FIFA Needs To Bring Back The Golden Goal To The World Cup

I'm going to make this Rant pretty quick, but after viewing this past weekend's round of 16 games I think FIFA needs to re-think how they decide games in the knockout stage and bring back the Golden Goal which FIFA started using in 1993 but later abolished in 2004 (this includes other FIFA related tournaments, not just the World Cup).  While shootouts can be exciting, I don't think they should be the way a team's fate is decided in a tournament with the magnitude the size of the World Cup.

The NHL in my mind has the perfect overtime system.  Some argue that the regular season overtime could use some tweaking,  but I think one thing we can all agree on is how awesome the NHL playoff overtimes are.  The intensity of play is off the charts, and the best part is the players decide the outcome, whereas a shootout is more a game of chance than anything else.  I think it's perfectly fine to determine a regular season game with a shootout just because the season is so long, but come playoff time the game should be determined by having the first team to score win, since the playoffs are meant to test a team's will and heart.  The only adjustment I'd personally make to the NHL regular season format is if a team scores in the 5 minute overtime that the winning team should get two points and the losing team zero, and only in the shootout should the losing team be awarded one point.  This way it gives a greater incentive for a team to score a goal, and not just roll the dice and take their chances in a shootout.

Similarly,  I think FIFA should adopt the NHL playoff format for their knockout stage.  Having watched the overtimes this past weekend, one could see that there wasn't much action in the overtime, and it seemed most teams were willing to just play for a shootout.  If the Golden Goal was instituted I believe the play would be a lot more aggressive and would be more entertaining to watch for the fans.  If it was up to me there would be a coin toss to determine what side a team would want to defend, then there would be unlimited 45 minute halves until a goal is scored.  If a goal is scored the game would end right then and there, and if no goal was scored after the first 45 minutes then there would be a standard break and the teams would come out again and repeat the same process until a goal is scored.  While I know fatigue is a factor in why FIFA's limits how long an overtime can last, I would add one addition ruling for overtime in that each team would get one substitution each overtime period. By allowing a substitution each overtime period, even if a team has used all three of their substitutions already, it would allow the team's to stay little more fresh.

I know my ideal overtime is a long shot of ever happening, but I really hate seeing a team who has spent four years qualifying have their fate decided by a shootout.

World Cup Tie-Break Rules, Good? or Bad?

First off, I want to say sorry for the month long break between Rants.  As a Boston sports fan the last month has been tough in terms of content to write about.  With the Bruins being knocked out early in the playoffs and the Red Sox seeming to be in a constant slump of winning 2 games in row then losing 4 in a row, it's been a rough beginning to the summer to say the least.  The World Cup however has shot some adrenaline into my sports fanaticism and given some excitement to what seemed to be a really slow summer sports wise.  This Rant isn't necessarily geared towards talking about the US team and their heartbreaking tie this past Sunday to Portugal or their chances against Germany and advancing to the next round, but rather I am here to Rant about the World Cup tie-breaking rules.

In America it seems that when two teams are tied at the end of season with a chance to go to the playoffs, usually the two teams' head to head records are the first tie breaker in order to determine who gets the chance to advance.  In the World Cup however head to head match-up is the third tie-breaker behind goal differential and the amount of goals scored.  While that seems weird, and at first head scratching, as I began analyze it I think in this case it is actually a good idea, even if it could potentially back fire on the US come Thursday.

To give a better picture of why this is good, let's look at two American sports College Football and Major League Baseball.  As American sports fans, I think something we can all agree on, unless for some reason your team is tanking for a better draft pick, is that we hope our team is in contention come the end of the season.  Nothing is worse knowing your team is completely out of the playoff picture with half the season to go.  Until this upcoming season when the four team playoff will be implemented, one of the knocks on college football was if your team had more than one loss then they were basically completely out of contention of playing for the National Title.  With the playoff however and strength of schedule being weighted, more teams will be apt to play stronger and more exciting non-conference games and having two losses may not be the total end of the world.  As a result fans of teams can still have hope later in the regular season than they used to have.

Similarly, Major League Baseball realized they had a similar problem to college football with teams being completely out of contention come September and because of this fans weren't going to the stadium and watching the games on TV.  Seeing this was a problem, and trying to find more ways to make the end of the season more meaningful and exciting, Bud Selig and Major League Baseball decided to add a second Wild Card team two seasons ago. With this second Wild Card team, many more teams now have meaning to play in September and it gives the fans an incentive to follow their teams down the playoff stretch.

To bring this Rant full circle, I will now say why it is good the head to head match-up being the third, and not first tie-breaker,  is good for the World Cup.  As a US fan, having head to head be the third tie-breaker does actually hurt their chances. For instance, if head to head was the first tie-breaker, then they wouldn't have to worry about what Ghana does on Thursday, since they already beat them.  With goal differential being the number one tie-breaker however, Ghana is still very much a live within the tournament.  By having goal differential be the number tie breaker, it makes the third game of group play have a lot more meaning for the most part.  While there will be games like Spain and Australia yesterday, where both teams were already knocked out prior the playing the third game, by having goal differential be the first tie-breaker it keeps the chances of advancing for many teams alive.

While the tie-break rules may not benefit the US right now, I actually applaud FIFA for their tie-breaking rules since it increases the number of relevant teams and games.  Let's just hope though the US plays strong against Germany on Thursday (or agree to a tie) and that we won't have to worry about the various tie-breaking scenarios.