CONCACAF Part IV [Archive]

Pike

29 Jun 2006, 01:28 AM

I have read many of the post in the other thread. Its too bad that some posters feel the need to insult fellow posters simply because they disagree. I hope people will take a more intellectual approach to my post.

PART I: Relative Strength Analysis

For fun I looked up the performances of all of the regions in the lat 3 World Cups (1998, 2002, 2006 thus far). I awarded a point for qualifying out of a group, and a point for each advancements in rounds.

These are my findings:
Key: Region # - total (98/02/06)
* Still have teams in contention
CONCACAF: 5 (1/3/1)
Asia: 4 (0/4/0)
Africa: 4 (1/2/1)
S. America: 20 (7/8/5*)
Europe: 52 (20/16/16*)
Oceania 1 (0/0/1)

Note: There 2 SA teams and 6 Euro teams left. The 2 SA teams are playing Euro teams. Europe can earn 2 - 7 additional pts, while Sa could earn 0-5 pts.

Total Number of teams per/ region in the last 3 WC
Europe: 44 (15/15/14)
Africa: 15 (5/5/5)
S. America: 14 (5/5/4)
Asia: 12 (4/4/4)
CONCACAF: 10 (3/3/4)
Oceania: 1 (0/0/1)

To get a clearer picture, I took the number of pts earned and divided by the number of participating within a region:

1: S. America: 1.43*
2: Europe: 1.19*
3: Oceania: 1.00
4: CONCACAF: 0.50
5: Asia: 0.34
6: Africa: 0.27

What is most interesting is how poorly Africa compares to the other "weaker" federations. Also, CONCACAF is not as "weak" as some may want to believe. They compare favorably to the other smaller federations.

PART II: Merging Federations

Should CONCACAF be combined with the South American Confederation?
Personally I would welcome the merging, but I do not think FIFA would like it all.

FIFA is trying to promote the game everywhere. Merging the two would negate this goal. It would prevent the likes of Jamaica, Costa Rica, or T& T from qualifying for the WC. Also, While Mexico and the United States will benefit with the increase of competition, it will also mean they may miss out on occasion. FIFA does not want to lose the huge market of the United States. It would make the 1994 World Cup a waste,...although MLS may be here to stay.... Americans won't show much of an interest unless the US are there (die hards like myself will continue watching however)

Pike

Manoro3

29 Jun 2006, 02:37 AM

29 Jun 2006, 02:45 AM

Pike

29 Jun 2006, 02:53 AM

Merging won't happen, but here's a change I'd like to see happen in CONCACAF.

Have a president that isn't from Trinidad and Tobago. What a joke. Is the president of UEFA from Andorra or Macedonia?

The Senate style 1 country 1 vote thing has to go, why should Dominica, that doesn't even have a stadium to play in, that sends pickup players who have day jobs to the qualifying games, and has to play their home games in the Southern U.S, have the same weight as Mexico?

Why should St. Vincent and the Grenadines (sounds like a 60's Soul group) have the same weight as the U.S?

Unfortunately, I do not see anyway around the 1 member 1 vote concept. I also don't see a real problem with the way it is run. Perhaps I do not know too much about the federation. I do find the assigment of officials to be very political (I am an official). How Pendeghast kept getting matches is beyond me. He must have some really good pictures of someone.

Pike

midknight

29 Jun 2006, 12:42 PM

Merging won't happen, but here's a change I'd like to see happen in CONCACAF.
Have a president that isn't from Trinidad and Tobago. What a joke. Is the president of UEFA from Andorra or Macedonia?

I think someone needs to review his concept of democracy...

What I want is a competent, non corrupt President. Afterwards he can come from Sandy Island for all I care...

BTW, last time I checked, Switzerland wasn't exactly a european power nor a particularly big country either :rolleyes:

midknight

29 Jun 2006, 12:46 PM

Merging won't happen, but here's a change I'd like to see happen in CONCACAF.

Have a president that isn't from Trinidad and Tobago. What a joke. Is the president of UEFA from Andorra or Macedonia?

The Senate style 1 country 1 vote thing has to go, why should Dominica, that doesn't even have a stadium to play in, that sends pickup players who have day jobs to the qualifying games, and has to play their home games in the Southern U.S, have the same weight as Mexico?

Why should St. Vincent and the Grenadines (sounds like a 60's Soul group) have the same weight as the U.S?

Why should the US, of which 3/4 of the population would barely reecognize a football if they saw one be treated with the same seeding formula as Mexico, where people eat breathe and sleep football?

Why should the US, (sounds like a bunch of egomaniacs) have the same weight as the Netherlands, a much smaller country with a greater football tradition and more success?

I could go on and on and on :rolleyes:

Pike

29 Jun 2006, 01:29 PM

Why should the US, of which 3/4 of the population would barely reecognize a football if they saw one be treated with the same seeding formula as Mexico, where people eat breathe and sleep football?

Why should the US, (sounds like a bunch of egomaniacs) have the same weight as the Netherlands, a much smaller country with a greater football tradition and more success?

I could go on and on and on :rolleyes:

WHOAAAA MAN, we are just throwing around the insults in this forum aren;t we,.. eurosnobs, american egomaniacs,... etc,... wait,.. I have a better idea,... why don;t we debate the points of an argument instead of bashing the writer... to logical and sensible,... noe one will go for it,.... anyway

I don't think you have been to the United States( if ever) in awhile.

Soccer/ Football is the #1 participatory sport among youth in America. Soccer is still growing in the United States. When I lived in Louisiana and now in Illinois, they are soccer programs being added every year.

Now compare it to other Sports, like American Footbal, Pro and College, Baseball, Basketball, NASCAR (yes NASCAR), soccer is still relatively small. This doesn't mean people in the states are completely oblivious to the sport.

In 1990, you could rest assure you will never hear a score on the radio or sports cast. NOW, I had a couple of games poiled that I could not see live.

midknight

29 Jun 2006, 05:48 PM

WHOAAAA MAN, we are just throwing around the insults in this forum aren;t we,.. eurosnobs, american egomaniacs,... etc,... wait,.. I have a better idea,... why don;t we debate the points of an argument instead of bashing the writer... to logical and sensible,... noe one will go for it,.... anyway

I don't think you have been to the United States( if ever) in awhile.

Soccer/ Football is the #1 participatory sport among youth in America. Soccer is still growing in the United States. When I lived in Louisiana and now in Illinois, they are soccer programs being added every year.

Now compare it to other Sports, like American Footbal, Pro and College, Baseball, Basketball, NASCAR (yes NASCAR), soccer is still relatively small. This doesn't mean people in the states are completely oblivious to the sport.

In 1990, you could rest assure you will never hear a score on the radio or sports cast. NOW, I had a couple of games poiled that I could not see live.

I never insulted anyone. I for one didn't use the word eurosnobs,
(which btw does not refer to anyone who is european but only to those who believe itsthe centre of the football universe to the exclusion of anyone else)
my "us sounds like egomaniacs" was a play on the "st vincent and the grenadines sounds like a 60's soul group" remark.

If anything you should be criticising the poster who made the prejudiced remarks to the effect that the President of the Confederation shouldn't come from a small country, or that a small country shouldn't have as much weight as the mighty US.

Thirdly, my remarks about the US were made just to illustrate the ignorance of the other posters remarks. I am fully aware of the strides that the United States has made in the domain of the popularisation of football. Maybe Manoro should try to inform himself about exactly what the sport signifies in these smaller CONCACAF nations before mouthing off.

I actually welcome constructive discussion, but don't expect me to just let those kind of remarks go by because of that

ps: I was last in the US in 2004 (Washington DC) and that was my third trip in 5 years

Manoro3

30 Jun 2006, 01:57 AM

Maybe Manoro should try to inform himself about exactly what the sport signifies in these smaller CONCACAF nations before mouthing off.

I actually welcome constructive discussion, but don't expect me to just let those kind of remarks go by because of that

ps: I was last in the US in 2004 (Washington DC) and that was my third trip in 5 years

I'm sure the 100,00 people (that's CIA factbook statistics) who live in St. Vincent and the Grenadines couldn't care less about what I post concerning the country's name on an internet forum, and I doubt they feel any gratitude for the guy who comes in and cries murder about a stupid, harmless joke. Save your energy for being offended by something that matters.

Human decency does not increase in direct proportion to one's ability to be
self-righteously offended, no matter how much you may think so. If anything, this kind of overzealousness demeans struggles against things that are truly offensive.

And for all the people who think I'm trampling on democratic rights when I say that Mexico and the US should have more weight than they do in CONCACAF....

It's a game where 22 men try to kick a ball into a net (well 2 of them try to prevent this). It's not human rights, it's not dividing up food and water, it's not economic planning, it's not social welfare. Chill out.

And what's imperialist about thinking that countries that spend time and money developing young players, maintaining stadiums, hiring coaches, consultants, doctors, trainers, foreign players, and running a league should have more weight in a federation about the kicking-the-ball-into-the-net-game than countries that don't do these things?

If my neighborhood creates a basketball organization, I don't think going outside and shooting free throws a couple of times a month should give me the same weight as people who've been training 15 years and pay dues to play in a league. They're obviously more qualified to have a bigger role in the organization.

There are situations in life where it's more important to value expertise than to treat everybody equally. If a man gets run over by a car, and a plumber and a doctor are both nearby, should they each get one equal vote in deciding how to help the man who got run over?

midknight

30 Jun 2006, 04:23 AM

I'm sure the 100,00 people (that's CIA factbook statistics) who live in St. Vincent and the Grenadines couldn't care less about what I post concerning the country's name on an internet forum, and I doubt they feel any gratitude for the guy who comes in and cries murder about a stupid, harmless joke. Save your energy for being offended by something that matters.

Human decency does not increase in direct proportion to one's ability to be
self-righteously offended, no matter how much you may think so. If anything, this kind of overzealousness demeans struggles against things that are truly offensive.

And for all the people who think I'm trampling on democratic rights when I say that Mexico and the US should have more weight than they do in CONCACAF....

It's a game where 22 men try to kick a ball into a net (well 2 of them try to prevent this). It's not human rights, it's not dividing up food and water, it's not economic planning, it's not social welfare. Chill out.

And what's imperialist about thinking that countries that spend time and money developing young players, maintaining stadiums, hiring coaches, consultants, doctors, trainers, foreign players, and running a league should have more weight in a federation about the kicking-the-ball-into-the-net-game than countries that don't do these things?

If my neighborhood creates a basketball organization, I don't think going outside and shooting free throws a couple of times a month should give me the same weight as people who've been training 15 years and pay dues to play in a league. They're obviously more qualified to have a bigger role in the organization.

There are situations in life where it's more important to value expertise than to treat everybody equally. If a man gets run over by a car, and a plumber and a doctor are both nearby, should they each get one equal vote in deciding how to help the man who got run over?

- The fact that you're using CIA factbook data just goes to compound my point about the ignorance of your statements. These people have Nancy in France listed as a port for goodness sakes. For your information, I dont give what the '100, 00' people in St. Vincent and the Grenadines think about your 'harmless joke'. I happen to find it offensive, and it is the same logic that gets me annoyed whenever i hear references to Trinidad and Tobacco, the land of Weed, Frogland and even good old AmeriKKK. Because you consider it harmless doesn't necessarily make it so.

- The enormity of an offense does not increase in direct proportion to the number of people who are there to cry out against it, no matter how much you may think so.

- Football isn't important, so I should chill out right? I'm sorry buddy, but injustice gets me annoyed wherever I see it. I don't know about you.

- I never used the word imperialist, YOU did. Go figure.

- You're the one comparing saving a man's life to the organisation of a football federation and then you tell me to 'save my energy for stuff that really matters?"

I never once criticised you criticising the one country one vote policy. Most people who know anything about Concacaf know that it was a facade for the Warner/Blazer Cabal to take control of the federation. That said, the general disdain in your post for smaller countries said all that I needed to hear.

----
You still haven't explained to me what the hell the size of his country of origin has to do with the capacity of a Confederation's President.

For the record when the US went into a complete black hole in terms of football, Trinidad and Tobago were being robbed for a world cup spot in the 74 cup to the benefit of Haiti. In 1989, the same Trinidad and Tobago was one US goal less from qualifying for the 1990 World Cup. The same Trinidad and Tobago has made the hex in 2 of its 3 editions

As I said, please inform yourself (and try not to use the CIA world fact book please).

Pike

30 Jun 2006, 10:40 AM

I never insulted anyone... my remarks about the US were made just to illustrate the ignorance of the other posters remarks. I am fully aware of the strides that the United States has made in the domain of the popularisation of football. Maybe Manoro should try to inform himself about exactly what the sport signifies in these smaller CONCACAF nations before mouthing off.
I actually welcome constructive discussion, but don't expect me to just let those kind of remarks go ...

No Problem,... sorry for the "knee jerk" reaction. Your points are correct. As a member of CONCACAF every member has the same rights as every other member within the oganization. Any American who disagrees with this basic principal disagrees with the concept of freedom and what Constitution represents.

Pike

Manoro3

01 Jul 2006, 03:07 AM

- I never used the word imperialist, YOU did. Go figure.

Not much to figure. I'm wiling to acknowledge the geopolitical context that sparked your initial reply and now encompasses this argument. You can't bring a zebra and blame me for it being a zebra when I'm just the guy who identified it as such.

- You're the one comparing saving a man's life to the organisation of a football federation and then you tell me to 'save my energy for stuff that really matters?"

It's called an analogy, it's understood that there's no superficial similarity between the two things being mentioned, in fact it's precisely this superficial difference that highlights through juxtaposition the underlying concept that the two things have in common. In my particular analogy that concept was the value of expertise over equality.

With country names, it's uncommon to find the structure Proper Noun+ conjunction+article+noun, as is the case with St. Vincent and the Grenadines. That structure is not uncommon with 1960's soul groups, Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions, Archie Bell and the Drells, etc. It's just grammar, I don't understand why making a joke about that is so insulting. Maybe you should think about why associating something with music composed primarily by African-Americans made you immediately conclude that that something was being insulted.

----
You still haven't explained to me what the hell the size of his country of origin has to do with the capacity of a Confederation's President.

When the confederation in question involves an activity that at the professional level, requires considerable infrastructure that's dependent on economic, social, and human resources, the size of the country does matter. There's a reason you don't see very many island countries with small populations making an impact in international soccer. That's not an insult, you can put any racial, ethnic, or national group in their place and it would be the same thing. He can be a great, smart guy, but if the job involves running something big, people that already run big things should be preferred.

midknight

02 Jul 2006, 08:32 PM

Maybe you should think about why associating something with music composed primarily by African-Americans made you immediately conclude that that something was being insulted.

You're missing the point. I don't see what African American has anything to do with it. I don't automatically make analogies when talking about Portugal (sounds like a fruit), Great Britain (sounds self important), China (sounds fragile), Chile (sounds hot) etc etc etc.

I am led to the impression seeing the general orientation of your posts (demeaning and belittling to what you seem to consider obviously inferior (by their size) footballing nations) that your "sounds like a 60s soul group" post if anything has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand and only serves to emphasise the lack of seriousness that you attribute to such countries. I personally have no problem with 60's soul groups. Hell I have no problem with 60s rock groups or even 2000 rock groups or 2000 soul groups, but it IS kind of difficult to take anyone seriously when every time you think of them you have a mental image of an anachronistic musical ensemble isn't it?

As you said, don't bring a zebra and get annoyed when i call it a zebra...

When the confederation in question involves an activity that at the professional level, requires considerable infrastructure that's dependent on economic, social, and human resources, the size of the country does matter. There's a reason you don't see very many island countries with small populations making an impact in international soccer. That's not an insult, you can put any racial, ethnic, or national group in their place and it would be the same thing. He can be a great, smart guy, but if the job involves running something big, people that already run big things should be preferred.

you can talk to me all about juxtapositions, analogies and coordinates as you want, but shite, no matter how embellished it is, is still shite...

Speaking of analogies, you haven't answered me in relation to the Switzerland analogy. After all, thats a great huge football federation over there in the Helvetic Confederation right? I mean its just enormous when you compare it to piddling little structures like the Premiership, la Liga, the Bundesliga and Seria A.

You also seem to forget that there are a number of other reasons why there are not many small island countries with small populations making an impact in international soccer. One of them is called a player pool.

----

I can agree to get over the whole st vincent thing if you can. After all it isn't the crux of my disaccord with you. Where I disagree is on your assumption that managerial competence is somehow magnified in proportion to the size of your country (at least thats how you made it sound in your first posts) and that by such logic, management and administration of the confederation should only be assured by individuals issued from its larger (and logically more developped, infrastructure and organisation wise) members

The problem is as rational as that sounds it actually leaves a pretty convenient situation whereby these members can continue to assure their dominance of the region by making decisions that go in their favour, doesn't it? Or are we to assume that because they are more advanced in the field of administration they will necessarily be altruistic and automatically make decisions that benefit the confederation as a whole, you know the whole benevolent paternalistic godfather bit...

There's your zebra again...