It's the NIT for soccer.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I don't see a problem with having "loser" leagues and tournaments in order to give squads competitive continuity, but it needs to be understood that you're there because you didn't qualify for the big stage. Another mandate would be that the winner of the "loser" competition is not to be promoted into the qualified competition. That would be lame.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

The outcome of any given soccer contest: player vs player, team vs team

Is just too random for me.

A season of games helps to overcome this problem.
Tournaments and playoffs do not.

So--- the US and Italy suck less than the tournament results bare out.

So what?

Isn't this randomness what most sport fans like?

Isn't this supposedly why Ironman is "unwatchable"?
The best athletes usually win?
And do so in a very predictable way?

A losers cup will only prove what we already know.
That Italy and the US don't suck that bad.
And that soccer is random!

Why would this be a bad thing? Soccer fans of these eliminated teams want to see some games, as you'd expect; the teams, in turn, will play some games. It's not like they're going to crown them champs of anything, going into it everyone would know this is a loser bracket tourney and pure entertainment...I just don't see the downside, for either the countries considering it or the fans. If you don't like the idea don't watch, in which case the tv and gate revenue will prompt the idea to be scrapped in the future.

That Italy and the US don't suck that bad.
And that soccer is random!

It's not really that random in terms of the eventual winner of the World Cup though.

There have been 20 World Cup events and 3 teams (Italy, Germany, Brazil) have combined for 13 of those wins, or 65% and if you add Argentina and Uruguay, those 5 teams account for 17 of the 20 wins.

No different than a bunch of friendlies, with perhaps some effort on each side to field a better team. That said, I'm not a big fan of friendlies.

Again though: what's the downside?

The cynic in me says this is all about some gate and tv revenue, and that's fine - put some money in US Soccer's coffers, that can't be a bad thing, can it? The optimist in me says this is a chance for the roster to be tested and gain experience during what is normally a hugely competitive year.

If they're not playing these friendlies what ARE they doing? I just don't see the downside, and maybe some bad press around these tournament will light a spark in a few players who'll push a bit harder for the next WC cycle.

I thought this was going to be about sailing

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

If they keep letting goals like this in, they wouldn't go far in the Loser's Cup anyway.