World Cup Stock Exchange

[Dauphin]

I was looking for some predictor sites for the World Cup and came across this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldcupdaq/

And the equivalent of an FAQ:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldcupdaq/howtoplay.shtml

Thought you guys might take a look and see, maybe register and joing the Apolyton League I created. I'm not quite sure how easy it is to join the Apolyton league - whether you just need a password or if, as I think, I have to add anyone who wants to join in manually. Just post your ID number and I can add you I think.

I'll start the World Cup predictor thread by this weekend too, in case anyone was interested.

[Spiffor]

For me, the world cup is going to mean crowded subways, and crowded brothels.

World cup

[Zkribbler]

Someone who should know, told me the U.S. is rated No. 4 Is that correct??

[Colon™]

It fell by 11% the past 24 hours though, while Holland rose almost 10%. Speaking of a volatile market.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Someone who should know, told me the U.S. is rated No. 4 Is that correct??

Thats because the ranking is meaningless, all the usa victories over crappy caribean island teams make their ranking too high, realistically they are between 10-15 behind Brazil, Italy, Argentina, England, Spain, Germany, Czech Repuplic, Portugal, Netherlands for sure.

[Zkribbler]

That sounds like the U.S.A. I know and love!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and in the FIFA rankings, the USA is actually 5th at present, IIRC.

[Barnabas]

Updated: May 24, 2006
FIFA to revamp world ranking system

Under the old scheme, the United States rose to No. 4 in April's rankings -- its highest ever position. The eye-popping rise occurred a few weeks after the Americans were routed 4-1 by World Cup host Germany.

"Maybe some guys were looking at that ranking a little bit too seriously," American goalkeeper Kasey Keller said after the loss.

The Americans have slipped slightly in the most recent poll, the last before the World Cup opens June 9, and are tied for fifth with Spain.

FIFA's new computer rankings, with new criteria to rate the world's top teams, will be released July 12, three days after the World Cup ends.

"We don't think it's that bad at all, but there is always room for improvement," FIFA spokesman Andreas Herren said.

How far out of kilter are the present rankings?

Few serious soccer fans would place the Americans in the world's top 10, possibly not even the top 15.

Under FIFA's present system, five world soccer powers are ranked behind the United States: France (No. 8), Argentina (9), England (10), Italy (13) and Germany (19).

The only teams ranked ahead of the United States in the May rankings were five-time World Cup champion Brazil, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Mexico.

Mexico's ranking also raises eyebrows. It probably should be ranked behind the Americans.

In the last 10 games between the two countries, the United States has won seven, including a 2-0 win in the second round of the 2002 World Cup. Mexico has two victories in that period.

Over a 20-game span dating back to 1994, the United States has beaten Mexico nine times, with the Mexicans winning seven. Four were draws.

Under the new ranking system, FIFA will take into account games played over the last four years. Under the old system, it counted results over the last eight.

Under FIFA's old computer ranking system, explained in 2,750 words on its Web site, it awarded team ranking points based on the importance of the games -- World Cup finals vs. friendly matches, for example -- the relative strength of the teams, goals scored and conceded home or away, etc.

The new system takes into account most of the same factors, but weighs them differently.

So why are the Americans and Mexicans so high in the present FIFA rankings?

Under the old system, FIFA gave the most weight to games in the World Cup, the continental championships and World Cup qualifiers.

The region in which the United States is grouped, CONCACAF, plays a continental championship every two years. In Europe, it's every four. In addition, CONCACAF plays almost 50 percent more World Cup qualifiers than the average European country.

Under the new system, FIFA will adjust for these factors -- and adjust more for the relatively weak CONCACAF group.

World Cup host Germany, which slipped to No. 19, also suffered under the old system. Because it qualified automatically for this World Cup, Germany played no qualifying games.

Egypt, the African Cup of Nations champion, is ranked two spots above Germany. Greece, the defending European champion, Tunisia, Uruguay and Iran are ranked right behind Germany.

In announcing its changes, FIFA assures the new system will be better.

"Transparency and simplicity, the key principles guiding the revision, have been combined with sporting criteria," FIFA said in a statement.

Soccer fans can only hope so.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the US and mexico are not in the first 15. not even in the top 25.

usa couldnt even beat morocco, a team NOT going to the world cup, in their own stadium.

mexico is crap if they dont play at 2500 meters in smog or against island nations with less people than mexico city.

all those african nations who didnt qualify for the world cup shouldnt be anywhere close to the top 20.

france should not be in the top 10 and isnt a football powerhouse, seeing how they havnt done anything since 2000. (namely crash and burn in both world cup 2002 and euro 2004, didnt score a goal at home until the last three games of world cup 2006 qualifing.


iran, switzerland, cote divoire, ukraine should be ranked in the top 20.

i seem to remember that serbia scored a bagfull of goals during qualifying and they beat spain i think? then they should be in the top 25.

you guys read luis bueno, hes got a column on si soccer i think. his latest is called 'mexico is so deep, it could field two teams at the world cup that can advance'

dude must be smoking the yerba buena.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and in the FIFA rankings, the USA is actually 5th at present, IIRC.

So? The FIFA rankings make the BCS look like a perfect system.

Only reason is because they beat up on the teams in the CONCACAF region, allowing them to go to more World Cups, which in turn counts as a competitive game, inflating their ranking. When good teams miss out on the WC, e.g. Nigeria, their ranking suffers for 8 years while all the US needs to do to qualify is simply turn up to their games. Even with regional weighting, the success of those countries in almost every regional tournament makes them look stronger than they really are.

The FIFA rankings basically work on the principle that you can only beat who you play, and in the US's case they pretty much beat everyone because their region is so desperately ****e.