CONCACAF to overhaul ‘archaic’ World Cup qualifying format

[CanadianSoccerFan]

More sensationalist reaction. 

 

http://www.espnfc.us/international-friendly/53/video/2970711/should-concacaf-ditch-the-hex

 

 I find most Americans are assuming the worst and think this is going to be a full blown UEFA system with every game against Caribbean minnows.  I highly doubt that.  I’m expecting a preliminary group stage like there was in 2014 (where the big teams aren’t involved anyway) to give the minnows a run of games followed by a final round involving 10 to 12 teams.

 

 

 

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

More sensationalist reaction. 

 

http://www.espnfc.us/international-friendly/53/video/2970711/should-concacaf-ditch-the-hex

 

 I find most Americans are assuming the worst and think this is going to be a full blown UEFA system with every game against Caribbean minnows.  I highly doubt that.  I’m expecting a preliminary group stage like there was in 2014 (where the big teams aren’t involved anyway) to give the minnows a run of games followed by a final round involving 10 to 12 teams.

 

 

 

Americans can't cope with not having everything be about them. What's good for CONCACAF is having the level of play increased across the board. This guy wants CONCACAF to just give up on everyone else and just take care of USA. smh

[Kent]

8 hours ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

More sensationalist reaction. 

 

http://www.espnfc.us/international-friendly/53/video/2970711/should-concacaf-ditch-the-hex

 

 I find most Americans are assuming the worst and think this is going to be a full blown UEFA system with every game against Caribbean minnows.  I highly doubt that.  I’m expecting a preliminary group stage like there was in 2014 (where the big teams aren’t involved anyway) to give the minnows a run of games followed by a final round involving 10 to 12 teams.

 

 

 

I've never been a fan of Taylor Twelman. He always aims for sensationalism and he definitely is only concerned about USA in this instance.

[CanadianSoccerFan]

Just now, Kent said:

I've never been a fan of Taylor Twelman. He always aims for sensationalism and he definitely is only concerned about USA in this instance.

Anyone who's listened to him a few times will notice the sense of sourness lurking beneath the surface.  He's still really bitter about his career and has a hard time hiding it.  He was passed over for world cup spots, denied moves to Europe by Robert Kraft, and forced to retire young due to concussions.  It's all stewing beneath the surface.  

[jpg75]

3 hours ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

Anyone who's listened to him a few times will notice the sense of sourness lurking beneath the surface.  He's still really bitter about his career and has a hard time hiding it.  He was passed over for world cup spots, denied moves to Europe by Robert Kraft, and forced to retire young due to concussions.  It's all stewing beneath the surface.  

I think a lot of people would feel the same way, especially the way his transfers out of NE were always shot down. Kraft is a ruthless business man and the Revs have been run the same way the Pats have for 15 years. I don't think he accepted the soccer mentality of accomodating player transfers and replacing said player on the world market. In his eyes there was no reason to sell his best player when the return was minimal and no guarantee the replacement for TT would be as effective.

[Gian-Luca]

19 hours ago, dsqpr said:

Probably, although a lot depends on what the minnows really want. Some of them may be very happy to have it over with quickly. I certainly agree that the key change is likely to be a final round involving more teams. I hope it is at least 12, as I think there are at least 12 teams that would benefit greatly, possibly more depending on the desire and ability of those "middle" teams to play more matches.

Quite. I don't think the proposed changes is being made with the likes of St. Kitts in mind, but the teams that are not minnows by Concacaf standards - Canada, Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, Panama, Jamaica, Guatemala etc.

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said:

Quite. I don't think the proposed changes is being made with the likes of St. Kitts in mind, but the teams that are not minnows by Concacaf standards - Canada, Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, Panama, Jamaica, Guatemala etc.

This is most likely. The CONCACAF minnows are virtually guaranteed to always be minnows because of extremely small populations, and I'm sure other challenges as well. The teams you listed at least have a population base that could be able to support decent or even very good teams. From that list, Canada, Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador (twice), and Jamaica have all made an appearance at the World Cup already.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

This is most likely. The CONCACAF minnows are virtually guaranteed to always be minnows because of extremely small populations, and I'm sure other challenges as well. The teams you listed at least have a population base that could be able to support decent or even very good teams. From that list, Canada, Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador (twice), and Jamaica have all made an appearance at the World Cup already.

I just don't get why people think a minnow would not be benefited, since competiting is the same for everyone, exactly. Canada does not aspire to win a World Cup, nor Honduras, nor Panama; we all wish to make a World Cup and show well, nothing more. Canada has dropped its ambition even and says make a Hex. Suriname might aspire to get out of the first round into the second of WC qualifying. St Kitts, to win a match, win another, win away for the first time. Others, to even draw a match vs certain opponents, ie Belize to get a result vs. Mexico some day. Like Guatemala or El Salvador wanting to draw at Azteca.

Every team sets its own goal, including minnows. They are still competiting, aspiring to better themselves, improve passion for the game. 

By not playing at all, that does not happen. By not being allowed to play, by a system that knocks them out early and forever, less so. By playing more, in real competitive matches, it might. Anyone who follows the European qualifiers sees this, and also sees Faroe Islands getting results. Gibraltar is in the first draw, first win mode right now. But at least they have 10-12 games in WC qualifying to try, not like in Concacaf.

In any case, the whole " a minnow is a permanent state defined by population" argument is weak, and objectively false. What some call minnows in Concacaf, because of small demographics, have similar populations to Iceland. Meaning they have no obligation to think they will always be minnows either.

 

[Kent]

6 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I just don't get why people think a minnow would not be benefited, since competiting is the same for everyone, exactly. Canada does not aspire to win a World Cup, nor Honduras, nor Panama; we all wish to make a World Cup and show well, nothing more. Canada has dropped its ambition even and says make a Hex. Suriname might aspire to get out of the first round into the second of WC qualifying. St Kitts, to win a match, win another, win away for the first time. Others, to even draw a match vs certain opponents, ie Belize to get a result vs. Mexico some day. Like Guatemala or El Salvador wanting to draw at Azteca.

Every team sets its own goal, including minnows. They are still competiting, aspiring to better themselves, improve passion for the game. 

By not playing at all, that does not happen. By not being allowed to play, by a system that knocks them out early and forever, less so. By playing more, in real competitive matches, it might. Anyone who follows the European qualifiers sees this, and also sees Faroe Islands getting results. Gibraltar is in the first draw, first win mode right now. But at least they have 10-12 games in WC qualifying to try, not like in Concacaf.

In any case, the whole " a minnow is a permanent state defined by population" argument is weak, and objectively false. What some call minnows in Concacaf, because of small demographics, have similar populations to Iceland. Meaning they have no obligation to think they will always be minnows either.

 

I do agree that there can and will be benefit to the minnows to play more games, and I think that there probably will be more games for the minnows if/when reform of qualifying happens. But I think the end result for the vast majority will be that they will still be minnows. I think probably the catalyst for change is trying to get the middle tier more competitive, or more consistently competitive, and in the longer term improve the top as well.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 minute ago, Kent said:

I do agree that there can and will be benefit to the minnows to play more games, and I think that there probably will be more games for the minnows if/when reform of qualifying happens. But I think the end result for the vast majority will be that they will still be minnows. I think probably the catalyst for change is trying to get the middle tier more competitive, or more consistently competitive, and in the longer term improve the top as well.

I am sure you are right, in that the idea is to grow the middle class. Mind you, the way the region votes in its president, there is no such thing as a minnow come election time. And Vic knows this, he is where he is because of it , so it appears.

[1986]

I'd try to keep it as simple as possible, but also give everyone a chance to play some real, meaningful games, like Europe does.   

 

 

Stage 1 (35 teams)

*7 groups of 5 teams (8 games, 4 home, 4 away)

*Group winners advance (7 teams advance).

*Best 6 runners-up play home/away leg (3 teams advance)

 

Stage 2 (10 Teams)

*2 groups of 5 teams (8 games, 4 home, 4 away)

*Group winners advance to World Cup (2 teams)

*Runners-up play home/away leg (winner qualifies for world cup, loser gets qualifying spot)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Ref]

Proposed changes to the number of teams in the World Cup seem imminent.  FIFA to decide in January whether to increase the number of teams from 32 to 40, even to 48.  Great chances for Canada to finally make it.

[baulderdash77]

I think CONCACAF will get 1.5 or 2 extra spots if we go to 48.  Maybe 5 spots in total.

Maybe a 1st round of 7 groups of 5.  8 games.  Top 2 from each group plus 2 top 3rd place finishers advance.  

4 groups of 4 teams.  6 games.  Top team from each group qualifies.  2nd place in each 4 group have a playoff round.

Final round in a mini 4 team tournament.  Home and away in 2 rounds with the winning team advancing to the World Cup.

I think it balances out a long enough tournament to accumulate rankings, reduces the impact of getting a bad draw and also really determines the top 5.  The last spot play in would be very dramatic and amazing entertainment.

 

[Complete Homer]

1 hour ago, dsqpr said:

This has an undeniable mathematical elegance but I don't think it meets the needs of our region. Mexico and USA don't want to be burdened with a bunch of extra matches against the minnows of the minnows (plankton?), and those plankton can't afford to play that many matches. I'd also argue that only 10 teams in the final round would still leave out teams who should be playing in WCQ until the bitter end.

Didn't someone mention that travel aid was doubled to 500k by Infantino? That could the catalyst to these reforms, ensuring minnows are given enough aid to actually attend these games

[Unnamed Trialist]

A 48 team World Cup is a frankly disgusting thought. 32 is already a lot, it is 15% of all nations in FIFA. That is a lot I'd say. Up it to 20%, one in five, at the most, but still: the WC is something I watch, true, I follow another team but still. Making it hard to get to, hard to qualify for, that is a good thing, it helps uphold quality. 

I mean, if what you'd have to call strong teams like Egypt, Bulgaria, Hungary, China, have not been in recently and struggle, that is their own damn fault. Like Canada, our fault 100%. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

You would think that a nation of intelligent, talented people who have training in such things would be able to analyse a problem and propose a solution, then execute it, in such a way that its goals might be met, if not always then at least frequently. When Canada is able to do this, something perfectly within our capacity in all respects, we'll be back at the WC.

[1986]

48 is too many.  40 is the most I'd go.

You do 8 groups of 5, the top 2 teams in each group advance like normal.  Each teams get an extra round robin game.  

[Unnamed Trialist]

9 minutes ago, 1986 said:

48 is too many.  40 is the most I'd go.

You do 8 groups of 5, the top 2 teams in each group advance like normal.  Each teams get an extra round robin game.  

The one problem that would arise is that the final day of group play, only 4 of 5 are active. One is finished, so possibly this affects how the others play for specific results. In all eight groups. 

[Kent]

6 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

The one problem that would arise is that the final day of group play, only 4 of 5 are active. One is finished, so possibly this affects how the others play for specific results. In all eight groups. 

Of course I just liked 1986's comment, but this is a good point I hadn't thought of before. I still like it better than 10 groups of 4, and a lot better than the 48 team format that Infantino suggested recently.

[Lurker]

I'm going to pretend my thread about WCQ - Mexico/USA/Farce had 0.00001% influence on this decision, haha.

Great news!

[One American]

I can see a 12-team, 2 group final round. But a full-out UEFA system would suck. It sucks for UEFA.  And going to the World Cup shouldn't be earned by how badly you beat up on Dominica. 

A reasonable rotation would go Gold Cup, Copa, WCQ, WC. 

[Keegan]

16 hours ago, One American said:

I can see a 12-team, 2 group final round. But a full-out UEFA system would suck. It sucks for UEFA.  And going to the World Cup shouldn't be earned by how badly you beat up on Dominica. 

A reasonable rotation would go Gold Cup, Copa, WCQ, WC. 

Dominica wouldn't be in a final 12.  A final 12 would be equivalent to the third round we currently have.. Mexico, USA, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, ES, Jamaica, T&T, Canada, Haiti and Cuba would be the most likely participants but you could have teams like St. V&G, Guyana, Grenada, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Belize, Curacao, Nicaragua etc. challenging for a spot once in a while. 

Get it down to 12 teams in 2 groups by September 2020 and just run on the same schedule as UEFA.  Top team in each group qualifies for the World Cup.  2nd place teams play a playoff, winner qualifies directly, loser has to play for the .5 spot. 

 

 

[Cheeta]

Playoffs are always fun, and that 1/2 spot is of course the proverbial wild card isn't it?

Can't see how Mexico and USA have anything to complain about with a Twin Hex.  They are for the foreseeable future going to be seeded 1-2 in CONCACRAP so Twin Hex wouldn't hurt their chances of qualifying for the Finals. Top two have to be seeded into separate Hexs of course.  

And it's not as though a Twin Hex would demand anything more from teams in the way of fixture numbers, unless of course they finish as runner up.  And if that's the case you should count your lucky stars that there is a playoff.

I like it.  Its a reasonable expansion of qualifying which doesn't overly diminish the merit of qualifying.  I would say it recognizes CONCACRAP's reality (2 regional powers) without prejudicing the 2nd tier teams chances of qualifying while expanding the number of teams which progress to the later rounds of qualifying.  Win-win-win.

Aside from a somewhat "watered down" quality in each Hex (for the favourates anyway) I don't see a down side.  All for the greater good.

[CanadianSoccerFan]

2 hours ago, Cheeta said:

 

Can't see how Mexico and USA have anything to complain about with a Twin Hex.  They are for the foreseeable future going to be seeded 1-2 in CONCACRAP so Twin Hex wouldn't hurt their chances of qualifying for the Finals. Top two have to be seeded into separate Hexs of course.  

 

Except that Costa Rica has been ahead of the US in the FIFA rankings ever since their World Cup run.  

 

I like the double hex but I would prefer if the repechage involved both 2nd and 3rd place finishers in each group.  It would negate any imbalance in the draw and would make for fewer dead rubbers toward the end of the group games.  With the intercontinental playoffs taking place in March 2022 you can play a full 6 game repechage group stage in September through November of 2021 preceded by a double hex from September 2020 through June 2021 (yes, there are enough match days).  This would require 16 match days in total leaving the remaining 14 match days from March 2019 through June 2020 for an expanded preliminary group stage to give the minnows a run of games.        

Alternatively, a 10-team CONMEBOL style round robin could start as late as June 2020 and still finish by November 2021 (9 windows, 18 match days) before the March 2022 intercontinental playoffs.

 

edit: DSQPR read my thoughts lol

[Watchmen]

64 teams, single elimination. No group stage.  Like March Madness.  Doesn't increase the number of games for the final 2 teams. You'll get some poorer teams there for sure but they'll be eliminated quickly, again like in March Madness.  And you'll get some great upsets, again like March Madness.

[CanadianSoccerFan]

35 minutes ago, dsqpr said:

As of 15th Sept, 2016, according to the FIFA Rankings we are currently 13th in CONCACAF!! (So not in the top 12!)

http://en.fifaranking.net/concacaf/ranking.php

But according to ELO we are 7th (this shows rankings for "America" - I couldn't find a way to list only CONCACAF)

http://www.eloratings.net/america.html

It only gets worse.  We're dropping to 14th in the October ranking. If you want to see how much the Caribbean Cup skews the ranking, Honduras will fall behind St Kitts, Antigua, and Curacao!!

http://www.football-rankings.info/2016/10/fifa-ranking-october-2016-final-preview.html