Recent Comments

I won't go as far as saying Cam was the GOAT, but we absolutely win a natty with him, yes

I think the sporting merit aspect is a reward for the best team H2H. It allows them to protect their competitive lineup by not risking an additional yellow card that leads to a suspension in the first game after group stage. Yellow cards reset after group stage.

Second and Third place teams are forced to take the risk to secure a top 2/3rds finish.

What about inland fishing?
I like reading you guys reporting, I just don't get the opportunity to fish the past few years.

Yes.

As are we all ... I wish.

Yes, him and Vince Young

I get the logic here but I disagree and here's why.

Firstly, with 2 teams advancing out of each group (guaranteed) and a 3rd team advancing from 66% of the groups, "penalizing" teams for "not scoring enough against common opponents" is essentially moot. If you were trying to crown the best team in each group, sure, h2h makes sense. But that's not really the point. You're really trying to weed out the worst teams, not anoint the best ones. That's why you get 2/3 teams from each group advancing. If you wanted only the best team in each group to advance, h2h suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Secondly, If multiple teams could potentially end on the same number of points after the final result of the last match, making the h2h tie-break the first tie-break removes the mystery and intrigue of those last games being played simultaneously. Turkiye is a great example. Because the tie-break is h2h they know that they are eliminated and they have nothing but pride to play for. However, if tie-break was based on goal differential and goals-for instead, then they have something to play for. Granted, it's a long shot, but if they are able to get a win against the US, and one of Paraguay or Australia lose, then it comes down to GD. If Turkiye is able to win by 2 goals and, say Australia loses by a goal or more, then Turkiye jumps them in the table. Sucks for Australia, but that gives Australia something to play for in their third game as well.

Thirdly, this is a tournament for the fans. The fan experience is a lot better when the teams still have everything to play for. Sure, it might be unlikely that Turkiye will win by enough goals and that one of Australia/Paraguay lose by enough goals but the fact that it's possible motivates all of those teams to play their best soccer on the last day of group stage. That's a win for the fans. The US Turkiye game is going to be boring for us now because it's essentially a meaningless friendly for both sides. Neither side gains or loses anything of substance from the game. It shouldn't be that way. Even if a team loses a game they perhaps shouldn't, they shouldn't be eliminated from the tournament before they even play their last game. They should still have something to play for and hope for the best as they find out where the chips fall.

Fourth, the point isn't to get the teams perfectly ranked coming out of each group. Naturally, you'll get the best teams winning their groups, and the worst teams losing their groups, regardless of how many goals are scored or who they are scored against. But the middle teams are where all the fun lies. I actually like this expanded version because it means that a lot of 3rd place teams still advance. But it's not guaranteed, so even though a lot of teams will finish 3rd and advance, every team that has a shot at 2nd in their group is going to be playing for 2nd to remove doubt/chance. It's kind of brilliant. But it works best if every team has something to play for in their last match. In a group where 3 teams could potentially finish on 3 points, you want those teams fighting tooth and nail for every possible chance to get into the 3rd place slot and keep their tournament dreams alive. We're losing that in the case of Turkiye and that's a bad thing for the tournament, IMO.

Also, There are advantages to placing first rather than second in your group. If you have 6 points and there are two other teams with 3 points, you can't just rest on your laurels even if you've beaten those teams. You still need to make sure you get at least a point from the last match to make sure you finish top. It would suck, for example, for the US, if we rested our starters and trotted out our bench warmers in the last game and lose because we know we're through but then Paraguay trounces Australia 3-0 or something and then they draw us on points but have a higher GD so they jump us in the group. Then we're stuck playing another 2nd place team rather than a 3rd place team.

H2h tie-breaks make sense if you're trying to figure out which teams are actually best. But to me, group stage isn't about figuring out which teams are best. Group stage is about weeding out the weakest teams. France lost their first game in group stage but ended up winning the whole tournament. 4 years later, Argentina lost their first game in group stage and then went on to win the whole thing. Group stage isn't about finding the best team. Group stage is about getting the worst teams knocked out and then letting everyone else play for the tittle. The knockouts are about finding the best team. There are no ties in the knockouts.

Group stage tie-breaks should be on GD and GF before H2H because that's the only way to avoid meaningless games. At least 50% of the final stage matches are going to be meaningless because so many teams will already know they are finishing in first place or last place regardless of the final match outcomes. That's going to set up lots of boring ho-hum soccer which sucks for the fans.

Wait, youre saying ths guy that dresses like this:

Liked this:

We could've won a natty with him. I truly think he was the best college football player of all time.

Thus, my handle on TKP.

Agreed any 4 team round robin should always be H2H first, especially they expanded the tournament and each group will likely have a worse than typical team.

I met Antonio at a Hokie football game before. He was a nice guy.