IIHF World Rankings

[Slitty]

I don't think that the IIHF has any interest in making the World Championships a best-on-best tournament by scheduling it any later than the current practice. It is meant to be what it currently is: a tournament for players based in Europe and NHLers on teams that don't make the playoffs and/or advance past the first round. And since all the contenders are on equal footing in terms of having their best players playing in the NHL, the tournament is pretty fair. The way it is currently structured also provides the variety of not seeing largely the exact same rosters competing on annual basis and tests national team depth (something that Canadians seem to be quite proud).

 

[daver]

I don't think that the IIHF has any interest in making the World Championships a best-on-best tournament by scheduling it any later than the current practice. It is meant to be what it currently is: a tournament for players based in Europe and NHLers on teams that don't make the playoffs and/or advance past the first round. And since all the contenders are on equal footing in terms of having their best players playing in the NHL, the tournament is pretty fair. The way it is currently structured also provides the variety of not seeing largely the exact same rosters competing on annual basis and tests national team depth (something that Canadians seem to be quite proud).

Russia, Finland, and others I'm sure, rely on key players from other leagues that are finished. Some teams only have one or two key players in the NHL, while others have their complete teams. How is that fair?

Seedings for best-on-best should be done by a panel. I would also change the OG tourney to 10 teams, 2 divisions of 5, QFs, SFs, Final.

Use IIHF rankings to determine the ten teams.

 

[roto]

Russia, Finland, and others I'm sure, rely on key players from other leagues that are finished. Some teams only have one or two key players in the NHL, while others have their complete teams. How is that fair?

Seedings for best-on-best should be done by a panel. I would also change the OG tourney to 10 teams, 2 divisions of 5, QFs, SFs, Final.

Use IIHF rankings to determine the ten teams.

Canadians talk about depth all the time how they could field <put some big number here> teams competing for Olympic gold. Germany and Denmark didn't make to Olympics because of lack of depth. This favours Canada, it can always send a team filled with good NHL players.

For some reason Europeans don't complain about this. They don't often have many NHLers in the team, but still have (relatively) better results than North Americans with their team filled with good NHL players. If the team fails, it's not a big deal, better luck next year. If the team wins, it's nice, but nobody thinks it proves something.

Actually I agree with your proposal about olympic tournament format, except that group winners should go directly to semis and next two from both groups would go to QFs. It would make the group games more meaningful, no guaranteed place in QFs.

 

[An Argument For]

[mod]

Actually the IIHF ranking is much closer to reality than FIFA, FIVB or FIBA rankings, because you need to play in WHC or olympics to get ranking points and you don't get to those tournaments just because you are on a specific continent. In soccer you can get equally many ranking points by being 8th in European Championship than being 8th of teams in Oceania Championships, and everyone can understand what it means from ranking point of view.

You're wrong here. Both FIBA and FIFA are smart enough to realize that different tournaments and different wins should have more or less value. That's why they use multipliers to account for the difference. Winning an African Championship is worth only 20% of a European championship in Basketball. Also an Olympic championship is worth 5x as much as a European Championship. FIFA awards points for each match and even alters for the strength of your opponent. It would be like a hockey game where beating Canada gives you twice as many points as beating Belarus. They're willing to put some effort in so that the rankings actually reflect results.

Also the other sports acknowledge that winning or doing well should be worth a lot of points and it creates separation in the standings. It actually reflects how much stronger one country is than another. In FIFA a top country like Spain accumulates almost twice as many points as a struggling contender like France. In FIBA top teams have 3 -4 times more points that teams in the bottom of the top 10.. because they are that much better. In IIHF? Canada's Gold Medal at the Olympics was worth 1200 points. Slovenia's 8th place finish is worth a 1000 points. They were given 83% of the reward that Canada recieved. In FIBA a gold is woth 50 points, a Silver 40, Bronze 30... 8th place gets you 11 points. That's why in hockey France has 83% of the points that the USA has. How in the hell is France that close to the USA? I don't remember a French team ever playing in the quarter finals of any tournament ever.

I like the idea of a rankings but the IIHF is absolute ass. It doesn't provide any value on winning a tournament or doing well. It just awards particpation in its own annual tournamnet and clogs the rankings top to bottom. It doesn't reflect the calibre of a nation's hockey program at all even though the purpose is to "reflect the long-term quality of all national hockey programs and their commitment to international hockey."

I like the idea of

 

[daver]

Canadians talk about depth all the time how they could field <put some big number here> teams competing for Olympic gold. Germany and Denmark didn't make to Olympics because of lack of depth. This favours Canada, it can always send a team filled with good NHL players.

Who cares what posters on the internet say? I'm sure the IIHF does not consider the depth of Canada when it schedules the WHC.

It's a black and white situation that needs to be recognized by the IIHF.

 

[jekoh]

Also the other sports acknowledge that winning or doing well should be worth a lot of points and it creates separation in the standings. It actually reflects how much stronger one country is than another. In FIFA a top country like Spain accumulates almost twice as many points as a struggling contender like France. In FIBA top teams have 3 -4 times more points that teams in the bottom of the top 10.. because they are that much better. In IIHF? Canada's Gold Medal at the Olympics was worth 1200 points. Slovenia's 8th place finish is worth a 1000 points. They were given 83% of the reward that Canada recieved. In FIBA a gold is woth 50 points, a Silver 40, Bronze 30... 8th place gets you 11 points.

The gap between Fiba's top 4 and the bottom of the top 10 says nothing about how good they are. It's there because, as you say, a FIBA gold is worth 50 points, a Silver 40, Bronze 30... 8th place gets you 11 points. Gaps are bigger but also easier to close.

It doesn't provide any value on winning a tournament or doing well.

Of course it does.

 

[An Argument For]

The gap between Fiba's top 4 and the bottom of the top 10 says nothing about how good they are. It's there because, as you say, a FIBA gold is worth 50 points, a Silver 40, Bronze 30... 8th place gets you 11 points. Gaps are bigger but also easier to close..

The gap is there because winning allows teams to gain substancial points. Gaps aren't easier to close. You can't win a single tournament and go from 8th to 2nd. You need to have a high level of success over a longer period of time.

Of course it does.

The IIHF does not reward winning at all. There is no emphasis placed on finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd. The difference between Gold and Silver at the Olympics is only 40/1200 points. That's almost negligible. In fact Canada just won a Gold at the Olympics (1200 points) If they lose in the quarters at the World Championships and only finish 7th (1020 points) they will have accumulated 2220 points in 2014. The USA could win a Bronze at the World Championships and they would also finish 2014 with 2220 points.

Is an Olympic Gold and WC QF loss equivalent to an Olympic 4th and WC Bronze?

Winning a tournament does very little to help your IIHF rankings.

 

[roto]

...

You made valid points. I totally agree that IIHF ranking is not perfect, but it's quite good in a way that there are no weak countries in top-10 and all the top-6 countries are in top-6.

Some other sports have some better and more complex features in their ranking, but still the base problem exists. In ice hockey WHC there are not the best players, but there are the best countries. In those other sports there are not even the best teams, because each continent get certain amount of places.

This means that some teams can get more easily to tournaments, and when you get to tournament you can collect also more points, which helps to you get to next tournament. This is a real problem in volleyball, for example. FIFA ranking has been tuned to right direction some years ago, but the result is still far from perfect.

 

[roto]

The IIHF does not reward winning at all. There is no emphasis placed on finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd. The difference between Gold and Silver at the Olympics is only 40/1200 points. That's almost negligible. In fact Canada just won a Gold at the Olympics (1200 points) If they lose in the quarters at the World Championships and only finish 7th (1020 points) they will have accumulated 2220 points in 2014. The USA could win a Bronze at the World Championships and they would also finish 2014 with 2220 points.

It's a matter or winning games. I understand it in way that gold medal game is still one game. As achievement the gold is far from silver, but mathematically it's only one game and it may ended by some fluke goal. From ranking point of view it makes no sense to give big multiplier for some specific game. In that sense also FIFA ranking makes sense despite of its flaws.

 

[An Argument For]

It's a matter or winning games. I understand it in way that gold medal game is still one game. As achievement the gold is far from silver, but mathematically it's only one game and it may ended by some fluke goal. From ranking point of view it makes no sense to give big multiplier for some specific game. In that sense also FIFA ranking makes sense despite of its flaws.

But FIFA also gives a big multiplier to the Championship game. To say that the Gold Medal game is only one game completely marginalizes the tournament. It's a game between to the two remaining teams to determine the best team in the tournament. If it's only one game then why even have a medal round or a playoff at all? Just have everybody play everybody and the winner of the standings gets the gold.

The element of pressure and winning when it counts shouldn't be discredited.

 

[jekoh]

The gap is there because winning allows teams to gain substancial points. Gaps aren't easier to close.

Winning allows teams to gain substancial points, therefore a similar gap is easier to close.

You can't win a single tournament and go from 8th to 2nd. You need to have a high level of success over a longer period of time.

Exactly like you do in the IIHF ranking.

The IIHF does not reward winning at all.

Of course there is, that's why Canada is up to 3rd despite not finishing higher than 5th in the 4 previous Worlds.

Is an Olympic Gold and WC QF loss equivalent to an Olympic 4th and WC Bronze?

Why not? A fluke win should not trump consistency.

 

[LaGu]

We don't care. It's the attempt to use the rankings by others to suggest that Canada is something less than the global hockey power that is seriously flawed and requires a response.

Again, it was a Canadian who started this thread and 80% of posts are from NA, not Europe.

Another reality for Canada is that since the 2010 Olympics virtually no one who could make the national Olympic squad has accepted an invite to play in a WC.

I don't mean to be picky here but what you wrote above didn't seem right so I looked it up. Canada always has a good team in the world championships. With the incredible depth of hockey players in Canada you cannot argue differently.

2011: Pietrangelo, Tavares, Nash, Duchene.
2012: Keith, Bouwmeester, Vlasic, Perry, Getzlaf, Tavares, Benn.
2013: Hamhuis, Subban, Stamkos (easy to forget I guess) and Duchene. Notebale players in 2013 would also be Giroux and E.Staal. Not too shabby but not on the Olympic roster so I guess they don't count.

In Sweden they normally make a list of NHL players declining to join the world championships. I think the record was 18 players who said no even though they were free to play so it is not only Canadian players declining to join the fun.

For Russia it is different, there you go no matter what otherwise you risk losing the chance of playing in the Olympics.

It is worth noting that in addition to the six wins in 13 years, Canada played for the gold medal in three more years, with the result that Canada has missed the gold medal game in only 4 of the last 13 years. That's dominance.

Yes it is, and I am really not trying to be an *** here but 2011: 5th, 2012: 5th and 2013: 5th. The ranking is based on the last 4 years and in those years, for whatever reason, Canada was not able to perform.

It mean that it is not the most dominant country in hockey or that it is not the best country right now. It reflects the performance in the world championships over the last 4 years, period.

Let me throw out one more measure before I finish. Canadian players of course dominate the NHL with more than half of the scoring leaders in every category, more than half of the top rookies every year, first round picks, etc. But what about the other supposed top league, you say? Well, five of the top 14 scorers in the KHL this season were (no-name) Canadians, against only four Russians--in their own league. (The other five players were one Czech, one Slovak, one American and two Finns.) Three of the top six defencemen were Canadian, versus one Russian.

I like that you threw in this measure because it really gives away the exact same mentality which I asked about in my last post. Unfortunately I believe that the way you describe things in this last paragraph actually means that you couldn't care less about the other things I wrote above.

This is because it is not enough for you to have won the Olympics and being the most dominant hockey country in the world over a long period of time.

So my question for you is what would be enough? Should the ranking stop reflecting the last couple of years or should IIHF set Canada aside and just rank the other teams?

I really don't understand why this is so amazingly sensitive to you. Everyone outside a small group of Canadian hockey supporters seem to have a perfect grasp on what this ranking mean and despite being explained over and over and over again in this thread it just doesn't sink in. Furthermore I lost count on how many non-Canadian posters which have affirmed that they also believe Canada to be number one. When will it be enough?

 

[An Argument For]

Winning allows teams to gain substancial points, therefore a similar gap is easier to close.


Exactly like you do in the IIHF ranking.


Of course there is, that's why Canada is up to 3rd despite not finishing higher than 5th in the 4 previous Worlds.


Why not? A fluke win should not trump consistency.

You said a Fluke win shouldn't trump consistency. You can't fluke win a gold medal. You need to win 3 elimination games. Mid-tier consistency trivializes the value of the most important games be creating a false equivalency among all games played. It creates a system of a win = a win. No other rational ranking system would use such a simple calculation to provide a reflective measurement.
You also keep saying that the IIHF system allows the same movement as the other systems I’ve provided. You’re wrong, it’s isn’t subjective, the same scenarios that allow for ties or rankings among countries in the IIHF are not mathematically possible in FIBA or FIFA. I don’t know what else to tell you, either look them up and try for X or just be ignorant about it.

 

[Stats01]

Winning allows teams to gain substancial points, therefore a similar gap is easier to close.


Exactly like you do in the IIHF ranking.


Of course there is, that's why Canada is up to 3rd despite not finishing higher than 5th in the 4 previous Worlds.


Why not? A fluke win should not trump consistency.

Why do you keep bringing up "fluke" If a team wins a championship they should be rewarded for it. For a team in France to accumulate 83% of the points the U.S.A has is laughable. France has been nowhere near the U.S when it comes to results. The IIHF doesn't reward winning at all, if they did then there would be a much bigger gap in the point system. All their doing is rewarding participation in their tournaments.

 

[Stats01]

Again, it was a Canadian who started this thread and 80% of posts are from NA, not Europe.



I don't mean to be picky here but what you wrote above didn't seem right so I looked it up. Canada always has a good team in the world championships. With the incredible depth of hockey players in Canada you cannot argue differently.

2011: Pietrangelo, Tavares, Nash, Duchene.
2012: Keith, Bouwmeester, Vlasic, Perry, Getzlaf, Tavares, Benn.
2013: Hamhuis, Subban, Stamkos (easy to forget I guess) and Duchene. Notebale players in 2013 would also be Giroux and E.Staal. Not too shabby but not on the Olympic roster so I guess they don't count.

In Sweden they normally make a list of NHL players declining to join the world championships. I think the record was 18 players who said no even though they were free to play so it is not only Canadian players declining to join the fun.

For Russia it is different, there you go no matter what otherwise you risk losing the chance of playing in the Olympics.



Yes it is, and I am really not trying to be an *** here but 2011: 5th, 2012: 5th and 2013: 5th. The ranking is based on the last 4 years and in those years, for whatever reason, Canada was not able to perform.

It mean that it is not the most dominant country in hockey or that it is not the best country right now. It reflects the performance in the world championships over the last 4 years, period.




I like that you threw in this measure because it really gives away the exact same mentality which I asked about in my last post. Unfortunately I believe that the way you describe things in this last paragraph actually means that you couldn't care less about the other things I wrote above.

This is because it is not enough for you to have won the Olympics and being the most dominant hockey country in the world over a long period of time.

So my question for you is what would be enough? Should the ranking stop reflecting the last couple of years or should IIHF set Canada aside and just rank the other teams?

I really don't understand why this is so amazingly sensitive to you. Everyone outside a small group of Canadian hockey supporters seem to have a perfect grasp on what this ranking mean and despite being explained over and over and over again in this thread it just doesn't sink in. Furthermore I lost count on how many non-Canadian posters which have affirmed that they also believe Canada to be number one. When will it be enough?

In defence of him and myself and others, we know Canada is #1, you don't need to tell us that, we already know. We are just telling it like it is and that is the IIHF rankings are complete B.S. You're going to ask "Why do you care though.?" Being the official ranking system of hockey nations it would be nice if it actually reflected truly who the best countries were. Because it doesn't currently.

I think the FIFA rankings are pretty bad too, but I never thought another ranking system could be worse..I guess I was wrong.

France should not have even close to 83% of the point total the States have, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! it's mind numbing.

 

[cryssarn]

In defence of him and myself and others, we know Canada is #1, you don't need to tell us that, we already know. We are just telling it like it is and that is the IIHF rankings are complete B.S. You're going to ask "Why do you care though.?" Being the official ranking system of hockey nations it would be nice if it actually reflected truly who the best countries were. Because it doesn't currently.

As someone said before.....it's just for seeding. Canadian players should start to care more about the World Championships, since it seems to be worth a lot of ranking points nah, but in all truth...we all know the ranking system is flawed. Do anybody really care about the IIHF ranking?

 

[XO]

Good list. Swedish best hockey nation in the world, AINEC

 

[An Argument For]

As someone said before.....it's just for seeding. Canadian players should start to care more about the World Championships, since it seems to be worth a lot of ranking points nah, but in all truth...we all know the ranking system is flawed. Do anybody really care about the IIHF ranking?

Will, since the IIHF loves to make money off the Canadian and American audiences and the ranking is used to seed tournaments (this becomes significant if they ever expand to 16 teams or 4 division tournaments) then it's not too much to ask that they at least make an attempt at an fair and reflective ranking system.

If they did a 16 team world cup now Canada and the US would be in the same division. Sweden would have to face Slovakia, Norway, and Austria.

 

[jekoh]

For a team in France to accumulate 83% of the points the U.S.A has is laughable. France has been nowhere near the U.S when it comes to results. The IIHF doesn't reward winning at all, if they did then there would be a much bigger gap in the point system.

You make it sound like France having 83% of the points the USA have means France is "close" to the USA in the ranking. It doesn't. In the context of IIHF rankings, 83% is not "close" at all. The USA were rewarded in the ranking by a gap that would be very hard for France to close, exactly as hard as it was for the USA to open it.

You also keep saying that the IIHF system allows the same movement as the other systems I’ve provided.

Where did I say that?

If I win this year and you finish 8th I open a big gap but it will be closed if you win next year and I finish 8th. Gaps may appear bigger in FIBA but they are easier to close.

FIBA rewards gold+bronze over silver+silver, but neither is objectively better than the other.

 

[sandysan]

As everyone knows Canada has biggest pool to select players from and many canadian say that they could easily get 2 medals if they were able to play with 2 teams. But why can't Canada dominate in world champions even though all the other countries are missing many NHL players? Last year they had a good team with Stamkos, Hall etc but they finished 5 th. And if they don't care about world champions, why do players like Gezlaf and Stamkos even participate?

same reason guys often play shinny after practices, because its fun and no pressure ?

People can get as mad as they want, the IIHF world championships are largely irrelevant in N/A. the world juniors ( best on best with an age cap) are more interesting.

I care about as much about IIHF ranking than some anonymous blogger ranking teams base on how many of a teams goal are " pretty".

The IIHF has a history of marching to its own tune, if they want to have something they call the world championships when the best players are not available) for all countries, have at it.

 

[LaGu]

In defence of him and myself and others, we know Canada is #1, you don't need to tell us that, we already know. We are just telling it like it is and that is the IIHF rankings are complete B.S. You're going to ask "Why do you care though.?" Being the official ranking system of hockey nations it would be nice if it actually reflected truly who the best countries were. Because it doesn't currently.

I think the FIFA rankings are pretty bad too, but I never thought another ranking system could be worse..I guess I was wrong.

France should not have even close to 83% of the point total the States have, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! it's mind numbing.

"In defense of him and yourself you know you are number 1 and I don't need to tell you that"? That's not really defending anyone, that would rather strengthen my point.

I understand that you care about this but at the same time how do change it? Looking at the posts here from you and your peers it seems that the best way to avoid this problem is to only judge the Olympics because the world championships are null and void. Would you agree then that Czech Rep was the best hockey nation in the world between 1998 and 2002, and that Sweden was the best between 2006 and 2010?

I get that the ranking is not perfect but at the same time how would you do it? The fact is that Canada was number 1 (even in the iihf ranking) after the last Olympics but between that point and today, they have not performed very well in the world championships.

I don't really understand your problem with France though. When you win the world championship you get 1200 points, 2nd place gets 1160 points and 3rd gets 1120 points. There is a 40 point difference between each place down to 8th (quarter final teams). The team that came in 9th gets 880 points, 10th 860 points and so on (20 point difference). The team that wins the division B gets 720 points.

France in the world championships 2010: 14th, 2011: 12th, 2012: 9th, 2013: 13th and are currently 12th in the ranking.

 

[An Argument For]

If I win this year and you finish 8th I open a big gap but it will be closed if you win next year and I finish 8th. Gaps may appear bigger in FIBA but they are easier to close.

FIBA rewards gold+bronze over silver+silver, but neither is objectively better than the other.

The gap is the same to close under the assumption that success will be replicated. I finish 1st and 8th and you finish 1st and 8th then over the two year period we have acheived balance. Obviously. This of course assuming both tournaments are equal in value. An Olympic tournament, the pinnacle, should have a greater value than a lesser tournament.

The Gold + Bronze or Silver + Silver are equal but both actually reward success in the tournament. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier, teams that are able to medal in these tournaments should be rewarded generously in the rankings.

Under FIBA if you finish 1st and 8th you would have 61 Base points. If someone finished 4th in the same two tournaments they would have 30 Base points. It rewards success in a tournament. The goal is to win a medal, specifically gold and this rewards that accomplishment. Under the IIHF system a team that gets a 1st and 8th will have 2200 base points. A team that gets 4th in both of those tournaments will also have 2200 base points. A Gold and QF is worth the same as two SF losses. It's absurd.

And since you're the poster who kept talking about flukes or lucky wins.. It takes a single elimination win to reach the semis. One win. That means this second team would have had 2 wins and 2 losses in elimination games. The 1st team would have won 3 eliminations games and loss 1. Hence a more successful record and because tournaments are theoretically progressive, where each game is more important and played against a tougher opponent, each successive victory should be worth more.. but it isn't. Which brings me back to rewarding mid-tier consistency and creating a false equivalency... capesh?

 

[An Argument For]

Would you agree then that Czech Rep was the best hockey nation in the world between 1998 and 2002, and that Sweden was the best between 2006 and 2010?.

Without a doubt. They won Olympic Gold, 3 world Championships, and Two World Juniors. There was a 4 Year span when the Czech's were the most dominant #1 hockey country that we have ever seen.

I get that the ranking is not perfect but at the same time how would you do it? The fact is that Canada was number 1 (even in the iihf ranking) after the last Olympics but between that point and today, they have not performed very well in the world championships.

I would use the FIBA rankings. Gold 50 Points, Silver 40, Bronze 30, 4th 15, 5th 14 etc.

And then I would use the following multipliers.

World Juniors x 1
World Championships x 2.5
Olympics x 5

At least it would reward winning medals and place some emphasis on the importance of tournaments... I might actually make these rankings tonight and see how they play out.

 

[jekoh]

The Gold + Bronze or Silver + Silver are equal but both actually reward success in the tournament.

They are not "equal". If your ranking rewards success, gold + bronze should be worth more. Gold + bronze and silver + silver are not objectively different, but they're not objectively equal either. It's just a matter of opinion.

Similarily it's just a matter of opinion whether or not 1st + 5th is better than 3rd + 3rd.

The discrepancy between the two is bigger in the FIBA ranking, but that does not make it a better ranking. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that there should be no difference between the two, that they both represent the same level of "success".

Under the IIHF system A Gold and QF is worth the same as two SF losses. It's absurd.

There is nothing absurd about 1+8 not being worth more than 4+4.

And since you're the poster who kept talking about flukes or lucky wins.. It takes a single elimination win to reach the semis. One win. That means this second team would have had 2 wins and 2 losses in elimination games. The 1st team would have won 3 eliminations games and loss 1. Hence a more successful record and because tournaments are theoretically progressive, where each game is more important and played against a tougher opponent, each successive victory should be worth more.. but it isn't. Which brings me back to rewarding mid-tier consistency and creating a false equivalency... capesh?

The false equivalency is the idea that Team B has a better record, or even played against tougher opponents. For instance the opponent Team A lost to in the SF is likely to be the same one Team B beat in the final. Similarily if you are a QF loser, your QF opponent is no weaker than a semi-finalist, since it is a semi-finalist. In fact, your opponent in a QF loss (ranked anywhere between 1 and 4) is better than your opponent in a SF win (ranked either 3 or 4).

 

[An Argument For]

They are not "equal". If your ranking rewards success, gold + bronze should be worth more. Gold + bronze and silver + silver are not objectively different, but they're not objectively equal either. It's just a matter of opinion.

Similarily it's just a matter of opinion whether or not 1st + 5th is better than 3rd + 3rd.

Gold and Bronze or Silver and Silver are objectively different that's indisputable.. It's a matter of opinion as to which one is more valuable of course, but that doesn't mean one opinion can't be better substantiated.

The discrepancy between the two is bigger in the FIBA ranking, but that does not make it a better ranking. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that there should be no difference between the two, that they both represent the same level of "success".

There is nothing absurd about 1+8 not being worth more than 4+4..

It's not a reasonable arguement to make and they don't represent the same level of success.. A tournament, by definition, is a competition involving multiple parties to determine a winner. The objective of any tournament is to produce a winner. Therefore winning a tournament is the accomplishment of an objective, which makes it objectively better. Everything we do ranking wise beyond that is an attempt to add value to failing the primary objective.

Also, as already stated, a team who achieves 1st and 8th must win 3 games and lose 1. A team who achieves 4 + 4 must win 2 games and lose 2 games.

3-1 is objectively greater than 2 - 2. There's no way to dispute that. The 1 + 8 team has been objectively better. Capesh?

The false equivalency is the idea that Team B has a better record, or even played against tougher opponents. For instance the opponent Team A lost to in the SF is likely to be the same one Team B beat in the final. Similarily if you are a QF loser, your QF opponent is no weaker than a semi-finalist, since it is a semi-finalist. In fact, your opponent in a QF loss (ranked anywhere between 1 and 4) is better than your opponent in a SF win (ranked either 3 or 4).

This is a mess and I don't know where to start. Team B has the same probablity of beating Team A has it does of beating another team that beat Team A in the SF. That's just probablities. The opponent in a QF loss may be ranked 1,2,3,4 and the opponent in a semifinal win can be ranked 3,4 so how do you know it IS better. There is no certainty in that scenario. The real question is why do we care at all about the strength of opponent in a loss?

For someone who started off discrediting the value of tournaments because of "flukey" wins you certainly did a full 180 by trying to live by objectivity.