Should group standings result in "seedings" for knock-out rounds?

This is something i wrote an article about following the WC98 competition, which features in an online football magazine.

This is with regard to any competition which starts with a group stage, like the WC or CL, in which only the group winners (first and second) qualify.

In the past, the WC and for 1 year i believe the CL as well, there was that "grey" area of "best 3rds". Many hated it, i loved it! why? one main reason: it allowed the last matches of the group stage to still have alot of value, since thats usually when those best 3rds were able to make it.

Now, since usually two out of 4 teams advance, in many cases, entering the last 1 or 2 group matches, some teams have qualified and don't take the games seriously, since it doesn't have any effect on them. However, because of that principle (and they have every right to), they field weaker squads and have no determination, which results in other teams picking up gifted wins and has effect on who else qualifies from this group. A good example is the last WC, when Nigeria and Brazil litrally gifted Paraguay and Norway wins, which effected other teams. Not only that, it gives the spectator some very dull games.

Now, my proposition is something that is used in the NBA and NFL, and thats a simple seeiding system. Based on first round results, the team withbest results gets to be first seed and gets to play the weakest team in the next round, and the second best team gets the second worse qualifier...and so on. Its simple, its effective, and its better in everyway i can think of.

But thats why we have such forums! :happy: now i can get to hear what others think of, and why such a system would be great, or bad. Let me know your thoughs