MJWalker45 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 41 minutes ago, marble21 said: I don't think the increase in the number of teams will be as bad as I originally thought. Euro 2016 was generally quite exciting in the early stages with a lot of teams competing for the first time or first time in a generation. Granted, the latter stages were a bit of an anti-climax and the 'best' 3rd place teams going through wasn't ideal. What concerns me is the change in format. The current system pretty much guarantees you need to win a game to advance. This new system doesn't do that and could lead to some negative tactics. I'd also be interested to see how the seeding would work for the last 32 as I have some concerns about that too. It's pretty much standard practice that international teams operate from a single base during a tournament, travelling to each game when required. I don't think anything would need to change from that in your example. Each bid would require 48 distinct bases or a plan for sharing facilities. For most countries that's pretty hard to accomplish for 32 teams, let alone 48. That's why I believe we'll see more combined bids in the future rather than one country taking it on by themselves. We'd also see the groups sat closer together to minimize travel. So the USA would probably be in the Northeast or Midwest, Mexico in LA, San Diego area and teams like Brazil and Argentina in the Southeast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 If this ushers in a new era of shared hosting duties, & the IOC also goes that way, I'm all for it. I know it's unpopular to want the Olympics to be co-hosted, & yet it should be about the sports every 4yrs, not whether trillions of public dollars should be used to gridlock a city for 16 days, construction on white elephants for one decade only to see them underused after the fact. If I read correctly, Uruguay would like South America to have a shared bid for 2030, the 100th anniversary. There's no way Uruguay even as the event is today could host alone. I say go for it. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marble21 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 49 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said: Each bid would require 48 distinct bases or a plan for sharing facilities. For most countries that's pretty hard to accomplish for 32 teams, let alone 48. That's why I believe we'll see more combined bids in the future rather than one country taking it on by themselves. We'd also see the groups sat closer together to minimize travel. So the USA would probably be in the Northeast or Midwest, Mexico in LA, San Diego area and teams like Brazil and Argentina in the Southeast. Yeah that's probably true for most countries. I was trying to be specific to the USA though which I believe already comfortably has the resources to host a 48 team World Cup tomorrow if it needed to. There are 22 MLS teams, 32 NFL teams and dozens of College campuses which have adequate training facilities - remember that not all teams have the budgets/requirements for a top class facility. There are easily 48 of these facilities with adequate hotels within comfortable travelling distance. Going back to what you just posted though, I do think that joint-bids will become more prevalent. They have worked in the past and there's no reason why they wouldn't work in the future. I guess it all comes down to who is the highest bidder really $$$. Euro 2020 is going to be held in 13 different countries. It will be interesting to see how that works out and if it is to remain a one-off special as originally intended. UBI FIDES IBI LUX ET ROBUR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, marble21 said: Yeah that's probably true for most countries. I was trying to be specific to the USA though which I believe already comfortably has the resources to host a 48 team World Cup tomorrow if it needed to. There are 22 MLS teams, 32 NFL teams and dozens of College campuses which have adequate training facilities - remember that not all teams have the budgets/requirements for a top class facility. There are easily 48 of these facilities with adequate hotels within comfortable travelling distance. Going back to what you just posted though, I do think that joint-bids will become more prevalent. They have worked in the past and there's no reason why they wouldn't work in the future. I guess it all comes down to who is the highest bidder really $$$. Euro 2020 is going to be held in 13 different countries. It will be interesting to see how that works out and if it is to remain a one-off special as originally intended. Euro Nations League is something I'd love to see in CONCACAF, if only because of my Canadian bias wants them to play more frequently. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 6 hours ago, marble21 said: Yeah that's probably true for most countries. I was trying to be specific to the USA though which I believe already comfortably has the resources to host a 48 team World Cup tomorrow if it needed to. There are 22 MLS teams, 32 NFL teams and dozens of College campuses which have adequate training facilities - remember that not all teams have the budgets/requirements for a top class facility. There are easily 48 of these facilities with adequate hotels within comfortable travelling distance. Going back to what you just posted though, I do think that joint-bids will become more prevalent. They have worked in the past and there's no reason why they wouldn't work in the future. I guess it all comes down to who is the highest bidder really $$$. Euro 2020 is going to be held in 13 different countries. It will be interesting to see how that works out and if it is to remain a one-off special as originally intended. However, the NFL teams are still in business before and during any US-based World Cup. Minicamps are ongoing in May and June. Not many colleges have the total facilities and airport proximity to put in a bid and while nine years out, at the earliest, they'd put out the risk of losing other annual events for a group of 100-200. The participating teams in Brazil were given over 80 specific locations with the bid book still online. Edit:Here are the 83 options for Brazil 2014. http://www.copa2014.gov.br/en/noticia/final-version-team-base-camp-brochure-has-83-options These are the bids which were accepted, but there were under 200 which didn't make the cut. Every US 3 star resort or better with the ability to sod two pitches and are 30-45 minutes from a major US airport are going bid and promise seclusion and security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadragon76 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My biggest concern with a 48 team field (that isn't cost related, because that's been covered) is this: How are you going to give the bids? Assuming the hosts has an automatic bid, that's 47 slots FIFA has to give out for the 2026 World Cup. How do you split that up among the 6 continental associations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Europe could use more representation. Give them 29 spots and the rest of the world to fight for 19 spots.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew22 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Seadragon76 said: My biggest concern with a 48 team field (that isn't cost related, because that's been covered) is this: How are you going to give the bids? Assuming the hosts has an automatic bid, that's 47 slots FIFA has to give out for the 2026 World Cup. How do you split that up among the 6 continental associations? UEFA 16 (13 currently) CAF 9 (5) AFC 8.5 (4.5) CONMEBOL 6 (4.5) CONCACAF 6.5 (3.5) Oceania 1 (0.5) Host Country 1 or more if co-hosted (1) http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2017/01/10/fifa-world-cup-expansion-48-teams-2026-gianni-infantino Eagles/Heels/Dawgs/Falcons/Hawks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadragon76 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 OK... Using the example that Drew posted, this would be the current field in the 48 team World Cup with the current results UEFA: France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Serbia, Poland, Montenegro, England, Slovenia, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Croatia CAF: Democratic Republic of Congo, Tunisia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Burkina Faso, South Africa, Senegal AFC: Iran, South Korea, Uzbekistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Australia, United Arab Emirates CONMEBOL: Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Columbia CONCACAF: Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, United States, Trinidad and Tobago OFC: New Zealand Playoff: AFC 9th Place (Qatar) vs. CONCACAF 7th Place (Guatemala) Host: Russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlin Wall Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I don't really get why they would give the CONCACAF more spots than CONMEBOL. I mean there are easily 7 South American teams that could compete in a WC. So I'd give the CONCACAF 6 spots and the CONMEBOL 6.5 or 7. I'm a simple person, I have a pixelated David Beckham as profile photo since 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 12 hours ago, Berlin Wall said: I don't really get why they would give the CONCACAF more spots than CONMEBOL. I mean there are easily 7 South American teams that could compete in a WC. So I'd give the CONCACAF 6 spots and the CONMEBOL 6.5 or 7. CONMEBOL only has 10 teams that play a double round robin tournament over 2 years. That's why they always invite Mexico and other CONCACAF teams to Copa America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 13 hours ago, Berlin Wall said: I don't really get why they would give the CONCACAF more spots than CONMEBOL. I mean there are easily 7 South American teams that could compete in a WC. So I'd give the CONCACAF 6 spots and the CONMEBOL 6.5 or 7. Because there are over triple the teams in CONCACAF than CONMEBOL. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnclearInitial Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 On 1/11/2017 at 8:44 AM, Berlin Wall said: I don't really get why they would give the CONCACAF more spots than CONMEBOL. I mean there are easily 7 South American teams that could compete in a WC. So I'd give the CONCACAF 6 spots and the CONMEBOL 6.5 or 7. While I agree with the sentiment that CONMEBOL is the one getting the short stick here, I don't think 6.5 is necessarily too much for CONCACAF. The real association that's being over-represented is the AFC. They only have 5 more members than CONCACAF, and roughly similar quality, and they don't have the depth that the CAF has. They're only getting 8.5 spots because FIFA is desperate to make headways in those huge markets, but the quality isn't there yet, certainly don't see any reason they should get 2 more spots than CONCACAF. The easiest fix would be to just give the half spot to CONMEBOL so that at least it's a real challenge to qualify. Right now there's 7 CONMEBOL teams in the top 20 of both the FIFA and ELO rankings, and it's absurd that even in an expanded World Cup one of those wouldn't qualify. The actual planning Of the World Cup sounds like a huge mess honestly, 32 teams was the right sweet spot between quality and inclusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcake Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Thx Liverpool for gettin my weekend off to a great start. Lose 3-2 to the team that's rock bottom... at home. Embarrassing. Our defense is paper thin without Matip and we miss Sadio Mané so, so much. Title challenge, which had been hanging out the window, is now completely out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Liverpool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Arsenal was offside what a joke. Should have tied Burnley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlin Wall Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Borussia Dortmund signed the 'new Ibrahimovic', Alexander Isak (17 years old) from AIK today. I'm a simple person, I have a pixelated David Beckham as profile photo since 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 12 hours ago, ElwoodCuse said: Arsenal was offside what a joke. Should have tied Burnley EPL refs have been horrible this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnPheitseog Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Gomis with the first triplé of his career, very well done. Also, the dedication on this goal. get punched in the face and still score, fantastic. Spoiler (put the goal in question into a spoiler tag because of a slightly offensive twitter picture) I get it, it's only Montpellier, but still. 5-1 is impressive and fantastic, especially for goal difference Formerly known as DiePerske Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 On 21/01/2017 at 9:45 AM, dfwabel said: Liverpool... More like Just when I thought they were finally turning a corner, they pull me right back in fml. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.