[gwnn]

It would be very hard to make an accurate ranking system. Say New Zealand beat Solomon Islands 11-0. Say Kazakhstan earns a 0-0 draw at home against Montenegro. Obviously Montenegro is a much better team than the Solomon Islands. How to compare these two results? Especially if there are few friendlies between Australia and European teams/Kazakhstan and Oceanian teams.

[Rossoneri]

mike777, on Jun 28 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

I understand FIFA makes about 3 billion from the world cup.

Guess where all that money goes to.

Sponsorship deals - loads of money into FIFA.

The host nation plows billions and does not get anything from FIFA.

FIFA bills it as the world's game or whatever marketing spiel, and then proceeds to charge every country for broadcasting rights. From what I know, these rights aren't cheap at all.

Of course, most countries have governments/broadcasters who absorb the costs from sponsorships but then you have countries like a particular one which charges the equivalent of 50 USD or more just to watch the World Cup.

There are already many books/articles written about the issue of money and the politician who runs FIFA. I rest my case.

[cherdanno]

gwnn, on Jun 28 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

It would be very hard to make an accurate ranking system. Say New Zealand beat Solomon Islands 11-0. Say Kazakhstan earns a 0-0 draw at home against Montenegro. Obviously Montenegro is a much better team than the Solomon Islands. How to compare these two results? Especially if there are few friendlies between Australia and European teams/Kazakhstan and Oceanian teams.

Well, someone tried - more specifically Nate Silver, based on the data gathered by ESPN, and the result (ESPN SPI) is pretty good. I think it would have done pretty well on our prediction contest, e.g.

[gwnn]

I like the Elo rankings but their site seems to be offline now.

[Hanoi5]

So, who's leading now?

[hotShot]

Hanoi5, on Jun 29 2010, 09:31 PM, said:

So, who's leading now?

I think it's mich-b and cherdanno

[Aberlour10]

Hanoi5, on Jun 29 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

So, who's leading now?

Your change in #55 cost you the lead, but all at the top are so close together...

[Aberlour10]

[Hanoi5]

Aberlour10, on Jun 29 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Jun 29 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

So, who's leading now?

Your change in #55 cost you the lead, but all at the top are so close together...

Thanks for reminding me...

[Aberlour10]

*** QUARTERFINALS ***

57) Netherlands - Brazil

58) Uruguay - Ghana

59) Argentina - Germany

60) Paraguay - Spain


Please post before Friday, 16.00 CET, 10.00 am EST

[Aberlour10]

Hanoi5, on Jun 29 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

Aberlour10, on Jun 29 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Jun 29 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

So, who's leading now?

Your change in #55 cost you the lead, but all at the top are so close together...

Thanks for reminding me...

Sorry.

[Aberlour10]

Need a swing so...

57) 1 Netherlands - Brazil

58) 2 Uruguay - Ghana

59) 1 Argentina - Germany

60) 2 Paraguay - Spain

[hotShot]

57) 2 Netherlands - Brazil

58) 2 Uruguay - Ghana

59) 2 Argentina - Germany

60) 2 Paraguay - Spain

[gwnn]

2
1
1
2

[mich-b]

57) 1 Netherlands - Brazil

58) 1 Uruguay - Ghana

59) 2 Argentina - Germany

60) 2 Paraguay - Spain

[bb79]

57) 2
58) 1
59) 2
60) 2


these games are tougher maybe they should worth 3 points

[Aberlour10]

bb79, on Jun 29 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

these games are tougher maybe they should worth 3 points

Maybe, but it would have no sense to change anything at the finish of the contest.
The entire scoring system is surely not the optimal solution, but I had no idea for better one, which would be transparent and easy to follow.

[skorchev]

57) 2

58) 1

59) 1

60) 2

[fyrish]

57) 2

58) 1

59) 1

60) 2

[hanp]

2
1
1
2