- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ok, the Spain GOAT talk needs to stop IMMEDIATELY
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:19 pm to igoringa
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:19 pm to igoringa
This was your statement:
Since the WC transitioned to 32 teams, Europe has dominated.
And my point is that the quality of teams is diluted in a pool of 32 teams (as I have already indicated).
For example:
In the last world cup, 50% of teams at the first knockout stage were teams ranked 15 or lower. Furthermore, 31% were ranked 30 or lower.
Once the WC entered the round of 8, there were 2 teams ranked 30 or lower. At the same stage in the Euros, there were 2 teams ranked 15 or lower. The point being: once both tournaments are compared side by side at the same stage, they are almost level in terms of competition. BUT it is easier to get to that stage at the WC than the Euros.
But forget about it. I know you won't change your mind.
quote:
If Europe dominated the wc, I would be more sympathetic to the argument, but historically it is basically a 50/50 split.
Since the WC transitioned to 32 teams, Europe has dominated.
quote:
The essence of my argument is a tournament that a game elimination format will always be more difficult if you have more of the best teams in the world.
And my point is that the quality of teams is diluted in a pool of 32 teams (as I have already indicated).
For example:
In the last world cup, 50% of teams at the first knockout stage were teams ranked 15 or lower. Furthermore, 31% were ranked 30 or lower.
Once the WC entered the round of 8, there were 2 teams ranked 30 or lower. At the same stage in the Euros, there were 2 teams ranked 15 or lower. The point being: once both tournaments are compared side by side at the same stage, they are almost level in terms of competition. BUT it is easier to get to that stage at the WC than the Euros.
But forget about it. I know you won't change your mind.
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 8:21 pm
2
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:21 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
quote:
it is easier to get to that stage at the WC than the Euros.
I really thought everyone knew this.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:22 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
I really thought everyone knew this.
Tell me about it.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:23 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
I really thought everyone knew this.
This is the point that I claimed as my opinion that made me "full of shite". I mean, I don't claim to be an expert, but I feel that way. The statistics support that. Statistics also don't count for a team who has an incredible tournament, such as Greece in 2004, because statistics are there to get the normal behavior.
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:33 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
quote:
Once the WC entered the round of 8, there were 2 teams ranked 30 or lower. At the same stage in the Euros, there were 2 teams ranked 15 or lower. The point being: once both tournaments are compared side by side at the same stage, they are almost level in terms of competition. BUT it is easier to get to that stage at the WC than the Euros.
Relatively it's not though.
Even if it's 25% easier to make it to that round you have to look at the number of teams which is twice as many.
So one team's difficulty is 1.25 times as much at the euros there are twice as many teams/one extra round so it's like comparing 2 to 1.25.
This idea worked a lot better in my head, but I was distracted horribly while trying to explain it so it didn't come out right.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:36 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
Ingerrish pleze.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:37 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
The Euros are "easier" to win than a World Cup because it's a shorter competition. The shorter the competition, the more statistical variation in results. The shorter the competition, the easier it is to "get lucky".
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:38 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
Whatever man. I'm not arguing this anymore
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:39 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
A lot more world cups have happened, yet there are less winners than the euros have had.
/thread.
Also even if you just compare the last 13 competitions in each event, the world cup has had less winners, implying it's easier to win the euros.
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:39 pm to Dijkstra
quote:
This is the point that I claimed as my opinion that made me "full of shite". I mean, I don't claim to be an expert, but I feel that way.
I'm drunk and this perfectly sums up drunken logic. 
I hope you have a good night 
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:41 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
quote:
A lot more world cups have happened, yet there are less winners than the euros have had.
You are aware the WC moved to 32 teams in 1998, right (which is the essence of our argument)? And since then there have been 4 different winners (out of 4) and 8 different top 3 finishers (out of 12 - in other words...PARITY). And the Europeans have dominated. 3/4 winners and 10/12 top 3 finishes, with Brazil being the only South American team to finish top 3 (they did it twice). Both France and Spain won their first WCs since the field changed to 32.
Please stop.
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:42 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
It doesn't matter WHO won the world cups.. the only thing that matters is the number of different winners.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:43 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
quote:fail
It doesn't matter WHO won the world cups.. the only thing that matters is the number of different winners.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:43 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
Which is 4 different winners out of 4 possible world cups. 8 different top 3 finishers out of 12.
Stop.
Stop.
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 8:49 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
I understand what you're saying. I don't disagree completely, but we also have to take into account that in the World Cup in 2010, the top half of the knockout bracket had only two truly incredible teams in Brazil(1) and the Netherlands(4) while the bottom half had Argentina(7), Germany(6), Spain(2), Portugal(3), and England(8). Brazil lost to the Netherlands, and all it took at that point was to have the Netherlands be upset once to have the USA, Uruguay, South Korea, or Ghana in the World Cup final.
This implies that there's less parity in the World Cup. The fact that there have been more winners implies that there are more capable of winning it. In the World Cup, it's more of a "let's see if the traditional powerhouses fall on their way to the final".
quote:
A lot more world cups have happened, yet there are less winners than the euros have had.
/thread.
Also even if you just compare the last 13 competitions in each event, the world cup has had less winners, implying it's easier to win the euros.
This implies that there's less parity in the World Cup. The fact that there have been more winners implies that there are more capable of winning it. In the World Cup, it's more of a "let's see if the traditional powerhouses fall on their way to the final".
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 9:01 pm to Dijkstra
Meh, It's clear that we all have very different ideas of what the words "more difficult" entail. More games = More chances to be upset.
The confederations cup should be easier to win than the Euro's right? So why did Spain win the euro's and lose the confederations cup? Because regardless of the supposed level of competition, every one of these teams has the chance to beat another team.
So say the level of competition for spain at the Euro's means every team has about a 50% chance of beating them. And at the World cup the level of competition means every team only has about an average of 45% chance of beating them.. the extra games make up for the difference.
The confederations cup should be easier to win than the Euro's right? So why did Spain win the euro's and lose the confederations cup? Because regardless of the supposed level of competition, every one of these teams has the chance to beat another team.
So say the level of competition for spain at the Euro's means every team has about a 50% chance of beating them. And at the World cup the level of competition means every team only has about an average of 45% chance of beating them.. the extra games make up for the difference.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 9:06 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
quote:was Spain's wake-up call. Vincent Of The Forest was saying it all week, the players, meh, it's the offseason, they're Yankees, what do they know about football, blah, blah, blah.
the confederations cup
Posted on 7/1/12 at 9:48 pm to Crede15
quote:
I know this board seems to love Germany but they've done, relatively speaking, nothing with this group.
That's what people were saying about Spain before 2008.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 9:59 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
quote:Jumbo, you're digging yourself a big hole.
The confederations cup should be easier to win than the Euro's right? So why did Spain win the euro's and lose the confederations cup?
Posted on 7/1/12 at 10:22 pm to Dandy Lion
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News