[dorian2010]

If FIFA went to 40 teams (in either 2014 or 2018), which would be better:

(A) 8 Groups of 5 teams each, with top 2 from each Group advancing to the round of 16.

(B) 10 Groups of 4 teams each, with winners from each Group and the best two 2nd place teams advancing to the round of 16, with the other eight 2nd place teams having a one-game playoff? (Note that this would essentially be a round of 32 with 12 teams getting first round byes.)

Under (A), there would be 96 matches with each team having a minimum of 4 matches. Under (B), there would be 80 matches.

One alternative to (B) would be to have the 10 group winners advance, the 10 second place teams play each other for 5 spots, and then have a WILDCARD team to complete the round of 16. It could be given to the host if they don't advance -- otherwise, a random draw of the eliminated teams -- creating a "Cinderella story".

Thoughts?

[condor11]

Originally Posted by dorian2010

If FIFA went to 40 teams (in either 2014 or 2018), which would be better:

(A) 8 Groups of 5 teams each, with top 2 from each Group advancing to the round of 16.

(B) 10 Groups of 4 teams each, with winners from each Group and the best two 2nd place teams advancing to the round of 16, with the other eight 2nd place teams having a one-game playoff? (Note that this would essentially be a round of 32 with 12 teams getting first round byes.)

Under (A), there would be 96 matches with each team having a minimum of 4 matches. Under (B), there would be 80 matches.

One alternative to (B) would be to have the 10 group winners advance, the 10 second place teams play each other for 5 spots, and then have a WILDCARD team to complete the round of 16. It could be given to the host if they don't advance -- otherwise, a random draw of the eliminated teams -- creating a "Cinderella story".

Thoughts?

I for one hope it does not go to 40 teams

[Triton]

If someone asks me, I would reduce the number of teams to either 24, either 16, just like it was before the 90s. In that case, I believe the quality of the World Cup and the level of competition would be much higher than it was recently when 32 teams participated.

[IASocFan]

Instead of 40 teams, I'd go with 38 teams. With the last 12 teams playing head-head match ups to see who gets to the final 32 - a nice even number and a power of 2!

Isn't that what we do now?

It's difficult to change the system we have without increasing the already overloaded international match schedule.

[goliath74]

Originally Posted by IASocFan

Instead of 40 teams, I'd go with 38 teams. With the last 12 teams playing head-head match ups to see who gets to the final 32 - a nice even number and a power of 2!

Isn't that what we do now?

It's difficult to change the system we have without increasing the already overloaded international match schedule.

Isn't it, basically what we already have?

[braine]

Originally Posted by Triton

If someone asks me, I would reduce the number of teams to either 24, either 16, just like it was before the 90s. In that case, I believe the quality of the World Cup and the level of competition would be much higher than it was recently when 32 teams participated.

Are you serious ? 16 teams is really to less man ! To know that you've also to include nations from all the continents...
They did that in the seventies and some great nations ,esp.the one in Europe ,were the victims...

Originally Posted by condor11

I for one hope it does not go to 40 teams

me either ! Putting 8 more teams in wouldnt increase the quality of the tournament. Way too much games also in the tournament..

[superfrantheman]

32 is fine

[superfrantheman]

i have another idea, why if the WC gets to be played in more than one country?

what if we havve 4 venues in where 8 groups of 6 tems are arranged? so it would look like tennis or something, but it would make a better WC because rememenber that many countries always want to host WC;s but they dont get chosen....

so the first group could be in eurpe, second one in asia, third one in the americas, and 4th one either in africa o oceania...........

so there will be 8 groups of 6 teams, and every venues will be getting 2 groups, and receiving 11 more teams........

this will the be the way to organize it..............


the champion team will host the WC, along with 2 more teams.... 1 team oout of the remaining teams will be the place where the FINAL ROUND(1/8 , QF, SF and Final) will be disputed.... and the other 2 places will be the two places that were close to be chosen as the main venue


example:

lets say that the US gets chosen for 2018, so they will be one of the venues, along with the 2014 champion? lets say it;s france

so then the US will received 11 more teams on the first round, france 11 too. and the remaining two venues would be the two countries that lost the bid to the US, example japan,

so basically the first phase would be played simpultaneously in the US, france and japan. this will not only increased the number of teams, but it will benefit all of us because we would be watching games all day long....

lets pretend this happens for 2012 WC.......


phase 1:

groups a, b,c, d US e, f FRANCE, g and h JAPAN....

the winners and runner ups will all go to the US and will play the rest of the tournament....


how long would that take?

5 games on the first round
4 games on the last rpund....


the first round could be played in 15 days

the last round in 15 days also......

[Triton]

Originally Posted by braine

Are you serious ? 16 teams is really to less man ! To know that you've also to include nations from all the continents...
They did that in the seventies and some great nations ,esp.the one in Europe ,were the victims...

Well, the main purpose of any possible WC changes that happened before and that might happen in the future was/is to increase the level of competition and the quality of the games. With that you should agree, shouldn't you?

Since FIFA increased the number of teams to 32 in 1990 (by consequence many underdogs could participate which made it a lot easier to advance in the latter stages), I am of the opinion that the quality and the competition level since then seriously decreased. WCs 2002 and 2006 are self-explanatory. By adding 8 additional teams it would just get the things even worse. That's why I would decrease the number of the participating teams.

Take a look at the following groups from the WC 1978:
Group 1: Italy, Argentina, France, Hungary
Group 2: Poland, West Germany, Tunisia, Mexico
Group 3: Austria, Brazil, Spain, Sweden
Group 4: Peru, Holland, Scotland, Iran

Every group could be called ''group of death'', and the competition was very high. Compare it with the WC 2002, for instance, and you'll see a big difference.

Perhaps 16 is too less by today's standards, but 24 would still be better than 32 or 40.

[braine]

Originally Posted by Triton

Well, the main purpose of any possible WC changes that happened before and that might happen in the future was/is to increase the level of competition and the quality of the games. With that you should agree, shouldn't you?

I think the main reason to increase the teams for FIFA is to gain more money and to please all the confederations.
More games = more money.
Most probably the same reason for UEFA to suggest 24 teams instead of the 16 teams now in the EC.

Perhaps 16 is too less by today's standards, but 24 would still be better than 32 or 40.

16 is too less in todays standards and you're right about tha 24 teams .
At this moment they're just too many teams that actually not belong at the highest level of the game,the WC.