Okay, I know some of you love to play around with who will be in what group playing who in the World Cup. FIFA has its way, but what way should FIFA do it. I guess I would like to see all the teams seeded to have fairer groups across the board. FIFA could have a secret meeting, just like the NCAA has for March Madness, and seed the teams accordingly and then put them in the different groups based on the seeding, region, and fun factor. Seeding would be straight forward and the people in the room would just rank the teams based on what they think they'll do for that tournament, which FIFA kind of sort a does right now for the top 8 seeds. Regions would be taken into account and teams from the same region wouldn't be in the same group except for the European teams. Also, for example, Brazil and Argentina could be put in groups so they don't meet until the finals or semi-finals. Same for like Mexico or the U.S., if possible. Fun factor would be like say in Germany putting Germany and Turkey in the same group because there are lots of Turks living in Germany or who are in fact Germans. Another example would be putting Cote d'Ivoire and France together, etc... Won't happen, I know.. but FIFA can do better. Never ever should Costa Rica and Saudi Arabia have the chance to be in the same group, which they do right now.
I think that idea is all right, but I still like the pot system better. The pot system COULD be improved to be more in line what you've described above, having pots for each qualifying region. Personally, I would like to see them redraw after the group stage. Put all the first place teams in one pot and all the second place teams in another. Draw all the first place teams first and place them in the bracket, then draw the second place teams. Let the bracket stand as it stands from there. I don't like when tournament organizers try to create the "best" final. Let the games play themselves out. The NCAA is notorious for this and the supposed "dream matchup" rarely happens. The only constant in the NCAA tournament is that Duke and Kentucky will always be in line to meet in the Regional finals. That is a given rule. I'd hate to see the World Cup go in this direction.
The problem with that would be "stacking", which is a problem now. FIFA does a pretty good job and like I've said in other threads I think they should put Asia and North America in one pot of 8 and Africa and South America in another pot of 8 so that there can't possibly be a group with both Saudi Arabia and Costa Rica in the same group. Also a problem with your way is that Argentina and Brazil could end up being setup to play in the first stage of the knockout round. To not allow that you put Argentina and Brazil in groups that won't meet at least until the semi-finals or championship game. I was dissapointed in how the last World Cup played out in that all the good teams were lined up to play one another while Germany got a free pass. I guess it wasn't that bad cause it was supposed to Germany/Mexico and Spain, Italy. And France and Argentina didn't even move on, although France didn't deserve to and Argentina probably did. What I would do is put seed the first 16 teams. And arrange them with 1 and 8 theoretically playing in the quaterfinals, so on and so forth. The place the second 8 seeds into the group, where if they finished second they would play say the 9th seed would play the 8th seed and the 10th seed would play the 7th seed and so on. Then take the rest of the teams, seed them and them arrange them where there's no doubling up of regional teams from the non-European regions. Europe would have at least one team, and mostly two teams, in each group.
Part of the "allure" of the randomness of the draw is that you can get a Group of Death. It provides the opportunity that some groups will definitely have 6 meaningful games. The fact that it also allows a Group of Dearth has to be accepted. I don't think we'll see many such groups from now on - the ROW is catching up to EUFA and Conmebol, and will be sending some very good teams - maybe not great, but still very good. Only one or two dogs in the entire tourney, generally as a result of the confed's qualifying. The chances of both of them being in the same group is remote. Forced evenly balanced groups would also have to have forced scheduling. You woudn't want 1 vs 4 matchups on the last date of the first round - things would have been settled before then, making the game meaningless. Two things have to be remembered when we wish for changes. You have to watch what you wish for, because you might get it. And you have to be aware of the law of unintended consequences.
One of advantages of a 1v4 matchup in the final game (ass-u-me ing the 1 is 2-0 and the 4 is 0-2) is that the best team gets to rest their stars and the 2v3 matchup is to see who advances and both will know what is required to advance! And of course, the first 4 games will go as predicted!
Seriously? That's pretty much the opposite of what FIFA does right now, considering the seeding formula is based entirely on previous results.
That's what I meant. They'd pick the teams around the same formula they use currently, but do it for all the teams. Maybe change up the formula a little bit to take into account recent improvement or whatever. Have an objective formula (what they do now) with some subjective input.
They should just give top seeds to the the host and the top 7 finishers in the last WC that have qualified. Why make it so complex? Let them earn it on the field.
So how would you like to be Senegal, and you reward for finishing in the last 8 is a group with Italy, Argentina, and France. Seeds would have little meaning under your scenario.
You're probably right about that Spartak. But then which of the eight teams knocked out in the last 16 get the final seed? Oh and I would seed it via performance in the last three major international tournaments, whether WC, Euro or ANC. With no basis in Geography, We should never see a group with Costa Rica and China again.
Even worse, we could have Brazil, Czech Rep, Holland and Mexico in one group (could be any two UEFA teams other than Germany, Turkey, England and Spain). While another group will have South Korea, the 2006 "Slovenia", 4th place CONCACAF and and CAF weakling. The current system is not bad when it comes to determine the seeds. It should be extended to the other 3 pots.
Agree, Sagy. I've wanted each group to have a top-8, second-8, third-8, and fourth-8 team; and draw from there (still avoiding intra-continent matchups). I don't like the GoD (group of death) scenario. A team's fate should be determined by soccer balls, not ping-pong balls. You should be able to decently seed 1-8, 9-16, 17-24, 25-32 in some way. As you say, the current system (last 3 WC's and last 3 year's rankings) is better than nothing.
So instead of the transparent system that exists today with only objective criteria entering into it after the eight-seeds are determined (ie geographical regions) you want FIFA to have a secret meeting and be allowed to use ideas such as "fun factor" to determine seeding? Hello easiest path ever to the final, Mr. next host of the World Cup. Whatever your problem with the current rankings, at least everyone knows how they're figured out. You want to give a bunch of administrators the freedom to rank teams as they please??? etc. includes giving the hosts a theoretically easy path to the final and making the opposite break likely to see huge sell-out generating matches that would knock out early favorites. What's wrong with that? What's so bad about how it's currently done???
i'm not claiming the way it is done now is bad. it's just fine, although imperfect. this thread is for people to talk about how they'd like to do it, if they were in control. bad groups always happen at the world cup and what if there's another way to put teams in groups in a more fair way? for example, i don't like that saudi arabia and costa rica could end up in the same group. why? because they are both in the worst eight of the tournament. i also don't understand how seeded 4 groups of 8 would make it easier for the hosts. they'd still have it as bad as any other group since all groups would have a 1-4 seeded team. at todays world cup groups might be made up of one 1 seed, two 2 seeds, and one 3 seed, i.e., a group of death.
That's what they do... Except for the fun factor. Fifa abolished fun in 1958. The top 8 seeds are based on current ranking and past WC and National competition performances. Chances are, the Czech Republic would scrape a seeding position, Spain maybe not, as too the Mexicans or Americans for that matter. Which is what happens. Normally the bigboys don't all meet to till the quarters, semis and finals any how. They did this for China by having their games in South Korea - but that was purely for travel reasons and at the bequest of the Chinese FA to FIFA. But whilst your hallmark moment is in good nature - sadly that just doesn't exist. And you are missing the entire point of a draw... It's based entirely on luck I don't buy a lottery ticket, in the hope that I will be picked because I have brown hair, live on a road that starts with the letter T and happen to like Hemingway.
Then, pray tell, what is perfect? 4 seeds 8 groups. Pure luck. That's about as perfect as it can be. Unless you believe that tossing a coin in the air, it will land on its side in due course. Bad groups happen because bad teams qualify. By that very definition. We can never have a group that satisfies everyone's criteria...But it depends on how you class a bad team. One may think that Costa Rica is better than Saudi Arabia - some not. If you judge eachteam on its own merits. Nothing will be done about it. There is not much in the world of football to seperate two teams of equal footing apart. The seeding system is slightly flawed but it gives us a rough estimate. And that's the only thing we can do. Is make an estimate. We cannot pick and choose each group to make it seem more salacious to its audience... EDIT: I just realised what you put... jesus christ... I thought you put something stupidly and mathematically incorrect - but it was just stupid.
I find this whole thread ironic as I've always thought the NCAA was whack for how they determine the college basketball brackets each March.
Count me among those who think the way they do 1 seeds isn't too bad. I would kinda like there to be 2, 3, and 4 seeds, and I wouldn't mind a re-seed for the elimination rounds (with a proviso that if you won your group you can't be ranked lower than the team who qualified beneath you, even if that team was Brazil). Other than that, it's not so bad. I like that it's pretty transparent.
Logically I'd bet auf Amerika would be more than happy for ALL 32 teams to be seeded 1- 32 at all stages of the finals, quarters & semi's. Auf, why not just do the secret seedings, forget about the WC Finals Tournament and just hand over the WC Title to the #1 seed ??? This would save us all the time, money, effort, etc, investing in conducting such a "meaningless endeavour".
so you guys are saying that Coastal Carolina is as good as Duke? Saudi Arabia i guess is as good as Brazil. you people are pathetic and for the most part haven't even read what i've said. fifa does what it does out of experience, because when they did the political thing it sucked and people complained. how they pick 1 seeds is a good formula. all i wanted from this thread was for people to talk about how they would want the 32 teams grouped. do you ********ing understand that people? i am not saying fifa should do it this way. i'm asking how would you do it. do you understand that? ********ing read what i wrote. saudi arabia shouldn't play in the world cup cause they suck really bad. costa rica, who isn't a bad team, isn't a good team and could play in the same group with saudi arabia. i don't want to watch that. is that such a bad thing?