Recent Comments

This sport hasnt been about the fans for 40+ years if ever.

Would not be a bad choice in my opinion. Did well in baseball, football tbd, but he's already got Franklin locked up. Basketball would be a big question since I think MY probably is close to his exit.

Also begs the question of how his role will really look. Is it going to be hiring/firing coaches, and how involved will he be with Hokie Ventures (beyond what they put on paper)

Since they are eliminated, even if they won 12-0 they wouldn't qualify. They are done. No tie-breaker would get them into the knock-outs. They would have been eliminated under the previous tie-breaker rules as well.

Mexico beat South Korea. If Mexico loses the last match and SK wins, Mexico should win the group. (3 goals in hand)
US beat Australia. Ditto. (5 goals in hand)
Germany beat Ivory Coast. Ditto. (7 goals in hand)
Argentina beat Austria. Ditto. (5 goals in hand)
Other to be determined....
Yeah, the head to head already determined the winner of those group, but do we think anything would be different with them if goal differential were the determining factor? You think it would change any of this in 5 days?

If you assume those that have wrapped up their group would go on and win the 3rd match, it's a moot point. But does show that the field is watered down to some extent with those goal differentials. There were more opportunities to win matches against lower ranked opponents. Some ties and a few wins by the underdog, but not enough to tip the scales. I mean we're headed into a knock-out tournament with the same number of teams that were in the entire thing 4 years ago. Point being, the tie breaker isn't going to make much of any difference except maybe 1 or 2 2nd/3rd place finishers. And both will be moving on.

This makes the last games matter for more teams than previously for seeding

Here's where I completely disagree. And, I hope you're right, and I guess we'll see, but I think the opposite is true.

Case in point - Turkiye. Because of the h2h tiebreak rule, they are completely eliminated after two games. They have 0 points and sit squarely at the bottom of group D. However, they have one more game to play. If not for having already been eliminated, they could conceivably sneak into 3rd place by beating the US IF Australia beats Paraguay by 2 goals. Now, the first part of that equation is unlikely (unless the US rests players since they are thru, regardless) but the second part is very possible. Turkiye could play their best game of the tournament against the US, win 2-0 and watch Paraguay lose to Australia 3-1 and all of a sudden they are in 3rd place with 3 points and an outside shot at advancing. But with the h2h rule, they are completely eliminated, regardless of outcomes. They have no way of jumping either Australia or Ecuador on GD/GF because they have lost both of those matches h2h. In all likelihood, the US, Mexico, Germany, Argentina, Colombia and England will all have wrapped up their groups by the end of game 2. All of those teams are likely to rest players in their final match. Great for them. Unfair for the other teams in the group that have to play for 3rd.

According to google:

FIFA changed the primary group-stage tiebreaker to head-to-head records instead of overall goal difference to bring the tournament in line with UEFA, better handle the expanded 48-team format, and discourage teams from running up the score against weaker opponents

UEFA Championship format is a lot different so it's a weird reason to cite. In UEFA the groups are bigger and the round-robin format is closer to league play, where each team plays each of their opponents twice, once on the road, once at home.

I'm not sure how changing the tie-break rules "better handles the expanded 48-team format." That part is, obviously, debatable. The only part of this tournament that is substantially different (aside from the number of teams) is that now you have 2/3 of the third place teams also advancing. But h2h doesn't really come into play when ranking those top 8 3rd place teams since none of them play each other. It's kind of a meaningless metric for the only real change to the tournament format from previous versions.

This new format hasn't stopped Germany (7-1) or Netherlands (5-1) from blowing out their opponents. I think 1) the idea that the gd/gf format incentivizes teams to blow out weaker opponents is way overblown and 2) nothing about the tie-break rule is going to change whether or not teams blow out weaker opponents (see Germany v. Curacao)

The only incentive that changes with the new rule is that now teams can win their group in 2 matches and use the 3rd match to rest players. Sure, that's an advantage and reward to the strongest performing teams as they prepare for the grueling knock-outs - but it ultimately results in a lesser product for the fans. That third, meaningless game now has no bearing on the outcome of the group. If you love the drama and pageantry of the World Cup, as I do, you're losing a lot of that now. The 3rd match in every group is actually two matches that happen simultaneously so that non of the teams know what's going on in the other game. It heightens the pomp and circumstance of the whole group. The first two matches are the crescendo that erupts to a climax on the final day, where a number of possible score lines in the two games could result in various different group outcomes where teams land in different spots. It forces the teams to play their best soccer in all 3 matches. That is lost with the h2h tie-break rule. Good for the US (And Mexico, and Germany, and Argentina) who have locked up a spot in the r32 already (and will likely also be the case for Colombia and England if they both win their second match). What that means, though, is that the last group stage game is going to be meaningless for half of the tournament field and that's a real shame for the viewer.

Because 3rd place teams (8 of the 12) will advance. This makes the last games matter for more teams than previously for seeding. Before some teams could sleep-walk thru the 3rd game if already qualified or eliminated. With a greater opportunity to advance, they made it about the result on the pitch.

I think that's something we can ALL agree on.

all big IFs, but if Spain loses and CVI wins cards won't matter because CVI would be on 5 points along with Uruguay and they'd be top 2 (cards may come into play on which of those two is first) but Spain would still finish 3rd on points (which was the original assertion). Cards are irrelevant when it comes to Spain losing and CVI winning to put Spain in 3rd.

Can you imagine if you had to be a conference champ to get in the playoff? The SEC hand-wringing would be unbelieveable.

CVI would need to win by a larger margin than Uruguay. They are currently behind on yellow cards.

The past... IYKYK!

if there's a hill I'll die on, it's that they screwed up the playoff from the very start by not requiring a conference championship as a prerequisite for making it into the tournament field. By not doing so, they devalued the regular season. Now the only thing that matters is your brand name. If the committee thinks you deserve to be in, then you're in. Texas. Michigan. Ohio State. Alabama. Georgia. Notre Dame. Doesn't matter what they do on the field.