Hexagonalblog reported that the 2014 World Cup Qualifying for CONCACAF may not yet be finalized (http://www.hexagonalblog.com/2011/01/concacaf-exco-to-decide-2014-world-cup-format.html). So, I decided to compare the qualifying formats of the 2010 World Cup, the already “announced” format for 2014, and an alternative format that moves in the same direction as the announced format but with steps that aren’t quite as huge. In brief, this “in-between” alternative format begins the group stages with 24 teams, mid-way between the 12 teams in WC10 and the 32 teams in the announced format. The alternative also concludes with two groups, as well as using the announced format’s process for determining the 3rd qualifying spot and team for the inter-confederation playoff. Specifically, this alternative format begins with two preliminary stages that first culls the field to 30 teams and then to 24 teams. Next is the first group stage with six groups of four teams; top two teams advancing. Finally is the second group stage with two groups of six teams; winners qualify, second-place teams play for the 3rd qualifying spot and the playoff spot. TABLES Below are four tables – the first three look at each of the stages, including number of groups, group size, total matches, etc. The fourth table looks at the number of matches each team would play (in a sample scenario). For the first three tables, here are the seven columns shown: (1) Stage name (Playoff is the inter-confederation playoff for the fourth-place team) (2) Groups (Number of groups) (3) Group Size (Number of teams in each group; “2” represents home-and-away) (4) Teams (Number of teams across all groups) (5) Matches (Number of matches across all groups) (6) Teams Beginning (Still alive before the stage begins) (7) Teams Remaining (Still alive after completion of the stage) Total Sides counts the number of times a CONCACAF team takes the field, which is 2 Sides per Match except for the inter-confederation playoffs. ================================ WC2010 QUALIFYING FORMAT (WC10) ================================ Stage.......G...GS...T...M..........TB...TR Prelim1....11...2...22...22.........35...24 Prelim2....12...2...24...24.........24...12 Group1......3...4...12...36.........12....6 Group2......1...6....6...30..........6.....4 Group3 3rdSpot Playoff.......1...2....1....2..........4...3or4. Total Matches: 114. Total Sides: 226. ================================ WC2014 ANNOUNCED FORMAT (ANN) ================================ Stage.......G...GS...T...M..........TB...TR Prelim1......3...2...6....6..........35...32 Prelim2 Group1......8...4...32...96.........32...16 Group2......4...4...16...48.........16.....8 Group3......2...4....8...24...........8.....4 3rdSpot.....1...2....2....2...........4.....4 Playoff.......1...2....1....2...........4...3or4. Total Matches: 178. Total Sides: 354. ================================ WC2014 ALTERNATIVE FORMAT (ALT) ================================ Stage.......G...GS...T...M..........TB...TR Prelim1......5...2...10...10.........35...30 Prelim2......6...2...12...12.........30…24 Group1......6...4...24...72.........24...12 Group2......2...6...12...60.........12....6 Group3 3rdSpot.....1...2....2....2...........4.....4 Playoff.......1...2....1....2...........4...3or4. Total Matches: 158. Total Sides: 314. ================================ It is interesting to see that the “announced” format would be an increase (versus WC10) of matches from 114 to 178 (a 56% increase). Meanwhile, the “alternative” format would still be a sizeable increase from 114 to 158 (a 39% increase), but not quite as large. The final table shows the number of matches each of the 35 teams would play in the scenario where the better ranked team always advanced. In actuality, the exact numbers are likely to be a bit different, but as a whole, this should be quite representative – and the totals are fixed. Also note that the fourth place teams would play the most matches due to the inter-confederation playoff (unless CONCACAF gets 4 World Cup spots, in which case the 3rd and 4th ranked teams would play the same number of matches as the top-ranked team). ======================== Rank..WC10..ANN...ALT ..1......18......18.....16 ..2......18......18.....16 ..3......18......20.....18 ..4......20......22.....20 ..5......18......18.....16 ..6......18......18.....16 ..7.......8.......18.....16 ..8.......8.......18.....16 ..9.......8.......12.....16 ..10......8......12.....16 ..11......8......12.....16 ..12......8......12.....16 ..13......2......12......6 ..14......4......12......6 ..15......4......12......6 ..16......4......12......6 ..17......4.......6.......6 ..18......4.......6.......6 ..19......4.......6.......8 ..20......4.......6.......8 ..21......4.......6.......8 ..22......4.......6.......8 ..23......4.......6.......8 ..24......4.......6.......8 ..25......2.......6.......2 ..26......2.......6.......4 ..27......2.......6.......4 ..28......2.......6.......4 ..29......2.......6.......4 ..30......2.......8.......4 ..31......2.......8.......2 ..32......2.......8.......2 ..33......2.......2.......2 ..34......2.......2.......2 ..35......2.......2.......2 Total...226...354...314. (These totals equal the Total Sides above.) ======================== OBSERVATIONS The announced format has many more matches for teams outside the top six, which should be good for the development of the mid-tier teams. However, it seems to be a rather large step of having three of the six of the teams ranked 29-35 participating in EIGHT matches (two in the preliminary stage and six in the first group stage). Really? The alternative format also has many more matches for teams outside the top 6, with teams in the top 12 getting at least 16 matches. Additionally, the top 24 teams (the ones that enter the first group stage) get at least 6 matches with three-quarters of them getting at least 8 matches. While different than the announced format, these numbers of matches are comparable. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two formats is for the 11 teams that finish last. In the announced format, these are the 3 teams eliminated in the preliminary stage and the 8 last finishers in the first group stage. Of these 11 teams, 3 will play eight matches, 3 will play two matches, and 5 will play six matches – an average of roughly 5 ½. In contrast, in the alternative format, these are the 11 teams eliminated in the two preliminary stages. Of these 11 teams, 5 will play four matches and 6 will play two matches – an average of roughly 3. To me, it seems the announced format has too many matches for these teams, particularly as sixteen of these matches are against top-eight teams. The alternative format would avoid some of the top-eight versus bottom-eleven mismatches. For the six top-ranked teams, the alternative format also offers two fewer matches in total than either the WC10 or the announced format. Meanwhile, for the second tier of six teams (ranks 7 through 12), they would get 16 matches, more that either the WC10 or the announced format, allowing these teams the most incremental development benefit. Overall, the I think the alternative format heads in the same direction as the announcement format, but it avoids taking steps that are too large, and instead takes steps that are large enough in the same direction. It would be great if the CONCACAF finalized version was the alternative format.
Incidentally, here are the actual number of qualifying matches played in the WC10 qualifiers by rank and by stage. Note that three matches in the first preliminary round were not played, so the total number of sides is 6 less than the format called for. Ranks #4 (Costa Rica) and #20 (El Salvador) played the most matches – 20 each. Rank #5 (Panana) was the highest rank playing no more than two matches. Rk…….P1..P2..G1..G2..PO...Tot....Team 1..............2...6...10........18...... Mexico 2..............2...6...10........18...... USA 3..............2...6...10...2...20...... Costa Rica 4..............2...6...10........18...... Honduras 5..............2.....................2...... Panama 6..............2...6...10.........18...... Trinidad and Tobago 7..............2...6................8...... Jamaica 8..............2...6................8...... Cuba 9..............2...6................8...... Haiti 10.............2...6...............8...... Guatemala 11.............2...6...............8...... Canada 12.............2....................2...... Guyana 13.............2....................2...... St. Vincent and the Grenadines 14........2...2.....................4...... Barbados 15........1...2...6................9...... Suriname 16........2...2.....................4...... Bermuda 17........2...2.....................4...... Antigua and Barbuda 18........2..........................2...... St. Kitts and Nevis 19........1..........................1...... Dominican Republic 20........2...2...6...10........20...... El Salvador 21........2...2.....................4...... Bahamas 22........2..........................2...... Nicaragua 23........1...2.....................3...... Grenada 24........2...2.....................4...... St. Lucia 25........2..........................2...... Turks and Caicos Islands 26........2...2.....................4...... Netherlands Antilles 27........2..........................2...... British Virgin Islands 28........2..........................2...... Dominica 29........2..........................2...... Cayman Islands 30........1...2.....................3...... Puerto Rico 31........2..........................2...... Anguilla 32........2...2.....................4...... Belize 33........1..........................1...... US Virgin Islands 34........1..........................1...... Montserrat 35........2..........................2...... Aruba
Why are you are looking so much at the 11 lowest-rated teams? These aren't the ones who need to improve. Concacaf needs to improve the teams in the upper half, and the 32-16-8 format does that better than the "Alt" 24-12 format. I think that the Alt format would create a lot more bad games. Yes, the 32-16-8 could have a really awful R-32, but the R-16 (and of course the R-8) would have very competitive games almost all of the time. I envision that 24-12 format would have really uncompetitive games in both group stages. Honestly, how many of the 60 R-12 matches would be watchable? The point that I'm saying is that 32-16-8 would create more quality matches (for the top-half teams), which in the long run would be better (for both team development, and fan interest), than a large number of mediocre match-ups.
Thanks for the questions. Regarding the question about the 11 lowest-ranked teams, I see them as the Bottom Third, while the 12 highest-ranked teams comprise the Top Third, and the middle 12 are the Middle Third. When I look at the number of matches for the three formats by these thirds, here are some numbers: Top Third: WC10: Either 8 or 18+ matches ANN: Either 12 or 18+ matches (4 teams have 12) ALT: 16+ matches Middle Third: WC10: Either 2 or 4 matches (1 team has 2) ANN: Either 6 or 12 matches (4 teams have 12) ALT: Either 6 or 8 matches Bottom Third: WC10: 2 matches ANN: Either 2, 6, or 8 matches (3 teams have 8; 3 teams have 2) ALT: Either 2 or 4 matches So, the Announced (32-16-8) format, when compared to the WC10 format, does provide for “development” by greatly increasing the number of matches for the Middle Third, as well as the Bottom Third. (The Top Third also sees an increase in matches, but the increase in the Top is much smaller than the other two thirds.) However, I too, wonder if all those matches are really needed for the Bottom Third. (There will be three teams with ranks between 30 and 35 that will each play EIGHT matches. Is this really necessary?) The Alternative (24-12) format, when compared to the Announced format, keeps a similar number of matches for the Top Third and the Middle Third, while having much fewer matches in the Bottom Third. (The Bottom Third would still get more matches in the Alternative format than in the WC10 format.) Thus, if the objective is to get more matches for teams in the Middle Third (versus the 4 matches most of the teams would get from the WC10 format), then both the Announced and the Alternative format achieve this. However, these two formats are most different with regard to the Bottom Third, as the Alternative format has 2 or 4 matches, whereas the Announced format has 6 or 8 matches for all but three teams. Additionally, the Alternative format would avoid teams in the Top Third from playing teams from the Bottom Third (unless a Bottom Third team transforms into a Middle Third team). I think this last point may be the most important, as the Top Third versus Bottom Third are the truly uncompetitive matches. Regarding your question about the competiveness of the matches under the different formats, it got me thinking about how I might quantitatively define the competitiveness of matches. A simplistic approach would be to say that only matches between two top teams would count – let’s say the Top 12 (as the Gold Cup does) or the Top 16. But this simplistic approach eliminates matches where the teams are closely ranked (say #17 versus #18) – which might not be worth watching, but to the teams, each has a legitimate chance of winning and is competitive from their view. A more complex approach would be to say that only matches between teams whose rankings are within a certain number of each – let’s say 12 CONCACAF ranking positions – so #1 versus #12 would be competitive, as would #19 and #30. Unfortunately, this “gap” approach suffers, because there is not a pure linear relationship between team quality and ranking – for instance #1 and #2 (USA and MEX) are of very similar quality, but #2 and #3 are of different quality. The approach I like best (and would be the most complex) would use a ranking system that has the ability to predict match results (e.g. ELO Rankings and Voros McCracken’s rankings) with probabilities, and to choose a threshold of winning (or winning/drawing) somewhat high -- maybe 80% probability of winning – or 90% probability of winning/drawing. I think this would be an interesting study, but I’ll leave this for someone else to do. Going back to the simple approach, and acknowledging that it defines competitiveness as the viewer sees it, I’ll use your opinion that a round of 16 would have very competitive games almost all the time, and thus chose 16 as the numerical threshold. Below, I count the number of competitive matches in the Announced and Alternative format. In the Announced (32-16-8) format, the first group round would have 16 matches between Top 16 teams and 80(!) uncompetitive matches. The second and third group rounds would all be competitive matches (48 matches and 24 matches, respectively). The 3rd Spot and Playoff matches add another 4 competitive matches. So, there would be a total of 92 competitive matches out of 178 matches total. Meanwhile, in the Alternative (24-12) format, the first group round would have four groups with three Top 16 teams, and two groups of two Top 16 teams, which totals to 28 competitive matches and 44 uncompetitive matches. The second group round would all be competitive matches (60 matches), as would be the 3rd Spot and Playoff matches. So, again there would be a total of 92 competitive matches – but the total number of matches in this format is only 158. Thus, the same number of competitive matches, but 20 fewer non-competitive matches. What’s not to like? (Incidentally, I was quite surprised to find both formats produced the exact same number of competitive matches!) Next, I’ll choose 12 as the numerical threshold (in deference to the 12 spots at the CONCACAF Gold Cup). In the Announced (32-16-8) format, the first group round would have 8 matches between Top 12 teams and 88(!) uncompetitive matches. The second group round would have 24 competitive matches and 24 uncompetitive matches. The third round (24 matches) and the 3rd Spot and Playoff matches would all be competitive, for a grand total of 60 competitive matches (out of 178). In the Alternative (24-12) format, the first group round would have 12 competitive matches and 60 uncompetitive matches. The second group round (60 matches) and the 3rd Spot and Playoff matches would all be competitive, for a grand total of 76 competitive matches (out of 158). So, using a threshold of the Top 12 teams, the Alternative format would have 16 more competitive matches (27%) than the Announced format. I like it.
Personally, I really like the new format (Prelim>>32>>16>>2 groups of 4). I think it strikes the best balance between getting more games for the lower/middle level teams, and improving teams in the upper half by getting more team involved at the 2nd (16 over 12) and final (8 instead of 6) phases. And this from someone who lives in Columbus, OH, and will now NOT get to have a USA/Mexico qualifier in his hometown every 4 years (unless USA/Mex are no longer the top two teams in the region). I think the new format mirrors the Asian format, and that is the Confederation we want to take the 0.5 spot from.
Note that the last two rounds of Asian qualifying are: (A) FIVE groups of 4 teams (B) 2 groups of FIVE teams Whereas the proposed CONCACAF qualifying last two rounds are: (A) FOUR groups of 4 teams (B) 2 groups of FOUR teams As illogical as it would seem to me, I could see some dimwit arguing that the "FIVE" element of the Asian qualifying is greater that the "FOUR" element of the CONCACAF qualifying, and then somehow conclude that Asia should have one more spot (e.g. 4.5 versus 3.5) because "FIVE" is one more than "FOUR". If so, then if the CONCACAF final two rounds were: (A) SIX groups of 4 teams (B) 2 groups of SIX teams then maybe that dimwit would see this "SIX" element to be one more than the "FIVE" element and support more slots of CONCACAF!
Regarding today’s blog about a NEW qualifying format for CONCACAF, here is how that format looks in the context of this thread. TABLES Two tables – the first (as above) looks at each of the stages, including number of groups, group size, total matches, etc. The second table looks at the number of matches each team would play (in a sample scenario). For the first three tables, here are the seven columns shown: (1) Stage name (Playoff is the inter-confederation playoff for the fourth-place team) (2) Groups (Number of groups) (3) Group Size (Number of teams in each group; “2” represents home-and-away) (4) Teams (Number of teams across all groups) (5) Matches (Number of matches across all groups) (6) Teams Beginning (Still alive before the stage begins) (7) Teams Remaining (Still alive after completion of the stage) Total Sides counts the number of times a CONCACAF team takes the field, which is 2 Sides per Match except for the inter-confederation playoffs. ================================ WC2014 ALTERNATIVE FORMAT (NEW) ================================ Stage.......G...GS...T...M..........TB...TR Prelim1......5...2...10...10.........35...30 Prelim2 Group1......6...4...24...72.........30...12 Group2......3...4...12...36.........12....6 Group3......1...6....6...30..........6.....4 3rdSpot Playoff.......1...2....1....2...........4...3or4. Total Matches: 150. Total Sides: 298. ================================ The final table shows the number of matches each of the 35 teams would play in the scenario where the better ranked team always advanced. In actuality, the exact numbers are likely to be a bit different, with the biggest impact being on the top 12 teams – if a 7-12 team makes the hex, they would play a minimum of 22 matches (24 if they were 4th in the hex); if a 1-6 team doesn’t make the hex, they would only play 6 matches. ======================== Rank..WC10..ANN...ALT...NEW ..1......18......18.....16.....16 ..2......18......18.....16.....16 ..3......18......20.....18.....16 ..4......20......22.....20.....18 ..5......18......18.....16.....16 ..6......18......18.....16.....16 ..7.......8.......18.....16.....12 ..8.......8.......18.....16.....12 ..9.......8.......12.....16.....12 ..10......8......12.....16.....12 ..11......8......12.....16.....12 ..12......8......12.....16.....12 ..13......2......12......6......6 ..14......4......12......6......6 ..15......4......12......6......6 ..16......4......12......6......6 ..17......4.......6.......6......6 ..18......4.......6.......6......6 ..19......4.......6.......8......6 ..20......4.......6.......8......6 ..21......4.......6.......8......6 ..22......4.......6.......8......6 ..23......4.......6.......8......6 ..24......4.......6.......8......6 ..25......2.......6.......2......6 ..26......2.......6.......4......8 ..27......2.......6.......4......8 ..28......2.......6.......4......8 ..29......2.......6.......4......8 ..30......2.......8.......4......8 ..31......2.......8.......2......2 ..32......2.......8.......2......2 ..33......2.......2.......2......2 ..34......2.......2.......2......2 ..35......2.......2.......2......2 Total...226...354...314...298. (These totals equal the Total Sides above.) ========================