Why do people say CONCACAF is crap?

cause those ranks are crap too.

 

meh, the rankings arent great.

what you cant argue with though is the average of 5 points per team in the last world cup first round.

 

Your rankings are crap as they don't compare apples with apples. For a start CONCACAF's final group that you list averages for qualified 3 teams automatically and gave another a playoff. Each African group only qualified 1 team. OFC's group qualified no one. If you average the final group of 2 that OFC qualifies from it gives an average ranking of 22. Of course all this is meaningless. The toughest place to qualify from is Europe, then South America, then OFC (due to the playoff with South America), then Africa, then CONCACAF and AFC bring up the rear. This isn't due to the quality of team at the top of each region, but the quality of team you need to beat to qualify.

 

let me get some of that stuff you're sniffing...

 

until concacaf teams consistently reach the semi-finals and at least two reach quarterfinals, we will still be inferior in the eyes of most Europeans and S. Americans.

 

says the girl who comes out with useless stats.

 

Er, no, it isn't, because as has already been pointed out to you differing number of teams qualify from those groups. So essentially you're stats are completely meaningless.

 

calm down. despite not reading your whole post, i see the useless graphics are probably to rile Euros and SAs up.
maybe it should have been in world rivalries instead...

but i do believe concacaf is the future. others definitely won't listen or care what you say. just a foreshadow.

good luck...

sissy.

 

this is another very good reason why people say we're crap. granted, it's not like UEFA and CAF don't have a bajillion worthless teams, but they do have more decent or quality sides.

 

The CONCACAF is like the beer league of the world minus Mexico, US, and arguably Costa Rica. Point final.

 

fair 'nuff, little girl.

good stats, you're right.

and actually, i believe there is a ignore list. ask someone who gives a crap.

good luck.

 

The point that there are a lot of minnows is well-taken. But of the bottom half of those 32 teams, guess how many have a population of > 1,000,000? A whopping ONE (D.R., which is admittedly total crap in soccer--they're happy to be the best place on the planet by far for baseball). You can't really expect very small nations to succeed at the international level, although they might produce excellent individual players. So if you look at in terms of percentage of good teams, sure, the little island nations are going to ensure that the region will never be a Europe in terms of soccer strength (or practically anything else--economic or political power, cultural influence, etc.), where there are a lot of good teams. It just isn't feasible.

You should really judge the region by teams of, let's say 1,000,000 or greater. Without checking my CIA world factbook, we have:

US
Mex
CAN
CR
Panama
Cuba
Haiti (a functioning country in name only)
Honduras
Guat.
ES
Nicaragua
Puerto Rico (US territory)
T&T (not much bigger than a million people)
DR

Again, you will notice the only large countries not at the top half of the region are on the island of Hispaniola (DR and Haiti).

Of those 10 or 11 teams, you have 2 very good ones (US, Mex), one just plain good one (Costa Rica), 4 or 5 okay teams (T&T, Honduras, Guat., Panama), 2 not quite good enough to be called okay teams (Canada and ES, maybe Cuba, which is just now taking to the sport in all earnestness) and only Haiti, DR, and (if you count it) Puerto Rico, and Nicarague as minnows. Meanwhile, ALL of the teams under 1,000,000 could be classified as minnows. Not one of them is close to being decent.

So be clear what you mean when you say "Concacaf isn't that good." Among decent-sized countries, it's not that bad--certainly the ratio of good teams in countries of 1,000,000 or more compares quite favorably to Asia and Africa.

Of course, Oceania is mostly made up of these same types of countries. We should judge the confeds on the quality of those teams that can be reasonably expected to be decent. Concacaf does very well by this measure.

Of the 14 (again, if we really can include P.R.?) teams that are not prohibited by population from being good sides, 7 are ranked in the FIFA top 55 (sorry, too lazy to look up other rankings). That's a pretty competitive group. Meanwhile, the African and Asian Confederations, which have many more countries that are not micro-states, have 9 and 5, respectively in the top 55.

Sorry, but you can't say that Concacaf is crap. Among non-micro states, we are only surpassed by South America (and maybe Europe) in the % of good teams.

 

While it is easier to qualify from CONCACAF the games are harder than the average game in an UEFA group, if the ELO rankings are to be believed. The reason for this is because CONCACAF gets rid of its crap teams early before the group stage. The US won a 6 team group harder than the average UEFA group.

 

I wouldn't. Not sure how you can even get a valid comparison. They rarely play each other and World Cup history tells me that African Teams at World Cups do not perform as well as CONCACAF teams. Its hard to get a straight up comparison as in the previous two tournaments Africans and North Americans weren't drawn in groups together.

 

Three automatic birth and one play-off against Asian team, fair enough, 4 out of 32 teams.

 

Which conveniently overlooks the fact that 3 1/2 teams qualify out of the CONCACAF group whereas an average of 1.625 teams qualify out of a UEFA group. So wheras you might plausibly argue that the games are (slightly) harder, it's not the critical issue in terms of comparing the difficulty of qualification. Look at T&T's record, for example.