New CONCACAF Qualifying Proposal Levels Playing Field By going away from the six-team Hexagonal
Under a new proposed qualifying format, the Hexagonal would go the way of the VCR. Instead of one six-team group, the final round would feature two four-team groups, each team playing their group rival home and away. Group winners would advance directly, runners-up would play each other with the winner claiming the third and final direct berth. Playoff loser would then play a team from another confederation for another World Cup spot.
For several years now, the United States and Mexico have had a stranglehold on CONCACAF. Aside from the Gold Cup, where only Canada has been able to unseat the region's top two sides, the U.S. and Mexico have been unstoppable, particularly in World Cup qualifying. Since CONCACAF went to the six-team Hexagonal in 1998, the U.S. and Mexico have finished in the top three and have qualified directly to all four World Cups since.
Could it maybe be because they are the two best teams in CONCACAF?
And the "draw" for the tournament is absurd, setting up the U.S. and Mexico to meet in the final of every single edition.
Don't they still have to win the games to make it to the finals? Is there any other sport that DOESN'T seed #1 and #2 opposite each other in a bracket in the hopes of having the two best teams meet in the finals?
Maybe there's a reason every single Gold Cup is in America or Mexico? Does any of the Central American/Caribbean nations have at least four stadiums that seat over 30,000 (or any of them combined together)? And more importantly, can they guarantee the safety of players and fans? Don't think so.
Several sources within the CSA have told Canadian Soccer News that FIFA has awarded CONCACAF a full fourth spot for the 2014 World Cup. The extra spot Africa had for 2010 will be distributed to CONCACAF and South America
The spots are said to be:
Africa 4.5,
South America 4.5 plus Brazil,
Asia 4.5,
Europe 13,
Oceania 0.5,
CONCACAF 4.
Rumours of the switch have been swirling all week. CSA was able to confirm today that federations within CONCACAF have been informed of the extra half spot.
OhioHen wrote:
Correction - they could qualify 6 of 10 countries.
Correct! Even worse. WTF?
On the other hand, Europe gets 13 teams. So far in 19 World Cups the count on winners is Europe 10 (every World Cup held in Europe plus South Africa, which is in a European time zone) to South America 9 (every World Cup held in a time zone that is not the same as Europe).
If you win as many championships with less than half as many teams, maybe you deserve to have over half your teams qualify.
"It's impossible to make always everybody happy. If we look at the sporting results of the World Cup in 2010 there was no reason to change anything," Blatter said.
Chuck Blazer, the American on FIFA's executive committee and CONCACAF's No. 2 official, said there would not be enough available dates on the FIFA calendar for the formula CONCACAF had proposed, which would have had two groups of four in a final round of qualifying. For the past four World Cups, CONCACAF had a six-nation group in the finals.
"We need to come up with a system that works," he said. "At this point we'll put everything on the table."
On the other hand, Europe gets 13 teams. So far in 19 World Cups the count on winners is Europe 10 (every World Cup held in Europe plus South Africa, which is in a European time zone) to South America 9 (every World Cup held in a time zone that is not the same as Europe).
If you win as many championships with less than half as many teams, maybe you deserve to have over half your teams qualify.
There are 52 teams competing in Europe and Brazil has won 5 of the 9 for SA.
OhioHen wrote:
On the other hand, Europe gets 13 teams. So far in 19 World Cups the count on winners is Europe 10 (every World Cup held in Europe plus South Africa, which is in a European time zone) to South America 9 (every World Cup held in a time zone that is not the same as Europe).
If you win as many championships with less than half as many teams, maybe you deserve to have over half your teams qualify.
There are 52 teams competing in Europe and Brazil has won 5 of the 9 for SA.
Are you really going to throw San Marino, Andorra, and the Faroe Islands into the argument for why UEFA should have more representatives than CONMEBOL?
And as for the Brazil has 5 of the 9 for South America argument - Italy has 4 of the 10 for Europe. Eliminate the top winner from each continent and that leaves the tally at 6 to 4 - hardly an argument for more than double the entrants. With 13 teams participating, the chances of multiple teams advancing to any given round are greatly increased.
89Hen wrote:
There are 52 teams competing in Europe and Brazil has won 5 of the 9 for SA.
Are you really going to throw San Marino, Andorra, and the Faroe Islands into the argument for why UEFA should have more representatives than CONMEBOL?
And as for the Brazil has 5 of the 9 for South America argument - Italy has 4 of the 10 for Europe. Eliminate the top winner from each continent and that leaves the tally at 6 to 4 - hardly an argument for more than double the entrants. With 13 teams participating, the chances of multiple teams advancing to any given round are greatly increased.
You're starting to sound like a Big Sky fan. Fine, take out HALF of the European teams and you're still talking about 13 of 26 getting in.
Teams that have made the final four (Champions) in the last 10 world cups dating back to 1974...
Europe
Italy (2)
Germany (2)
France (1)
Spain (1)
Poland
Netherlands
Belgium
Bulgaria
Sweden
Croatia
Portugal
South America
Brazil (2)
Argentina (2)
Uruguay
You'll probalby just say it's only because they put so many teams in. But considering last year there were three match-ups between Europe and SA in the quarterfinals and ALL THREE went in favor of Europe... you really don't have much of a case. Uruguay is the only SA team besides Brazil or Argentina to make the semis since Chile in 1962 and they got to go through South Korea and Ghana to get there.
FIRST ROUND
The 10 lowest-ranked CONCACAF nations played a two-leg 1st round June 3rd and 7th
Aggregate scores
Montserrat 3:8 Belize
Anguilla 0:6 Dominican Republic
U.S. Virgin Islands 4:1 British Virgin Islands
Aruba 6:6 (4:5p) St. Lucia
Turks and Caicos Islands 0:10 Bahamas
SECOND ROUND
The second round will see the teams ranked 7–25 joined by the 5 winners from the first round. These teams will be drawn into six groups of four teams at the main group draw in Brazil on July 30, 2011. The matches are foreseen to be played from 2 September to 15 November 2011.
The top team from each group will advance to the third round.
Seeding
Pot 4
Panama
Canada
El Salvador
Grenada
Trinidad and Tobago
Haiti
Pot 5
Antigua and Barbuda
Guyana
Suriname
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Guatemala
Dominica
Pot 6
Puerto Rico
Barbados
Curaçao
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Cayman Islands
Nicaragua
Pot 7
Bermuda
Belize
Dominican Republic
Saint Lucia
Bahamas
U.S. Virgin Islands
EPJr wrote:The top team from each group will advance to the third round.
Seeding
Pot 4
Panama
Canada
El Salvador
Grenada
Trinidad and Tobago
Haiti
Pot 7
Bermuda
Belize
Dominican Republic
Saint Lucia
Bahamas
U.S. Virgin Islands
Is it me or do these pots seem a little unbalanced?
Don't they make up the groups by drawing from each pot - with each group having one or two teams from each pot? The pots themselves are not the groups (I think - it's pretty confusing, along with USVI and Puerto Rico having teams separate from the US). Also, why is the drawing in Brazil if this is for CONCACAF?
