[glennaldo_sf]

UEFA is apparently currently considering expanding the Euros from 16 teams to 20-24 teams by 2016.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...548939&cc=4716

What do you guys think? Good idea or not? Personally I like it the way it is. 16 teams maximum. The only expandable number for such a tournament is 32 or else it gets into this silly 4 best third placed teams progressing crap. Either that, or make 5-6 teams / group or a second group stage... but not really doable.

I say keep it as it is.

[Makandal]

I like the current format. Even though I wouldn't mind a 20-team competition (groups of 5, instead of 4). But beyond that, no!

[M]

If they can avoid the "best third placed finishers" nonsense that the WC was afflicted with, I lean towards expansion to 20 teams - there's easily enough strength in depth in UEFA to make this feasible. Four groups of five, with two progressing. That's one extra game per team and would extend the championships by four extra days. Downsides are the likely need for more stadia to host, potentially ruling out some candidates. Plus the qualification competition becomes slightly less meaningful.

[Executor]

What they need to do is find an excuse to let Brazil and Argentina participate.

[Timanfaya]

Originally Posted by M

... Four groups of five, with two progressing. That's one extra game per team and would extend the championships by four extra days...

I make it 10 matches per group, instead of 6, no? So in total that's 16 extra group games all involving a team that wouldn't otherwise have qualified. (Er, such as England.) Eight extra days on the group stage, seems like a drag to me.

Plus the qualification competition becomes slightly less meaningful.

Yep, it's all negatives!

[Prawn Sandwich]

8 matches per group in a 5 team group isn't it?

[Timanfaya]

You're making me doubt myself so much I've had to write them down:

1v2
1v3
1v4
1v5
2v3
2v4
2v5
3v4
3v5
4v5

[lanman]

I like 16. It means that qualification is that bit more difficult and somewhat of an achievement. I can see the arguments for more teams, as it would open up spaces for some teams that seam to routinely miss out, but would rather see the status quo retained.

20 or 24 teams also creates other problems. Groups of 5 teams are not ideal - one team will have finished their games and others will know exactly what to do to qualify, possibly giving an unfair advantage. Six groups of 4 means selected third place teams advancing and that means teams advance on results against different opponents.

[Prawn Sandwich]

Originally Posted by Timanfaya

You're making me doubt myself so much I've had to write them down:

1v2
1v3
1v4
1v5
2v3
2v4
2v5
3v4
3v5
4v5

My bad, you're right

[$crooge]

Oops, I misclicked - chose #1 though I actually wanted to vote for #2. 16 is perfect. I'd like to see more games, but 32 teams is the only possible format that makes sense. Maybe if we get North African sides to participate in the Euro...