realmadrid Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 2 hours ago, itzdrk said: Just make the qualification worldwide. I've thought it should be world wide for a number of years With 210 teams in this cycle of qualifying I would go with 20 groups or either 10 or 11 teams, but the groups themselves would be split into 3 rounds Those seeded 1-3 (the worlds top 60 nations that are not the host or the holder) are into the final round of the group. Those seeded 4-6 in the group play each other with the winner of round 1 for a place in the final round Those seeded 7-11 play in the first round with the winner going into the second round After the group stage the 20 winners qualify with the 20 runners up playing off home and away against each other for the other 10 places in the finals. No draw as such just runners up in A play runners up in B etc. Every team could qualify, the big nations only play 6 or 8 qualifiers if they go via play offs and yes a small nation could play 20 or 22 games if they end up in a group of 11 in round 1 and made it all the way via the play off round but the chances of that are slim and the South American intercontinental winner will play 20 games over a 3 year cycle this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grazza Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 If 48 teams are in the tournament I don't like the teams starting at different stages nonsense would rather see 16 groups of 3 teams each. That way we would have just as many games at the group stage each being meaningful. There would be a round of 32 so any decent team would get at least 3 games and rubbish ones would get 2 which is better than one. in terms of quality of tournament probably depends how they allocate the extra 16 slots. Personally I think most of the proposed extra slot should be wildcard slots as some sort of global play offs. would prefer global qualification from start for commercially they want a few teams from each corner of the world so probably a couple extra teams for each confederation except Oceania who get 1. I do wonder though with global audiences if they may consider splitting groups and first knockout round to different area of the world especially if they don't go with my suggestion and have a lot more matches. Hopefully not though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Infantino now proposing 16 groups of 3 instead of an opening preliminary, feeding a knockout Last 32. Obviously slightly better than the previous model but still has huge flaws. Teams and fans travel the globe for only 2 games. Not all teams in a group finish on the same day (nevermind at the same time) and in many cases 2 teams will know what result to play for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 They could change it to 48 teams and we would still fail to qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 I think it's fine the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 There's no need to dilute the quality any further. Leave as is. Presumably all about £. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 It's obviously not fine as it is, uefa has some topsides who miss out every time to accommodate shite like Saudi Arabia. 64 teams, double the number of groups and an extra knock out round. The number of countries in the world has increased a lot, the popularity of football has increased a lot and the quality of teams who used to be rubbish has increased a lot. It's obvious that expanded intl tournaments should follow on from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 I'd be fine with a 64 team tournament. Don't like the idea of a 48-team tournament with two-thirds of teams getting through the first stage, one team (presumably the seeds) having the advantage of a more favorable fixture list and none of the excitement of simultaneous matches. You could just have it so that each group game (and maybe last sixteen game) was held at the same time as another so it wouldn't take up much more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 128 team tournament on a 1,500,000 capacity 128-sided pitch the size of a horse racing course with 128 goals . All teams play at the same time with 64 balls from noon on the first day non stop for a month. Best goal difference wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 I'd watch it, be a pain getting the time off work though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northboy Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Lex said: I think it's fine the way it is. Agreed - 32 teams is plenty. Any more just smacks or trying to commercialise further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 It's about trying to include all the good sides and still represent every part of the world. You need a bigger tournament for that. There are about 25 from Europe alone who would grace a wc but only half can qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Vote for me...vote for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 It's about trying to include all the good sides and still represent every part of the world. You need a bigger tournament for that. There are about 25 from Europe alone who would grace a wc but only half can qualify. Good. The World Cup shouldn't be something every team on the planet can qualify for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Except us, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DAVIDB69 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 I would be concerned as increasing I suspect means more places for crap countries as opposed to Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DAVIDB69 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 I would be concerned as increasing I suspect means more places for crap countries as opposed to Europe The flaw would be the Spain 82 second round format though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 play a world wide home and away cup format till you reach the last 16. 16 is plenty for the tournament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 I would be concerned as increasing I suspect means more places for crap countries as opposed to Europe I like watching the crap countries. The Scottish Cup/FA Cup would be a million times more boring if they only let the top teams in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resk Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Worldwide qualifiers? I suspect the SFA Blazer Cuntos would be all over that and praying for away fixtures in Venezuela or Thailand so they could fly long-haul first class and get properly tore into the hookers. While the players have to work their passage on a trawler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.