2nd place in the US group ALWAYS land on the opposite side of the draw from 1st and 2nd place from Mexico group. The only way the US and Mex could ever meet before the final is if one were to finish 3rd in their group and still advance. In a legit tournament a second place team would end up on the opposite side of the draw for the knock out rounds. So lets say Panama wins a group over Mexico. They will likely face Mexico again in the semis before getting to the final instead of having knocked them to the other side of the bracket and getting the easier path that they had earned. Mexico is allowed to play any team, except the US, before the final. The US is allowed to play any team, except Mexico, before the final. No other teams get that sort of free ride.
Good point about the Gold Cup in the past and what happens with a second seed in a group winning that group. But, almost all tournaments are set up for 1 and 2 to only face each other in the final. You could look at it the other way. If the 1 and 2 seed can meet before the final, then the 3 seed can reach the final beating nobody better than the 4th seed. France was considered a co-favorite at the Women's WC with the USA, but the random draw and poor set up had them meet in the Quarterfinals. There was nothing sporting or fair about that.
But in soccer there is no #1 seed. There is a pot of seeded teams drawn "randomly" into groups. 1st and 2nd place in each group go to opposite sides of the draw after the first round, and if the the numbers are wonky advancing third place teams will make up the difference. The WWC was fair because it was random, with no shenanigans to keep two teams artificially apart until the final. US-France in the quarters was unfortunate, not unfair. In the Gold Cup, if the US and Mex are legitimately the top two, I am moderately OK (though still prefer a completely random/seeded draw) with keeping them apart IF they both win their groups, but anything beyond that is ridiculous manipulation to protect some teams at the expense of others. You want to avoid the other, win your group. If you can do not that, you do not deserve "protection" Yes I get the financial reasons for doing this, and financially perhaps all the teams are better off because of it, but remember that we were talking about using the GC as the WC qualifier. With all the manipulation of the draw and brackets (in addition to the other issues discussed) no way on Earth would it be even close to fair.
I'm not so sure two group winners meeting in the quarters, while other group winners got second place teams or third place teams is fair. The question was fairness and soccer merit. If France had the Netherlands draw, then they probably meet in the finals and France goes to the Olympics. So, there is unfairness in semi-seeded and unseeded draws. You can redraw every round, but that leads to unfairness too. Not unfair that something outside the rules happened, but just in a general sense that Man City and Real Madrid are playing in the quarters and so is Atalanta and Valencia. In the NCAA tournament, you never leave your side of the bracket. It is just like the Gold Cup in that teams don't cross over at all. Same in tennis. Most tournaments are designed to keep 1 and 2 away from each other. Again, if you are upset that Mexico could finish two and not play the USA, that is fine. But it is no different than many other tournaments. In four groups, what is the real difference if the second place team from 4 plays the winner from 3, 2, 1? While it could and is probably cynical, there are also logistical savings that can be had. That is why the NCAA does it like they do, from a time before they had $billions to spend. That the USA and Mexico are always in Pot 1 and Pot 4 could be seen as unfair. But if you seeded the teams, they would almost always be there as #1 and #2. There is nothing invalid about the way the Gold Cup is set up. That it is all or almost all in the USA, every time, is the real issue with fairness. But again, we are discussing a hypothetical WCQ'ing tournament that will not be the Gold Cup most likely. And, my only point is that you cannot seed teams without using FIFA Rankings. Having random draws in a 47 nation Federation would also be nuts.
The random nature is no more fair, just because something has been done doesn't make it the right way. Having two of the best teams play earlier means it is easier for a lesser team to advance to the final. Fair seeding is the best way to get the two best teams into the final. Shouldn't that be the goal?
From a tournement interest pov, yes. I myself have never understood the obsession with seeding I read in BS threads. The Orange team has often been put in groups with top teams. So what. The goal is to win the title. It doesnot matter if you meet the best sooner than later, you have to beat them. We were paired in the Euro Nation League with world champions 2018 France and WC 2014 Germany. Everybody thought we were the team to relegate, but we ended as top dog. In Euro 2006 we were put in a group with WC Italy and runner up/finalist France. We did beat the crap out of them. Being with us in a group isnot something other teams find very appealing and I donot care about seedings at all.
No, it wasnot a tough group. That's why it was bloody shamefull we didnot qualify. It all came down to inept coaching.
with regards to the WWC. There were only 6 groups, so by the laws of mathematics some QF games will have a 2nd or 3rd place team from a group. I guess we can never have a 24 team tournament again because the quarterfinals might be "unfair". Europe using the WWC as it Olympic qualifiers is nuts, but that is a problem of their own making. Your tennis and NCAA arguments do not apply. They do not have group stages with more than one team advancing. They are seeded single elimination tournaments. Soccer tournaments are not a different beast with the group stages. I have no problem with the "top" seed and "second" seed of the entire tournament [if they can even really be defined, hell two of the top 8 seeds (Germany and Poland) finished dead last in their groups in 2018] being kept apart IF THEY BOTH WIN THEIR GROUPS. If you cannot win your group, you should forfeit that protection to the team that won the group ahead of you. That team has at that point earned it. How unfair is it to the team the topped the group ahead of either the first or second seed.
You were replying to a part of my post about the WWC. At the time of the draw for the WWC, the US was ranked 1st and Germany was 2nd and both won their groups and ended up on the opposite side of the draw. So the WWC did exactly what you wanted. I thought the seeding of the four pots for the last men's WC and the draw with geographic considerations was pretty good and would like to keep it going forward. But at that point you let the chips fall where they may. If you cannot win your group you do not deserve any help going forward, whatever you did previously to earn that seed should go out the window if you do not win the group that was made for you to win. To still protect that team is a real slap in the face to the team that actually did win the group on the field of play. The rankings for the 2018 WC draw had Germany as #1 in the world, yet they finished dead last in their group. The difference in quality in the top teams,especially in the men's game is so razor thin that defining absolute #1 and #2 and super rigging the draw to keep the apart seems like a fools errand.
Yup. Sometimes the Orange team has at the time of the group draws of qualification or of tournements a (relatively for our standing) low table rating. So we end up with top teams which isnot to the liking of those teams, even if it looks like we suck at that time.
Rumors WCQ 2020 No Hex Top 12 CONCACAF Mexico United States Costa Rica Jamaica Honduras El Salvador Canada Curacao Panama Haiti Trinidad and Tobago Antigua 3 groups of 4 teams Group winners goes to 2022 Qatar Best 2nd place team faces the winner of the rest of CONCACAF tournament for the intercontinental playoffs Source 1266155492402802688 is not a valid tweet id
Much better format than the ridiculous "fifa rankings" hex. However on the flip side concacaf teams won't be as battle tested for the world cup proper, also will miss some of the marquee matchups, but this is way better in terms of fairness.