EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
2tone
Ten-Towns
Post #16
Monday April 20, 2015 3:31pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 10,320
Original post from TheTruth

So how often do you think the US would qualify for the WC if they were in UEFA?


Can't really say, but that's a question that has no bearing on why UEFA should have more teams in the WC.

For me UEFA should lose a couple of spots.

MSantoine
Post #17
Monday April 20, 2015 3:32pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
Original post from USAGunner

You do realize that half-way through qualifiers that they are on pace to qualify for Euro 2016. As long as Bale, Ramsey, Williams are available they will be in good position to do so...


Qualifying for the Euros isnt an accomplishment anymore. They expanded to 24 so almost everyone gets to be in the finals. Theres 54 teams in UEFA now with Gibraltar. Of those there are ~13-15 abosulute train wreck teams who wouldnt qualify for the gold cup. So you pretty much have 40 teams for 24 spots. Not that impressive. They expanded so coaches can save their job and make sure that teams like England, Portugal, Netherlands, France, never miss out on the finals. They know that a lot of Americans wont tune in to watch Esontia vs Norway, but they will to watch England vs Italy.

You only have to come in top 3 in your group to advance or at least have the playoff against another decent but not good UEFA team.

Its really a shame they changed the format. There would be so much drama if they hadnt. Netherlands is currently 5 points behind Iceland and Czech Rep. With only 5 games to go in the old format theyd have to run the table. Now they can take third and take their chances vs Hungary or Albania. Russia, Sweden, Italy, Norway would be panicking as they'd be close to missing out. Instead they know they have at least a 3rd place match to go. Greece would be toast, but find themselves just 6 points away from 3rd (as opposed to 10 points away from 2nd). Switzerland and Slovenia would be battling it out for a single spot with each having a game vs England and one against each other. Instead they'll both comfortably at least make the playoffs. Group D would be awesome with Poland one point up on Germany and Scotland, and Ireland just 2 back of them. Imagine if Germany had to go on the road to both UK countries and get victories or theyd miss out. The drama would be amazing. Instead they'll all make it and the group stage will be so-so. Everyone will get tons of FIFA rankings points and they'll all go pat each other on the back

2tone
Ten-Towns
Post #18
Monday April 20, 2015 4:15pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 10,320
If I was to divvy up for 32 WC spots, it would be like this:

Asia: 5
Africa: 5
South America: 5
CONCACAF: 4
Oceania: 1
UEFA: 12

Do away with the stupid 1/2 spot stuff.

Take one away from UEFA.

USsoccerfan90
Post #19
Monday April 20, 2015 4:41pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 63
Original post from 2tone

If I was to divvy up for 32 WC spots, it would be like this:

Asia: 5
Africa: 5
South America: 5
CONCACAF: 4
Oceania: 1
UEFA: 12

Do away with the stupid 1/2 spot stuff.

Take one away from UEFA.

This looks very good. I would take away one from Asia, then you have your 31 countries that qualify plus whoever the host country is. Maybe also have South America with 5 1/2 and Oceania with 1/2.

Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #20
Monday April 20, 2015 5:45pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 784
Original post from TheTruth

So how often do you think the US would qualify for the WC if they were in UEFA?


If we were in UEFA we would be more familiar with the teams and play them more often etc. UEFA also has its share of lower tier teams. I don't believe we would qualify every time like we do now. I do believe we would qualify around 3/4 of the time.

admsghs27
Post #21
Monday April 20, 2015 6:12pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 6,060
Original post from Kamphgruppe

If we were in UEFA we would be more familiar with the teams and play them more often etc. UEFA also has its share of lower tier teams. I don't believe we would qualify every time like we do now. I do believe we would qualify around 3/4 of the time.


I think we will miss out on more World Cups in South America than in Europe. Why not have a 1/2 team from Uefa play a 1/2 team from south america then switch it next cycle vs a Concacaf opponent. Either way i still Wouldn't vote for Blatter even if he does give us 4 spots He is a fraud and a Corrupted man an a joke i would go with Prince Ali bin who also supports concacaf. I think our region has grown a lot as of late and i'm sure our 1/2 spot would qualify more often than not.

MSantoine
Post #22
Tuesday April 21, 2015 11:31am

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
If I were redistributing the 32 spots Id go as follows:

UEFA-11
CAF-6
CONMEBOL-5
CONCACAF-4
AFC-4.5
OFC-.5 (always be 5th place AFC vs OFC champ)
Host-1

I think Africa deserves more bids. They have a lot of teams that would not embarass themselves (Cameroon, Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Egypt, South Africa) lots of up and coming nations (Ethiopia, Cape Verde, Mali, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Guinea) and nations that have been cyclical but always have good players (Morocco, Tunisia, Togo). That off the top of my head is 16 countries that could argue they are jus as good or better than Panama, Iran, Japan, etc and I dont think are any worse than the Sweden;s, Switzerlands, Greece's.

CAF has had stronger showings in world cups. Have more victories over UEFA/CONMEBOL opponents, and as a federation are relatively new to the world scene (CAF had like 1-2 bids until 1980). I think its clear CAF needs some more bids. I just hope it comes at UEFA's expense and not CONCACAF or expansion

USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #23
Tuesday April 21, 2015 1:52pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,322
MSantoine,
My statement about Wales qualifying wasn't to say it is something special, it was just to counter what The Truth asked about when was the last time Wales qualified.

There is no way Asia should have MORE bids than they do now. If anything they should have less! As it is that last team that qualifies for Asia is often dreadful and gets blown out. They should have 3.5 bids (Gets Japan, Australia, Iran or South Korea in most years...who are the only ones who really belong). Have the .5 play against an OFC
Break it down like this:
AFC: 3.5
OFC: .5
Concacaf: 4
CAF: 6
Conmebol: 6
UEFA: 11
Host: 1
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
MSantoine
Post #24
Tuesday April 21, 2015 2:21pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
@Gunner. Gotcha. The UEFA expansion is just a sore subject with me. It used to be my favorite non-world cup event to watch.

Look at 2012. You had a group with Portugal, Netherlands, and Germany. England, France, and Sweden. Italy and Spain. It was awesome. Other than group A and matches against Ireland every single game was an awesome match (In fact 13 of 15 games not involving group A or Ireland were 1 goal games).There were no 0-0 games and very few shutouts in general.

2016 is going to be a let down. I hate when money grubbing executives ruin things.

Back on topic I do agree with your breakdown except I wouldnt give CONMEBOL 6 bids as Id prefer Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, Uruguay, Paraguay have to battle it out for two spots instead of three. And years they host they'll have too many. Id be ok with CAF getting 7 or UEFA getting 12. As an FYI CAF has 16 of the top 60 teams in FIFA rankings. AFC has 3, CONCACAF has 4. CONMEBOL has 8.

USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #25
Tuesday April 21, 2015 4:46pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,322
I don't have a problem with CAF getting more. Personally for a more exciting (Brand of soccer) tournament I'd like more Conmebol and Caf teams.

What about this (way out of left field and 0% chance of it happening).

CONCACAF gets 3 automatic bids
CAF gets 3
Conmebol gets 4
AFC gets 1
UEFA gets 5

That is half of the field.

Host is 1. So that leaves 15 spots left.

For the remaining 15 you have 30 teams battle it out for those spots:
7 from CAF
1 from OFC
4 from AFC
4 from CONCACAF
4 from CONMEBOL
10 from UEFA

Perhaps use the FIFA rankings to pair them up (Highest ranked gets lowest ranked). and they play a 2 leg series (Home and Away). That would be a very good round to watch. Winner gets the glory, Loser watches from home. The exception would be that no matchups can feature 2 teams from the same confederation.

So if we were to use the current rankings this is how it would break down:
Automatic bids:
CONCACAF - Costa Rica, Mexico, USA
CAF - Algeria, Ivory Coast, Ghana
CONMEBOL - Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay
AFC - Iran
UEFA - Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland
Host - Russia

For the Knockout Round:
Spain v New Zealand
France v Honduras
Romania v Jamaica
Italy v Venezuela
England v UAE
Chile v Trinidad
Croatia v Peru
Czech Rep v Congo
Slovakia v Cameroon
Wales v Nigeria
Greece v Guinea
Tunisia v Australia
Ecuador v Korea
Senegal v Panama
Cape Verde v Japan
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
MSantoine
Post #26
Tuesday April 21, 2015 5:39pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
Original post from USAGunner

I don't have a problem with CAF getting more. Personally for a more exciting (Brand of soccer) tournament I'd like more Conmebol and Caf teams.

What about this (way out of left field and 0% chance of it happening).

CONCACAF gets 3 automatic bids
CAF gets 3
Conmebol gets 4
AFC gets 1
UEFA gets 5

That is half of the field.

Host is 1. So that leaves 15 spots left.

For the remaining 15 you have 30 teams battle it out for those spots:
7 from CAF
1 from OFC
4 from AFC
4 from CONCACAF
4 from CONMEBOL
10 from UEFA

Perhaps use the FIFA rankings to pair them up (Highest ranked gets lowest ranked). and they play a 2 leg series (Home and Away). That would be a very good round to watch. Winner gets the glory, Loser watches from home. The exception would be that no matchups can feature 2 teams from the same confederation.

So if we were to use the current rankings this is how it would break down:
Automatic bids:
CONCACAF - Costa Rica, Mexico, USA
CAF - Algeria, Ivory Coast, Ghana
CONMEBOL - Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay
AFC - Iran
UEFA - Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland
Host - Russia

For the Knockout Round:
Spain v New Zealand
France v Honduras
Romania v Jamaica
Italy v Venezuela
England v UAE
Chile v Trinidad
Croatia v Peru
Czech Rep v Congo
Slovakia v Cameroon
Wales v Nigeria
Greece v Guinea
Tunisia v Australia
Ecuador v Korea
Senegal v Panama
Cape Verde v Japan


Sign me up for this idea. It forces UEFA to fix its qualifying and have some prelim matches to get the minnows out so we dont have to watch England beat Liechtenstein 12-0. I agree it will never happen because of $$$ and being too radical but I'll play along. Lets change some of the numbers to make things work out better.

Auto bids:
CONCACAF- 3
AFC-2
CONMEBOL-4
CAF-4
UEFA-6
Host-1

Theres 20 auto bids. Other 12 will be 24 nations with head to head as you describe.

CONCACAF-3
OFC-1
AFC-4
CONMEBOL-2
CAF-5
UEFA-9.

Benefits to this breakdown are as follows:

WCQ-
CONCACAF sticks with Hex. Top 3 qualify. Bottom 3 go to playoff
OFC- Stays as is with winner in playoff
AFC- Force countries to earn it. Final qualifying stays the same format. Two group winners are in. 2nd & 3rds in playoffs
CONMEBOL- stays similar to as is. Top 4 get in. Next two in playoff
CAF- Will have to change it. Instead of having 5 heads up matches theyd need to go like asia and have two 5 team groups. Top 2 in each group qualify. 3rd-4th in playoffs. Last place teams have a home and away to make playoffs
UEFA- Finally fix their qualifying. Have a preliminary round where bottom 34 teams have elimination teams. This protects the top 19 teams (pot 1 & pot 2 teams). Then you have 36 teams, 6 groups of 6. Winners in World cup. runner ups in playoffs. Either top 3 third place teams or home and away for last playoff spot.

Then in WCQ playoffs youd have South America, UEFA, and OFC in pot 1 (gives OFC a chance) and CONCACAF, Africa, & Asia in pot 2. In theory this gets more CONMEBOL/UEFA teams in bot gives the "little" guys a chance to prove themselves.

USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #27
Tuesday April 21, 2015 7:11pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,322
I'm in.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
TheTruth
Post #28
Wednesday April 22, 2015 4:29pm

Joined Dec 2013
Total Posts: 950
Original post from 2tone

Can't really say, but that's a question that has no bearing on why UEFA should have more teams in the WC.

For me UEFA should lose a couple of spots.


Just posing a question to the group. You can never answer satisfactorily it, of course. Suffice it to say, I disagree w/ some others in this forum on what the answer truly is.

So, I'm curious, why do you think UEFA should lose a couple of slots? Meritocracy? There are a couple of other better teams in other regions that are better than the last to UEFA teams that make it? Or do you go for the "world" cup argument? Something else?

TheTruth
Post #29
Wednesday April 22, 2015 4:38pm

Joined Dec 2013
Total Posts: 950
Original post from Kamphgruppe

If we were in UEFA we would be more familiar with the teams and play them more often etc. UEFA also has its share of lower tier teams. I don't believe we would qualify every time like we do now. I do believe we would qualify around 3/4 of the time.


75% of the time? Fair enough. I don't have a big disagreement w/ that. I think it would have been 50% looking forward. Maybe >75% in another 10-20 years.

TheTruth
Post #30
Wednesday April 22, 2015 4:41pm

Joined Dec 2013
Total Posts: 950
Original post from USAGunner

You do realize that half-way through qualifiers that they are on pace to qualify for Euro 2016. As long as Bale, Ramsey, Williams are available they will be in good position to do so...


Can you believe how easy that group is? Holy shit. If I were a betting man I would say that Wales will qualify this time.

Page 2 of 3
« Previous 1 2 3  Next »

Keep up with the latest moves by Americans around the world during the January transfer window.
RECENT POSTS
Yanks Face Relegation in England
Tale of Two Young Yanks in Europe
Wagner Nears Premier League Goal
YA lineup prediction vs. T&T