Whoa. Have I called you stupid? I don't recall doing that and it's not my style. I merely talked about a difference of interpretation regarding what I was saying. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your intellect: maybe I just didn't express myself clearly (I can be quite verbose). Again, you don't seem to be getting my point. *Average* team quality in that one edition of a tournament drops when more teams qualify for the finals. It doesn't mean, obviously that the quality of the higher placed teams drops. That remains unchanged. But admitting to the finals 8 more teams, supposedly teams that were not as high achievers as the top 16, making a total of 24, obviously drags down the average. The longer pathway that having a larger field implies, might (not necessarily, but it might) increase the difficulty for the one team that wins it all since there will be more exposure to injuries, bans, and intangibles, but the *average* team quality still drops, the more teams you put in the finals. I mean, forget the Euro a bit and think of the WC, currently with 32 teams. Wouldn't you agree that if we were to expand this to 64 teams, we'd get a bunch of mediocre teams there, dragging down the average quality? Still, it would make of it an even longer tournament, which would put more pressure on the depth necessary to win it all. But me, I'd hate the idea of 64 teams. I prefer the more selective 32 teams format, because some teams are already low quality (like Cameroon) and we don't need more of those. Now *I'm* getting confused at your last phrase so please clarify. "It doesn't make any sense that the harder to win competition is ranked lower than the tournament that is easier to win." What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the Euro is harder to win than the World Cup? If that's what you are saying, I don't think anybody here would agree with this. Just think of it - the Euro has the European teams. The World Cup has *all of those* (considering the qualifying phases as well) PLUS all the others in all other five confederations, to a total of 208 teams. We've seen several examples of non-European teams giving a really hard time to European teams in the WC, not only making their advancement very difficult, but actually eliminating them in various cases. So, how come the tournament that actually gathers ALL nations might somehow be easier to win than one that only gathers a subset of those nations? Like I've been saying, the WC has more depth, longer pathway, more contestants, and tougher intangibles than the Euros, therefore it is harder to win. I think pretty much everybody here has agreed upon this, and I hope that I'm just misunderstanding you but you also think so. I hope you are just saying that I don't make sense when I say that the average quality of the Euro would drop with 24 teams even if winning it all became a bit harder. Yes, paradoxical as it might sound, I stand by it, because I'm using the word "average." You add just one more round and one more game to play, and it might get tougher. This is the argument of the NFL people who oppose our proposed expansion here: "one more game and some essential player might get hurt." So, yes, longer tournaments are tougher to win, by definition... but it doesn't mean the *average* quality goes up, the longer the tournament. Actually, more likely the average quality goes down, if the way you make it longer is by adding more teams (as long as you are doing it from the same larger set of regional teams - obviously in the World Cup when you add teams from other confederations that are actually title contenders or at least very tough competition, then the average quality might go up, to a certain degree depending on who you are adding). If that's what you don't agree with, then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm not about to change my mind about it, since I think it's a very logical and rational view. The only way the average quality wouldn't suffer in a longer tournament, would be if the tournament became longer by adding more games between the same teams (as in two games between the same two teams in aggregate format rather than just one game) but anytime you add more teams to your finals, you're bringing down the average.