Make Copa America 4 year west hemisphere tournament

Discussion in 'Copa América Centenario 2016' started by olckicker, Jul 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Drogo

    Drogo New Member

    Oct 12, 2005
    Sweden
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Sounds good, but should USA, Mexico, Canada and Costa Rica be given spots in every tournament without qualification?
     
  2. Metropolitan

    Metropolitan Member+

    Paris Saint Germain
    France
    Sep 5, 2005
    Paris
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Maybe there should be an all Conmebol/Concacaf qualifying rounds, as in Europe. Inviting teams is not a very democratic process to determine those participating to the Cup.
     
  3. southamerican1984

    southamerican1984 BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Feb 10, 2005
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    i don't think that should never ever happen
    copa america is a SOUTH AMERICAN TOURNAMENT
    concacaf has their prestigious gold cup hehehe


    really copa america should be again a tournament of 10 south american national teams and nobody else, you see what happens now since concacaf teams are invited to copa america, nobody in south america takes seriously that tournament, everybody sends substitutes or u-20 squads, despite of that mexico has been unable to win copa america.
     
  4. southamerican1984

    southamerican1984 BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Feb 10, 2005
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    metropolitan why don't you better invite mexico and the us to ur eurocup? why should we south americans stand the precense of concacaf's teams in our prestigious tournament? at least it was prestigious before these invaders came to our copa america, now because of them our tournament doesn't have prestigie.

    let's have a deal, you europeans invite concacaf's teams to your eurocup, champions league, uefa cup, and we south americans invite every concacaf team to our qualifiers to every fifa tournament
     
  5. Mosco

    Mosco Member+

    Dec 1, 2004
    Sun Valley, CA
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Well Mexico did beat Argentina in copa America 2004 in Peru but yeah got shattered against Brazil in the same tournament but a different tournament like Confederations cup Mexico did beat Brazil in an official tournament. Anyhow Mexico can make Comnebol teams look bad at times maybe thats why you don't want Mexico to participate??... lol anyhow shows we Mexico can play with the best. It would only make the tournament more exciting.
     
  6. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    And why not invite African teams into the European Championships?
     
  7. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Maybe they don't want Mexico to participate in a Conmebol tournament because they're not in Conmebol. Mexic should leave concacaf and join south america full time if they want to play in the copa america.
     
  8. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    How? Considering that they beat the two non-European top football powers in the quarters, who else would stop them? If those for countries were four of six European teams in the World Cup, they would STILL have made the semis, and it would have been even easier for them as they'd be playing Honduras rather than Spain, and Uzbekistan rather than England.

    Of course, because they wouldn't be playing decent European teams but nobodies like Morocco and Jamaica.

    Why? Both teams would have been seeded either way. Remember both teams topped their groups so introducing inferior opposition in the earlier rounds wouldn't have changed the way the draw went.

    Other than Brazil, no South American team has won outside of Latin America. In footballing terms Mexico is practically part of South America anyway.

    How is it more utilitarian? The current format gives plenty of time for all confederations to organise their continental competitions. Maybe Conmebol should swallow their pride and combine with Concacaf so they can have a continental competition with proper qualifying and everything, rather than some mickey mouse invite tournament. I don't mean to sound arrogant but 'We're Alright Jack'.

    Funny considering we've done better in the World Cup than European Championships. Probably the easier opposition.
     
  9. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    If the World Cup was every two years it wouldn't be as exciting nor prestigious. The knowledge that if you lose you've got four years before you get another go makes the World Cup far more dramatic than if it was too regular.

    Anyway the EC is far more intense from day one, whereas the World Cup doesn't really get going until the quarter finals.

    Actually a combined conmebol/concacaf tournament would be relatively competitive, if it involved full strengh teams. Those two confederations really shoot themselves in the foot by having no qualifying rounds, guest teams and bizarre formats, meaning no-one takes it seriously and teams play the reserves, making it even more meaningless.

    Europe shouldn't lose their competition just because no-one else can make one that's as exciting, sounds like bitterness to me. Notice how the rest of the world works on a four year international cycle, in Europe it's two years.
     
  10. Sempuukyaku

    Sempuukyaku Member+

    Apr 30, 2002
    Seattle, WA
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    LOL, I have yet to hear a singe argument explaining how this will benefit the South American teams? We're going on and on like this is something that needs to be done, yet we've heard very little input from the South American posters here on their views.


    Unless CONMEBOL feels that it benefits them to have a hemisphere-wide Copa America, it aint gonna happen. And if it doesn't, that'll force our confederation to stop sucking Warner's c*ck and lobby to get him out of office so that we can improve CONCACAF.
     
  11. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    You overestimate Fifa's power. There's a reason they give Europe so many places, and Uefa aren't going to drop their money-spinning tournament. A World Cup without European teams is just Brazil vs Argentina.

    Poland qualified for the World Cup but not the Euros. I'd rather watch first-round games like France/England, Holland/Czech Rep, Spain/Portugal etc. Games like that are rare in the World Cup, but regular in the EC. Even with half as many groups, the EC has twice as many groups of death as the WC.

    It wouldn't be World Cup calibre but it would be higher calibre. I think Venezuela or Bolivia might fail to qualify in a pan-american qualifying system. The African Nations Cup isn't WC calibre but it's taken very seriously.

    Have you ever considered that the way Uefa runs its football is the reason there are so many high-calibre teams? Concacaf-style knockout qualifying campaigns doesn't do anything to increase strength in depth. Even the minnows in Europe who used to get beat 12-0 now acquit themselves much more respectably.
     
  12. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Actually it would be only every four years, as a World Cup without European teams would merely be a 'half' world cup, just a warmup to the real thing.

    A similar number of European teams are in the EC as well as the WC, so we don't need to look at European non-qualifiers. The fact is that the EC first round has more depth than the WC first round. Togo wouldn't finish third in EC qualifying.

    Rubbish. This isn't the 1950s, even a poor country can afford a trip for its football team across the Americas. The time-zone differences are no different to Europe, and Iceland don't have problems going to Kazahkstan.
     
  13. Tigerpunk

    Tigerpunk Member+

    Jun 17, 2004
    if you repeat this cup 100 times, you will not have 100 semifinals involving portugal, france, germany, and italy. Likewise, if you only have 5 or 6 shots at the final 4 spots, you need more teams to play as best they can, and cannot have too many teams to get there. I notice you're sort of dumb, but I'm going to try to make the point again. You get less shots - while each of the 5 or 6 teams would have a better shot at the semis, the sum of the 5 or 6 would have less than the sum of the 14.

    You sort of prove my point with that second paragraph, and yet the logic goes completely by you. If Brazil has a better shot at the semifinals, then of course the European teams as a sum have less - unless all of a sudden 5 or 6 teams are going to make the semifinals!




    Because when there is only 5 or 6 European teams that make it, there are not going to be 10 European teams in the Round of 16? See above.

    Okay, well Brazil has done it three times, which is three more times than any European team has.


    Because if the other confederations lack the amount of teams to hold a strong, well balanced cup, and the Europeans don't lose much from going from WC/UEFA/WC to WC/WC/WC, the overall gain is positive - utilitarianism does have a definition, and I am using that definition specifically. That their might be 2nd best options doesn't mean that the best option isn't more utiliarian than either the 2nd best option or the current system.


    I don't know who "you are" but its perhaps because you got lucky this time around - unless you think that the third best team not in Europe (Mexico, Australia, etc.) is actually worse than the 16th European team, there is more teams in the WC with better talent, and it is physically impossible to argue otherwise.

    On the other hand, *when the Cup is Europe*, non-European countries are at a relative disadvantage, but even so I would still take, say, Ivory Coast over Serbia.

    BTW, you got to the quarters in the last UEFA, and in the last two WC. Congrads, but that's not any better, unless you admit the WC has better competition.
     
  14. chileann redded

    chileann redded Red Card

    May 8, 2005
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    legbraker, that's right, we in south america don't like mexico because of that, they only play specific south american tournament, the ones where they don't have nothing to lose
    but when it comes to play south american qualifiers, they rather play against bahamas and dominica.
     
  15. Tigerpunk

    Tigerpunk Member+

    Jun 17, 2004
    France/England in the EC is often like watching a 3rd place game, it means nothing when the other two teams in the group are Malta and San Marino.

    However, the reason I'm responding specifically to this drivel is your misconception that UEFA boycotting from, say, a 2012 WC would still provide your confed with an invitation to play in the 2014 WC.
     
  16. M

    M Member+

    Feb 18, 2000
    Via Ventisette
    Croatia and Switzerland in EC '04... no weaklings there. No doubt in my mind that getting out of an average EC first round group is tougher than at the WC.
     
  17. Tigerpunk

    Tigerpunk Member+

    Jun 17, 2004
    Switzerland was considered a pretty weak squad in 2004, and Croatia isn't that good either, but I'll concede to your second sentence. Still, being a fan of France, and watching the game in DC, I do remember thinking that it would be more fun if it weren't so expected that both teams would go on - and indeed, both teams did go on fairly easily.

    Though I won't "demand" outside the USA forums that you not respond to my posts, I will ask it as a matter of improving decorum of Bigsoccer generally, with the obvious exception of providing factual, qualitative information to resolve a specific question or an obvious, latent mistake.
     
  18. M

    M Member+

    Feb 18, 2000
    Via Ventisette
    There's more advantage in winning a group in the EC, because you can then get to the semifinal by beating a second placed team. In the WC, that advantage only extends to the round of 16. So I don't think your point is really valid: both England and France were desperate to win that group and likely avoid the hosts in the QFs.
     
  19. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Actually it was quite meaningful as Croatia were capable of going through in the last game. Switzerland were the fourth team. Hardly Malta and San Marino, but four WC qualifiers, three of which got past the group stage this year.

    If Europe was cut out of the World Cup, all the sponsors and TV companies would pull out, and Fifa would collapse.
     
  20. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    That's not even mentioning that Spain, Germany and Italy were eliminated in the first round. Can you imagine that happening in the world cup?
     
  21. Mosco

    Mosco Member+

    Dec 1, 2004
    Sun Valley, CA
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA



    Too bad I can't say to much for Chile lol!! Anyhow thats life what can you do the Conmebol federation invites Mexico and Costa Rica and USA to your tournaments because it gives a great tournament so get over hating on the Mexican national team just because (some) of south america teams can't beat Argentina and Brazil in (their) own league thats why they invite Mexico to give the tournament a better challenge which (some) south american teams can't handle!!
     
  22. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Blame your CONMEBOL for that as they are the ones who invited CONCACAF nations. CONCACAF didn't "invade" as you suggest.

    Since you're so much into just having the 10 CONMEBOL teams play, how would you organize the tournament? 2 groups of 5 each? They've tried it before and obviously didn't like it, otherwise they would've continued with it.
    Or would you go back to that disaster of 1987 where Uruguay didn't enter the tournament until the semifinals (because they were defending champion) and only had to play two matches to retain the Copa?
    :confused:
     
  23. Pike

    Pike Member

    Arsenal | Hertha Berlin | Brest 29
    United States
    Jun 3, 2000
    New Orleans Born | Shanghai
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Ok,...

    1st: CONCACAF didn't make CSAF except Mexico, the US or Mexico to their tournament. They were invited to participate.

    2nd: Mexico have been increasing their involvment with South America since the 1990s.

    3rd: despite my postings to the contrary, I seriously doubt Jack Warner will *just* let Mexico walk to CSAF.

    4th: Copa America isn't as pretigious as it can be because SM countries are choosing not to take it seriously. I think it would be hard toconvince anyone that Mexico or the United States (or even Costa Rica) are any worse than Bolivia, Venezuela or Peru. So, it would be a stretch to suggest that SA don;t take it seriously because CONCACAF teams watered down the competition.

    Lastly: SA teams should not have to qualify for their own tournament. The only alternative would be to creat an entirely new for all of Americas. I believe someone called it, Pan American Cup. The Gold Cup and the Copa America can act like a qualifier for it. The top four in each can play group play, semis and a final.
    Example (using the WCQs):
    SA: Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Paraguay
    NA: US, Mexico, Costa Rica, T&T
    Place them in groups based on how they finish within their regional competition: (1 & 4 of 1 Confederation vs. 2 & 3 of the other confederation)
    Group A
    Brazil
    Paraguay
    Mexico
    Costa Rica

    Group B
    United States
    Yrinidad &Tobago
    Argetina
    Ecuador

    Pike​
     
  24. wufc

    wufc Member

    May 1, 2005
    UC Irvine
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Didn't CONMEBOL invite Japan to this thing?
     
  25. Millos

    Millos New Member

    Jun 24, 2006
    Argentina
    Re: New format about COPA AMERICA

    Mexico is better than many teams in South America. Period.

    Yet, I can't stop wondering why so many europeans insist so much with merging both confederations... we don't want any kind of merging, so if we don't want it, I think this topic should be left to sleep.
    We like it the way it is, nothing personal with any country, but we just like it as it is right now.
    Thank you.
     

Share This Page