Thread for Developing a Statistical System for Determining WC Allocations

[photar74]

Originally posted by lanman


I'm not trying to compare African and South American teams, I was just responding to your post.
However, if South America should be given 5.5 places, then UEFA should get over 20 places.

Close, but not quite. If CONMEBOL deserves 5.50 spaces, then UEFA deserves 17.50 spaces.

[wolf6656]

Thank you photar for creating a thread that is very near and dear to my heart.
First of all,If FIFA is truly a world organizing body,and OFC has full confederation status, then OFC should have a guaranteed slot, as should all other Confederations. Each confederation should have its top qualifier in the final.
Simply, each World Cup should have 8 automatic guaranteed slots. The host (no co-hosting), the holder, and 1 from each confederation.
Since 32 is an optimum number of teams for the final from a simple mathematical standpoint, we will stick with that. 32 minus 8 leaves 24 slots to fill.
My idea is this.
Whatever mathematical system you develop will be based on percentages in the final analysis. Of the remaining 24 slots, you make 18 of them automatic, which is to say, based on the percentages. (whichever percentages you choose to apply) If the realtive strengths were even, there would be 3 teams from each confederation among the 18.(6x3=18) Obviously this is not the case, but it is a simple target for each confederation to aim for. In reality UEFA would likely get half of the 18 slots, and it would go down from there. (hint. if you take the top 64 FIFA ranked teams in the world by confederation, and divide by two, you end up with numbers very close to the current slot allocation)

What about the last 6 slots? My idea would benefit on many levels, importantly monetarily, which eventually equals politically.
Based again on whatever statistical analysis you chose to use, each confederation would be assigned it's percentage of 24 playoff slots. The 24 teams would be divided into 6 groups of four, to play for the final 6 slots in the final. Winner take all in each group.
Each confederation would host one of these 6 tournaments, spreading the wealth.
Obviously you would spread the playoff qualifying teams amongst the 6 groups, so each confederation would have maximum chance of advancing. (There would likely be at least 1 UEFA team in each group, and based on current strengths at least 4 CONMEBOL's)
More importantly, these tournaments would be an excellent tune-up for the teams, and give us some excellent games. Since the tournaments are spread worldwide, each confederation benefits,and the profile of international football is raised. For some of the playoff teams, this will be "their" World Cup. I believe this to be an equitable system to decide between the mid-to low-range teams.
Not only that, these tournaments would give us some important inter-continental matches with which to adjust our rankings for the next World Cup.
Sure you will get groups with Denmark, Tunisia, Honduras, and Uzbekistan, but what better way to help the minnows? Besides, Senegal wasn't supposed to take out France in the first game of 2002.
Anything can happen, more of the world is involved, and the game gains a wider high-level exposure. Hosting one of these playoff tournaments can be a practise for one day eventually hosting the big show. Infrastructure will benefit etc.

[Sagy]

Wolf6656,

In principle, I like your idea of the three tier (confederation champ, automatic qualifier, playoff) approach. However, I have a hard time giving OFC a champion a spot, I have no problem giving OFC an automatic qualifier spot (see below).

My idea is to first I would establish some overall guidelines:

No confederation can have more than half the teams in the WC - we want it to be a world cup.
No more than half of the teams in a confederation can make it to the WC - if you can't be in the top half of your confederation, you shouldn't get a shot at the world championship.
Past success/failure has to be taken into account - politics and deals are not as important as on the field performance.
Host country automatic spot is taken out of its confederation allocation - a confederation should not have a double reward "home" field advantage for the WC and an extra team.
If the title holder gets an automatic spot (I can go either way), that spot is also taken out of its confederation allocation.
1998 & 2002 allocations a reasonable (best available?) starting point for calculation of future allocations.

The automatic qualifier spots will be allocated based on the inter-confederation record in the last two WC group stage, WC playoff games and the group stage of the last three Confederations cups (we might as well give some meaning to this tournament).

The process is as follows:

Calculate the total number of points for each confederation
If confederation gets a confederation champ spot count it as a spot (all except OFC)
Allocate one spot to each confederation
For each confederation, divide the number of points by the number of spots so far.
Allocate a spot to the confederation with the highest score, if it had not reach the max allowed.
Repeat steps 4 & 5 until all spots have been allocated.

I can buy the argument that the team with the best record for each confederation should not be used to calculate the confederation score.

The Playoff allocations will be done by following the above method for 16 more spots.

If I added the number of points from WC1998, WC2002, CC1999, CC2001, and CC2003 correctly we get:
G W T L Pts Pts(W=2)
UEFA 76 35 21 20 126 91
CONMEBOL 47 20 16 11 76 56
AFC 40 12 8 20 44 32
CAF 39 9 15 15 42 33
CONCACAF 33 10 8 15 38 28
OFC 13 3 2 8 11 8

Spots Pts/spot Pts/(spot+1)
UEFA 1+8 14.00 12.60
CONMEBOL 1+4 15.20 (Reached max teams)
AFC 1+2 14.67 11.00
CAF 1+2 14.00 10.50
CONCACAF 1+2 12.67 9.50
OFC 0+1 11.00 5.50The next spot would have gone to UEFA. If we use 2 points for a win, the allocation is the same.

The 16 "last chance" spots will be allocated as follows
Spots Pts/spot Pts/(spot+1)
UEFA 1+8+7 7.88 (Reached max teams)
CONMEBOL 1+4+0 (Reached max teams)
AFC 1+2+3 7.33 6.29
CAF 1+2+3 7.00 6.00
CONCACAF 1+2+3 6.33 5.43
OFC 0+1+0 11.00 5.50
The next spot would have gone to AFC. If we use 2 points for a win, then CAF will have 4 "last chance" spots and CONCACAF only 2 (by a 0.04 margin).

Based on this system
[list]
CONMEBOL gets 5 spots - hard to justify giving them more.
OFC gets 1 and if they improve, a chance at another.
UEFA gets at least 9, and a chance at 16 if they are that good.
AFC CAF & CONCACAF all get 3 spots plus a chance at 3 more. If they are as good and deep as they claim they'll end up with more spots than they have today; if not, they have to improve - they got a fair chance on the field.

This actually works nice for UEFA, they can have 8 qualifying groups ("trade" the champ spot for a qualifier spot). Group winners plus best 2nd place are automatic qualifiers. The other second place team go to the playoff. When a UEFA team is the host of the WC (as in 2006), they can have 7 groups. UEFA Camp + Winners are the automatic qualifiers and the second place teams go to the playoff.

I like the playoff to be a "last chance" tournament of 16 teams. Four groups of four, winner gets in, 2nd place plays a one game elimination vs 3rd place for the last 4 spots. This tournament will take place at the sites of the WC during Oct/Nov before the WC over a two week period. if this is done, no teams from the same confederation (other than UEFA) can be in the same group and no more than 2 UEFA teams can be in the same group.

The problem with the "Last Chance" tournament that it adds 1-2 games to the qualifying process. An alternative is to have these 16 teams play a home & home as they do today, but instead of playing the playoffs intra-confederation, make it an inter-confederation affair. The "first" game should be CAF-AFC (they have higher score than CONCACAF), the remaining seven teams should play against the UEFA representatives.

[wolf6656]

Sagy said, "However, I have a hard time giving OFC a champion a spot, I have no problem giving OFC an automatic qualifier spot (see below)."

I don't see a whole lot of difference between giving OFC one in the first column, or in the second column. When I run your system in Excel, If I give OFC one in the first column, they don't earn one in the second column anyway. (so what's the difference, either way they get one)

Sagy said, "No confederation can have more than half the teams in the WC - we want it to be a world cup."

I agree with that. UEFA cannot have more than 16.

Sagy said, "No more than half of the teams in a confederation can make it to the WC - if you can't be in the top half of your confederation, you shouldn't get a shot at the world championship."

I agree that no Confederation should have more than half of its teams in the direct qualifying (automatic) section. However, if they qualify by the statistical method into the playoff section, then I say let them. They still have to prove themselves against the others in the playoff, and we might finally settle some arguments over time. Besides, letting them into the playoff round, will give us another set of games to use in our calculation for the next WC.

Sagy said, "Host country automatic spot is taken out of its confederation allocation - a confederation should not have a double reward "home" field advantage for the WC and an extra team. and If the title holder gets an automatic spot (I can go either way), that spot is also taken out of its confederation allocation."

Upon reflection, you are correct. The host and holder take the first available slots for their respective confederations. (guaranteed entry). Then the rest of the qualifiers filter in afterwards.

Sagy said, "The automatic qualifier spots will be allocated based on the inter-confederation record in the last two WC group stage, WC playoff games and the group stage of the last three Confederations cups (we might as well give some meaning to this tournament). "

Why not count the playoffs in the Confederations cups? If you're going to give the Confed Cup some meaning, then give it all some meaning.

As far as the process of your method goes, I like it except where you occasionally have two teams with the same number of points remaining. (If it were for the last slot, how would you decide which team to give it to?)
A way to help avoid this is to take the total points, and add to it the average points per game played. The average is a number between 0 and 3, so it won't make that much difference to the total, but will give added decimal places to help avoid ties.

Sagy said, "The Playoff allocations will be done by following the above method for 16 more spots."

I still like 24 automatic and 8 playoff spots. But I like 32 teams in the playoff round. 8 groups of 4. Bottom 2 of each group are out. Top 2 advance to a round of 16 to be played in World Cup host country in Oct./Nov. of year before World Cup.

I got different totals for points, even using the same games as you. I was using 1 point each for knockout games decided by penalties, instead of 3 for penalty win and 0 for penalty loss. The game after all was a draw.

Sagy said. "The problem with the "Last Chance" tournament that it adds 1-2 games to the qualifying process. An alternative is to have these 16 teams play a home & home as they do today, but instead of playing the playoffs intra-confederation, make it an inter-confederation affair. The "first" game should be CAF-AFC (they have higher score than CONCACAF), the remaining seven teams should play against the UEFA representatives."

The real problem is the various confederation methods for qualifying. While I realize they all have different numbers of teams to work with, there should still be a standard method to eliminate the minnows, before getting down to business. This is where we eliminate the excess game load.
I will have more on that topic later.

All in all, I like your idea, it is elegant, and gives whole numbers. I would just make the changes noted.

[Sagy]

First, thanks for the feedback and comments.

Sagy said, "However, I have a hard time giving OFC a champion a spot, I have no problem giving OFC an automatic qualifier spot (see below)."

I don't see a whole lot of difference between giving OFC one in the first column, or in the second column. When I run your system in Excel, If I give OFC one in the first column, they don't earn one in the second column anyway. (so what's the difference, either way they get one)You are 100% correct, my statement was an emotional one. It really makes no difference.

I agree that no Confederation should have more than half of its teams in the direct qualifying (automatic) section. However, if they qualify by the statistical method into the playoff section, then I say let them. They still have to prove themselves against the others in the playoff, and we might finally settle some arguments over time. Besides, letting them into the playoff round, will give us another set of games to use in our calculation for the next WC.I have a problem with this, other than the philosophical considerations, there are practical ones - 5 CONMEBOL teams get automatic qualifier spots and 4-5 more go to the playoff? This feels wrong.

Why not count the playoffs in the Confederations cups? If you're going to give the Confed Cup some meaning, then give it all some meaning.In the long run it make little difference, so I can go either way. My logic was to not give a confederation additional credit due to the success of it's top teams.

As far as the process of your method goes, I like it except where you occasionally have two teams with the same number of points remaining. (If it were for the last slot, how would you decide which team to give it to?)
A way to help avoid this is to take the total points, and add to it the average points per game played. The average is a number between 0 and 3, so it won't make that much difference to the total, but will give added decimal places to help avoid ties.I solved it by giving to the confederation with the least number of spots. Your idea is brilliant! :) I love it.

I still like 24 automatic and 8 playoff spots. But I like 32 teams in the playoff round. 8 groups of 4. Bottom 2 of each group are out. Top 2 advance to a round of 16 to be played in World Cup host country in Oct./Nov. of year before World Cup.The problem with 32 teams is that you are starting to get low level teams - OFC will have 2 PO spots, AFC & CAF 8 and CONCACAF 7. Are we really interested in giving the 10th, 11th teams from these confederations a second chance? :rolleyes:
Even if we let the other 5 CONMEBOL teams into the playoffs (every team is in!), we end up with 9th, 10th place teams from AFC, CAF and CONCACAF. :eek:

I got different totals for points, even using the same games as you. I was using 1 point each for knockout games decided by penalties, instead of 3 for penalty win and 0 for penalty loss. The game after all was a draw.I only looked at the group stage and WCQ playoffs (e.g. Iran-Ireland, Australia-Uruguay) - I ignored the knockout games. There is also a probability that I made a mistake counting :( . Can you please send me your numbers.

The real problem is the various confederation methods for qualifying. While I realize they all have different numbers of teams to work with, there should still be a standard method to eliminate the minnows, before getting down to business. This is where we eliminate the excess game load.
I will have more on that topic later.I couldn't agree more.
What are your ideas?

[Andy TAUS]

This thread is meant to develop a hypothetical system that would allow us to discuss what confederations do actually "deserve" what. There is nothing naive about my position on allocations. The thread is meant to be hypothetical (and wishful), nothing more.photar74,

I too would like statistics to be used to determine WC Finals place allocation but FIFA politics have ALREADY tainted the use of any such historical data.

The problem with this proposal is that the last two WC Finals were played by 32 teams coming from confederation allocations ALREADY DETERMINED by FIFA politics (eg the FIFA backflip on Oceania direct qualification). If the qualification path is constrained (look up the true meaning of the word before flaming me) by such FIFA politics then evidence of PAST attendance & performance at the finals is not a valid argument/methodology in determing the NEXT WC Finals place allocations.

The argument is very much like the British courts now allowing evidence to be used (in a British trial of British citizens on British laws) obtained by a third country (USA) alledgedly using torture (in camp GITMO). The evidence is palpably UN-RELIABLE and should NEVER be used in the British courts.

Likewise any WC Finals statistics used emanating from the previous two WC Finals are also equally UN-RELIABLE and should NEVER be used for determining the next WC Finals place allocation. Should such evidence be used, then it will only PERPETUATE the previous situation and would not promote the stated outcome of a fairer (my interpretation of your intent) allocation of WC Finals places IN THE FUTURE.

That all said & done, I very much like the idea of a different method of allocation of the WC Finals places.

[Andy TAUS]

Brazil & Argentina always qualify.RichardL,

FWIW.

In the 1994 WC Finals playoffs, Argentina (with Maradonna in the team) finished in the playoff place for CONMEBOL and had to overcome Australia (1-1 & 1-0).

They just made it into the WC Finals.

[wolf6656]

Here are the numbers I get from the various tournaments.
Note: In playoffs, 3 points for a win in either 90 minutes or 120 minutes or
Golden Goal.
1 point for a penalty shootout win or loss (the match ends in a draw)
(the victory comes in a completely different type of game)
1 point for a draw

(sorry these columns are all so tidy in Excel, but fall apart in straight text)

Groups - playoffs
wc98 W D L gp pts - W D L gp pts
UEFA 15 11 5 31 56 - 5 2 1 8 17
CAF 3 6 6 15 15 - 0 0 1 1 0
CONM 7 5 3 15 26 - 1 2 3 6 5
CONC 2 2 5 9 8 - 0 0 1 1 0
AFC 1 2 9 12 5 - 0 0 0 0 0
OFC 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0

Groups - playoffs
wc02 W D L gp pts - W D L gp pts
UEFA 12 9 10 31 45 - 6 1 6 13 19
CAF 3 6 6 15 15 - 1 0 1 2 3
CONM 6 4 5 15 22 - 4 0 1 5 12
CONC 4 3 2 9 15 - 0 0 1 1 0
AFC 4 2 6 12 14 - 1 1 3 5 4
OFC 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0

Groups - playoffs
CC03 W D L gp pts - W D L gp pts
UEFA 4 1 1 6 13 - 2 0 0 2 6
CAF 2 1 0 3 7 - 1 0 1 2 3
CONM 3 1 2 6 10 - 0 0 2 2 0
CONC 0 1 2 3 1 - 0 0 0 0 0
AFC 1 0 2 3 3 - 0 0 0 0 0
OFC 0 0 3 3 0 - 0 0 0 0 0

Groups - playoffs
CC01 W D L gp pts - W D L gp pts
UEFA 2 0 1 3 6 - 2 0 0 2 6
CAF 1 0 2 3 3 - 0 0 0 0 0
CONM 1 2 0 3 5 - 0 0 2 2 0
CONC 0 1 5 6 1 - 0 0 0 0 0
AFC 4 1 1 6 13 - 1 0 1 2 3
OFC 2 0 1 3 6 - 1 0 1 2 3

Groups - playoffs
CC99 W D L gp pts - W D L gp pts
UEFA 1 0 2 3 3 - 0 0 0 0 0
CAF 0 2 1 3 2 - 0 0 0 0 0
CONM 3 2 1 6 11 - 1 0 1 2 3
CONC 4 1 1 6 13 - 2 0 0 2 6
AFC 1 1 1 3 4 - 0 0 2 2 0
OFC 0 0 3 3 0 - 0 0 0 0 0

Here are the grand totals.....
I take the pts. and divide by gp(games played) to get the average points per game.
(I realize I should say match instead of game, but it's my hockey background, I revert to hockey terminology)
The total is pts. plus average.
You can see that it changes the relative values of the numbers very little, but adds those critical decimal places to differentiate between numbers that are very close.
Besides that, average is a valid measure of performance with which to differential between equal totals.

CONF W - D - L - gp - pts - ave - total
UEFA 29 - 11 - 20 - 60 - 98 - 1.633 - 99.633
CONM 18 - 9 - 14 - 41 - 63 - 1.537 - 64.537
AFC 12 - 5 - 16 - 33 - 41 - 1.242 - 42.242
CONC 10 - 6 - 11 - 27 - 36 - 1.333 - 37.333
CAF 8 - 9 - 11 - 28 - 33 - 1.179 - 34.179
OFC 3 - 0 - 8 - 11 - 9 - 0.818 - 9.818
TOTALS 280 - 287.742

The numbers on the bottom line are totals for those columns.
I calculated each confederation's percentage of the total for both columns, and came out with almost identical percentages,

Confed - pct. of pts. - pct. of total
UEFA - 35.00% - 34.63%
CONM - 22.50% - 22.43%
AFC - 14.64% - 14.68%
CONC - 12.86% - 12.97%
CAF - 11.79% - 11.88%
OFC - 3.21% - 3.41%

so the addition of the average to the points does not change things in the macro, but only in the micro.

Is there a limit to the length of a post? I think I will post this and continue in another post.

[wolf6656]

Ok,now we answer a few of our questions.
You had a problem giving Oceania (Australia) a direct qualifying slot.
On the one hand, based on strict merit, so do I.
On the other hand if FIFA wants to call it a confederation then that's what it is.
Regardless of that, I tweaked your system just a little bit and found that we don't have to give anyone a guaranteed slot.

Let's set up our spreadsheet....
Set up your columns. Here are the headings
Confederation,
Points plus average,
Start,
Direct slots,
Playoff slots,
Total slots,
Calculation,
Remainder.

Under Confederation we list the 6 confederations.
Under Start we enter the number 1 for each confederation.
We leave direct slots, and playoff slots emtpy for now.
Under calculation we put the formula "= start + direct slots + playoff slots"
Under remainder we put the formula "= Points plus average / calculation

The tweak here is that the start column is not an allocation of slots, it is just a number to avoid division by zero in the remainder column.

Now we compare remainders and enter a 1 in the direct slots column beside the appropriate confederation.
We continue adding 1 to each confederation's direct slots until we reach 24 total direct slots.

Now there are rules as you stated.
1. No confederation (Conmebol) can have more than half of its teams directly qualify for the World Cup Final. Conmebol reaches its maximum at 5.
(And that goes for you too Oceania, you can't have more than 6. ;-P )
2. No confederation can have more than 1/3 of the total direct slots. (8)
Here is the logic/philosophy.
There are six confederations. If all things were equal they would each have 1/6th of the slots. All things are not equal, but in order to provide some sense of balance, we limit direct participation to 2/6ths (1/3 = 2 confeds worth)

Note: Conmebol reaches its maximum (5) at the 19th slot.
UEFA reaches it maximum (8) at the 20th slot.
Oceania sneaks in at number 24.

Here are the results....
Confederation Direct Slots slot number
UEFA 8 1,3,7,9,12,15,17,20
CONMEBOL 5 2,8,10,16,19
AFC 4 4,11,18,23
CAF 3 5,13,21
CONCACAF 3 6,14,22
OFC 1 24
total 24

These are the teams that qualify directly for the World Cup Final.
They are the cream of their respective crops.

Now we start entering numbers in the playoff slots column using the same procedure.
The rules are slightly different, and here's where we find our talking points.
These slots are playoff slots.
The teams that find themselves in this column will have to reach this level in their confederation's qualifying round.
These teams will have to playoff in groups against the other confederations teams to qualify for the World Cup Final.
We will get some lesser teams in here. Some of these teams have little hope of making it past this round, but upsets happen. That's why they play the matches. (Senegal vs France in 2002.) You might get a Solomon Islands in here, but you may also get Denmark, Ireland, Uruguay. You may find China PR, Iraq, Canada.
You will not likely find Brazil, Argentina, England, Italy, France etc. in the playoff round, but then again you might if they don't send their best to their opening round of qualifiers.
The important point is participation. Each confederation will feel that it was given a fair chance to qualify. I hope to put an end to the bickering.
As to the number of teams, I chose 32. It gives us a familiar format to bring us down to the 8 teams required. We could do it with 24. That point is open to discussion.

The rules are
1. No confederation can have more than 1/3 of the playoff slots.
2. No confederation can have its direct slots plus its playoff slots total more than 16.

I feel that Conmbebol's bottom 5 should be allowed in here if the numbers decide they belong. I realize your philisophical view on this, and I understand it. My point is this. They still have to WIN the playoff to qualify for the final.
But if the confederation is that strong, then let them go.
If we let them in, then rule 3 is obvious. No confederation can send more teams than it actually has.

Here are the numbers...
Confederation Direct Slots slot number
UEFA 8 1,3,6,9,11,14,17,19
CONMEBOL 5 2,5,10,13,18
AFC 7 8,15,21,24,27,30,32
CAF 6 4,12,20,23,28,31
CONCACAF 5 7,16,22,26,29
OFC 1 25

If you only want 24 in the playoff you can delete the slot numbers above 24.
Conmebol reached its limit at number 18, UEFA at number 19.
OFC snuck in at number 25.

The interesting thing is that if you took my percentages from the previous post, and multiply them by the number of total slots (e.g. 24) you end up with the same number of slots per confederation, however this method puts them in order.
We could also use the order of slots to assign teams to their groups.
I have to go now, but I will finish this later.

[wolf6656]

I looked at the previous post later on and realized that it wasn't very clear.
I didn't have time to preview before submitting.
Posts look a lot different when they are posted than they do when you are typing them.

DIRECT SLOT RESULTS....
Confederation - Direct Slots - slot number order
UEFA - Direct Slots 8 - slot number order 1,3,7,9,12,15,17,20
CONMEBOL - Direct Slots 5 - slot number order 2,8,10,16,19
AFC - Direct Slots 4 - slot number order 4,11,18,23
CAF - Direct Slots 3 - slot number order 5,13,21
CONCACAF - Direct Slots 3 - slot number order 6,14,22
OFC - Direct Slots 1 - slot number order 24
total - Direct Slots 24

Using July 04 FIFA rankings, and just taking the teams in order, we would have directly qualified the following teams....
France, Spain, Czech Republic, Netherlands, England, Italy, Turkey, Germany.
Brazil, Argentina ,Paraguay ,Uruguay ,Colombia .
Korea Republic, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan .
Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal .
Mexico, USA, Costa Rica .
Australia

PLAYOFF SLOT RESULTS...
Confederation - Playoff Slots - slot number order
UEFA 8 - slot number order 1,3,6,9,11,14,17,19
CONMEBOL 5 - slot number order 2,5,10,13,18
AFC 7 - slot number order 8,15,21,24,27,30,32
CAF 6 - slot number order 4,12,20,23,28,31
CONCACAF 5 - slot number order 7,16,22,26,29
OFC 1 - slot number order 25

We could also use the order of slots to assign teams to their groups.

In other words if you had 32 (8 groups of 4)
Group A would contain the teams from slots number 1, 9, 17, and 25.
Group B could be teams from slot 2, 10, 18, 26
but no, that doesn't work because Group A would have 3 UEFA's (1,9,17)
and group B would have 3 CONMEBOLs.(2,10,18)
(ok forget that idea)
Seeding and drawing teams for these groups might take some thought.
You could assign slot numbers 1 thru 8 into the 8 groups A-H,
A-1 UEFA, B-2 CONM, C-3 UEFA, D-4 CAF,
E-5 CONM, F-6 UEFA, G-7 CONC, H-8 AFC

then take #9 UEFA and fit it into the first group it fits into, (it can't go into A because there is already a UEFA there, but it will fit into B.
#10 CONM will fit into A, #11 UEFA won't fit C but goes into D,
#12 CAF will fit C etc. etc.
So using that method, the groups would be as follows
(I am using July 04 FIFA rankings to name a country likely to be in that position. July 04 FIFA rank in brackets.()

GROUP A-
slot1 (UEFA's9th ranked team), Portugal (12)
slot10 (CONMEBOL's 8th ranked team), Chile (66)
slot20 (CAF's 6th ranked team), Tunisia (35)
slot25 (OFC's #2 team) New Zealand (83)
Portugal had better win this.

GROUP B -
2 (CONMEBOL 6th), Ecuador (37)
9 (UEFA #12), Ireland (16)
21 (AFC #7), Bahrain (51)
26 (CONCACAF #7), Cuba (66)
Ireland should win, but there could be a surprise.

GROUP C-
3 (UEFA #10), Greece (14)
12 (CAF #5), Egypt (34)
18 (CONMEBOL #10), Bolivia (99)
27 (AFC #9), Kuwait (56)
Greece I suppose.

GROUP D-
4 (CAF #4), Morocco (31)
11 UEFA#13), Sweden (19)
22 (CONCACAF#6), Trinidad and Tobago (63)
30 (AFC #10), Oman (58)
Should be Sweden, but never count out Trinidad.

GROUP E-
5 (CONMEBOL 7), Venezuela (50)
14 (UEFA 14), Croatia (23)
23 (CAF 7), South Africa (39)
32 (AFC 11), Thailand (64)
Croatia and South Africa might be a good match.

GROUP F-
6 (UEFA 11), Denmark (15)
13 (CONMEBOL 9), Peru (75)
24 (AFC 8), Qatar (54)
29 (CONCACAF 8), Guatemala (88)
I'm a Denmark fan ok, so don't even ask me who will win this one.

GROUP G-
7 (CONCACAF 4), Jamaica (49)
15 (AFC 6), Iraq (43)
17 (UEFA 15), Belgium (24)
28 (CAF 8), Mali (46)
The closest battle so far, it depends on which Belgium shows up.

GROUP H -
8 (AFC 5), Jordan (40)
16 (CONCACAF 5), Honduras (54)
19 (UEFA 16), Russia (26)
31 (CAF 9), Zimbabwe (46)
Anyone's game the way Russia plays in tournaments.

Ok, the groups may not be lined up like this, but these are the types of teams that make this playoff round. It really looks like a tune-up session for the European teams, but surprises do happen. The point is that the teams that advance from here into the final have earned it fair and square, and I don't want to hear any complaining about slot allocations.
I you can't advance out of this playoff round, then you shouldn't be in the final anyway.

If the top 2 teams go to a round of 16, 8 winners go to the World Cup Final, 8 losers spend 4 years complaining about the state of refereeing.
The 16 3rd and 4th place teams go home and discuss how to take their game to the next level.
What we have done is give more teams a chance, (including 2 extra UEFA teams) than would have had a chance in the current setup.
What I like about the playoff round, is the fact that more countries get to participate in important international tournament play than would ever have the chance otherwise. It has to improve the quality of play simply by increased interest alone. Increased interest means greater participation, effort and development.

The real thing here is that the confederations ALL get a greater chance to put teams into the final. I am really sick of the bickering every 4 years about who got screwed out of a slot.
I know it seems wrong that all 10 teams from CONMEBOL got a chance at going to the final, but remember the bottom 5 have a tough road to get there, and if they make it, they deserve it.
The same goes for the European teams. It is possible that they could have 16 teams in the final, but remember 8 of those teams had to beat intercontinenal competition to get there. Surely, looking at the groups it looks likely they could have that many, but that is this years numbers. Next time around as the game improves in Asia, Africa and elsewhere, Europe may find they get fewer teams through to the final.

We all want the final to be a great spectacle, to do that we need the best teams, but we also need the intercontinental flavour. I feel the playoff round accomplishes that.

Next we have to work on the confederation's qualifying methods. We have to reduce the number of games, yet still get the best teams to go through.

CONMEBOL's Grand Ligua scheme is excessive. 18 games each?
A draw into 2 groups of five seems better, (8 games each) plus playoffs.
A1 and B1 bye,
A2 vs B3, A3 vs B2, (losers play for 5th and 6th)

winner of the A2 game vs B1,
winner of B2 game vs A1
losers of these two games play for 3rd, 4th, winners play for 1st-2nd.

10 games maximum
Tomorrow I will look at Concacaf

[Andy TAUS]

wolf6656,

Well done. Good posts.

[Sagy]

First, I think I identified the difference between our numbers. I included the inter-confederation playoff games: 22-11-97 Tehran Iran 1-1 Australia
29-11-97 Melbourne Australia 2-2 Iran
10-11-01 Dublin Ireland 2-0 Iran
15-11-01 Tehran Iran 1-0 Ireland
20-11-01 Melbourne Australia 1-0 Uruguay
25-11-01 Montevideo Uruguay 3-0 Australia I think that these games are very important when it comes to analyzing the "bubble" teams. They are also very critical for OFC, representing 5 more points. Side note, they also show that Australia (record of 1:2:1) is truly a bubble team.

The new totals are: Without knockout stage points
G W D L Pts Total
UEFA 76 35 21 20 126 127.7
CONMEBOL 47 21 14 12 77 78.6
AFC 40 12 8 20 44 45.1
CAF 39 9 15 15 42 43.1
CONCACAF 33 10 8 15 38 39.2
OFC 13 3 2 8 11 11.8

Including knockout stage points
G W D L Pts Total
UEFA 101 50 24 27 174 175.7
CONMEBOL 64 27 16 21 97 98.5
AFC 49 14 9 26 51 52.0
CAF 44 11 15 18 48 49.1
CONCACAF 37 12 8 17 44 45.2
OFC 15 4 2 9 14 14.9As it turns out, the change makes no difference for spots 23 & 24 which are the key spots. For the rest of this post, I'll use the results with the knockout stage points included.
2. No confederation can have more than 1/3 of the total direct slots. (8)
Here is the logic/philosophy.
There are six confederations. If all things were equal they would each have 1/6th of the slots. All things are not equal, but in order to provide some sense of balance, we limit direct participation to 2/6ths (1/3 = 2 confeds worth)I tend to like the logic, let's see what is does: UEFA limited to 16 automatic spots
Auto Automatic Slot #
UEFA 9 1 3 6 9 11 14 17 18 22
CONMEBOL 5 2 7 10 15 19
AFC 3 4 12 20
CAF 3 5 13 21
CONCACAF 3 8 16 23
OFC 1 24

UEFA limited to 8 automatic spots
Auto Automatic Slot #
UEFA 8 1 3 6 9 11 14 17 18 22-removed
CONMEBOL 5 2 7 10 15 19
AFC 4 4 12 20 24-added
CAF 3 5 13 21
CONCACAF 3 8 16 22
OFC 1 23I don't like the consequences. :(
We are taking away UEFA's 9th spot and giving AFC a 4th automatic qualifier. The 8-11 ranked teams in UEFA are Portugal, Germany, Greece & Denmark; the 3-6 AFC teams are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Iraq. If I have to divide 3 automatic spots between these two group (which is what we are talking about); I would give UEFA 2 and AFC 1 (the other 5 teams get a second chance via the playoffs).The rest of the post is not limiting UEFA to 8 automatic spots.
I feel that Conmbebol's bottom 5 should be allowed in here if the numbers decide they belong.
[snip]
If you only want 24 in the playoff you can delete the slot numbers above 24.
Conmebol reached its limit at number 18, UEFA at number 19.
OFC snuck in at number 25. Let's run the numbers both ways (the first playoff spot is number 25). CONMEBOL is limited to 5 (half the confederation) overall spots
Auto Playoff Playoff Slots 1-16 |Slots 17-24 & 25-32
UEFA 9 7 25 26 29 30 32 35 36 | |
CONMEBOL 5 | |
AFC 3 3+3+2 27 33 38 |41 44 47 |50 53
CAF 3 3+2+3 28 34 39 |42 46 |49 52 55
CONCACAF 3 3+2+2 31 37 40 |45 48 |51 56
OFC 1 0+1+1 |43 |54

CONMEBOL playoff spots are unlimited
Auto Playoff Playoff Slots 1-16 |Slots 17-24 & 25-32
UEFA 9 7 26 27 31 33 35 39 40 | |
CONMEBOL 5 4+1 25 29 32 37 |41 |
AFC 3 2+2+3 28 36 |43 46 |49 52 55
CAF 3 2+2+2 30 38 |44 47 |51 54
CONCACAF 3 1+2+3 34 |42 45 |50 53 56
OFC 1 0+1+0 |48 Looking at the numbers, I'm 55%-45% towards limiting CONMEBOL to 5 teams. In light of everything else, this point is not worth discussing any more. What I'm trying to say is that I'll go with the "majority".

As far as the number of playoff teams. I think that giving the 9th/10th team from AFC, CAF or CONCACAF a second chance does not make any sense. To give you some idea, with a 32 teams playoff, we are talking about the likes of Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe and Haiti (using the FIFA Aug. 2004 ranking) making it into the playoff. The CAF/AFC teams in question are ranked around number 50; Haiti is number 95. For comparison, UEFA has 24 teams in the top 50! How can we justify giving the likes of Uzbekistan a second chance, but not giving Belgium, Romania or Norway (all ranked in the 30s and outside the top 16 in UEFA) a second chance? Keep in mind that all CONMEBOL teams are still alive, if not we go even deeper into the AFC, CAF & CONCACAF.

With 24 teams, the problem is not as bad. The likes of Belgium, Romania and Norway still don't get in; but Bahrain, Mali and Cuba do get a second chance. To be clear, I have no problem with these teams making it into the world cup. I do have a problem with these teams getting a second chance when more deserving teams do not get a second chance.

Letting UEFA send additional teams to the playoff, might be a solution. Let's see what it does:UEFA & CONMEBOL playoff spots are unlimited
Auto Playoff Playoff Slots 1-16 |Slots 17-24 & 25-32
UEFA 9 7+3+3 26 27 31 33 35 39 40 |44 46 47 |50 52 54
CONMEBOL 5 4+1 25 29 32 37 |41 |
AFC 3 2+1+2 28 36 |43 |49 55
CAF 3 2+1+1 30 38 |45 |51
CONCACAF 3 1+2+1 34 |42 48 |56
OFC 1 0+0+1 | |53 Now, this is more interesting, a 32 team playoff with 13 UEFA, 5 CONMEBOL, 5 AFC, 4 from CAF & CONCACAF and 1 OFC seems right. The last teams in (using ranking) are: AFC - Oman (50)
CAF - South Africa (41)
CONCACAF - Cuba (74)
CONMEBOL - Bolivia (93), number 9 is Chile (67).
OFC - New Zealand (86)
UEFA - Serbia and Montenegro (44), "old Yugoslavia".Cuba, New Zealand and surely Bolivia are a reach (we are looking for the "top" 56 teams). Bolivia benefits by being in top confederation with few teams. I can justify New Zealand, by saying that giving OFC an additional 0.25 spot (8/32) is reasonable. Cuba got the 56(last) spot by a margin of 0.04 points. They are either going to prove that they deserve it; or lose quickly and as a result give the spot to another confederation. A similar argument can be made about New Zealand, they got the 53 spot.

If the 13 UEFA teams can win all 8 playoff spots, I'm OK with letting UEFA have 17 teams in the World Cup - they earned it. As an FYI, UEFA never got 8 teams into the world cup 1/4 finals.

However, until there is a solution to the number of games, I think that a 16 team playoff is more practical. Remember the 32 World Cup teams have to be identified by late Nov./early Dec. the year before the world cup and the qualifier games for some confederations (e.g. UEFA) cannot start until Aug./Sep. the year before that. That leaves us with about 15 months in which all the games (qualifier & playoff) need to take place.

We could also use the order of slots to assign teams to their groups.Clever idea, my gut reaction is that I would like to mix the group as to maximize the number of confederations in each group. However, your idea might be better for the game - I have to think about it some more.

[ZeekLTK]

With this system its feasible that if Australia avoids finishing in the lowest six then two Oceania teams will reach the finals next time. Go Fiji! It also seems like it could erode Europe's large number. It will also be harsh on Asia which has a history of sending poor teams to the World Cup. Theoretically, all ten South American teams could make the finals!

Yeah but what if Australia does finish in the bottom 6. Then Oceania goes down to 0 spots and never goes to the World Cup again?

[Sagy]

Seeding and drawing teams for these groups might take some thought.
You could assign slot numbers 1 thru 8 into the 8 groups A-H,
A-1 UEFA, B-2 CONM, C-3 UEFA, D-4 CAF,
E-5 CONM, F-6 UEFA, G-7 CONC, H-8 AFC

then take #9 UEFA and fit it into the first group it fits into, (it can't go into A because there is already a UEFA there, but it will fit into B.
#10 CONM will fit into A, #11 UEFA won't fit C but goes into D,
#12 CAF will fit C etc. etc.Very clever. The only modification I would suggest is to fit the 2nd and 4th team in each group in reverse order (H to A); something similar to the NCAA's S-curve. As you have it, group H is much weaker than group A.

CONMEBOL's Grand Ligua scheme is excessive. 18 games each?100% agreement.
A draw into 2 groups of five seems better, (8 games each) plus playoffs.
A1 and B1 bye,
A2 vs B3, A3 vs B2, (losers play for 5th and 6th)

winner of the A2 game vs B1,
winner of B2 game vs A1
losers of these two games play for 3rd, 4th, winners play for 1st-2nd.

10 games maximum :confused: I must be missing something. The 6th place team (the one that goes to the playoff under our system) has to play:
8 group games,
2 (Home & Away) in the 2nd vs 3rd place CONMEBOL groups,
2 (Home & Away) for the final CONMEBOL automatic spot,
3 in the Last Chance group stage
1 in the round of 16 of the Last Chance tournament.
Total of 16 games, not much less of the 18 we started with.

The reason I belive that the number of games in critical is that the major European leagues in which many star players play (Spain, Italy, England, Germany and France) have a hard time finding 10 (+2) open dates over the normal qualifying period. That is the reason that CONMEBOL's qualifying started about a year before UEFA's.

I think that we need to find a way in which a team has to play no more than 14 games to make it to the WC - this is the case with UEFA teams today. I think that it is also acceptable if we need to add one more game for a very small number of teams (2-4).

[Borruma]

Surely a solution to this issue is to introduce a global qualfying system, 32 teams - 1 as host, 1 as holder and 30 other teams should qualify from 20 groups of 6, winners qualify, the Runners-up go into the playoffs. Even if it means that Europeans and South Americans will overrun the competiton so be it.

Also African\Asian\North American nations would develop faster under this system...

[Sagy]

As it turns out, the change makes no difference for spots 23 & 24 which are the key spots. For the rest of this post, I'll use the results with the knockout stage points included.
This is wrong :( . The analysis was done without including the results from the knockout stage. My apologies if I confused anyone.

While it is true that including the knockout stage makes no difference on the distribution of the first 24 slots, it does have an impact on the next 32. Specifically,
Slots 25-40 UEFA +1; CAF -1
Slots 41-48 UEFA +1; CONCACAF -1
Slots 49-56 CAF +1; AFC -1

I'm now leaning towards not including the knockout stage results.

Are there good reasons to include the knockout stage results from the two world cups and three confederation cups?

[Gary V]

This has been an interesting read. My few suggestions:

In order to resolve whether a confederation has an "automatic" slot or not, simply start from another basis. Let P = total number of positions allocated thus far. Every confed starts with P=0. Divide the total points by (P+1), not by P, to avoid division by zero. After the first position is awarded (presumably to UEFA) that confed's points are now divided by P+1 = 2. Keep on with the process.

I don't like seeing so many teams in the second-chance round. This should be a mini-tourney (my preference) or home-away knockouts. Not another tournament as big as the WC Finals itself!

Sixteen teams in 4 groups of 4 at a neutral site. 3 games each, top teams in each group automatically advance. A2 plays B3, B2 vs. C3, etc for remaining 4 positions. 3 or 4 extra games beyond confederation qualifying tournaments, for a limited number of teams. That seems acceptable to me. I haven't thought enough whether this tourney should be fully seeded, partially seeded (top position in each group) or blind draw (with limits to spread the confeds throughout the groups).

I'm not sure of the rationale of including Confederation Cup results in the calculation. Wouldn't this artificially skew the results toward the weaker confeds? And to the hosting confed, who get an extra position in a small tourney? If the current WC positions had been fairly divided - not necessarily a good assumption, or else this thread wouldn't be necessary - the results obtained from using only WC group play would be sufficient to define the system. After a couple rounds using a mathematical system, this would resolve itself.

Perhaps results from the most recent WC should be given a weighting factor, as they do in the seeding formula.

But there is another problem - if a confederation gains no points in past WC's, either by non-qualification or losing all games, they are then shut out of WC forevermore. (That could also happen even if including Confed Cup results - NZ didn't get any points at CC France '03.) Obviously not acceptable. To resolve this problem, if after the first 24 automatic qualifier positions have been determined there are any confederations that have not obtained a spot, they are given 1 spot in the second chance pool regardless of the number of points they have. Then continue with the process until all 16 second-chance spots are filled.

Next question - for the following WC, should the results of the second-chance tournament be included in point totals? Perhaps with a weighting factor of 1/2?

[Sagy]

In order to resolve whether a confederation has an "automatic" slot or not, simply start from another basis. Let P = total number of positions allocated thus far. Every confed starts with P=0. Divide the total points by (P+1), not by P, to avoid division by zero. After the first position is awarded (presumably to UEFA) that confed's points are now divided by P+1 = 2. Keep on with the process.Agreed

I don't like seeing so many teams in the second-chance round. This should be a mini-tourney (my preference) or home-away knockouts. Not another tournament as big as the WC Finals itself!

Sixteen teams in 4 groups of 4 at a neutral site. 3 games each, top teams in each group automatically advance. A2 plays B3, B2 vs. C3, etc for remaining 4 positions. 3 or 4 extra games beyond confederation qualifying tournaments, for a limited number of teams. That seems acceptable to me. I haven't thought enough whether this tourney should be fully seeded, partially seeded (top position in each group) or blind draw (with limits to spread the confeds throughout the groups).Sounds good to me. I would like to see the teams seeded into pots (based on the confederations slots). For 2006, this would have given:
Pot A: UEFA(2), CONMEBOL, AFC
Pot B: CONMEBOL(2), CAF, UEFA
Pot C: UEFA(2), CONCACAF, AFC
Pot D: UEFA(2), CONMEBOL, CAF

When the drawing takes place make sure that:
The top two teams in a group are not from the same confederation.
There are no more than two teams of the same confederation in one group.
If possible, the 3rd and 4th seed will be place in a group without a team from the same confederation.
If two teams from the same confederation are in the same group, they must play each other in game 1.

Group A Group B Group C Group D
CONMEBOL UEFA UEFA AFC
CAF CONMEBOL CONMEBOL UEFA

Due to rule 3, the 3rd seed in group A must be a UEFA team, and the AFC team must be in Group B or C (A is taken). If the first team drawn is the CONCACAF team it will be place in group B (group A is "reserved to UEFA). If a UEFA team is drawn next it will be placed in Group A. If the third team is also from UEFA it will be placed in Group D (since the AFC team can't be in group D). So we have:
Group A Group B Group C Group D
CONMEBOL UEFA UEFA AFC
CAF CONMEBOL CONMEBOL UEFA
UEFA CONCACAF AFC UEFA

Due to rule 2, a UEFA team can't be in group D.
Due to rule 3 (yet again), the CONMEBOL must be placed in group D and the CAF team must be in B or C (D is taken). If CAF is drawn first it is place in Group B, the first UEFA team gets group A and the second Group C. We end up with:
Group A Group B Group C Group D
CONMEBOL UEFA UEFA AFC
CAF CONMEBOL CONMEBOL UEFA
UEFA CONCACAF AFC UEFA
UEFA CAF UEFA CONMEBOL
I'm not sure of the rationale of including Confederation Cup results in the calculation. Wouldn't this artificially skew the results toward the weaker confeds? And to the hosting confed, who get an extra position in a small tourney? If the current WC positions had been fairly divided - not necessarily a good assumption, or else this thread wouldn't be necessary - the results obtained from using only WC group play would be sufficient to define the system. After a couple rounds using a mathematical system, this would resolve itself.Take OFC as an example, if they get 1 team in the WC they have a maximum of 18 points. This will barely move them ahead; right now, they need 16 points to get another team into the 2nd chance tournament. Adding the Confederations Cup (CC) gives them at least 9 extra games to gain points.

Perhaps results from the most recent WC should be given a weighting factor, as they do in the seeding formula.Good idea :cool: . I'll try it with a multiplier of 6 to the last WC, 4 for the previous WC, the Confederations Cup will get a multiplier of 3, 2 & 1. I'll post the results tomorrow.

But there is another problem - if a confederation gains no points in past WC's, either by non-qualification or losing all games, they are then shut out of WC forevermore. (That could also happen even if including Confed Cup results - NZ didn't get any points at CC France '03.) Obviously not acceptable.If a confederation ends up with 0 points out of 15 games (2 WC + 3 CC)*3, maybe they should not be in the WC qualifiers until they can show some ability in the CC.

To resolve this problem, if after the first 24 automatic qualifier positions have been determined there are any confederations that have not obtained a spot, they are given 1 spot in the second chance pool regardless of the number of points they have. Then continue with the process until all 16 second-chance spots are filled.Reasonable alternative. Considering that a confederation will need about 6-8 points (in 15 games) to get into the second chance tournament, your idea might be better.

Next question - for the following WC, should the results of the second-chance tournament be included in point totals? Perhaps with a weighting factor of 1/2?I think that they should be counted as a whole, maybe even give them 33%-50% bonus. The logic is that this is were the bobble (boundary) teams get a chance to prove themselves of the field. In the WC itself there are the super powers; for example, I don't mind Brazil & Argentina giving Columbia or Peru an extra chance to qualify. However, if Peru & Columbia keep failing to qualify :eek: while Costa Rica and Côte d'Ivoire keep qualifying ;) , then a shift in allocation from CONMEBOL to CONCACAF & CAF needs to take place (even if Costa Rica and Côte d'Ivoire go 3 & out in the WC).

[wolf6656]

Surely a solution to this issue is to introduce a global qualfying system, 32 teams - 1 as host, 1 as holder and 30 other teams should qualify from 20 groups of 6, winners qualify, the Runners-up go into the playoffs. Even if it means that Europeans and South Americans will overrun the competiton so be it.

Also African\Asian\North American nations would develop faster under this system...


Yes, the more I ponder this problem, the more I wonder if we should have some kind of tiered system (Premier,Division 2, Division 3, Division 4) that does not rely on Confederation Politics at all.
56 teams in Tier 1
56 teams in Tier 2
56 teams in Tier 3
The remainder in Tier 4.

Tier 4 plays it's Tier 4 Championship at the same time or the month following the World Cup Finals. At the end of this tournament the 205 teams are set into tiers for the following cycle.

The top 8 teams in Tier 4 Championships then join the 56 teams in Tier 3.
They playsome kind of qualifying matches from Sept. to March, and the Tier 3 Final is held in June of year 1 of the cycle (1 year after WCF).
The top 8 Tier 3 teams, then join the 56 Tier 2 teams, and play some kind of qualifying matches from August - March for the Tier 2 Championship final to be held in July of year 2 of the cycle. (Note: all confederation championships must be held in June of Year 2. Euro, Copa America, Asian Cup,Gold etc.).


The top 8 tier 2 teams then join the 56 Tier 1 teams in qualifying matches from August year 2 til August year 3.
Winners of the qualification go to the World Cup Final.
If there is to be last chance round it can take place between August year3 to November year 3.
World cup Finals held in June year 4 of the cycle.

FIFA calendar is used to free up players for the qualifying dates.

The following cycle's Tier 4 teams are set in March of year 4, (there are only 37 or so of them.) So they all play in the Tier 4 Final the month following the World Cup Final.

At the end of the Tier 4 Championships, the next cycles Tiers are set.

The 8 teams from each tier that advance to play in the next tier's championships will benefit from better competition, and who knows, they may end up seeded higher in the following cycle. (There is also the possibility of upsets) Could you imagine Solomon Islands advancing out of Tier 3, then upsetting say Libya in Tier 2 qualifying?

Each Tier has its own Championship, and something to get excited about.

I'm just throwing it out there!
What do you think?

Is this workable or not?

[Sagy]

Good idea :cool: . I'll try it with a multiplier of 6 to the last WC, 4 for the previous WC, the Confederations Cup will get a multiplier of 3, 2 & 1. I'll post the results tomorrow.
I run the numbers again using weighting factors of 6 & 4 for the World Cups and 3,2 & 1 for the Confederation Cups. I also multiplied the points/game for each confederation by 16 (6+4+3+2+1). The results are:
Auto 2nd Chance
UEFA 11 5
CONMEBOL 5 4
CONCACAF 2 2
CAF 3 2
AFC 3 2
OFC 0 1The weighted system help the "big boys" (UEFA & CONMEBOL) since there top teams always do well in the WC; the big losers are OFC and CONCACAF. Based on this system CONMEBOL earned 6 automatic spots (55.2 for the 6th spot). The 24 slot was give to UEFA (53.9 for the 11th spot) over CONCACAF (52.8 for the 3rd spot).

I decided to see what happens if we give bonus points for the playoff games (everything is still weighted). If we say that playoff games are worth 60% extra (because the bobble teams play each other for a spot), We get:
Auto 2nd Chance
UEFA 10 6
CONMEBOL 5 4
CONCACAF 2 2
CAF 3 2
AFC 3 2
OFC 1 0For the first time, none of the artificial constraints (no more than 16 UEFA teams, no more than 5 CONMEBOL teams automatically qualify) were in play. :cool:

While I was at it, I wanted to see what happens if we keep the weighting, but give each confederation 1/40 (24+16=40) of the total points as a bonus; but remove the bonus for the playoff games. I got:
Auto 2nd Chance
UEFA 10 6
CONMEBOL 5 4
CONCACAF 2 2
CAF 3 2
AFC 3 2
OFC 1 0A nice feature of this system is that each confederation is almost assured of getting a place in the 2nd chance tournament. Losing 15 straight will keep you out, but 1 tie out of the 6 WC 2nd chance games or in the last two CC (also 6 games) will get you in. You can also make it to the 2nd chance tournament with a win or two ties in the 3 "oldest" CC (weighting of 1).

I then tried to see what happens if we remove the weighting, but keep the "1/40 of total" bonus. I got:
Auto 2nd Chance
UEFA 9 5
CONMEBOL 5 4
CONCACAF 3 2
CAF 3 2
AFC 3 2
OFC 1 1Now we might be giving too much for "free" to the smaller confederations - OFC gets 1.5 spots with a winning pct of 30.8% (3:2:8) over the 5 tournaments we are analyzing.

Since my reason to include the CC was to ensure that each confederation gets a reasonable opportunity to get points, and we are no giving "free" points, what happens if we exclude the CC?

The answer is:
Auto 2nd Chance
UEFA 10 6
CONMEBOL 5 4
CONCACAF 2 2
CAF 3 2
AFC 3 2
OFC 1 0Looks similar, but only because UEFA's 17th spot was given to AFC.

I'm not sure which one I like :confused: