Prev: Deutschland - Englaland [R]
Next: Ich bin ein widerlicher alter Sack
From: ken.overton on 26 Jun 2010 19:55
For all the "take away spots from 'X' and give them to Y!" tomfoolery.

For my part, I don't understand how the majority of proposals don't
include Africa losing spots. They ought to be first on the list to
lose some allocation, and probably second, too. Yet everybody seems
to want to bring up UEFA or Concacaf first. Bizarre.
From: Starcade on 26 Jun 2010 20:06
On Jun 26, 4:55 pm, "ken.over...(a)gmail.com" <ken.over...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> For all the "take away spots from 'X' and give them to Y!" tomfoolery.
>
> For my part, I don't understand how the majority of proposals don't
> include Africa losing spots.  They ought to be first on the list to
> lose some allocation, and probably second, too.  Yet everybody seems
> to want to bring up UEFA or Concacaf first.  Bizarre.

I think the real question is: With COMNEBOL probably the only group
deserving more spots, one has to wonder what's going to happen.

I think, end of the day, we need to cut the number of teams in the
tournament. That might be the only way to get rid of some of the
chaff.

Step 2: Combine COMNEBOL and CONCACAF for qualifiers. If the USA and
Mexico can't get roughed up by the Brazils, Argentinas, and Chiles of
the world to get through, they should not be in the field.

Mike
From: KaiserD2 on 26 Jun 2010 21:28
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Starcade
<darkstar7646(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 26, 4:55�pm, "ken.over...(a)gmail.com" <ken.over...(a)gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> For all the "take away spots from 'X' and give them to Y!" tomfoolery.
>>
>> For my part, I don't understand how the majority of proposals don't
>> include Africa losing spots. �They ought to be first on the list to
>> lose some allocation, and probably second, too. �Yet everybody seems
>> to want to bring up UEFA or Concacaf first. �Bizarre.
>
>I think the real question is: With COMNEBOL probably the only group
>deserving more spots, one has to wonder what's going to happen.
>
>I think, end of the day, we need to cut the number of teams in the
>tournament. That might be the only way to get rid of some of the
>chaff.
>
>Step 2: Combine COMNEBOL and CONCACAF for qualifiers. If the USA and
>Mexico can't get roughed up by the Brazils, Argentinas, and Chiles of
>the world to get through, they should not be in the field.
>
>Mike

I think there was very little "chaff" in this tournament. There
were only two total blowouts in the whole first round, and one of them
(Germany-Australia) seems to have been a bit misleading at this point.

DK
From: Ll�o on 27 Jun 2010 03:50
<ken.overton(a)gmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:b627d748-a29a-40be-9ef8-9b7a5ef53754(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> For all the "take away spots from 'X' and give them to Y!" tomfoolery.
>
> For my part, I don't understand how the majority of proposals don't
> include Africa losing spots. They ought to be first on the list to
> lose some allocation, and probably second, too. Yet everybody seems
> to want to bring up UEFA or Concacaf first. Bizarre.

First we should decide what is the basis for our calculations. If it is
simply "making the second round", then indeed CAF is the confed that shoud
have the *least* amount of spots, barring Oceania of course.

If it is some other measure like, say, "cut off the worst teams of the cup",
then you get to a different discussion. Who are these teams, how many of
them you're looking at, and then measure how much of the worst goes to the
least worst, things like that.

Based on the first concept, my admittedly maybe-not-quite-viable proposal is
inspired on one posted by James Allnutt here in rss, before the last WC, and
an idea I think I read a long while ago in a post by Marcelo Weinberger (who
must be enjoying Uruguay's fine ride now). I have basically combined them,
with a few changes here and there.

First things to do are:
1. merge Conmebol and Concacaf
2. bring the top 1 or 2 OFC teams into the Asian final round (in the end it
has the "same" effect of merging on the area we're interested, but with such
immense distances, maybe it's a good idea to keep them separate at first)

The above plus UEFA and CAF gives you four zones with roughly the same
amount of teams (a bit less for Americas, a bit more for Asia+Oceania; but
really, the difference here lies in mighty regions like the Caribbean or the
Polynesian islands). For each of these four zones, give two fixed spots (for
diversity).

You already have 8 spots. Then, take the average amount of teams sent to the
second round in these two WCs by each zone (will add to 16) and multiply by
1.5 and there you have the remaining 24.

For 2014, things would look like this:
UEFA: 2 + 1.5*(10+6)/2 = 14
Americas: 2 + 1.5*(4+7)/2 = 10.25
CAF: 2 + 1.5*(1+1)/2 = 3.5
AOFC: 2 + 1.5*(1+2)/2 = 4.25

Draw the host spot from its conference, and wherever you have fractions, do
a playoff. If the .25s are a problem, either raise the lower number by .25
(diminishing it from the higher - eg, above it would be 10 and 4.5) or, to
keep the politicians happy, let them argue about it! Just so that they
wouldn't feel so completely useless.

Over time, these numbers will fluctuate based solely on performance, while
guaranteeing a few teams from everywhere (the *World" part of the Cup's
name), and you don't get a small confederation like Conmebol hindered by its
own size.

The fundamental drawback with the above system that I identified (you're
required to find others :-)) is that it doesn't really work without merging
Concacaf and Conmebol, something that might be thought of as a bad idea.
Splitting the two fixed spots one apiece, that would give 7 spots for
Conmebol and 3.25 to Concacaf, which is impossible in practical terms (draw
Brasil out as hosts and you'd have 9 teams playing for 6 spots).

For a conclusion, since nothing will change regardless of how much I write,
I'll simply repeat my previous stance: Conmebol should consider itself
*very* happy if FIFA decides that it should keep 4.5 spots and not draw the
host from it. That would be akin to have 5 or 6 teams, in effect an increase
of 1. The confederation has competitive qualifiers and in the finals has
done very well so far (but I think such opinions might quickly change if
Japan beats Paraguay and/or if Chile/Brasil loses too heavily to
Brasil/Chile), but with only 10 teams its amount of WC spots has reached
about its limit without making of the qualifying process a mere formality.

--
Ll�o


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Deutschland - Englaland [R]
Next: Ich bin ein widerlicher alter Sack