[photar74]

Originally posted by Tick
Simple enough... go to an octagonal instead of a hexagonal.

Before the Great Post Dump, someone had posted a good qualification system from start to finish that resulted in the same number of games, roughly, and ended with an octagonal. Looked good to me.

Ahhh... how I miss of my poor, long-lost posts! The system I came up with was certainly one of my five or ten best pre-crash posts.

Anyway, if anyone still cares, here's the system I developed. It was designed to accommodate CONCACAF qualifying if our beloved confederation was allocated either 3.5 (which is what it deserves) or 4.0 (which is what you ask for in order to get 3.5) spaces for 2006. Its benefits include:

-A single table during the final round of qualifying, which is always more exciting and more fair than multiple groups.
-No team has to play more matches to qualify than they do under the current system, and almost every team would actually have to play less.
-Due to the previous benefit, the financial burden of WC qualifying would be reduced for poor federations (unless one of them shockingly made the octagonal).
-It continues to respect the regional differences that exist within CONCACAF.
-It increases the chances that currently strong, but not world class, nations such as Canada and Guatemala will be able to play more matches against world class competition (and improve as a result). Thus, the system would theoretically increase the strength of CONCACAF as a confederation, at least in terms of depth.
-It increases the chances that the world-class CONCACAF nations such as Mexico, USA and Costa Rica will play fewer games against weak competition (and improve as a result). Thus, the system would theoretically improve CONCACAF as a confederation, at least in terms of strength at the top.

Well, judge for yourself, if you still have anything to say about it. Enjoy!

CONCACAF Qualifying
35 teams, 3.5 spaces

Preliminaries (27 teams, two zones)
“Caribbean Zone”
-23 teams, six qualify for semifinals
-Five brackets of four, one bracket of three
-Home and away knockout, bracket champ advances.
-Top seed overall (Cuba?) will be in the three team bracket, automatically advancing to final of that bracket.
“Central American Zone”
-4 teams, 2 qualify for semifinals.
-Home and away knockout.
-Panamá vs. Belize, Guatemala vs. Nicaragua

Semifinals
-Twelve teams: eight preliminary winners plus Honduras, El Salvador, Canada and T & T.
-Four groups of three, home and away round robin.
-The four auto qualifiers are to be the top seeds in each group.
-Group winner advances

Finals
-Eight teams: four semifinals winners plus Mexico, Costa Rica, USA and Jamaica.
-Home and away round robin.
-Top three automatically qualify; fourth place enters a playoff vs. CONMEBOL fifth place.

I should point out that the teams who qualified for either of the last two WCs were automatically placed in the octagonal (these four teams also were the only ones to make the hex in both '97 and '01). The four teams that reached the hex in one of the last two qualifying runs but did not reach the WC were placed as the seeded teams in the semifinals.

[Preston North End]

WCQ for 1998 should not have as much impact on WCQ for 2006 as you give it. No side from 1998 will be what it was '98 as it will be in 2004.

More credence should be placed on the WCQ's for 2002 and the 2003 Gold Cup. Kind of what UEFA did to set the groups for Euro 2004 qualifying. They based the seeding on qualifying records during Euro 2000 qualifying and WCQ 2002.

Take the overall WCQ record, though from the semifinals on - from 2002 (ranked 1-12) and combine it with the final results from the 2003 Gold Cup (ranked 1-??).

Your top four would get the bye to the Octagonal. #5-8 get the bye into the semifinal round.

This could or would mess up the numbers for the prelim rounds, but the format you created could easily be adjusted.

Current Rankings, awaiting the 2003 Gold Cup final classification...

1. Costa Rica
2. Mexico
3. Honduras
4. United States
5. Jamaica
6. Trinidad & Tobago
7. Guatemala
8. El Salvador
9. Canada
10. Barbados
11. Panama
12. St. Vincent & Grenedines

[bigshow]

Originally posted by Preston North End
WCQ for 1998 should not have as much impact on WCQ for 2006 as you give it. No side from 1998 will be what it was '98 as it will be in 2004.

More credence should be placed on the WCQ's for 2002 and the 2003 Gold Cup. Kind of what UEFA did to set the groups for Euro 2004 qualifying. They based the seeding on qualifying records during Euro 2000 qualifying and WCQ 2002.

Take the overall WCQ record, though from the semifinals on - from 2002 (ranked 1-12) and combine it with the final results from the 2003 Gold Cup (ranked 1-??).

Your top four would get the bye to the Octagonal. #5-8 get the bye into the semifinal round.

This could or would mess up the numbers for the prelim rounds, but the format you created could easily be adjusted.

Current Rankings, awaiting the 2003 Gold Cup final classification...

1. Costa Rica
2. Mexico
3. Honduras
4. United States
5. Jamaica
6. Trinidad & Tobago
7. Guatemala
8. El Salvador
9. Canada
10. Barbados
11. Panama
12. St. Vincent & Grenedines

Shouldn't the USA be rated ahead of Honduras?

[photar74]

I would agree. Considering that the USA finished ahead of Honduras in both qualifying (3rd rather than 4th) and won the most recent Gold Cup, how exactly does Honduras outrank the USA in your system?

Anyway, I am aware that the rankings and seedings can be adjusted. Still, the clear dominance that Jamaica, USA, Mexico and Costa Rica have demonstrated over the past two round of qualifying cannot be ignored. They were the only teams to make the hex both times, and they are the only teams to make the WC from CONCACAF in the last four round of qualifying.

Basically, I wanted to seed those teams because they are the reason why CONCACAF deserves 3.5 instead of 3.0. They are the four nations that earned the extra space--why shouldn't they reap the benefits by being seeded in the final round? Jamaica won a game in the WC--Honduras didn't.

[Dixie]

The US should be rated #1-3. Also you can't put as much stock into the Gold Cup as UEFA puts into the European Championships. Its not the same and it just isn't nearly as important to the sides involved.

[CrewDust]

If we get 3.5 then we should stick with the current system with the four place team in the playoff. If we get 4, then I would like to see the semi round have four groups of sixteen and then two groups of 4 going for the four spots.

[Tick]

CrewDust, I much prefer photar's plan over multiple groups. The draw decides too much in multiple groups, whereas in a single group like the current hex, things are more fair.

Otherwise we'll have something like Asia and Europe had this time, where the draw dictates who qualifies (Holland vs. Poland, Iran vs. China).

[Preston North End]

Originally posted by bigshow
Shouldn't the USA be rated ahead of Honduras?

I counted all points achieved from the semifinal round on...which is what I originally posted.

Originally posted by photar74
I would agree. Considering that the USA finished ahead of Honduras in both qualifying (3rd rather than 4th) and won the most recent Gold Cup, how exactly does Honduras outrank the USA in your system?

Anyway, I am aware that the rankings and seedings can be adjusted. Still, the clear dominance that Jamaica, USA, Mexico and Costa Rica have demonstrated over the past two round of qualifying cannot be ignored. They were the only teams to make the hex both times, and they are the only teams to make the WC from CONCACAF in the last four round of qualifying.

Basically, I wanted to seed those teams because they are the reason why CONCACAF deserves 3.5 instead of 3.0. They are the four nations that earned the extra space--why shouldn't they reap the benefits by being seeded in the final round? Jamaica won a game in the WC--Honduras didn't.

How do you not reward Honduras? They finish 3 points behind Jamaica and 2 behind Mexico in the semifinal round for 1998?

Look at Guatemala this go round. They took Costa Rica to a playoff.

Split the ranking 1-6 and 7-12 based on who made the hex and who didn't, but classify them based on total points (which would split them more often than not anyway).

The seeding system should reward those that are playing well now -Honduras - not those that did something six years ago (1998 -> 2004), such as Jamaica.

Originally posted by Dixie
The US should be rated #1-3. Also you can't put as much stock into the Gold Cup as UEFA puts into the European Championships. Its not the same and it just isn't nearly as important to the sides involved.

Well I think you can put much stock in the Gold Cup.

The U.S. won it this go round by defeating who? Costa Rica.

It's not a surprise that both performed well at the World Cup.

BTW, the Gold Cup will be in the summer of 2003. No club conflicts. Every side will bring their full team, at least they should. If not they will end up going home early like Mexico did.

Originally posted by Tick
CrewDust, I much prefer photar's plan over multiple groups. The draw decides too much in multiple groups, whereas in a single group like the current hex, things are more fair.

Otherwise we'll have something like Asia and Europe had this time, where the draw dictates who qualifies (Holland vs. Poland, Iran vs. China).

This is so true, it even happens in the semifinal round of CONCACAF...see Honduras in 1998 and Guatemala in 2002. Both were better than the two sides that finished bottom of the hex in the corresponding years. Honduras was better than both Canada & El Salvador in 1998 (technically 1997) and Guatemala was better than Jamaica and T&T this go round.

[photar74]

I still think Jamaica should be seeded in the top four and not Honduras. I know many people do not believe that looking at results from the two previous WCs is relevant, since '96-'98 was so long ago. However, I believe that viewing only results from the previous WC campaign would be far too statistically unstable. In many cases, you reduce a team's seeding to their performance in less than ten games. Adding in the data from the previous two WCs does far more to stabilize the seeding system simply by including twice as much data.

Anyway, here are my current CONCACAF rankings (based solely on WC qualifying, since the seeds would only be given out in WC qualifying). I simply added up how many points each team acquired during the the semifinal and final rounds of qualifying for '98 and '02:

1. Mexico (58)
2. USA (58)
3. Costa Rica (57)
4. Jamaica (46)
5. Honduras (37)
6. El Salvador (29)
7. Canada (27)
8. T & T (21)
9. Gautemala (18)
10. Panama (6)
11. Barbados (3)
12. Cuba (3)
13. St. Vincent & G (0)
14. Haiti (0)
15. Dominican Republic (0)
16. St. Kitts and Nevis (0)
17. Antigua & Barduda (0)

This list certainly doesn't make a 16-team Gold Cup very appealing, does it? The tiebreaakers were:

1. Number of points acquired in previous WC.
2. Number of points acquired in previous two WCs.
3. Number of points acquired in previous hex.
4. Number of points acquired in previous two hexes.
5. Number of points acquired in previous semifinal.
6. Number of home-away knockout round matches won in past two qualifying campaigns.
7. Total goal difference in previous two WCQ campaigns.
8. FIFA World Ranking

[Alex_1]

Good luck with making the rankings for this confederation. The only constants that I can see is that basically North America has a free ride into the final round of qualifying (which it should, really). Even Canada... who won the Gold Cup before the US did before then flopped during qualifying... they must be kicking their half-wit manager.

Consistency shows as others suggest that the perennial top finishers in Gold Cup and WCQ have been Mexico, the United States, COsta Rica, Jamaica with Honduras on the outside looking in. Potential upcomers are Guatemala and possibly El Salvador. I don't really see a resurrection in Trinidad (don't let my girlfriend here that...) until Dr. Evil himself is removed from CONCACAF power.

But how do you get to that point? Hmm... I'll leave it to you statisticians. But I do agree with the qualification system in place now that weeds out the minnows rather easily instead of subjecting them to 10-0 thrashings. I wish that Europe could adopt a similar system but the infrastructure of the leagues/schedule simply would never allow that. C'est levie