WC06 Seeding Formula :: Updated April 20, 2005

eldiablito · Sep 1, 2004

The new FIFA/coke rankings have come out so here are the new seeding formula results. For those who have been following along, there are no surprises. For those just joining, you may consider getting acquainted to the linked threads at the bottom of this post.

63.67 Brazil
51.17 Spain
50.17 Germany
47.17 Italy
47.00 England
46.00 Argentina
45.83 Mexico
45.67 France
________________
41.67 Netherlands
41.00 USA
39.17 Denmark
36.50 Turkey

original long thread here:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87489

last month's thread here:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128278

Unlike other threads, trolls and flames are actively encouraged

Discuss.

ursula · Sep 1, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

Okay, I'll bite:

Considering that no one from Virginia can form a coherent sentence, I ask you: who really has been writing these "WC06 seeding formula threads?"

But seriously, can you give us the most likely scenario in your opinion of any of the countries in the top eight losing their seeded status (other than not qualifying of course)? How how likely might that scenario be? (My guess is that most scenarios are highly unlikely.)

PaulGascoigne · Sep 1, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

This is based more on musty stuff in my attic than anything current or fresh, but from my experience reading on here, WC seedings are based on a number of things, of which ranking is only one. Past WC performance, for instance, not to mention the fact that if the host country (unfortunately last time "countries") is not in the top 8 then one country will have to give up their seed by definition. Correct me if this sounds off.

I'd be willing to bet any amt. of money that if the US is ranked #8 (as opposed to 4,5,6, or 7) in the world the week seeds are determined that we for sure DO NOT get in (although I will weasel out and say that of course this also is affected by who is above us and who is not), whether Germany is in the top 8 at that time or not. I'd really be willing to bet a lot of cash that both Mexico and USA aren't top seeds irrespective of how they rank/play.

Sure, if we get up to #3 (either statistically impossible or merely highly improbable) we'd be in there as a seeded country.

I'll await the experts' comments.

eldiablito · Sep 1, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

ursula said:

Okay, I'll bite:

Considering that no one from Virginia can form a coherent sentence, I ask you: who really has been writing these "WC06 seeding formula threads?"

Click to expand...

I not know what yous speaks of. I'm Virginia born and breaded.

ursula said:

But seriously, can you give us the most likely scenario in your opinion of any of the countries in the top eight losing their seeded status (other than not qualifying of course)? How how likely might that scenario be? (My guess is that most scenarios are highly unlikely.)
Click to expand...

Well, you're right.
It's highly unlikely that any of those teams lose their seeding unless they actually fail to qualify.

BRAZIL a lock if they qualify and that's really no surprise to anyone.

SPAIN is surprisingly very high in the seeding formula despite their history of choking in big tournaments. For them to lose their seed they need to fall to 14 in FIFAs coke rankings and stay there until November 2005. Because they have such a cushion in those rankings, it's almost more likely that they don't qualify from their group than fall to 14. It would be easier for them to lose their spot to Belgium or S&M than to tank completely and drop to 14.

GERMANY is a moot issue as they're ensured a seed due to hosting in '06.

ITALY also needs to fall to 14 to give up their seed. They don't have as far to drop as Spain--which is kind of possible given how Italy plays. (I don't say that to knock them, it's just that tying games and winning by 1 goal margins doesn't give a team a lot of points in the rankings). Personally, I think Italy is in an incredibly weak group--it's just that they never completely dominate their opponents. If they have a few slip-ups in qualifying (like their recent friendly against Iceland), then it's possible to see them lose their spot.

ENGLAND is a pretty solid lock this time around for a seed (imo). If they fall to 12 then they're vulnerable, but I have a hard time seeing them botch this qualifying group--of course I could reevaluate that opinion after this weekend's games. In other words, I'd be more surprised to see England drop to 12 than Italy dropping to 14.

ARGENTINA was in a precarious position before their Copa America. Still, if they fall to #8 then they'll be in a vulnerable position. Considering the talent Argentina has, that outcome shouldn't even be a possibility. However, Bielsa may be just the man to do that. I'm guessing that if he keeps Tevez in the linel-up that won't happen.

MEXICO may have a momentary slip in the rankings because their current qualifying opponents are so weak. However, they stand in a much better situation than most of the other teams. By winning the Gold Cup they will get the benefit of more ranking points by playing in the Confederations Cup next June. They also need to drop to number 12 to become vulnerable, and I'd be very surprised if they get there.

FRANCE is really only in this group because of their FIFA/coke ranking. Besides winning France'98, they've done nothing remarkable in the last 3 world cups. Their seeding will be very vulnerable if they drop to #5 in the rankings. As it looks, they have a comfortable lead in those rankings and an extremely easy qualifying group. However, it's obvious they're now in a period of rebuilding (Zidane et al. retiring), so if they struggle in qualifying they might slip in those rankings.

Bottom line is that if these teams dominate their qualifying groups like they should, they should have no problem maintaining their seeds. However, the ones that struggle during qualifying will be the ones that put their seeds in jeopardy.

I'd look to France, Italy, and Argentina as the teams most likely to screw up, but even then I wouldn't bet on it.

USA and Holland still have to completely destroy their qualifying groups to overtake the bunch.

ursula · Sep 1, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

eldiablito said:

Bottom line is that if these teams dominate their qualifying groups like they should, they should have no problem maintaining their seeds. However, the ones that struggle during qualifying will be the ones that put their seeds in jeopardy.

I'd look to France, Italy, and Argentina as the teams most likely to screw up, but even then I wouldn't bet on it.

USA and Holland still have to completely destroy their qualifying groups to overtake the bunch.
Click to expand...

Cool. So if there is to be a screw up in the top eight are the US and Holland really the only two who have a realistic chance to take advantage? I guess what I'm asking is how far down in the seeding rankings can one go before you'd say that a certain team either is actually mathematically eliminated right now or (another possibility) said team needs so much to go right for them that they really have no chance? Like does Turkey have any sane chance given that not only at least one of the top eight have to have Biesla as coach (fun to just casually rip into someone, ain't it?) and also Holland, Denmark, and USA all have to play poorly also?

eldiablito · Sep 2, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

ursula said:

Cool. So if there is to be a screw up in the top eight are the US and Holland really the only two who have a realistic chance to take advantage? I guess what I'm asking is how far down in the seeding rankings can one go before you'd say that a certain team either is actually mathematically eliminated right now or (another possibility) said team needs so much to go right for them that they really have no chance? Like does Turkey have any sane chance given that not only at least one of the top eight have to have Biesla as coach (fun to just casually rip into someone, ain't it?) and also Holland, Denmark, and USA all have to play poorly also?
Click to expand...

Good question.

Basically, yeah. USA and Holland are really the only teams to have an outside chance of capitalizing on one of the 8 teams screwing up.

I think the chances of one of the teams to screw up would be classified as "unlikely."

For two of those teams to tank, well that would probably be more like "slim to none."

Naturally, the odds get much worse for three teams. (Even so, Denmark and Turkey are so far behind).

Given all that, USA and Holland are neck and neck for the 9th slot. Denmark has an outside chance of improvement if they can destroy their qualifying group--which again, seems unlikely considering Denmark is in a period of rebuilding and in a rather tough qualifying group (Turkey, Greece). Turkey's chances are realistically eliminated.

eldiablito · Sep 2, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

PaulGascoigne said:

This is based more on musty stuff in my attic than anything current or fresh, but from my experience reading on here, WC seedings are based on a number of things, of which ranking is only one. Past WC performance, for instance, not to mention the fact that if the host country (unfortunately last time "countries") is not in the top 8 then one country will have to give up their seed by definition. Correct me if this sounds off.
Click to expand...

Correct so far.

PaulGascoigne said:

I'd be willing to bet any amt. of money that if the US is ranked #8 (as opposed to 4,5,6, or 7) in the world the week seeds are determined that we for sure DO NOT get in (although I will weasel out and say that of course this also is affected by who is above us and who is not), whether Germany is in the top 8 at that time or not. I'd really be willing to bet a lot of cash that both Mexico and USA aren't top seeds irrespective of how they rank/play.

Sure, if we get up to #3 (either statistically impossible or merely highly improbable) we'd be in there as a seeded country.

I'll await the experts' comments.
Click to expand...

You're not the only one who holds that opinion. One of the reasons for having this thread (and those that preceded it) are to track the seeds--and see if FIFA upholds it. If FIFA decides the formula they've used for the last two world cups suddenly needs changing (due to Mexico warranting a seed), well all conspiracy theorists can pat themselves on the back for their perceived omniscience. Don't worry, I include myself in that lot.

As far as the seeding formula goes, this is it exactly.

Part A=[1(wc performance94) + 2(wcp98) + 3(wcp02)]/6

Part B=(FIFA ranking 12/03 + FIFA ranking 12/04 + FIFA ranking 11/05)/3

Add Part A to Part B=GRAND TOTAL

For example, Argentina:
Part A [1(23) + 2(27) + 3(9)]/6=17.33
Part B (28+29+29)/3=28.67

17.33+28.67=GRAND TOTAL 46.00

Sagy · Sep 3, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

eldiablito said:

63.67 Brazil
51.17 Spain
50.17 Germany
47.17 Italy
47.00 England
46.00 Argentina
45.83 Mexico
45.67 France
________________
41.67 Netherlands
41.00 USA
39.17 Denmark
36.50 Turkey
Click to expand...

eldiablito,

I have been keeping track of the WC06 seeding myself, however I get different scores for three teams:
Code:
Team        WC94   WC98   WC02    Ave     Rank03 Rank04 Rank05  Ave   Total 
Mexico      13(20) 13(40) 11(66)  21.00    7(26)  8(25)  8(25)  25.33 46.33  
Netherlands  6(27)  4(58) nq( 0)  14.17    4(29)  6(27)  6(27)  27.67 41.83 
Denmark     nq(	0)  8(50) 10(69)  19.83	  13(20) 15(18) 15(18)  18.67 38.50 

Using Sep 2004 FIFA ranking for Rank04 and Rank05
Do you have any idea why I'm getting different results for these three teams? On all the other teams we have identical results.

As far as who will be the seeded teams. In the past FIFA has done it by a "committee", if memory serves me right:

1994 - Last 3 World cup results were used (no FIFA ranking).

1998 - Last 3 world cup results and FIFA ranking all weighted equally.

2002 - Last 3 world cup results and FIFA ranking, World Cups weighted 3:2:1.

As you can see the formula changes every time. I predict that the change for 2006 is to use the last four world cups all weighted equally. Why? Because the result would be:
Code:
   Team            Total
 1 Brazil          61.75
 2 Spain           51.25
 3 Argentina       51.17
 4 Germany         50.58
 5 Italy           50.42
 6 Netherlands     46.42
 7 England         45.50
 8 France          41.00
--------------------------
 9 Mexico          40.83
10 USA             37.67
11 Czech Republic  34.67
12 Rep of Ireland  32.92
13 Denmark         30.67
As long as France gains 12 places (6 each year) on Mexico in the FIFA ranking they will be above Mexico and FIFA will have a reason not to give Mexico or the USA a top seed.

eldiablito · Sep 3, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04
Sagy said:
eldiablito,

I have been keeping track of the WC06 seeding myself, however I get different scores for three teams:
Code:
Team        WC94   WC98   WC02    Ave     Rank03 Rank04 Rank05  Ave   Total 
Mexico      13(20) 13(40) 11(66)  21.00    7(26)  8(25)  8(25)  25.33 46.33  
Netherlands  6(27)  4(58) nq( 0)  14.17    4(29)  6(27)  6(27)  27.67 41.83 
Denmark     nq(	0)  8(50) 10(69)  19.83	  13(20) 15(18) 15(18)  18.67 38.50 

Using Sep 2004 FIFA ranking for Rank04 and Rank05
Do you have any idea why I'm getting different results for these three teams? On all the other teams we have identical results.
Click to expand...
Okay, sit down for a second as this explanation will be a lengthy one.

First country first.

MEXICO
Holy sh!t! It appears I have had an error all this time. I believe your numbers to be correct, but we shall see from our fellow geeks once I adopt your Mexico numbers if I was right all along.

(I got my original numbers for the last WC from an official-looking ranking list that was published in July '02 giving each team its "place." It listed Ireland as 11 and Mexico as 12, but it really should be the other way around. You'll see how this change has effected the current seeding results.)

63.67 Brazil
51.17 Spain
50.17 Germany
47.17 Italy
47.00 England
46.33 Mexico
46.00 Argentina
45.67 France

Obviously, it gives Mexico an even more secure spot.

Okay. Second country in question.

DENMARK
The error this time is yours. And this is a bit complicated. Denmark is in the same qualifying group as Turkey #13, and Greece#14. Only two of those three teams can possibly qualify. In your formula you probably gave Turkey 20 points and Greece 19 points. Well to run the formula as if Denmark qualified, you have to take away either Turkey's or Greece's points--giving Denmark 19 points for both 2004 and 2005.

Last country.
NETHERLANDS
This time I'm quite sure I'm right. Your rank for wc94 is wrong. You have them as 6th as opposed to 7th. Romania is really 6th that year by virtue of losing on penalties--hence actually tying/drawing the game.
Sagy said:
As far as who will be the seeded teams. In the past FIFA has done it by a "committee", if memory serves me right:

1994 - Last 3 World cup results were used (no FIFA ranking).

1998 - Last 3 world cup results and FIFA ranking all weighted equally.

2002 - Last 3 world cup results and FIFA ranking, World Cups weighted 3:2:1.

As you can see the formula changes every time. I predict that the change for 2006 is to use the last four world cups all weighted equally. Why? Because the result would be:
Code:
   Team            Total
 1 Brazil          61.75
 2 Spain           51.25
 3 Argentina       51.17
 4 Germany         50.58
 5 Italy           50.42
 6 Netherlands     46.42
 7 England         45.50
 8 France          41.00
--------------------------
 9 Mexico          40.83
10 USA             37.67
11 Czech Republic  34.67
12 Rep of Ireland  32.92
13 Denmark         30.67
As long as France gains 12 places (6 each year) on Mexico in the FIFA ranking they will be above Mexico and FIFA will have a reason not to give Mexico or the USA a top seed.
Click to expand...
First, as far as I can remember--and I wish I could pull up the explanation of the seeds for '02 because it was clear there--the formula for '02 was identical to '98.

On your possible seeding formula--doing FIFA's dirty work--good job!

Seriously though, FIFA has never awarded a seed to a team that did not qualify for the previous world cup. If they give a seed to Netherlands, they will break that precedent--which was the explanation to England as to why Romania was awarded a seed in '98. England was absent in '94.

So I see it as just as likely that Mexico get a seed, but we shall see.

Sagy · Sep 3, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

eldiablito,

Thanks for the quick answer.

eldiablito said:

DENMARK
The error this time is yours. And this is a bit complicated. Denmark is in the same qualifying group as Turkey #13, and Greece#14. Only two of those three teams can possibly qualify. In your formula you probably gave Turkey 20 points and Greece 19 points. Well to run the formula as if Denmark qualified, you have to take away either Turkey's or Greece's points--giving Denmark 19 points for both 2004 and 2005.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are 100% correct.

eldiablito said:

Last country.
NETHERLANDS
This time I'm quite sure I'm right. Your rank for wc94 is wrong. You have them as 6th as opposed to 7th. Romania is really 6th that year by virtue of losing on penalties--hence actually tying/drawing the game.
Click to expand...

You are correct again. That's what I get for "trusting" my excel blindly (I had them both 3:0:2 with Netherlands +2 (8-6) and Romania +0.9 (10.4-9.5)). Romania should have been 3:1:1.

eldiablito said:

First, as far as I can remember--and I wish I could pull up the explanation of the seeds for '02 because it was clear there--the formula for '02 was identical to '98.
Click to expand...

The only information I can find now about 1998 seeding is The seeded teams were determined upon a combination of two factors, namely the finalist teams’ performance in the past three World Cup finals, and their position over the past three years in the monthly FIFA/Coca-Cola Ranking. The Committee noted that a number of different variations of such a calculation all resulted in the same teams being foremost in the seedings. It might be that I remember it wrong.

eldiablito said:

On your possible seeding formula--doing FIFA's dirty work--good job!
Click to expand...

They have rejected all my ideas so far, I hope that they reject this one as well.

eldiablito said:

Seriously though, FIFA has never awarded a seed to a team that did not qualify for the previous world cup. If they give a seed to Netherlands, they will break that precedent--which was the explanation to England as to why Romania was awarded a seed in '98. England was absent in '94.
Click to expand...

You might very well be right, I didn't run the numbers. If you look at the years in question you get:
Code:
FIFA ranking: 
     Rom   Eng 
95   11     21 
96   16     12
97    5      6
World Cup: 
     Rom   Eng 
86    -      8 (using a quick scan of the results)
90    9      4 (using a quick scan of the results)
94    6      - 
This looks close (if weightings are not used), but I think that Romania is ahead.

eldiablito · Oct 6, 2004

WC06 seeding formula--updated to 10/06/04

For those following along, last month's qualifiers provided some minor ripples.

63.67 Brazil
50.50 Spain
49.17 Germany
47.50 Italy
47.00 England
46.67 Argentina
45.67 France
45.00 Mexico
_______________
42.33 Netherlands
40.33 USA
38.50 Denmark
37.17 Turkey

As you can see, the seeded countries have remained the same with some changing positions among themselves. Still however, they clearly have a sizeable lead among the teams chasing them.

Most notable is that Netherlands is distancing itself from the USA--in the chance that one of the "seeded" teams fails to qualify.

dna77054 · Oct 6, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

Is there any hard formula on what determines WC finals rank. E.G. concerning Mex and IRE, both went out the same stage, one in PKs and one with a loss, but IIRC (at least lets assume for me question) Mex had a better first round record. So would they look at method of elimination in the same round or look at the total records of the teams.

NoSix · Oct 6, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

dna77054 said:

Is there any hard formula on what determines WC finals rank. E.G. concerning Mex and IRE, both went out the same stage, one in PKs and one with a loss, but IIRC (at least lets assume for me question) Mex had a better first round record. So would they look at method of elimination in the same round or look at the total records of the teams.
Click to expand...

I believe it is points, goal differential, and goals for, in that order (when comparing teams eliminated at the same stage).

eldiablito · Oct 6, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

dna77054 said:

Is there any hard formula on what determines WC finals rank. E.G. concerning Mex and IRE, both went out the same stage, one in PKs and one with a loss, but IIRC (at least lets assume for me question) Mex had a better first round record. So would they look at method of elimination in the same round or look at the total records of the teams.
Click to expand...

For determining WC finals rank, it's easiest to go top-down. The top four spaces are pretty obvious. However, to determine fifth through eighth place, it is decided by total records during the tournament--3 points for each win and 1 point for each tie (keep in mind that losing by PK's is considered a tie). The same is applied for teams 9th through 16th. All teams that finish thrid in their group are considered tied and teams that finish last in their group are considered tied.

dna77054 · Oct 6, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

eldiablito said:

For determining WC finals rank, it's easiest to go top-down. The top four spaces are pretty obvious. However, to determine fifth through eighth place, it is decided by total records during the tournament--3 points for each win and 1 point for each tie (keep in mind that losing by PK's is considered a tie). The same is applied for teams 9th through 16th. All teams that finish thrid in their group are considered tied and teams that finish last in their group are considered tied.
Click to expand...

That does sound like the best way to do it. Only possible unfair situation I could see is a team going 3 wins in the first round and out in PK is second round finishing behind a 1-1-1 first round team that wins second round PKs and is KO's in third round. But I suppose that is a matter of opinion and an somewhat rare scenario. So if the above is true, that would be really about as fair as it could be.

eldiablito · Oct 6, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

dna77054 said:

That does sound like the best way to do it. Only possible unfair situation I could see is a team going 3 wins in the first round and out in PK is second round finishing behind a 1-1-1 first round team that wins second round PKs and is KO's in third round. But I suppose that is a matter of opinion and an somewhat rare scenario. So if the above is true, that would be really about as fair as it could be.
Click to expand...

You must admit, it would be hard to argue that a team making the quarterfinals as worse than a team not advancing past the round of 16. At that point, it becomes increasingly subjective.

dna77054 · Oct 7, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

eldiablito said:

You must admit, it would be hard to argue that a team making the quarterfinals as worse than a team not advancing past the round of 16. At that point, it becomes increasingly subjective.
Click to expand...

Not quite that hard for me. One team as 10 points and one has 5 points. If total points are good enough to differentiate within a round, why not include it to differentiate between PK winners and PK loosers.

But yes I agree that it gets quite subjective depending on one's standards. Upon further thought it would seem that in my scenario the QF team would be ranked 8 anyway and the R16 team would end up #9 under the current format, which put them very close together as they should be. It doubt that it would ever matter in the long run.

mfw13 · Nov 4, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

bump

eldiablito · Nov 4, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

mfw13 said:

bump
Click to expand...

Instead of the usual 4 weeks in between FIFA rankings--this time there is 5 weeks. (FIFA will announce November's rankings next Wednesday, the 10th).
Therefore, it'll be another week before I post the update.

Incidentally, December's rankings won't come out until just before Christmas--so it'll be another long wait.

Eric B · Nov 4, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

eldiablito said:

Incidentally, December's rankings won't come out until just before Christmas--so it'll be another long wait.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it will during their executive meetings on the 15-17. That is when they'll conduct the draw for the CONCACAF Hex and, I'd imagine, the Asian 2nd round.

EvanJ · Nov 5, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,4,00.html says rankings will be posted December 20, 2004 but it also says rankings are posted on Wednesdays and that date is a Monday.

kingjackdaniel · Nov 5, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

As far as the seeding formula goes, this is it exactly.

Part A=[1(wc performance94) + 2(wcp98) + 3(wcp02)]/6

Part B=(FIFA ranking 12/03 + FIFA ranking 12/04 + FIFA ranking 11/05)/3

Add Part A to Part B=GRAND TOTAL

For example, Argentina:
Part A [1(23) + 2(27) + 3(9)]/6=17.33
Part B (28+29+29)/3=28.67

17.33+28.67=GRAND TOTAL 46.00[/QUOTE]

Very Cool, thanks for explaining how the rankings are calculated. I had just assumed it was like College Football(American) rankings.

eldiablito · Nov 10, 2004

WC06 seeding formula--updated to 11/10/04

Okay, so this is the penultimate update for 2004. Next month's FIFA rankings are the ones that really matter as those numbers get banked--and five sixths of the formula will be known. As you can see, however, very little has changed this month so it's not likely that much changes next month.

Incidentally, we are one year away from the final ranking before the draw for the world cup in Germany.

Here are the numbers:

63.67 Brazil
50.50 Spain
47.17 Germany
47.00 England
46.67 Argentina
46.50 Italy
46.00 Mexico
45.67 France
__________________
41.67 Netherlands
40.33 USA
39.83 Denmark
37.17 Turkey

As you can see, the seeds are still firmly ahead of the rest of the pack. Jockeying for 9th place is crucial, however, as that country should become seeded if any of the top 8 teams fails to qualify for Germany'06.

galaxyfan03 · Nov 10, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

USA seems to be in a very favorable position but not sure what it means in the whole scheme of things.

If we finish 9th or 10th, does that mean that our draw will be VERY "generous" in terms of opponents & more difficult??

As long as we continue to win (or, not lose) & have a very successful Hex, we should get a decent draw for Germany 2006 IMHO.

Eric B · Nov 10, 2004

Re: WC06 seeding formula--updated to 09/01/04

galaxyfan03 said:

If we finish 9th or 10th, does that mean that our draw will be VERY "generous" in terms of opponents & more difficult??
Click to expand...

No, if the US isn't one of the top eight seeds, then we get just a normal draw that CONCACAF teams. would get. There's no advantage to being the Best of the Rest.