It's not about making a "perfect" ranking system. Of course that is impossible. It's about making one that isn't full of so many flaws. I dont think that is too much to ask.
I recall this same topic being discussed around the time of the last World Cup. I remember your post actually. IIRC you had suggested something along the lines of 16 groups of 4 teams each, hosted all around the world, with 2 teams advancing from each group to the WC. While I understand FIFA has an interest in making sure a certain amount of geographical diversity is maintained at the WC in order to keep the majority of its membership happy, I do wish FIFA would have at least taken the opportunity from the expansion of the WC to expand the intercontinental playoffs. Sadly FIFA only made a very slight modification to the intercontinental playoffs in its expansion proposal, adding one team from CAF and an extra team from the host confederation. Lastly I will say that while I have not always agreed with some of your commentary, particularly surrounding Iran, I have always found your ideas and commentary regarding world football to be insightful and thought-provoking.
I have thought for several years that - like other sports - FIFA could have a world championship every two years without doubling the number of WCs by using the Olympics. I also agree that there are not enough inter-continental games between NTs, although again the scarcity of them only makes them more wonderful when they actually happen.
Doubling the amount of WCs, means doubling the amount of qualifying games. If so, a non-UEFA country would not see a FIFA rank spot boost, because they would still pollute their 2xWC results with 2xConfed results. Even worse: a) remove BRA out of Conmebol qualifiers, b) place it into AFC qualifiers, c) enable biennial WCs. As a result, BRA's rank spot would sink after a few WC iterations. BRA's spot sinks due to doubled low-gain qualifying matches, while UEFA teams keep their 2x high-gain matches. The picture becomes uglier with the 48-team expansion, where UEFA will have 16 teams advance into the 32-team knockout stage. Talk about aggregate point gain via 50% participation in R32.
If I understand your idea correctly, this would cast a huge shadow over the rest of the Olympics. Nobody will care about it apart from some people in the few countries where soccer isn't king.
Regarding paragraph 1 I believe the comment said that a team should only earn points against teams it needs to beat in order to qualify. Thus any results against the other 2 teams that finish in the top 3 in Concacaf should not count. Though I could be mistaking your post. I had two similar discussions going and may have lost track in the time it took me to reply. Regarding paragraph 2 Yes you have a point their regarding circular argument, but there is really no way to resolve this. I prefer a system where is it possible for a team outside of Europe and Conmebol to earn a seed. All we have are the various statistical rankings from Fifa, ELO, or somebody else and our own biases. We will never see the likes of Panama playing a Moldova to really determine these things. And I do agree that the rankings can be garbage on occasion. How on earth was Poland able to earn a seed just by topping a European group and getting two wins against Northern Ireland and Ukraine in Euro2016? We saw their true level in the WC, 3 and out, last in group. Can we conclude that Poland's opponents in qualifying were overated?
1. Of course, but they should have to earn it 2. But it's just as ridiculous for the US to earn a seed (or even come close) based on 2 90 minute draws (at home) against Mexico, and beating a bunch of average concacaf teams. This a team that failed to qualify for the last cup. Fifa rankings were flawed back then (as shown with Poland) and they are flawed NOW.
LOL Well I think it would be a big deal to at least be in one of the top 2 pots, to have a theoretical weaker team in your group.
They will still care. Take the US for e.g. If they are not a seed they will likely get a top European team in their group, but if they are a seed the representative from UEFA will be someone like Serbia or Austria. On paper, being a top seed would give them 2 chances to win a game against a team they should beat, instead of just 1 chance.
We have to see how the Groups will be seeded first and foremost. We also have to see if Co-hosted World Cups will be a norm as I expect. Sure there is a chance a team on the brink of 16 and 17 would complain but there is also a chance they could be in a Group with a "seed" that is only a seed because they are one of the three or four countries hosting the darn thing. In any case if a team cannot finish top 16 in the Rankings then they have nothing to complain about in my book. With the young talent the USA has they would have no one to blame but themselves.
And if the tournament is as watered down as you say it will be Boca Fan there will be many minnows in each tournament and all you have to do is finish top two in a three team Group.
It is watered-down (by definition), and if you are a top seed you are more likely to get one of those minnows in your group. And maybe just as importantly, you'd be more likely to win your group and have an easier path to the round of 16.
It all depends on how teams are seeded. If you are in a Group with a seed like China cause they are the host it does not mean you are less likely to advance if they suck.
Also, We have seen many times in prior World Cups teams that people think are overrated and should not have been seeds. In 16 Groups there would be more chances of teams getting seeds that really are not as good as the rankings say they are.
We also do not know how the knockout rounds will be matched up or if there will be a re-seeding for that. Although with travel it would be much harder to re-seed as we have discussed in prior conversations.
Btw does anyone know if FIFA has stated explicitly that they will in fact separate UEFA teams during the draw? I know it makes sense at first glance since there will be 16 groups and 16 UEFA teams, but I feel like it might make the draw feel a bit Mickey Mouse with all the shuffling of teams to make sure there aren't any all-UEFA matchups. It probably also gives UEFA teams in the lower pots an unfair advantage since they basically get to avoid all the real hard-hitters except for Brazil and Argentina. I think they should just keep the current rules - 2 UEFA max, no more than 1 from any other confederation. I don't see how it matters if a couple of groups don't end up having a UEFA team.
They should just seed it all according to FIFA rankings in my mind. No draw needed other than maybe keeping the co-hosts in different Groups obviously.
For sure - luck plays a big role. This whole discussion around seeding is only about improving your odds in the draw. There are no guarantees, that is well understood. You could be unseeded in 2022 and still get Qatar or US/Mexico as the seeded team in your group. But your odds of an easier group improve greatly if you are seeded. The reseeding option becomes more difficult with more groups so I think we can dismiss that possibility. Group winners will play non-group winners, that's for certain.
The point of my post is if a team finishes outside of the 16 Seeds slots you have no one to blame but yourself for doing so. There's not going to be any controversy. No one will care, they will just focus on beating the minnow in the group and advancing that way.
1. Agree, but how do you define earning it when you only get competitive games against "good" teams once every 4 years in a WC or as an occasional guest in the Copa America. 2. Agree completely regarding the US and Poland. But should Mexico do well in quality after yet another R16 WC performance, they should at least have a chance at a seed. I preferred the old seeding system which combined FIFA rank and performance in the previous IIRC 3 world cups. I would just tweak it to only include the previous one or two world cups.
Imo you have to go to back at least 2 WCs if you use that kind of system, otherwise you have a bunch of zeros (well not zero since you have the ranking part but pretty close to it) at the end for teams that may have just missed the last WC. Unless you want to just go back to just seeding the first pot and using geographical criteria for the rest of the teams.
Instead of a random draw, I wouldn't mind the groups to be picked by each of the top seeds in each pot (in order) from teams in the pot right below them.