Last time around, the draw was Costa Rica, Canada, Cuba. This time > around it's the exact same draw except adding the United States in. That > leads me to the following two conclusions:>

- The draw's rigged.

- Canada's in deep trouble.

Colin:>> - The draw's rigged.

Was there even a draw to rig?

There is no draw. CONCACAF places the teams in groups according to> "sports, geographic, and economic factors".

Yet another reason why the Gold Cup is essentially a joke.

I don't think this is a complete invalidation of the tournament.

Does anybody *still* want to defend this sorry excuse of a

Huw

It's not any sort of invalidation--there­'s nothing at all inherently> wrong with the groups being formed by a committee instead of a> (semi)random draw. If the groups were massively unbalanced there

Yes, any tournament whose pairings are not determined by random draw> is clearly invalid.

Still waiting for your response on the other thread about> attendances--you could at least have the good form to admit you were> wrong about that one before being wrong about something else.

Jim Goloboy wrote:>> On 2 Mar 2005 21:49:37 -0800, "Colin Morris">> <colin-morris@comca­st.net> wrote:>>

That's not the point and you know it.

Except I wasn't wrong - tournaments _have_ produced an increase in>attendance in hosting countries.

The argument is how much: you seem to>believe it's a lot less than I do.

The US always hosting

guest teams in place of CONCACAF members

rigged draw.

How can you have a rigged draw if there is no draw?>

Given that 8 of 12 teams reach the next round, not much point

One post and already you're backpedaling. This should be fun.

Explain:>

1. What is wrong with the groups for the tournament.

2. Why is it wrong for he groups to be created by a committee instead> of a draw, if the groups are fair?

3. What is your plan for assigning Gold Cup groups?

Belgium demands an apology.

Most countries that hosted the Euro did see an increase in

more of the following categories:>

1. Similar to attendance increases in many countries that did not

No--the point of my last post on that thread was to note that even if> we ignored most of the above objections, the attendance increase was> so laughably small that it couldn't possibly have a significant

Already covered in the previous thread.

I don't like it either, hardly invalidates the tournament.

How can you have a rigged draw if there is no draw?

MH wrote:>>

So because the tournament progresses two thirds of its teams to the>next round, it's ok that the draw for the first round was rigged behind>closed-doors­?

Perhaps you ought to question why so many teams progress>in the first place?

In the WCs prior to France 98, 16 of 24 teams advanced from the from> the group stages, the same percentage as the GC.> Copa America usually has 8 of 12 advancing also.>

It's not really that strange.

Philip Lennox Beineke wrote:>> -- keep Cuba out of Miami, and probably LA, too, since they lost two>> players to defection there in 2002.>

Ah, another reason for not holding the tournament in the US ­>

Jim Goloboy wrote:

The actual makeup of the groups is largely irrelevant. >It's the manner in which they were decided that is problematic, i.e. behind close doors>with relatively vague criteria.

"Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder.

Publically announce seeds based on publically stated criteria and hold>a public draw.

That way, there's no opportunity for deals behind closed>doors

Not unless it can produce some stats for the late 90's.

Right, so this explains why Spain and Italy's attendance didn't>increase in the same manner and Italy's actually decreased.

By your dubious projections.

Anyway, we'll never really know while CONCACAF shows so little interest in developing the game for the> benefit of all its members.

And never satisfactorily justifed in terms of the interests of CONCACAF>members as a whole...

Adds to the body of evidence that the tournament isn't organized for>the benefit of CONCACAF as a whole...

allow better control of their fans ?

groups>

games.>

Sort of. They were first seeds and thus FIFA had the ability to place> them where they wanted. Of course, after the public draw for the other> places, they then ended up in the same group as Ireland and Holland,> which was probably the worst possible result if the idea was to> separate English fans from potential trouble.>

I think that's all you need to know on this thread, despite Jim's> persistent whining to the contrary.

Huw Morris wrote:>

FIFA has done similar things IIRC in scheduling specific games or groups > in the WC at specific venues because of the large appeal of said games. > Also weren't England deliberately sequestered in Sardinia in 1990 to > allow better control of their fans ?>

Jim Goloboy wrote:>> On 3 Mar 2005 18:17:59 -0800, "Colin Morris">> <colin-morris@comca­st.net> wrote:>> >The actual makeup of the groups is largely irrelevant.>> >It's the manner in which they were decided that is problematic, i.e.>behind close doors>> >with relatively vague criteria.>

How do you know there's nothing unfair going on if the draw is made>behind closed doors with broad criteria that can be interpreted just>how CONCACAF feels like it?

Not relevant to the discussion.

You seem to be arguing that the ends justify the means.

Again, not relevant to a discussion about the manner in which CONCACAF>actually conducted its draw.

I haven't claimed that.

I will give it a read and post my thoughts.

I think you need to explain why you think these countries are an equal>of better comparison point to close Southern European countries.

I have done.

It's not very reassuring that they don't, quite honestly.

The"evidence" being almost wholly your opinion.

The arguments are just as valid as they were a month ago.

And typical of your flawed logic, in that by not affording Barbados>opportunit­ies, the situation will be self-perpetuating.

I'm not sure 'most people' would, although CONCACAF apologists like>yourself certainly do. There is certainly 'some' benefit for the teams>involved, but that doesn't make it a credible tournament.

Some people will go and watch the most pointless friendly. The fact>that they do doesn't suddenly make the friendly less pointless.

Expressing an opinion = hijacking?

If I had to >suggest something, I'd suggest the simplest alternative, just play >knock-out home and away (plus maybe some of the Carribean knock-out >stuff to get down to 16 or so)

Drawing a parallel to something topical in American sports, how about> the NCAA basketball tournament, where the brackets and half the> participants are decided are decided by a committee behind closed> doors--I've never heard anyone claim that this rendered the tournament> non-credible, even when there is controversy.>

Jim Goloboy wrote:>

Um. if this is the case - how are ESPN forecasting the actual entire >draw of the tournament. Surely this implies the above is actually >totally untrue.

It is certainly quite probable that the two things are related: that>the Gold Cup's 'characteristics' are what makes countries fail to take>it seriously.

Jim Goloboy wrote:>

Well, yes and no. Despite (in spite of?) what Colin argues, there is a> difference here. The rankings themselves are "inherently unpredictable"> ahead of time because they rely on results (as well as polls and so on).> There are then mathmetical formulas that someone can (as indeed,> apparently do) check to see what this implies for the rankings and then> the draw, but you couldn't have done this same type of prediction at the> start of the season - you'd just be doing a phantom draw. Indeed, the> ESPN "bracket" is not what the bracket will be, but what it would/might> be if the draw were done today. It may (and probably will) look> different tomorrow, and the next day, just as it looked different

However, the in Gold Cup case, it is not like this. We can guess where> the teams are going to go not because we can check the results of a set> of games and what that implies, but because we know how Concacaf think.> We could, for example, have guessed what the GC groups would be a> month, two months, a year ago, and guessed the same each time.>

So, in summary: NCAA - non-random but unpredictable. Gold Cup -> non-random and quite predictable.>

That is a reasonable point I guess. However, given the scarcity of

- Mexico finals, when it has been held in the US, and Mexico's record

playing in Costa Rica, you'd really have to wonder why the Costa

1991: Final USA - Honduras> 1993: Final Mexico - USA> 1996: Final Mexico - Brazil> 1998: Final Mexico - USA> 2000: Final Canada - Columbia> 2002: Final USA - Costa Rica> 2003: Final Mexico - Brasil

Great idea. Why should Europe get big tournaments every two years and no>one else?

If participation is a problem, put up WCQ spots.

Last time around, the draw was Costa Rica, Canada, Cuba. This time around > it's the exact same draw except adding the United States in. That leads me > to the following two conclusions:>

- The draw's rigged.

- Canada's in deep trouble.

I'd still really like to see a unified Copa America every four years.

Not a comment on Europe. It's frustrating for a fan of, say, Canada, when we get knocked out of WCQ early and>it's three years until the next really meaningful action for the national team.

I also hope club football gets stronger and stronger in the Americas too, club soccer has been dominated by three>countries and one continent for too long.

Careful with comments about Europe, when you know I'm around... =)>

Sure, and I'm certainly all 4 both a joint Copa America