Possible Qualifying Formats

[VioletCrown]

Originally posted by IASocFan
4 groups of 4 with top 2 going to Octal.
Top 3 to WC. 4th to playoff. Start semis earlier to allow starting the Octal in late 2004.

I think the odds are pretty good that this is how the semifinals and finals will end up.

Though I like the hexagonal, I don't think anyone will be satisfied with someone with a losing record ending up in the World Cup. It would open the potential for teams being satisfied with a tie no matter whether they were home or away.

I think it's a positive thing as well, looking at the last couple sets of qualifiers where Guatemala was probably better than TnT. I think CONCACAF is to the point where an octagonal final round would be quite entertaining/nerve-wracking.

[JG]

The best teams aren't eliminated that early though - I referred to quality teams. If there system does allow for the best countries to realistically be eliminated two years in advance, its a silly one & there's no reason why we should be that silly just because they are.


You said that it didn't happen in any other confederation--I showed that other confeds do it, and in more extreme fashion.

Your use of "two years in advance" is incorrect (the semifinal round ended 18 months before the start of the WC) and misleading (as qualifying had to be completed 6 months before the start of the WC).


Having the best 10 teams play 8 to 10 games in the final year is not "cramming" in

"cram" may not have been the best word, but the point was that it would be stupid to make the qualifying later if you're then going to take a poor approach towards choosing the best teams.


We stop at 8 or 10 teams because realistically that's how many high-quality sides there are in Concacaf.

That's completely subjective. Out of the last semifinal round, there was only one team that clearly didn't belong (St. Vincent), and there are other teams that didn't make the semis (Cuba and Haiti) that are obviously better. So I'd say there are 13 "semifinal quality" teams in CONCACAF.

As for "hex quality"--of the six teams that qualified, T&T was iffy, and Guatemala would be the obvious replacement. All the other non-qualifiers were a clear step below. Six looks like a good number to me.

My whole point (and which I have already stated) is that there are more than 6 sides now & the Hex is now out of date.

At any given point I'd say there are about 6 top sides with a realistic chance making the top 4.

To reverse your argument, why don't we reduce the final round to 5 teams, or even better, 4? The level of play would be higher than the top 6 by your argument, and then the 4 teams could basically decide which 3 go through automatically.

I thought I was quite clear that the ideal format would be one 35-team group. More teams is better, as long as the one-group system is preserved. The limiting factor is the number of dates available on the calendar, plus the concern that in too big a group, more teams will be eliminated early on and stop giving a full effort.

Yes, that would be silly - its as silly as having 6 teams in a final round with two-thirds moving on.

You still haven't explained what is wrong with that. If we appended the USVI, Puerto Rico, Aruba, and the Bahamas onto the group to make 10 teams, would you be more impressed with the fourth-place team then?

And how would that happen in two groups of 5 or 6? Having each team play 10 or 12 games to determine the best team in each group is not going to produce flukes. If you are the best after that many games you've earned the right.

Because the level of competition in each group would not be as high as it currently is in the hex. If you had 2 groups of 5 or 6 last time, you would have had clearly inferior teams like Panama, El Salvador, and Barbados in the finals. T&T was the bottom team in the hex, but they trounced Canada and Panama in the semis.

Look at the UEFA Group with the Netherlands last time. They played 10 games, but only 4 of them were really meaningful.

Which the Hex doesn't do. Every year there is at least one team that doesn't deserve to be in the Hex, where a higher quality team is already eliminated due to a tougher semi-final draw. In 1997 this team was Canada, while Honduras sat on the fence - in 2001 there was T&T that stuck out the joint while others sat on the sidelines. If the Hex is designed to have the 6 best teams play each other, it has failed to do so that last two times.

This problem would be pretty much solved by my two-group semifinal proposal.

Also, I don't think you can be so positive that Canada and T&T didn't deserve to be in the hex. It's quite likely in any tournament situation that there is going to be some team that gets off to a bad start and just implodes. If Guatemala replace T&T in the last hex, it just would have been someone else doing the collapsing.

There's only two groups in the final round - how much luck of the draw can there be with this many tough teams? Its the number of good teams which is precisely the reason why we need two groups of 5, or at the very least an Octagonal.

Ask the Asians what can happen with two groups. IMO the 3 WC02 qualifiers are clearly ahead of everyone else right now--splitting them into two groups would cause an immediate imbalance.

An octagonal would be fine if it fits into the calendar.

Actually its not that unlikely, considering a lot more games are played in the Hex.


It didn't happen in 1998 or 2002. And it's still irrelevant.

And I don't think its silly at all - the pressure rounds should be later on, not early on, in the system.

Playing 10 games against the top opponents in CONCACAF is pressure.

The main concern in the final round is "accuracy". Both Mexico and the US had a very poor stretch in the past hex, but both still qualified for the WC and did very well. No one would argue that those teams didn't deserve to qualify. A two-group format would lessen the likelihood that the team could overcome such a bad run, which in the case of the US was due largely to injuries.

A combination of FIFA rankings, previous qualification result & Gold Cup results - what else?

Just thought it was funny that up top you were complaining about teams being excluded from the final round of qualifying based on results from "two years" prior to the World Cup--and here you are placing (and excluding) teams directly into the final round based on even older results!

I don't think you can use past Gold Cup results, because plenty of countries don't bother to put together their best team and it wouldn't be fair to decide after the fact that these games count for WC seeding purposes. You could start with the next one.

The same way they are being set up now for the most part. You just have the winners of the groups join the two groups, rather than semi-final groups.

That just creates a new semi-final round with the same problems as the current one.

[JG]

Originally posted by SJJ

This "carry-over-results-from-earlier-rounds" should have been buried after the 1980 Olympic hockey tournament [where the USA started the final round with one point from a previous-round tie]. I do believe it was used in, something like, the latest world volleyball championship.


The world basketball championships uses it. What don't you like about it?

[Captain Canuck]

Originally posted by JG
[B]



Just thought it was funny that up top you were complaining about teams being excluded from the final round of qualifying based on results from "two years" prior to the World Cup--and here you are placing (and excluding) teams directly into the final round based on even older results!

I don't think you can use past Gold Cup results, because plenty of countries don't bother to put together their best team and it wouldn't be fair to decide after the fact that these games count for WC seeding purposes. You could start with the next one.

[B]



I've given up responding to every point, point by point, because my inability to figure out how its done, but also because we clearly have different viewpoints & we'll just keep going round and round in circles, and as I said life is too short to keep repeating myself. Furthermore we are getting further and further into subjective criteria & preferences. You don't care that a team with a losing record in the final round could qualify for the World Cup, I think it would be absolutely ridiculous, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. You have also stated that I still haven't explained what's wrong with the system, but I've already spent too much time doing so & I don't see the point in repeating myself - if you don't agree, fair enough, but my explanations are there.

I would respond to a few points, however. You stated that the seeding criteria that I suggest would be older - if the seeding is done in fall 2003 for qualification starting in 2004, the then-current FIFA rankings & a Gold Cup that's played less than a year previously (in late July 2003), I don't see how that criteria would make it older than 2 years. The only thing over 2 years old would be previous qualification efforts & I doubt you would want those thrown out.

Also, I don't think my "8 to 10 good teams" criteria is totally subjective, as you suggest - especially when I provided objective criteria - that's roughly how many Concacaf teams are allowed to compete in the Gold Cup. What is a subjective opinion of mine is that the Gold Cup has improved with the addition of more Concacaf teams, but that's another debate.

Also it is too bad for those teams like Mexico if they don't take their own Continental championship seriously - perhaps this would convince them to do so & we could get the Gold Cup the legitimacy it needs & deserves.

My "two years" for all intents & purposes, is correct - Canada was done by mid-July of 2000, all but mathematically eliminated after just 3 games.

Keep in mind in 1996 Canada beat El Salvador twice in the semi-final group, then in 1997 were so poor that we drew 0-0 at home & were thrashed by them 4-1 in El Salvador. That is a shining example of the problems of the current system. Teams can get bad or get better in a hurry, and 2 years before the World Cup is an awfully long time. Yes, there is 9 months between final qualifying & the World Cup, but that's a necessary evil.

Over & out! :)

[JG]

Originally posted by Captain Canuck
I've given up responding to every point, point by point, because my inability to figure out how its done, but also because we clearly have different viewpoints & we'll just keep going round and round in circles, and as I said life is too short to keep repeating myself.

Fair enough.


You have also stated that I still haven't explained what's wrong with the system

Not really. I just disagree with your complaints, and think that the same problems would be present in your system anyway.

You keep claiming that the current setup does a poor job of choosing the six teams for the hex because a team like Guatemala who finished third in a tough semifinal group can't get in--but you ignore the fact that the same problem would exist in a two-group final setup, where it is much costlier.


I would respond to a few points, however. You stated that the seeding criteria that I suggest would be older - if the seeding is done in fall 2003 for qualification starting in 2004, the then-current FIFA rankings & a Gold Cup that's played less than a year previously (in late July 2003)

All the results used for the seeding would be from more than two years before the World Cup. I thought you didn't like that.

Also, I don't think my "8 to 10 good teams" criteria is totally subjective, as you suggest - especially when I provided objective criteria - that's roughly how many Concacaf teams are allowed to compete in the Gold Cup.

If you want to believe that the Gold Cup format is based on merit and not the cost of renting the Orange Bowl or how many teams Inter-Forever feels are marketable.

Also it is too bad for those teams like Mexico if they don't take their own Continental championship seriously - perhaps this would convince them to do so & we could get the Gold Cup the legitimacy it needs & deserves.

Sure--I was just noting that for purposes of WC06 qualifying it wouldn't really be right to use the results of the 2002 Gold Cup for seeding because the teams were not made aware of the importance of the matches beforehand. If you want to use future Gold Cups for seeding, that would be fine as long as the teams know in advance what they're playing for.



Keep in mind in 1996 Canada beat El Salvador twice in the semi-final group, then in 1997 were so poor that we drew 0-0 at home & were thrashed by them 4-1 in El Salvador.

That's an absurdly small sample size, especially as the semi-final match in San Salvador was completely meaningless, and Canada was already practically eliminated before the 4-1 loss in the hex.

[Pirrip]

Originally posted by JG

You keep claiming that the current setup does a poor job of choosing the six teams for the hex because a team like Guatemala who finished third in a tough semifinal group can't get in--but you ignore the fact that the same problem would exist in a two-group final setup, where it is much costlier.


How is it much costlier? Being out is being out. Same cost. The difference is that you get to keep your fans interested longer. Remember, but for a Mathis goal while a man down, your fine World Cup run would have ended nearly two years earlier. Instead of Top 8 at the World Cup, you would have been no loss as you were not likely one of the top four teams anyway to paraphrase an earlier comment you made.


Sure--I was just noting that for purposes of WC06 qualifying it wouldn't really be right to use the results of the 2002 Gold Cup for seeding because the teams were not made aware of the importance of the matches beforehand. If you want to use future Gold Cups for seeding, that would be fine as long as the teams know in advance what they're playing for.

Well, one preseumably would start with the 2003 Gold Cup so everyone knows up front. I personally don't think you need to do seeding, and don't have a problem with playing down with larger and traditional soccer nations getting bye's until the semi's. 24 in the semis, 12 in the final two groups, 2nd place play off. No room for namby pamby's for sure, but really under any format, the "best" 3-4 always qualify. We are just arguing about how many get to ride along and perhaps help out soccer in the region. Because ultimately, if you do, you do it.


That's an absurdly small sample size, especially as the semi-final match in San Salvador was completely meaningless, and Canada was already practically eliminated before the 4-1 loss in the hex.

OK, pick T & T having their way with Mexico and looking like World beaters in the last semi's and falling on their face in the hex. The examples are numerous. How anout France winning Euro and then falling at the World Cup or Brazil stinking up qualification then winning the World Cup...good thing they were not in CONCACAF or they ould have been done in early 2001.

[JG]

Originally posted by Pirrip
How is it much costlier? Being out is being out. Same cost.

You're missing the flipside of the argument. If an undeserving team advances from the semifinal round, they simply get eliminated in the next round. But if an undeserving team advances from the final round, there's nothing that can be done about it. That's why it's most important that we make sure the right teams advance from the final round.

OTOH, if a team is eliminated in an earlier stage, it's very unlikely that they were in the top 3/4 teams.

Remember, but for a Mathis goal while a man down, your fine World Cup run would have ended nearly two years earlier. Instead of Top 8 at the World Cup, you would have been no loss as you were not likely one of the top four teams anyway to paraphrase an earlier comment you made.

I believe you mean a McBride goal. And the important thing is that he did score. If we don't score that goal, then we're a mediocre team that couldn't beat Guatemala or Costa Rica at home. The ability to score key goals like that is precisely the difference between a top team and an also-ran.



really under any format, the "best" 3-4 always qualify.

Of course not, no one has a 100% probability of qualifying. All we can do is try to maximize the probability that the best teams actually do qualify.

We have three teams in the region that qualified for the last World Cup and played well. If we split the final round into two groups, it means that "other" teams in one group will have to beat one of those teams to advance, while the "other" teams in the other group don't. That's a big imbalance right there.

We are just arguing about how many get to ride along and perhaps help out soccer in the region.

You help soccer in the region by pulling off World Cup performances that earn the confed an extra half-spot.

OK, pick T & T having their way with Mexico and looking like World beaters in the last semi's and falling on their face in the hex.

In the semifinal round, T&T beat Mexico 1-0 at home (on an 86th minute goal) and lost 7-0 at the Azteca. In the hex, they drew 1-1 at home and lost 3-0 at Azteca. No major difference there.

As for "world beaters", all they did was beat up on Canada and Panama. Enough to earn them a longer look, but they were always expected to be one of the weaker teams in the hex.

The examples are numerous. How anout France winning Euro and then falling at the World Cup

So you don't think France should have qualified for the WC?

or Brazil stinking up qualification then winning the World Cup...good thing they were not in CONCACAF or they ould have been done in early 2001.

Brazil's qualification is testament to the superiority of a one-group system. I agree that CONCACAF would be best off with one 35-team qualifying group, but it would be quite difficult logistically.

[yellowbismark]

How about something similiar to South America, where we have a big table (they have 10), but lets say we have 9 -- all of the six final round participants from last qualifying get free passes.

1-Costa Rica
2-Mexico
3-United States
4-Honduras
5-Jamaica
6-Trinidad & Tobago
7- (wildcard)
8- (wildcard)
9- (wildcard)


The final three wildcards will be decided by three groups of three, featuring the second tier CONCACAF sides (Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, El Salvador, Cuba, etc) + 3-4 minnows who earned their way through preliminary qualifying (St.Vincent, Barbados, Panama, etc). Those teams will play 4 games and the three first place finishers will join the other six.

Under this format, all the top CONCACAF sides would have the same number of fixtures as the previous format. Every one would play each other, so no good/bad draws would influence the outcomes. The top four finishers will be on the top half of the table (as opposed to the hex, where fourth out of six gets you in). And from the supporters perspective, I would think a longer season with more continuity would provide for some drama, and the variety of opponents would be intersting to follow.

Also, I don't think the dropoff is so bad from 6th to 9th best in CONCACAF, sure there might be a couple cupcakes in the group, but we saw how tough it was to play in Guatemala, and teams like El Salvador and Haiti will definetly give the countries like Trinidad&Tobago, Jamaica and Honduras a run for their money. You think Mexico couldn't handle Columbus? Try Vancouver or Toronto in February.

[Captain Canuck]

Originally posted by JG
Fair enough.


[B]

You keep claiming that the current setup does a poor job of choosing the six teams for the hex because a team like Guatemala who finished third in a tough semifinal group can't get in--but you ignore the fact that the same problem would exist in a two-group final setup, where it is much costlier.

All the results used for the seeding would be from more than two years before the World Cup. I thought you didn't like that.


That's an absurdly small sample size, especially as the semi-final match in San Salvador was completely meaningless, and Canada was already practically eliminated before the 4-1 loss in the hex.

Just to respond to these points, I haven't ignored "the fact" that the same problem would exist in a two-group final set-up, I don't believe the problem would exist (certainly not to the same extent) & therefore is not "a fact". If there are 10 teams in a final round, it will be less likely to say a team did not make the final round because they got stuck in a semi-final group of death - more spots in the final round means the likelihood of good teams getting excluded from them is diminished. Yet another example to add to my point - had Honduras not been upset by Panama in the round before the semi-final round, you know what two semi-final groups would have been like? Jamaica, El Salvador, Panama & St. Vincent in one, Mexico, T&T, Canada & Honduras in another. The same sort of thing could happen again for 2006. If you think that's a system that's working, well.......

I also think there is a vast difference from using results from 2 years old to seed teams for the commencement of qualifying than using results from 2 years to eliminate teams from the World Cup.

If Canada had beaten El Salvador insted of losing 4-1 they would have been very much alive. And as a Canadian fan, trust me when I tell you how much worse we were in 1997 than in 1996. Thankfully we are so much better now than in either year.

To sum up, I don't think the Hex has ever provided us with the 6 best teams in the region playing each other, & I've provided examples where that is the case. The best teams in 2004 may very well not be the best teams in 2005. The semi-final groups have traditionally been un-balanced, & the number of good teams left out of the final year of qualifying is only going to increase as the region improves as a whole in quality. With the addition of a half-spot & better teams in the region, I feel the system needs to be updated to reflect current realities, and I don't believe that it would result in a substantial watering down of the final round if we go with 8 teams or two groups of 5, because I don't believe we were ever seeing the 6 best teams in the Hex anyway.

[JG]

Originally posted by Captain Canuck
Just to respond to these points, I haven't ignored "the fact" that the same problem would exist in a two-group final set-up, I don't believe the problem would exist (certainly not to the same extent) & therefore is not "a fact".

I suppose we just disagree about the relative strengths of CONCACAF teams, but it should be pretty clear that for Canada to qualify out of one final group they're going to have to beat out a team that qualified for the last WC and played while, while in the other group they won't. To me, that's a big difference in "qualifying threshold".


more spots in the final round means the likelihood of good teams getting excluded from them is diminished.

At the expense of increasing the likelihood that good teams will be excluded from the WC itself.

Yet another example to add to my point - had Honduras not been upset by Panama in the round before the semi-final round, you know what two semi-final groups would have been like? Jamaica, El Salvador, Panama & St. Vincent in one, Mexico, T&T, Canada & Honduras in another.

Which shows exactly the weakness of a multi-group setup. Yet you want to determine the actual World Cup qualifiers in this way?

Your proposal is to have the final round of qualifiers in two groups of five/six. My proposal is to have the two groups of six, followed by a final pseudo-hex round to have more games between the top teams and correct for imbalances between the two groups. How is your proposal preferable?

The only disadvantage to my proposal that I see from your viewpoint is that it starts a little earlier, but with ten games in the semifinal stage there should be plenty of time for things to even out. UEFA, Africa, and South America expect their teams to play meaningful games two summers before the World Cup...why shouldn't CONCACAF? Asia's final-round schedule was more compressed, but they didn't use international dates.


I also think there is a vast difference from using results from 2 years old to seed teams for the commencement of qualifying than using results from 2 years to eliminate teams from the World Cup.


Not if you're going to seed eight teams directly into the final round. The eighth team is going to be someone like Guatemala or El Salvador who hasn't accomplished very much, and the ninth team is going to be someone similar. Yet you're going to put one of these teams straight into the finals, while the other team has to go through a bunch of qualifying rounds?

You're eliminating all but two/four of the unseeded teams based on these old results, while teams with a similar level of (non)achievement will walk straight into the finals.

If Canada had beaten El Salvador insted of losing 4-1 they would have been very much alive.

They would have been a long shot--one game below .500 with difficult matches remaining against Mexico, the US, and at Costa Rica. And there's no reason why anyone would have expected Canada to win away at El Salvador--the or now--unless they want to take a meaningless game from the previous round as a representative result.

And as a Canadian fan, trust me when I tell you how much worse we were in 1997 than in 1996.

Were you that much worse, or just playing against stronger opposition? I don't think you could tell very much from your 1996 matches against Cuba and Panama.

Prior to that hex, Soccer America said "Canada is dismal. Predictable and with little skill, their chances hinge on whether opponents will be intimidated by their rock-em sock-em British style"



To sum up, I don't think the Hex has ever provided us with the 6 best teams in the region playing each other

That's debatable, but the important point is that it has provided us with the 3 best teams in the region qualifying for the WC.

[Pirrip]

Originally posted by JG
You're missing the flipside of the argument. If an undeserving team advances from the semifinal round, they simply get eliminated in the next round. But if an undeserving team advances from the final round, there's nothing that can be done about it. That's why it's most important that we make sure the right teams advance from the final round.

No I am not missing the flip side. The notion of an "undeserving team" is a conceit. My point about the top 3-4 teams always advancing is simply that...if you win it on the field, you deserve it. My point is that by including more teams in the final, you keep interest up in more countries longer. If a team can't finish in the top two in a 5 or 6 team group then it is "highly unlikely" that they were one of the top 3-4 teams. Its that simple. There is no flip side.

Originally posted by JG

OTOH, if a team is eliminated in an earlier stage, it's very unlikely that they were in the top 3/4 teams.

Ibid if they are eliminated in a 12 team final. Same effect. Do you know for a fact that Guatamala wasn't one of the top 3-4 teams last time? Of course they weren't because they didn't do it, while others did. But gee, they did finished tied with the best team in the hex and lost to them in a playoff and they did finish a mere one point behind the team that did the best in the of all CONCACAF teams in the World Cup, but I am pretty sure thay have no argument to counter your premise that they simply didn't deserve to play a little longer.

Originally posted by JG

Of course not, no one has a 100% probability of qualifying. All we can do is try to maximize the probability that the best teams actually do qualify.


Which the Hex does a poor job off. It really is quite simple, you seed out of the semi-final round and if you can't finish top two you don't deserve to go. And yes, that Means Canada, Jamaica, Haiti or whomever, will have to beat not one, but two qualifiers from the previous time around. Who cares, because the top three have never been the same in CONCACAF from World Cup to World Cup. So why worry about it.

Originally posted by JG

We have three teams in the region that qualified for the last World Cup and played well. If we split the final round into two groups, it means that "other" teams in one group will have to beat one of those teams to advance, while the "other" teams in the other group don't. That's a big imbalance right there.


See above. It isn't, and never will be.

In any event, one would think that the scare the US suffered in the semi's would be enough to show you the flaws of the hex, but clearly this "team of destiny" thing has enabled you to look past it. In any event, we are arguing in circles so we best leave it at that.

[Pirrip]

Originally posted by JG
I suppose we just disagree about the relative strengths of CONCACAF teams, but it should be pretty clear that for Canada to qualify out of one final group they're going to have to beat out a team that qualified for the last WC and played while, while in the other group they won't. To me, that's a big difference in "qualifying threshold".


And to me, it is a non-issue. How many times have the same teams finished top 3 in CONCACAF? Nada. And if we can't beat out at least one of a random sselection of Mexico, USA and Costa Rica we don't deserve to go, In fact, we will have to beat out at least 3 teams (and likely Guatamala was better than us last time too) that finished ahead of us in WCQ just to get into the playoff game.

[Sachin]

The Hex is the most efficient qualifying format. It has the right number of teams to ensure a competitive league that can be played in about 1 year.

More importantly, it does get 6 of the 7 best teams in CONCACAF into the final round. Look at the 2001 Hex (in order of finish)

1. Costa Rica -- Lost only one game in the Hex but had to squeeze in through a playoff. The last team to qualify for the Hex. Hell, they lost to Barbados.
2. Mexico -- Finished second in their qualifying group. Didn't even get going until the second half of the Hex.
3. USA -- Won their qualifying group (with CR), but was taken to the wall. Did qualify with one matchday to spare, but still lost 3 in a row at one point.
4. Honduras -- Eliminated on the final matchday, but won their qualifying group going away. Hands down, the best attack.
5. Jamaica -- Finished second in their group and didn't really factor in the hex.
6. Trinidad and Tobago -- Overlook their dismal Hex performance for a second. Won their qualifying group, with Mexico in it. Their team fell apart during the Hex.

The 7th best team, Guatemala finished tied for second in their group but lost to Costa Rica in a playoff. Honestly, no one else was even close.

The CONCACAF World Cup qualifying process make make MLS Player Allocation Rules seem like the Ten Commandments, but it does produce the desired outcome.. the best teams facing each other with the World Cup on the line.

Sachin

[JG]

Originally posted by Pirrip
No I am not missing the flip side. The notion of an "undeserving team" is a conceit. My point about the top 3-4 teams always advancing is simply that...if you win it on the field, you deserve it.

You deserve it more if you win it over 10 games rather than 4-6 games (which is how many difficult games you would have in a two-group final system). You deserve it more if you don't qualify because you were drawn into an easier group.


If a team can't finish in the top two in a 5 or 6 team group then it is "highly unlikely" that they were one of the top 3-4 teams.

Why take the chance when we can have one final group and remove the doubt?




Ibid if they are eliminated in a 12 team final. Same effect. Do you know for a fact that Guatamala wasn't one of the top 3-4 teams last time? Of course they weren't because they didn't do it, while others did. But gee, they did finished tied with the best team in the hex and lost to them in a playoff and they did finish a mere one point behind the team that did the best in the of all CONCACAF teams in the World Cup, but I am pretty sure thay have no argument to counter your premise that they simply didn't deserve to play a little longer.


...that's why I proposed a two-group semifinal setup that would prevent third-place teams from being eliminated. Try to keep up with the thread.



Which the Hex does a poor job off. It really is quite simple, you seed out of the semi-final round and if you can't finish top two you don't deserve to go.

But there you are in the previous paragraph talking about how unfair it was for Guatemala to be eliminated because they couldn't finish in the top two in their semifinal group.



And yes, that Means Canada, Jamaica, Haiti or whomever, will have to beat not one, but two qualifiers from the previous time around.

Only the ones who are unfortunate enough to be drawn into the group of death.



In any event, one would think that the scare the US suffered in the semi's would be enough to show you the flaws of the hex, but clearly this "team of destiny" thing has enabled you to look past it.

1. Wouldn't a scare suffered in the semis indicate a flaw in the semis?

2. If we hadn't won game that we actually did win, we would have been a different, inferior team. If Portugal scores an empty-net goal against South Korea, we get eliminated from the WC in the first round. Does that mean the World Cup is flawed?

[Crazy_Yank]

What's with this "semi-final group of death" talk? We aren't a strong enough region to have something like that. If you can't place in the top 2 in your semi-final group you don't deserve to make the hex.

[empennage]

Originally posted by Crazy_Yank
What's with this "semi-final group of death" talk? We aren't a strong enough region to have something like that. If you can't place in the top 2 in your semi-final group you don't deserve to make the hex.

But Guatemala DID place in the top 2 in the semi-finals, and still didn't get to advance. They deserved to be there because they were better than some of the teams that made it.

[Elninho]

Originally posted by Pirrip
In any event, one would think that the scare the US suffered in the semi's would be enough to show you the flaws of the hex, but clearly this "team of destiny" thing has enabled you to look past it. In any event, we are arguing in circles so we best leave it at that.

No, it doesn't...

The scare that the US suffered in the semis tells us exactly why we SHOULD NOT use multiple groups for the final round. The more a round is fragmented into groups, the greater the chance of producing a "group of death". Consider UEFA - they stuck Portugal, Ireland, and the Netherlands in the same group, while giving Spain and Poland free rides to the World Cup.

Consider the following final-round scenario, which would be HIGHLY possible with a two-group setup even if we seed the World Cup qualifiers... observe that each group had similar cumulative results in the last WCQ cycle.

Group A
USA
Costa Rica
Honduras
Guatemala
Canada

Group B
Mexico
Jamaica
Trinidad & Tobago
El Salvador
Panama

Now tell me this would determine the qualifiers more fairly than the current system...

[mikerunner]

I think that ConCaCaf could easily address the
unbalanced groups problem in the final round of
qualifying.Divide the 10 teams into 2 groups
and give them a #1,2,3,4or #5 seed.Seeds based
first on qualifying for the world cup,then on
ranking.Right now the groups would probably
look like this.....

group A

(1) Costa Rica
(2) United States
(3) Trinidad and Tobago
(4) Gautamala
(5) Cuba

group B

(1) Mexico
(2) Honduras
(3) Jamaica
(4) Canada
(5) Haiti

group A #1=probable WC qualifier
B #1=probable WC qualifier

A #2=probable WC qualifier
B #2=50/50 shot at WC

A #3=outside shot at WC
B #3=50/50 shot at WC

A #4=50/50 shot at WC
B #4=outside shot

A #5=no chance
B #5=no chance

A= 2probables,1 50/50,1 outside shot,and 1 no chance
B= 1probable,2 50/50,1 outside shot,1 no chance

these groups are fairly even in my opinion.

One could sub Panama,and El Salvador for Cuba
and Haiti and the groups should still be even.

[Pirrip]

Originally posted by Elninho
No, it doesn't...

The scare that the US suffered in the semis tells us exactly why we SHOULD NOT use multiple groups for the final round. The more a round is fragmented into groups, the greater the chance of producing a "group of death". Consider UEFA - they stuck Portugal, Ireland, and the Netherlands in the same group, while giving Spain and Poland free rides to the World Cup.

Consider the following final-round scenario, which would be HIGHLY possible with a two-group setup even if we seed the World Cup qualifiers... observe that each group had similar cumulative results in the last WCQ cycle.

Group A
USA
Costa Rica
Honduras
Guatemala
Canada

Group B
Mexico
Jamaica
Trinidad & Tobago
El Salvador
Panama

Now tell me this would determine the qualifiers more fairly than the current system...

Well I suppose anyone could group together 4 of the five best teams and say see, it won't work. Of course, if you follow the plan and seed based on semi-final results, you will not get anything resembling those groupings, so "HIGHLY possible" is a figment here. What kind of seeding formula puts the top three finishers (US, CR, Guat) inthe same group? You would put the 1st and second place teams from each semi-final group into opposite flights. And obviously, with 12 teams in the final, you would have more in the semi's. Nevertheless. The US, T & T and Honduras (or was it Jamiaca?) won their flights, and CR. Mexico and Jamaica (or was it Honduras?) fished second. So your final groups wold start off looking something like this:

Group 1
US
Mexico
Honduras/Jamiaca

Group 2
T&T
Costa Rica
Jamiaca/Honduas

One group would get Guatamala, a strong team in the last WCQ, while the reamining also rans would act only as spoilers. Based on the last hex, you would have US and Mexico out of one group and CR and Jamica/Honduras out of the other. Undoubtedly the top 3 with Mexico beating Jamiaca Honduras for the 3rd guaranteed spot. Don't see a problem with it, and note that more teams play longer. Gee, guess what, we get the three best teams and 6 additional nations get to play longer. How is that not stronger than the hex?

[Crazy_Yank]

Originally posted by empennage
But Guatemala DID place in the top 2 in the semi-finals, and still didn't get to advance. They deserved to be there because they were better than some of the teams that made it.

You could make the argument that Guatemala were better than T&T, but I don't think they were better than anyone else in the hex. I think they are an up and coming team, but aren't quite there yet.