Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 seeding

Regarding adding nations already to pots

As far as I know, for the seeding process of the tournament, a new Fifa rang list will be used, which will include all mathches as up to and including the play-offs (the drawing of groups is scheduled for 3. December, meaning that the rang list will updated 3 times until then), which doesn't guarantee that Netherlands will be in pot 1 and neither that Italy would not jump in pot 1. For now, only Spain is for sure that it will land in pot 1, as the previous Euro 2008 winner. So for now, I would recommend not to add any nations to any pots anymore. AnelZukic (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we have the link to the latest rankings page back (perhaps as an external link)? I found it quite useful/interesting, and I'm sure other people will too, so IMHO it merits a link. 161.73.146.57 (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

All regulations w.r.t. the championship, can be found here. Annex I describes the way the coefficients are calculated. See also UEFA coefficient. The coefficients are based on performances during EURO 2008 (qualifiers and main tournament), World Cup 2010 (qual. & main), EURO 2012 (qual. only, obviously). So, the results of the last two qualifying matches that each team still has left, will play a role in the coefficient. Of course, it can very well be the case that even if The Netherlands loses the next 2 matches and Germany/Italy win theirs, the coefficient of The Netherlands is still higher than that of Germany/Italy. In theory, it's not a very difficult maths question to find out. I'm sure there's a website out there that gives us information like this - but a reference to that would be essential indeed. CaAl (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's basically impossible that Italy surpass the Netherlands. For that the Netherlands have to lose their next two matches and Italy have to win their next two matches and Italy must score more than 200 goals... And highly unlikely for Germany. However two 1:0 wins for Germany and two 1:0 losses for Netherlands would be enough. --134.176.19.98 (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote that without looking if there is a possibility... But since there is even a slight chance it is enough, if you ask me, not to add nations. But feel free to add them according to the current ranking. Just look at the preliminary UEFA Euro 2012 ranking. If you add them now, there isn't any chance that they will end until the end of group phase, since the next update is coming out sometimes in November, which means it won't be edited too much.AnelZukic (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The possibility of Italy surpassing The Netherlands seems indeed to be only a hypothetical possibility. The possibility of Germany passing The Netherlands however, is not. I don't see any gain in adding information now, rather than waiting for next month's matches, but if someone insists on adding information, a remark about this should be made in the text. CaAl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

I think we shouldn't add scenarios or anything more than the fact, that it is possible for the Netherlands to be overtaken. After the october qualifying matches we should be able to assign most teams to the pots, because we should only consider realistic scenarios and not the possibility that team A could score 200 goals in the play-offs... --134.176.19.98 (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, come on! Who removed the pot allocations? Is it really necessary to note, that Croatia or Portugal could be in pot 1, if they score a few hundred goals? That's nonsense. --134.176.19.70 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Me. It's still not confirmed information.  Omg †  osh  13:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Not confirmed information... Tell you what. How come that website is heavily cited in the FIFA World Rankings article if it's a source of not confirmed information? Edgar (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because in that case the information holds itself to the standard that Wikipedia does? I don't know because I haven't looked at it. In relation to this article, it states unsubstantiated information here: And here's the table with possible coefficient values - goals scored in the play-offs not taken into account since they won't affect the pots. All other Internet sources and articles on this matter say that Euro 2012 qualification (including play-offs) make up 40% of the ranking, but if the fact that goals were omitted were true, we could indeed add certain teams to certain pots. As it is though, as understood above, some unlikely results would change the rankings. We certainly wouldn't prematurely crown Manchester United champions if they were 3 points ahead of Manchester City with a goal difference 20 goals better. Why? Because, although it is clear from the table that City would face a very difficult challenge to win the title, they are not mathematically assured of losing it. Equally, there's no need to rush to assign teams to pots here because we have the rankings clearly set out for the unassigned teams.  Omg †  osh  14:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about hundreds of goals here. Keeping that info would have been helpful for Wiki readers - I know I found the AFCON qualifying scenarios helpful. However, since Football-Rankings.Info is my website, I won't add that info. Do as you wish. And no, I'm not 134.176.19.70. Edgar (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not in all cases, no. In some cases the difference could be made by just a few goals, so it is misleading to say that play-off goals won't have an effect. A compromise might be to add your website with a relevant cautionary note, but it is perhaps better not to copy it word for word given its misleading nature. And I haven't accused you of posting under two names to boost your case...  Omg †  osh  13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of accusing me :) I just wanted to point out I didn't add that info to the article. Edgar (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's really unnecessary and not helpful at all. We all know it will be confirmed information after the play-offs and that only the mentioned scenarios are possible. It doesn't make sense to include scenarios with such an absurd number of goals. If we include such scenarios we should also include the scenario that Aliens might exterminate Poland, which means they aren sure of being the host. --134.176.19.70 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything's nicely explained in the 'Qualified teams yet to be assigned a pot'. An uninformed reader would otherwise leave the page ill-informed and confused; how can we already place Germany, but not France? Things are only made worse by Greece's and Sweden's positioning at ranks 9 and 10 when Russia's total will be higher, Croatia's will be (should they qualify) and Portugal's probably will be too. I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, but it is evident to any reader that any events held in Poland will almost certainly be cancelled in the event of an extermination of the population of Poland.  Omg †  osh  15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should they be confused? Everything was perfectly well explained, why we couldn't place France or Russia just yet, but e.g. Germany. Also we don't have to "rank" the teams in the different pots, because it only matters in which pot a team is, so we could just remove this column. The only thing that is really confusing for uninformed readers is the indication that Croatia or the other play-off teams could overtake The Netherlands or Germany, while in reality that is not only unlikely but impossible in such a way that we don't have to consider it. --91.21.92.119 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if they would need 500 goals to surpass the Netherlands, Netherlands should not be in Pot 1 yet. Where would you draw the line? 50:0, 20:0, 10:0? That's what's done on every wikipedia page. Just add an external link, showing the current pots. So those interested get some more insight. -Koppapa (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK then. Edgar (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Can please anyone enlighten me, why Portugal has such a big rating? Before play-off matches their rating was 31202. They had 20000 for first match and 42002 for the second, mean is 31001. Their final rating is weighted mean of 31202 and 31001 and can't be 31717. Seems like only second play-off match was accounted in rating EgorKulikov (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like I can answer my own question - there is 6k bonus for playing in play-off match EgorKulikov (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for merging UEFA EURO 2012 seeding into UEFA Euro 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was a merger between UEFA Euro 2012 and UEFA Euro 2012 seeding

---

I think it would be a good idea to merge this article (Euro 2012 seeding) into the main article. Very little of the info in the article is not already in the main article and the article will not likely to be expanded in the future. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. No reason to have a short, duplicative article. Reywas92^Talk 15:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Yeah, unncessary repetitious articles. Merge content here and delete that even(Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)).

Support merge, not needed. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. The UEFA Euro 2012 seeding article is very short and duplicative. How is an article merged with another article? Dar5995 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - There is no info in this article that cannot be included in the main article. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Support merge, content which don't need to be in a separate article. – Kosm1fent 08:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: Not too important to warrant a separate article. Seeding article a bit too small too. Mr tim111 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Helpful enough as a separate page; long enough as well. How about we merge the other way around, since that is more logical. Otherwise, plain no. 75.16.186.172 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

With a merge two articles become one. Do you really think that the article including all the info from both articles should be called UEFA Euro 2012 seeding and not UEFA Euro 2012? Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is plainly a silly person who doesn't know the criteria for merging properly. Just ignore. Jimthing (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The title matters, sweetheart. It is more commonly known as "UEFA Euro 2012", rather than "UEFA Euro 2012 seeding". I am also aware of redirects and how they work, but we are talking about using the more commonly known title for the actual title of the page. 75.16.186.172 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to IP - you clearly have misunderstood this, it is a merger proposal as it seems UEFA Euro 2012 seeding doesn't need it's own stand along article. Therefore it is prosed that UEFA Euro 2012 seeding is moved to UEFA Euro 2012. Which you actually agree with in you latest reponse but voted oppose as you misread. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - unncessary article for the same info from the main article. – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - Unnecessary to have a seperate article for this info. - Svefnpurka (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - It's all on this page already - no need for two articles. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - This infatuation with having every little thing on separate pages is not just annoying, but harmful, as it makes it harder on non-regulars to find information. This is also Sven Manguard 13:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - As per most of the above. Just make sure all the info here appears on the main page properly. I think this could be considered supported enough to be actionable immediately. Jimthing (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Same reasons as above.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.