Possible Qualifying Formats

[Sachin]

Here are some options for World Cup qualifying:

1. Hexagonal - 3 top teams qualify, 4th place team goes to playoff. Keep the preliminary and semifinal rounds the same.

2. Octagonal - 8 teams, top 3 qualify directly, 4th goes to playoff. I guess the Semifinal round would have to expanded to 4 groups, which would mean the preliminary rounds will have be reconfigured as well.

3. Two Pentagonals. Two groups of five. The group winners qualify directly. The two second place teams face off in a home and home with the winner taking the third direct spot and the loser going to a playoff. Not sure how the Semifinal and preliminary rounds would work.

My guess is the Hexagonal or Pentagonal systems are the most likely because the Octagonal would mean far too many games (14) over a one-year span.

Sachin

[obie]

I was just thinking about this. CONCACAF has 40 countries, so with only 3.5 spots a multi-phase process is (of course) necessary. About 28 of these are island nations; only two of those 28 are even remotely good. Hence, most of the parign down early should come there.

My idea:

1. Figure out some way to get that group of 28 Caribbean countries down to four easily. (likely advancers: Jamaica, T&T, two among Cuba, Haiti and Barbados.)

2. Canada and the non-automatic Central American countries (there's eight or nine of them total) play in two groups to decide four more spots. (likely: Honduras, Guatemala, El Sal, and Canada.)

3. The next-highest Caribbean country (the loser among that Cuba / Haiti / Barbados group) and the next-highest Group 2 country (maybe Panama?) get a playoff to decide who moves to the final round.

4. Last year's qualifiers (US, MEX, CR) get free passes to the final round, described at #5 below.

5. The first four get us to 12 teams. From here, hijack the old '02 process at the semifinal round, break the 12 teams into two groups of six, and let the winners of each group advance. The two second place teams play two-leg playoff, with the winner getting the third auto spot and the loser going off to Asia.

[JG]

I prefer keeping the current system for a few reasons:

1. The hex is the most exciting thing in CONCACAF right now. Why change?

2. To choose the "correct" 3.5 teams, we want to maximize the number of games played between the top teams.

3. I don't like the two group system because it's so open to imbalances between the groups (see AFC qualifying) and it'll reduce the number of games between the top teams. If CONCACAF was a little deeper and there were 10-12 realistic contenders, then this might work better.

4. Octagonal is probably too many games...easier to find 10 dates in the international calendar. Maybe it could work if they modify the early-round setup.

[WarrenWallace]

I would rather just keep it with 6 teams. Don't want it splint into groups cause there is always the fluke issue in which a good team doesn't qualify.

[Davids26]

The Hex is fine. Top 3 teams go through and that 4th place team is still alive for a spot in the tournament. If it aint broke don't fix it.

[SJJ]

I would like to know how many matchdates are listed in the 2004-2005 Coordinated Calendar for qualifying. How many dates can we use for our qualies? We have to take into account for two more dates for the Asian playoff round.

Also, I would like a better notion of how many teams are in the Carribbean and Central America. My calculations below just work with the basic numbers, without accounting for the regions.

If you want a six-team final, try this:

Top six teams seeded into round 4. Using the just-published Fifa rankings [which are just as good, or just as bad, as anything else, but I consider the rankings within a confederation as close to true]: (1) Mexico, (2) United States, (3) Costa Rica, (4) Honduras, (5) Trinidad and Tobago, (6) Jamaica

Seed teams 7-12 into round 3: (7) Canada, (8 tie) Cuba, (8 tie) Haiti, (10) Guatemala, (11) El Salvador, (12) Barbados

Play two qualifying rounds to get the other 23 teams down to 6. They face the 7-12 seeds in round 3. Those winners face the 1-6 seeds in round 4. The first four rounds are home-and-home series. Six winners to the hex.

Total matchdates: 18, plus two for the playoff: 20. The top seeds play at most 12.

If you want 8 teams in two groups (similar format to whittle down to 8):

Seed teams 1-8 to round 4; 9-16 to round 3: includes (13) St. Kitts and Nevis, (14) St. Lucia, (15) Panama, (16) Grenada

Other 19 teams play two rounds to get to 8. Those 8 play 9-16; those winners play 1-8; 8 teams to the groups.

The second place teams can play-off against each other, or just give the one with the better record a bid, and have the other play-off with Asia.

Total matchdates: 14 + 2 (second-place teams, optional) + 2 (Asia) = 16 or 18. Again, the seeded teams play at most 12.

(One other side-note: having two groups will eliminate the notion that the WCQ top team will be the unoffical champion of Concacaf. This may [repeat, may] cause the Gold Cup to have more significance.)

[nicodemus]

Originally posted by CityIceMan
I would rather just keep it with 6 teams. Don't want it splint into groups cause there is always the fluke issue in which a good team doesn't qualify.

Yep, see China instead of Iran.

[Captain Canuck]

Originally posted by nicodemus
Yep, see China instead of Iran.

But that will be a problem no matter what happens in Concacaf - it just means the split happens in an earlier round & even worse, a round held with less matches & less room for error, as well as held too far in advance of the World Cup to be indicative of how good the teams are by the time the World Cup is actually held. For example, its possible we could have a semi-final group featuring the US, Honduras & Canada. All three could finish in the top 4 of a Hex, but one won't even get there, while potenially weaker teams would get to the hex instead.

There are more than 6 quality teams in Concacaf nowadays, as evidenced by the fact we got an additional half-spot. As such, the Hex system is out-moded & out-dated. The 4th place team could easily have a losing record in the Hex but then go on to qualify for the World Cup, which would be outrageous. Time to do an Octagonal, or my personal preference, two groups of 5 or 6, as suggested in the original post

[nicodemus]

the more superior teams get "passes" to the later rounds so the earlier splits aren't such a problem for the bigger teams. The "lesser good" teams should be able to survive earlier rounds. The hex is the way to go.

[Captain Canuck]

Originally posted by nicodemus
the more superior teams get "passes" to the later rounds so the earlier splits aren't such a problem for the bigger teams. The "lesser good" teams should be able to survive earlier rounds. The hex is the way to go.

Not a very convincing argument for Guatemalan supporters, based upon what happened in qualifying for 2002.

[kevbrunton]

I personally like the Hex at the end. I definitely don't want to see any home and home eliminations at anything past the first couple rounds. Once you get to that point where you have teams like Honduras, Canada, Guatemala, etc., the quality is high enough that I don't think it's fair to risk having a pretty good team eliminated by another pretty good team due to the luck of the draw or have a good team eliminated by one poor result.

Keep it exactly like it is and 4th place team in the Hex goes to the playoff.

[mikerunner]

There are 35 teams rankedin Concacaf according to fifa.

I would have the bottom 30 teams play a home
and away match.The top 5 teams from the 2001
hexagonal would have byes.Their would be 15
winners+the 5 byes so this would take the number
of teams down quickly from 35 to 20.From the
#6 team on down teams are seeded according to
fifa ranking.First round matchups are as follows....
if the qualifiers where held today.....
#6 Trinidad+Tobago vs #35 Montserrat
#7 Canada vs #34 Turks and Caicos Islands
#8 Cuba vs # 33 Puerto Rico
#9 Haiti vs # 32 US Virgin Islands
#10 Guatamala vs #31 Anguilla
#11 El Salvador vs #30 Aruba
#12 Barbados vs #29 Bahamas
#13 St Kitts and Nevis vs #28 Nicaragua
#14 St Lucia vs #27 Netherlands Antilles
#15 Panama vs#26 Dominica
#16 Grenada vs#25 Bermuda
#17 Surinam vs #24 Guyana
#18 St. Vincent + the grend. vs #23 Cayman Is.
#19 Dominican Replublic vs #22 British Vir. Is.
#20 Antigua and Barbuda vs #21 Belize
-2 games played maximum per team

20 teams left= 5 groups of 4
each group will have a #1 seed(the bye teams)
each group will have a #2 seed(#6to #10)
each group will have a #3 seed(#11to #15)
each group will have a #4 seed(#16 to#20)
-If the #15 seed is upset in the 1st round,the
#16 seed could become a #3 seed in the 2nd round.
The #26 seed that is moving on would be a #4 seed
*winners +runners up advance from each group
-6 games played maximum per team

10 teams left=2 groups of 5
each group will have seeds ranked #1 to #5.
Seeds based on hex first,then fifa rankings
I.E,

group 1 group 2
#1 Costa Rica Mexico
#2 United States Honduras
#3 Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago
#4 Canada Cuba
#5 Haiti Guatemala

-8 games played maximum per team
*group winners advance to World cup
*runners up play off for the 3rd world cup spot
-2 more games played for runners up

-4th place Concacaf vs 5th place Asia
-2 more games played for 4th place Concacaf

Max games played for a team such as Canada is
20.Max games played for a team such as the
United States is 18.

[ndcheg]

Octagonal Format
Top four teams from previous Hex or Oct get byes to the new Oct

US, CR, Mex, Hon

Four teams that finished in the lower half of the previous Oct get byes to the semis. Since we only have two teams from the Hex. I would propose using following the Fifa rankings of the teams that advanced to the previous semis

Jam, T&T, Can, Guat

That leaves 4 central american teams that attempted to qualify last campaign and 23 caribbean countries that tried to qualify last campaign.

Central American group has one qualifying group top two advance to semis. total of 6 games.

Bottom 14 ranked teams in Carib face off in home and home. Rank again and add in the teams that got byes you now have 16 teams home and home again. Down to 8 split into two groups top two goes to semis. 8-10 games depending on byes.

10 teams in semis. Jam, T&T, Can, Guat, two CA, four Carib. Two groups of five. Top two advance to Oct. 8 games.

8 teams in Oct. 14 games.

And for those of you who think 14 games is too many for one year. The Oct could start two to three months or so before the Hex normally would. There's nothing to say that the final qualifying stage has to be during a set time.

[JG]

Originally posted by Captain Canuck
But that will be a problem no matter what happens in Concacaf - it just means the split happens in an earlier round

IMO it's much better to have a split in an earlier round than the round where actual World Cup spots are on the line.

For example, its possible we could have a semi-final group featuring the US, Honduras & Canada.

Given the results of the most recent qualifying, that would be a completely reasonable group.


All three could finish in the top 4 of a Hex, but one won't even get there, while potenially weaker teams would get to the hex instead.

Lots of teams could potentially finish in the top 4 of a hex...that doesn't mean that none of them should be eliminated before the final round.

CONCACAF could make one change though...for the semifinals play 2 groups of 6. The top 3 teams from each group advance to the hex, with records against teams from their semifinal group carrying over. Then each team just plays six games against the teams from the other semifinal group.

This way we reduce the chances of an unbalanced draw in the semifinal round, and eliminate the situation where a team that finishes in the top 3 in their group is eliminated (IOW, noone who has a valid claim on one of the three automatic spots is eliminated). We retain the hex, and teams still play 16 games total.


The 4th place team could easily have a losing record in the Hex but then go on to qualify for the World Cup, which would be outrageous.

How is that outrageous? Under a two-group system, all you're doing is making the schedule easier.

[/b][/quote]
Time to do an Octagonal, or my personal preference, two groups of 5 or 6, as suggested in the original post [/B][/QUOTE]

An Octagonal would be fine if they can fit the dates into the international calendar.

How would a two-group system alleviate any of the problems you claimed above for the current system? You'd introduce a large luck factor into the most important round of qualifying, and you'd still have to deal with the same preliminary and semifinal round problems you have now.

[Captain Canuck]

Originally posted by JG
IMO it's much better to have a split in an earlier round than the round where actual World Cup spots are on the line.

[End Quote}

I would prefer to have a split in the year before qualifying, between all of the best teams rather than just some of the best teams. Getting rid of quality teams 2 years before the World Cup very quickly is somewhat ridiculous - it doesn't happen in any other confederation - and doesn't take into account teams that are substantially better in the year prior to the World Cup than they were in two years prior to the World Cup, or teams that go in the opposite direction. A classic example of the latter was T&T last time round.

[B]
[Quote]

Given the results of the most recent qualifying, that would be a completely reasonable group.

[End quote]

As long as 3 teams advanced to the final round (perhaps along the lines you suggest below) it would be reasonable.

[quote]
Lots of teams could potentially finish in the top 4 of a hex...that doesn't mean that none of them should be eliminated before the final round.

[end quote]

It doesn't? Why have a final round where only 6 of the best 8 or 10 teams in the region play each other while the rest lose interest? The region suffers as a whole when only 6 teams are in it for the last year & a half of qualifying - interest in soccer & promotion of the sport in Concacaf is improved & maintained if more teams are involved in the final stages of qualifying, and I would argue that the quality is there to justify having more teams involved in the final stages.

[quote]

CONCACAF could make one change though...for the semifinals play 2 groups of 6. The top 3 teams from each group advance to the hex, with records against teams from their semifinal group carrying over. Then each team just plays six games against the teams from the other semifinal group.

This way we reduce the chances of an unbalanced draw in the semifinal round, and eliminate the situation where a team that finishes in the top 3 in their group is eliminated (IOW, noone who has a valid claim on one of the three automatic spots is eliminated). We retain the hex, and teams still play 16 games total.

[End quote]

That would be preferable to the current system, at least. So would an Octagonal.


[Quote]

How is that outrageous? Under a two-group system, all you're doing is making the schedule easier.

[End quote]

It's outrageous IMO because I think a team should have to win more games than it loses in order to qualify for the World Cup. With a 4th place team moving on & possibly qualifying after splitting the Asian playoff but advancing on away goal or goal differential, its reasonable to foresee that a team in the lower half of the table (of 6) will have a losing record, yet still qualify for the World Cup. I doubt that you will see than happening anywhere else in the world & I don't see why it should happen here.

Its been said the Hex is the most exciting thing in the region, but if the system stays the same with the new half-spot it will be the semi-final rounds that are more exciting, since fewer teams survive & so few games are played - you screw up once & you are dead, whereas in the Hex two-thirds survive, so you can screw up lots of times & still go through. I think the margin for error should reduce as you get closer to the World Cup, not increase.

Under a two-group system, what we would be doing is ensuring that teams with winning records go through. Concacaf has improved to the extent that there will be enough quality teams that the groups will be competitive & will better ensure that all of the best teams are there, rather than having stronger teams go home in the semi's & weaker teams go on to the Hex simply because the semi groups were of inequal quality.


[QUOTE]

An Octagonal would be fine if they can fit the dates into the international calendar.

How would a two-group system alleviate any of the problems you claimed above for the current system? You'd introduce a large luck factor into the most important round of qualifying, and you'd still have to deal with the same preliminary and semifinal round problems you have now.

No, you'd have less of a luck factor involved for the reasons I've stated. You'd have to win most of your games to go through, rather than being able to lose more than you win & still qualify. I'd have the top 8 teams in the region automatically entered into the final groups, on the basis of a seeding system, and have the rest of the teams made up from the winners of the earlier qualifying rounds.

[Captain Canuck]

Sorry, I didn't mean for the quoting in the above post to look so confusing with the bold/non-bold & everything. Hopefully everything is clear as to who said what.

[IASocFan]

My recommendation:
Match the bottom 18 teams with home and away to cut from 35 to 26.
Give the previous hex qualifiers a bye, and match the remaining 20 teams with home and away to cut to 16.
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.

[JG]

Getting rid of quality teams 2 years before the World Cup very quickly is somewhat ridiculous - it doesn't happen in any other confederation

Half the teams in Africa were eliminated in two-leg series in April 2000. Senegal and Nigeria had quite a bit of trouble in these.

Asia also elminates a lot of teams based on a couple early games. Many teams don't even get home games.

These are the two confederations most similar to us in terms of number of entrants and world cup spots, and both of them take a somewhat similar approach.


and doesn't take into account teams that are substantially better in the year prior to the World Cup than they were in two years prior to the World Cup

I see the point, but it's kind of useless to cram things into the year prior to the World Cup if you're then going to choose a system that does a bad job of determining the best teams. Not to mention that qualifying ends 8 months before the WC, another period of time when a lot can change.


It doesn't? Why have a final round where only 6 of the best 8 or 10 teams in the region play each other while the rest lose interest?

Why is 8 or 10 okay while 6 is not? Why not 12 or 18 or 36?

The major goal--really the only goal--of qualifying is to determine the top three (and now the fourth) teams, and to do it with great care. The best way of doing that is to take the top x teams, and have them play a full tournament.

Since we can't play a full tournament with all 35 teams, we have to cut corners at some point. I think it's best that we do so at the earlier stages of the competition for several reasons:

1. The teams eliminated in earlier stages are less likely to be among the top four teams. If a team "incorrectly" fails to make the final 12, or 8, or 6, or whatever, it's not fatal because they were likely not among the top four anyway. In the final round, we can't screw up at all.

2. No one will qualify for the World Cup itself as a direct result of a favorable group draw. If a team advances from an early round due to a favorable draw, they'll just get eliminated later.

3. Concentrating the best teams in the final round produces a higher level of soccer.

The region suffers as a whole when only 6 teams are in it for the last year & a half of qualifying - interest in soccer & promotion of the sport in Concacaf is improved & maintained if more teams are involved in the final stages of qualifying

The region suffers even more if we don't send the right teams to the World Cup and they perform poorly.

The "interest & promotion" thing is really secondary IMO when it comes to WC qualifying...that's what the Gold Cup should be for. That said, the last hex was very exciting, and if people aren't interested in the competition once their own team is eliminated then that's their own problem.


and I would argue that the quality is there to justify having more teams involved in the final stages.

Not at the price of having two groups.

It's outrageous IMO because I think a team should have to win more games than it loses in order to qualify for the World Cup.

And so your solution for this is to make the schedules easier by watering down the level of competition? Why don't we just have 3 groups of 12 teams? That way we can ensure that all the qualifiers will have fantastic winning records and goal differentials.

A team's record has to be considered within the context of their opposition. I'm not sure why you'd be more impressed by a team with a better record against weaker opposition.

The only important thing is that we choose a system that does the best job of determining teams 1-3, and team 4. The way to do that is to maximize the number of games played between the top teams, and minimize "luck of the draw" effects.


With a 4th place team moving on & possibly qualifying after splitting the Asian playoff but advancing on away goal or goal differential, its reasonable to foresee that a team in the lower half of the table (of 6) will have a losing record, yet still qualify for the World Cup.

That seems quite unlikely to me if you take into account the team's record from earlier rounds. And I don't know why you wouldn't. And a slightly sub-.500 record would be perfectly reasonable for a team claiming to be the fourth-best in a confederation, if it was compiled against the rest of the top six.

I think the margin for error should reduce as you get closer to the World Cup, not increase.

I think that's silly. We want to minimize the effect of fluke results, injuries, and suspensions, and choose the best teams. Since we can't do this with 100% accuracy for the whole tournament, I feel that we should try to be most accurate in the final stage of the tournament, for the reasons I outlined above.

No, you'd have less of a luck factor involved for the reasons I've stated.

There would be a giant luck factor because of:

1. The separation into two groups .

2. Watered-down competition means fewer meaningful games which increases the impact of flukish results.

Currently there is no luck factor involved in the final tournament other than those that are inherent in the sport.

I'd have the top 8 teams in the region automatically entered into the final groups, on the basis of a seeding system

What sort of seeding system? I'm betting it will involve fairly old results. By the logic you used earlier in your post, wouldn't it be better to have qualifying rounds so we can determine the current top teams?

have the rest of the teams made up from the winners of the earlier qualifying rounds.

How will these qualifying rounds be set up? Are you really comfortable having team #8 advance directly to the finals, while team #9 has to beat out 25 other teams? At least under the current system, only 3 or 4 teams get byes into the semi-final round, and all of those teams have either qualified for the previous WC or just missed. By the time we get to teams 8-9, we're pretty much talking about about varying degrees of mediocre teams, and I don't think any of them should walk into the finals.

[SJJ]

Originally posted by JG
CONCACAF could make one change though...for the semifinals play 2 groups of 6. The top 3 teams from each group advance to the hex, with records against teams from their semifinal group carrying over. Then each team just plays six games against the teams from the other semifinal group.


I can't imagine that someone is actually thinking of this...

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.

But, please, no.

Here is another idea from that, but I admit it is probably only marginally better....

Have two "semifinal" groups. The two winners qualify. Teams 2 and 3 from the groups play in one more group, to determine qualifier #3 and the Asian-playoff opponent.

[Captain Canuck]

Originally posted by JG
[B]

Half the teams in Africa were eliminated in two-leg series in April 2000. Senegal and Nigeria had quite a bit of trouble in these.

Asia also elminates a lot of teams based on a couple early games. Many teams don't even get home games.

These are the two confederations most similar to us in terms of number of entrants and world cup spots, and both of them take a somewhat similar approach.


[B]

[End Quote]

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.



I see the point, but it's kind of useless to cram things into the year prior to the World Cup if you're then going to choose a system that does a bad job of determining the best teams. Not to mention that qualifying ends 8 months before the WC, another period of time when a lot can change.



[B]
[End Quote]
Having the best 10 teams play 8 to 10 games in the final year is not "cramming" in
Why is 8 or 10 okay while 6 is not? Why not 12 or 18 or 36?



The major goal--really the only goal--of qualifying is to determine the top three (and now the fourth) teams, and to do it with great care. The best way of doing that is to take the top x teams, and have them play a full tournament.

Since we can't play a full tournament with all 35 teams, we have to cut corners at some point. I think it's best that we do so at the earlier stages of the competition for several reasons:

1. The teams eliminated in earlier stages are less likely to be among the top four teams. If a team "incorrectly" fails to make the final 12, or 8, or 6, or whatever, it's not fatal because they were likely not among the top four anyway. In the final round, we can't screw up at all.

2. No one will qualify for the World Cup itself as a direct result of a favorable group draw. If a team advances from an early round due to a favorable draw, they'll just get eliminated later.

3. Concentrating the best teams in the final round produces a higher level of soccer.

[B]

We stop at 8 or 10 teams because realistically that's how many high-quality sides there are in Concacaf. Concacaf must agree since there tends to be that many Concacaf teams in their showcase tournament, the Gold Cup (9 or 10 nowadays). 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. 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. Yes, that would be silly - its as silly as having 6 teams in a final round with two-thirds moving on.

[B]
[Quote]
The region suffers even more if we don't send the right teams to the World Cup and they perform poorly.
[End Quote}

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.

[B]
[Quote]
The "interest & promotion" thing is really secondary IMO when it comes to WC qualifying...that's what the Gold Cup should be for. That said, the last hex was very exciting, and if people aren't interested in the competition once their own team is eliminated then that's their own problem.

[End quote]



[B]

Their own problem......which is caused by an outdated system that needs changing to reflect current realities.

[B]
[Quote]
And so your solution for this is to make the schedules easier by watering down the level of competition? Why don't we just have 3 groups of 12 teams? That way we can ensure that all the qualifiers will have fantastic winning records and goal differentials.
[End quote]

[B]

See my responses already posted above. Hardly a "watering down". Life is too short to keep repeating myself.

[B]
[Quote]
A team's record has to be considered within the context of their opposition. I'm not sure why you'd be more impressed by a team with a better record against weaker opposition.

The only important thing is that we choose a system that does the best job of determining teams 1-3, and team 4. The way to do that is to maximize the number of games played between the top teams, and minimize "luck of the draw" effects.


[B]

[End Quote]

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.

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.

[B]
[Quote]
That seems quite unlikely to me if you take into account the team's record from earlier rounds. And I don't know why you wouldn't. And a slightly sub-.500 record would be perfectly reasonable for a team claiming to be the fourth-best in a confederation, if it was compiled against the rest of the top six.


[B]
[End quote]
Actually its not that unlikely, considering a lot more games are played in the Hex.

[B]
[Quote]


I think that's silly. We want to minimize the effect of fluke results, injuries, and suspensions, and choose the best teams. Since we can't do this with 100% accuracy for the whole tournament, I feel that we should try to be most accurate in the final stage of the tournament, for the reasons I outlined above.

[B]

So do I, I just believe there is a different system that will enable us to do that & has a ton of other advantages. And I don't think its silly at all - the pressure rounds should be later on, not early on, in the system.

[B]

[quote]

There would be a giant luck factor because of:

1. The separation into two groups .

2. Watered-down competition means fewer meaningful games which increases the impact of flukish results.

Currently there is no luck factor involved in the final tournament other than those that are inherent in the sport.

[end quote]
[B]
That's on the assumption that there would be a substantial. See my other comments regarding "no luck".

[B]
[quote]
What sort of seeding system? I'm betting it will involve fairly old results. By the logic you used earlier in your post, wouldn't it be better to have qualifying rounds so we can determine the current top teams?

[B]

[End quote]

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

[B]
How will these qualifying rounds be set up?

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. The logistics of it shouldn't be a problem.

And I really hope all the bold stuff turned out right this time. :)