To meet Montagliani's goal I would with 4 groups of 4 for the bottom 16 teams with group winner and best 2nd place going through to the round of 24. This would not need more matchdays than this cycle and would get all teams a minimum of 6 matches.
Like this.... 2 first place teams get a bye Round 1: 11 groups of 3, Top 2 advance... eliminates 11 teams. (4 games played) Round 2: 2 bye teams plus 22 winners. 6 groups of 4. Top 2 advance (6 games played) Round 3: 2 Hexes. top 3 advance. (10 games) Round 4: 2 4th place teams play home and away for the WC playoff spot. 11 teams play 4 matches 12 play 10 (2 of these teams could play just 6) 12 play 20 (2 of these teams could play 16) 2 play 22 (these 2 could play 18 if they are the bye teams) Edit: 18 to 22 is to many games...as @2in10 states, currently the max a team plays is 16.
Well that would be this cycle only. If one of the first round teams had made it to the Hex they would have 22 games.
Lets try this one... Like this.... Top 19 get a bye Round 1: Bottom 16: 4 groups of 4. 4 winners and top 2nd place advances. (6 games total) Round 2: 6 groups of 4. Top 2 advance (6 games played) Round 3: 2 Hexes. top 3 advance. (10 games) Round 4: 2 4th place teams play home and away for the WC playoff spot. Again, probably to many matches... 11 teams play 6 matches 12 play 6 or 12 matches 12 play 16 or 22 matches 2 play 18 or 24.
I agree there could be too many matches for some of the teams. I keep forgetting about the playing team.
I think it would be quite unlikely for one of the lowest 16 to make it through to one of the hexes but definitely more likely than with the current system.
In the 2014 cycle Panama played 22 matches and a first round winner that would have made it to the Hex would have played 24.
I do like the idea of the first round with 4 groups of 4 giving all the weaker teams at least 6 games. But once you get to 24 maybe you have 4 Hexes? Like this... Top 19 get a bye Round 1: Bottom 16: 4 groups of 4. 4 winners and top 2nd place advances. (6 games total) Round 2: 4 Hexes. top team advances. (10 games) 4 second place teams go to the playoff Round 3 Playoff: Home and away playoff. winners advance losers play another home and away for the 7th playoff spot. 11 teams play 6 matches 20 play 10 or 16 4 play 12 or 18 2 play 14 or 20
I'd do 40 teams with 8 groups of 5. The winner of each group gets a bye, the 2nd and 3rd place teams of each group move on to the rd of 16. Each winner of that Rd of 16 plays one of the group winners. 48 teams is too much, 40 with 24 making the next Rd sounds better imo.
That is pretty intriguing. I looked back to the 2010 WCQ and they used a different format from 2014 which is different from this cycle. I have a feeling that the format changes every cycle based on what the Caribbean nations prefer.
This could maybe work for 2022 as well. Top 19 get a bye Round 1: Bottom 16: 4 groups of 4. 4 winners and top 2nd place advances. (6 games total) Round 2: 4 Hexes. top team advance to round 3. Round 3 playoff: home and away. Winners advance. Losers play a second home and away, winner advances. Loser goes to the intercontinental playoff. 11 teams play 6 matches 20 play 10 or 16 4 play 12 or 18 2 play 14 or 20
Regarding the fate of Bolivia and Venezuela in a play-off tournament for a 7 or 8th slot, you'd have to clarify if the playoffs would be a home-and-away matter. If it were, then I'm quite sure they'd be more than competitive with any of the 7ths, 8ths and 9ths of CCAF, CAF, AFC and OFC... specially in the case of Bolivia (And I bet if they make it to that play-offs mini-tournament it would 100% re kindle the debate about FIFA allowing them to play in La Paz).
Or...OR...hear me out... How about this like this: First round: 1 group of 35 teams. Round robin home and away, so every team plays 68 matches (34 x 2). Top 6 teams advance to world cup, seventh place team to FIFA playoff round. Seems like a lot of matches, right? "Too many," they said. But here's the trick: ******** 'em.
Seriously though, there's no way this doesn't weaken the competition-level of CONCACAF qualifying. It will open the door for programs like Canada to finally make the Hex, but really dilutes the competition for the top nations. This is probably the best format proposed so far in terms of balancing demands (more guaranteed matches for all teams while limiting the maximum you can play) and still selecting the strongest contingent: There would be a way to make it work...but it might require starting earlier in the cycle. I'm way too lazy to figure out how many FIFA match days there are on the 4-year calendar and how that would work. The other stats to keep track of: Number of teams in the penultimate round of qualifying: 12 currently, 24 as proposed Number of teams in the Hex round: 6 currently, 12 as proposed Number of teams that qualify for the WC: 3.5 currently (3 guaranteed), ~6.16 as proposed (6 guaranteed) So doubling the number of teams that make each of the later rounds and doubling the number of guaranteed WC spots. Schedule-wise there's no reason why the final two rounds of qualifying couldn't happen at the same time on the current calendar, so it would mean twice as many teams would last deeper into the cycle temporally-speaking as well - achieving the goal of having more teams "alive" in qualifying later than currently. That is the positive angle with regard to the changes.
One other thing - it looks like the 48-team WC would possibly start with a one match win-or-go-home play-in round among the bottom 32 qualifiers with the top 16 getting advanced directly to the group stage joined by the play-in round winners. So another benefit to the 2-Hex format is that the two Hexagonal winners could be given CONCACAF's two first round byes at the World Cup, which would be the fairest way to distribute those slots all things considered. It would also give the top teams a reason to place first in the Hex, perhaps enhancing the competitive value a little if not the level of competition.
I don't recall seeing the weakest 32 team 1 game win and go home format for the 48 team WC. I only have seen the 16 groups of 3 format. Is this new info coming from FIFA?
There was talk at the beginning of one-off games at the start of the tournament but it was quickly abandoned.
Source is based on this article from last fall so not necessarily the latest proposal: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...xpand-48-teams-fifa-gianni-infantino-suggests Ya I honestly have no idea what the plan is currently. There's a thread in the FIFA forums on this subject but it's ridiculously long.
Any 48-team format is going to be awful. The least bad format is probably 16x3 with only group winners advancing but that means 2/3 of the teams in the tournament are only playing 2 games. A 16x3 with 2 teams advancing, which seems to be what they want to do, will lead to multiple Germany-Austria situations in every tournament. Not could, will.
Best way to minimise it is to have the seeded teams play the first two games. They are supposed to be the best teams so if they can't get a win and a draw from the two games to guarantee qualification that's their problem.