I may have missed some things from the recent articles, but why couldn't TFC start the qualifying with 8 groups of 4 (32 teams). Since there are 40 teams in the TFC, this would give those minnows the chance to play all the games they want to play. The teams left out of the first round would be: Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Hondurus, Jamaica, Mexico, Trinidad, USA. You would leave these teams out becuase they would be the best of the region and would receive the bye. Boo-hoo i know, but so far these are the best teams from the past few years. From the groups of 32, the top team from each group (8 sides) plus the top 2 second place teams giving a total of 18 teams. Make 3 groups of 6 for the traditional hexagonal that concacaf seems to love. The winner of each group goes to the WC with the half spot coming to a 3 team playoff of the 2nd place teams. So all together the top teams with players all around the world would only be playing 10-14 matches. (10 in the hexagonal, and 4 more in the 2nd place race for the half=birth spot). If one of the minnow teams happen to make it, they will play 16-20 games. Personnally the new format TFC came up with sucks. It could suck a big team into a home/away match with a very biased referee. We've seen it so many times in the federation. It could suck for anyone, imagine the US, Mexico, Costa Rica or Hondurus not playing for the final spots, it would be a shame to not have them. Anyway, flame away
One of the biggest problems is how poor many countries in CONCACAF are. Barbados almost had to drop out of the final hexagonal last time due to being strapped for cash. There's no way some of these tiny islands could afford that much travel. It would kill them financially, unless they play a bunch of games in one centralized location.
Not trying to be picky, but there are only 35 teams in TFC. Teams such as Martinique, Guadelope, etc. are only associate members, and more importantly, not members of FIFA. The only problem I have with this current setup is the two-leg second round. It just doesn't serve the Caribbean nations well at all. In order for this region to stop being CONCALAUGH, the whole region must improve, and limiting minnow teams to only two or four WCQ's isn't the way. The first setup, with all 35 teams involved in the first round, was good, but in principle only. It was Black Jack Warner's attempt to give the minnows more chances to generate FIFA ranking points, and possibly make money for the minnow federations. The biggest benefit in this scheme is for the minnow nations of CONCACAF to play more WCQ matches. If I could change this new setup, I would take advantage of the fact that there are 24 teams remaining after the first round. Create a second round and form six groups, four teams in each group. Each team in the group is guaranteed to play six matches. The top two teams from each group advance to the semi-final round. After the second round, some teams will have only played two WCQ matches, while others will have played six or eight. A minnow team advancing from the first round, but eliminated in the semi-final round will have played sixteen matches under this format, and twenty-six matches if they progress to the Hexagonal. If money is a problem for these countries, then CONCACAF can get "Corporate Sponsorship" to help out. A team advancing to the Hexagonal from the second round will have played a total of 24 matches. Then again, it's just an idea.
This would never fly, and I'm not convinced I like it, but (recalling we get 3.5 spots): * Top 20 nations qualify directly for final group stage. * Remaining 15 or so enter semi-final stage, divided into 4 groups of 3 or 4. Standard league format. Top team from each group advances to final stage. * Final stage, 24 teams, 4 groups of 6. Standard league format. Winner qualifies for lottery. * Lottery: 4 groups winners go into bowl, 3 qualify directly for World Cup, unlucky 4th team goes into playoff against whatever region FIFA decides. Game breakdown: * Team eliminated in semi-finals: 4-6 games * Big nations: 10 games (12 for playoff team) * Semi-final group winners: 14-16 games (16-18 if making playoffs). This system at least guarentees each country 4 or 6 games against beatable opposition, doesn't take forever to complete, and makes the final stage games do or die. The lottery part is a bit unfortunate I suppose, but I'm not sure how you fix that without adding a bunch more games.
Well, we can't change it now and if we really are one of the best teams in the region, then we shouldn't have any problems slicing through the minnows and getting back to the hex - hopefully winning it this time outright.
The 2-leg tie has been used by Africa over the past few cycles; what's amazing is how very few upsets there have been. There's not a single instance of a confederation power being defeated by a minnow. A few minor upsets, and that's all. My guess is the same thing happens here.
Are you kidding me? After all the hard work and games played u suggest a lottery will define which teams go to the world cup and which has to play a playoff. Utter non-sense.
One of the reasons CONCACAF did well in KJ02 was the hex. Playing the other 5 top countries in the region home and away was a good test, and a way to ensure the best 3 (or 3.5) teams advanced to the WC. Three or four groups of 6 would mean playing teams like Barbados, Belize, and St. Kitts which would be a drain on their financial resources and little challenge - except to score as many goals as possible. The lottery idea of how to choose the playoff team is the worst idea I've heard of. If you have four winners; play head to head and have the fourth place team face a playoff.
Yeah I know, that's the weakest part of it. That's why I said I wasn't thrilled with it. A head to head playoff for the spot is possible, but four team tournaments where three teams advance are silly, and that adds at least four extra dates (with the "loser" getting another two games as well). The simplest solution is to take one of Asia's spots and give half to us and half to Australia, but that's apparently not happening for 2006 at least. Maybe 2010, then at least this system is workable. I also think you underestimate the difficulty for us to win WCQ away from home. Sure we do it, but how often is it truly easy. Maybe groups of 5 might work better. Or maybe even 2 groups, with the second-place teams playing off (or a draw for) the third automatic spot.
The problem that was found in Africa was that once a team was eliminated, most didn't play another match for several years. Not a way to develop African nations.
Seems like Jack Warner was trying to address the same problem in the caribbean. Too bad nobody believes Jack is trying to develop the game.
Blackjack Warner could care less about developing the game or making it fait & balanced. Only about giving contracts to himself (son & family) and making a ton of cash under the table in CONCACAF's name. Not to mention Blazer, Rothenberg, Gulati, etc. These people ruin futbol in America! Even Blatter said that CONCACAF & CONMEBOL should merge together, they just need someone to initiate it.
I would also guess that a lot of the nations in CONCACAF have no interest in developing the game. I would bet that there are 10 countries very happy that they will only have to play one away game before being knocked out and not having to worry about football/soccer for another 4 years. As I see it there are, at most, 8 nations that have a shot at making it to Germany: Costa Rica Mexico USA Honduras Jamaica Trinidad & Tobago Canada Guatemala The other 26 teams have no chance (and yes there are only 34 teams in qualifying this time, no Puerto Rico for some reason). Would we really be missing anything to just put these 8 teams in one group, do a home-away 14 match day schedule for the top 3.5 spots and forget the other 26 teams? The only point of the current format is to see how many goals Mexico can hang on Aruba at Azteca.
I don't think this is accurate. After all, the African Nations' Cup has been held every two years since 1968. Unless a team declined to enter, it would never have to wait several years between meaningful games. I just took a peek at Uganda's results, picking a sub-par African team more-or-less at random. They were eliminated after only two qualifiers for WC02. Since then, however, they've played a whopping 52 games. http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/oeg-intres.html
I for one dont think the current scheme is as ridiculious as some of you would like to make it sound. We have many teams and certainly only a bunch which have a serious shot at making it to the WC. The hex at the end is fair since truely the best 3 teams will get the spots for the WC. Its not like in Europe which has a system which can draw groups of deaths thus leaving some more deserving teams out of the WC. This happens to reduce the amount of games played. The first 4 games of the hex could be played by the B team of the best 5-7 teams of the fed and still manage to go thru. Canada shouldnt have a problem getting by Barbados (Costa Rica might though.. heheh).
I agree! As convoluted as the CONCACAF qualifying format is, it is much, much better than the UEFA format. Its hard to argue with the fact that CONCACAF has always sent their best teams to the World Cup. However, its impossible to argue that the Netherlands is not one of the top 15 teams in Europe. What UEFA should do is play a qualifying round among the 34 teams that don't qualify for Euro 2004 (could be held during the same dates as the Euro Championship) and have 20 teams advance out of this 1st round of qualifying. These 20 teams would then get grouped in with the 16 teams that did qualify for Euro 2004. Then run 6 groups of 6 teams, top 2 from each group automatically qualify for the WC, 3rd place teams compete for the remaing spots.