Seriously, why? The USA is arguably the top team in the region, third best at worst.. 3 1/2 spots will be awarded to the region for 2006.. I really don't see how this is bad news for the USA..
I hope they can find a way to do it where 3 teams advance from each group/bracket in 04 to play in 05. Either that or have the islands and central america play prequalifiers and then just have a 10 team home and away league over 04-05. That would be 18 games vs the 16 we played over those two rounds last time. Not a big difference especially because we might have qualification assured with 3-5 games remaining in that long of a league.
This is bad because whenever CONCACAF gets together, there is the potential for the USA to get worked over.
Stop reading "The Catcher in the Rye." We're one of Concacaf's meal tickets. The US is in danger of nothing.
CONCACAF's President, Jack Warner of Trinidad & Tobago, maintains his political power because he has the support of the 20-30 smaller Caribbean and Central American nations in the region - not Mexico and the United States. He's going to do what's in the best interest of those little guys, giving them the best chance of advancing far into the competition. He wants to make the 3.5 places in the 2006 World Cup as accessible to Trinidad & Tobago (and the other "little guys") as possible. The current qualifying format does not accomplish that. It is much more difficult for a Trinidad & Tobago to churn out the results necessary to advance from a long round (like the "hexagonal"), than it is for them to get out of a competition formatted as the semifinal round is, with just six games. In the smaller rounds with fewer games, each game is more important and that is more suited to a team pulling off one or two upsets to get out of the group. The 10-game round of the current final round is too much for these smaller countries (with less depth and smaller budgets) to emerge from. The ten games give the creme a chance to rise, whereas the shorter series magnifies the impact of a slow start, a sluggish outing, suspensions, a red card, injuries to key players, etc. Marketing-wise, it's also in the best interests of CONCACAF to have groups undecided until the final matchday AND to have as many teams still alive deep into the competition as possible. That keeps more people interested in every game and makes the broadcast rights more valuable. There's no reason for CONCACAF to format the competition to the benefit of the U.S. and Mexico and give time for the top teams to emerge at the top of the table - that makes the competition more boring and predicitable, i.e. less marketable. For these reasons, they're going to make moves that reduce the advantages that the U.S. and Mexico currently have with regards to depth, budget, etc. and institute a qualifying format that is even more of a dogfight - one that allows a little team to get "hot" and pull off a couple upsets and find itself in the World Cup. Furthermore, because of the playoff with Asia, qualifying has to wrap up a bit earlier to allow for that home-and-home series to be played out within the FIFA Calendar. Increasing the number of Matchdays makes that task even more difficult. If anything, they're going to decrease it. My expectation is that instead of having one big group of 6 or 7 for the final round, there will be two groups (probably four teams each) where first place qualifies directly for the World Cup and the two second-place teams will play-off in a "third place series" with the third place team going to the World Cup and the fourth place team going to the playoff with Asia. They'll probably toss in another semifinal group so that 16 teams, rather than 12 compete in that semifinal round, opening it up a bit more to the little guys and also bringing some mathematical symmetry to the numbers. First and second place from each semifinal round group go to the final round, in opposite groups. Each final round group then consists of two group winners and two second place finishers from the semifinal round. Because the final round groups will be determined by top finishers in the semifinal round, there won't be any way of preventing a "super group"/"group of death" scenario. The top teams (U.S., Mexico, Costa Rica and Honduras this time around) would be seeded in the semifinal round, but there's no way to separate the seeds in the final round, other than natural finish in the semifinal round. So if the U.S. and Costa Rica win their group and Mexico and Honduras finish second in the semifinal round, they could all end up in the same final-round group, with the other final-round group consisting of Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Panama and Guatemala, for example. That right there is Jack Warner's wet dream. I'm not saying that Mexico and the U.S. won't both be in Germany - my money is on both of them qualifying regardless of format. I'm also not saying that qualifying in the past has been easy - it hasn't. What I am saying is to expect more of the feeling that you had in the semifinal round in Barbados in the fall of 2000, when we were tied 0-0 in the second half and facing elimination if we didn't score on a sloppy pitch. I don't expect there to be many (or any) of the "meaningless" games after we've clinched early that we've earned the luxury of playing during both the 1998 (vs. El Salvador in Foxboro) and 2002 (at Trinidad & Tobago) qualification rounds. Under the old format, I wouldn't reasonably expect to see a World Cup without the U.S. in it, given the encouraging signs we've seen recently due to MLS and the strong youth development emphasis that U.S. Soccer has instituted in recent years. The direction of the program was geared toward developing the depth that would allow the team to thrive in the format of that final round. We could always have a string of bad luck, biased or otherwise inept officiating, injuries, red cards/suspensions like we saw in the semifinal round, but it would take about eight kinds of bad luck lining up at the same time for us to find ourselves out of it - but that doesn't meet my criteria to say I "reasonable expect" it to happen. Under any new format that I reasonably expect CONCACAF to institute going forward (like the one I outlined above), there is a far lesser margin of error, and as we saw in Guatemala and Costa Rica in July 2000, points can be denied by something as unreliable as the quality/"objectivity" of officiating and a team like Barbados can hang with us on a sloppy pitch.
It may not be Salinger, but I would appreciate it if you'd look over the novel I just posted and let me know why it's in the best interests of Jack Warner and the voting representatives of Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Montserrat, the Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Surinam, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands to allow a format to continue that favors two (Mexico and the U.S.), maybe three (plus Costa Rica), of their opponents.
I don't see anything wrong with the system you expect CONCACAF to approve. Europe and Asia used similar setups for this last world cup, and things worked out O.K. Sure, having the Netherlands, Ireland, and Portugal all end up in one group wasn't what UEFA probably had in mind, but who said life was always fair. Just because your team is one of the best in the world doesn't mean it's owed a spot in the World Cup finals. Except for Brazil, about every major soccer power in the world has missed out on the World Cup finals at one point or another. And as you say yourself, should a "group of death" develop under a new qualifying format, most people would still expect Mexico and the U.S. to make WC 2006 in Germany. And if one of them didn't? Well, they probably didn't deserve to make the WC finals in the first place.
CONCACAF's Qualifying Format Should Be This CONCACAF should have the Carribean nations qualify for 1 slot, and the Central American nations except Costa Rica qualify for the 2nd slot. Thus, CONCACAF can have a Group of Death with USA, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Canada qualify for the 1.5 slot. As a result, more drama is created and you can bet more TV sets will be tuned to these games.
Re: CONCACAF's Qualifying Format Should Be This That's the worst idea yet. Lets put the 3 best teams in the entire confederation into one group and let them fight for 1.5 spots Jack Warner's love child perhaps? The idea is to have the best teams qualify. The USSF and FMF have the financial clout to really mess with Warner and concacaf. Much like Scotland's Old Firm. We must be on board with any decision they make. We are the confederation's cash cows. Our matches draw huge crowds and make a lot of money. Without us concacaf would be collection of third world nations with poorly funded federations, underpaid players, and horrible stadiums.
csh2000, that is a good synopsis of why you think the USA is in trouble, but unfortunately for those countries that Jack Warner wants to do better, they still suck and will lose when pitted against the USA, Mexico, Costa Rica and Honduras.. There will still be a seeding system involved in all levels of play and there is no conceivable reason to believe that T&T or Antigua or Bermuda should be seeded ahead of the the big 4 in our region..
Who cares about the format? If the USA doesn't finish in the top 3.5, no matter how things are decided, we don't deserve to be there. As for helping the small island countries.. do you know why they have all those first and second round "play-in" games? Because those FAs can't afford the expense of a long qualifying campaign. Remember that the USSF had to fork over some cash so Barbados could actually make it to Foxboro for the qualifier. Sachin
csh and Cweed, what a bunch of relatively uninformed schlock. Jack Warner wants US success as much as we do. He also wants T&T success, but that's another matter. Jack, and his American henchman Chuck Blazer run an organization that is dependant on revenues - one of the main sources of which - is the United States. The United States has been one of Warner's staunchest allies for years. I agree with Sachin - regardless of the system, if we can't finish top 3 1/2, we don't deserve to go to Germany. At best I would expect only minor tweaking to the system used for the last two World Cups. It's a brilliant combination of getting everyone involved while limiting the financial expenses of the poorest federations. I love the Hexagonal, but I understand the silliness of a 6 team league where 4 of them advance. I think we might see two final groups of four with the winners advancing and the runner-ups playing off for direct advancement and the Asia playoff. Of course FIFA may throw the fifth place COMNEBOL and 14th place UEFA team into the playoff scenario after their next meeting.... CONCACAF is not out to get us, and FIFA is not out to get us.
Woah there. And if it was Honduras, Mexico, Costa Rica, and the US in one bracket last time the US would have been sitting at home watching the cup. A divided 2nd phase is bad because it can allow the 3rd best team to go home even if they play their absolute best while allowing the 5th and 6th best teams to advance even though they play their absolute worst. There is nothing subjective about that it is just a FACT.
Yes but I believe T&T finished first over Mexico in the semifinal round. That would be very significant if there had been 2 final brackets instead of 1.
I totally agree. I'm pretty sure the main (if not only) reason CONCACAF got 3.5 slots instead of 3 for Germany is because the US, Mexico, and Costa Rica all performed well in 2002. So, why would the region want to have worse teams making it to the Cup? Does anyone outside Trinidad think that they are a better (i.e. more likely to do well in the cup) than Honduras or Costa Rica? I highly doubt it. I'm not saying they could never do better, but on the average those two teams would likely do better in the Cup. Still, I think there should be either 8 teams in the final round with 3 advancing and the 4th going to its playoff OR two groups of 4 (with seeds) and with the winners going and a playoff between the second place teams to see who goes and who has to playoff against Asia. I think the first choice is vastly more advantageous to Mexico and the USA. Over 14 games, as someone else on this board said, the cream will rise to the top. With the other method it is more likely that (especially if they get drawn together with a Honduras or Canada) in a 6 game group that either could come third. Its still unlikely, but injuries or one or two bad games could finish either team off.
To add fuel to this notion, remember which Asian team ended up in the WC because they won a weak finals group. There's definitely a danger in having two finals groups.
Because in his format there isn't a finishing in the top 4 there is only finishing in the top 2. Its VERY conceivable that the US can play well and still finish 3rd behind teams like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, or Costa Rica. Finishing 3rd and getting eliminated is neither fair nor proper. And when we end up with 2 1st place seeds (US, Mexico) and 2 2nd place seeds (Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica) we can see that its possible for the US to lose all their away matches and win all their home matches and still finish 3rd. Moreover 1 slip up in the form of a 0-0 draw at home even though you get a tie on the road could mean the end. How about us tying Honduras on the road but getting tied by Mexico at home: Mexico 3-2-1 10pts Guatemala 3-3-0 9 pts US 2-2-2 8 pts Honduras 2-3-1 7 pts No World Cup for the US even though if you added the entire other bracket of Costa Rica, T&T, Jamaica, and Canada and we played everybody home and away we would have ended up somewhere between 1st and 4th.
The only danger I see if and only if, the USA will have to play a single match series called knockout stage. This type of series are usualy for the lowest seeded teams to advance into the next round or group competition. If concacaf decides to have the USA play a knockout game ( either early or late stage) then and only then i see danger, any team can defeat any team if luck may be on their side.
Guatemala beats ALL those teams that are much better than it just because it is at home? I doubt that a lot. Still, I agree with you that a 4 team group increases the chances that strange things happen and a very good team such as the USA or Costa Rica gets left at home. I think Costa Rica nearly got bounced in the penultimate stage in a 4-team group during 2002 qualifying and had to beat El Salvador or Guatemala by goal differential or in a playoff or something. Although it may have been that only the top team went through that group or something. I'm sure someone else remembers the group i'm talking about...
Re: CONCACAF's Qualifying Format Should Be This This would work for exactly one WC cycle. Then when the 3 CONCACAF representatives have a World Cup that would make Saudi Arabia look like, I don't know, Brazil, CONCACAF goes back to 2 spots. It is in the best interest of the region to have its best teams go...end of story. We got the extra spot because Mexico and the US got through their groups, and Costa Rica lost out on goal difference to the WC winner and 3rd place finisher. By the way, I'm dissapointed in myself that I took so long to respond to such a moronic idea...
Before we start getting our panties in a wad, let's see if a) there's a 2 group format AND if b) they don't seed them. Because any rational seeding system is going to put the US and Mexico in opposite brackets. If they use the FIFA rankings for the final 8 teams, and put the #1 and #2 TFC teams in opposite groups, I'm OK with it. Of all the suggestions on this thread, the idea of having a 10 team, 1 1/2 year final round makes the most sense. That's the best method for getting the best teams, and it also helps the minnows...think of how much revenue a nation like Barbados could earn from selling the TV rights to their home games. And it helps the teams like the US and Mexico, because it's highly likely that one or both would have it wrapped up with 2-3 games to go. That proposal would NOT be good for the nations of the caliber of Jamaica. One freak result like the draw at RFK won't have as much impact over 18 games. But it's not like they're in Barbados' position of having no hope.
That was the US semifinal bracket and Guatemala and Costa Rica were tied for 2nd on points with Guatemala and Costa Rica each winning at home. And don't forget that Guatemala were very good in 2002 qualifying (losing out in a playoff to the top finisher in the hex) and are looking to be better this time around. A solid team with Ruiz up front and a ref that gives PKs on dives since they are in Guatemala? That sounds like typical concacaf qualifying. 2000 semifinal round USA 3W 2T 1L +11GD 11Pts COSTA RICA 3W 1T 2L +3GD 10Pts GUATEMALA 3W 1T 2L +3GD 10Pts BARBADOS 1W 0T 5L -17GD 3Pts If Guatemala wins the playoff against Costa Rica they go the World Cup and everybody forgets about Costa Rica IMO.