dfwabel

USA-Mexico-Canada Joint Bid for 2026 World Cup

Recommended Posts

Pretty sure Canada and the US would be better than Oceania's second best squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Pretty sure Canada and the US would be better than Oceania's second best squad. 

 

I don’t think so. The US gets all too regularly waxed by teams like Trinidad and Tobago, and Canada hasn’t qualified for the World Cup since 1986. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it should either be all three qualify automatically or none qualify automatically. Also, thank GOD they're going to Elo after the World Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bucfan56 said:

 

I don’t thinks so. The US gets all too regularly waxed by teams like Trinidad and Tobago, and Canada hasn’t qualified for the World Cup since 1986. 

This was the first time they lost to Trinidad and Tobago since 2008. That's not regularly getting waxed. Since 1989 they have dominated the T&T squad as well. Canada has made it to the Hex a few times but just seem to shut down once they get there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I don’t think so. The US gets all too regularly waxed by teams like Trinidad and Tobago, and Canada hasn’t qualified for the World Cup since 1986. 

 

I know it's hip and deserved to slam the USMNT right now but get a grip.

 

The only OFC teams to ever qualify for a World Cup are Australia and New Zealand, and Australia doesn't even belong to that confederation anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax. I’m just saying that the US being a lock to qualify isn’t a sure thing. And when I say “all too regularly” I mean that even dropping any match to carribean island nations, especially when a loss kills your World Cup hopes, qualifies as just that. I’n not trying to take anything from those teams, as they’re very well run all things considered. But there’s really no excuse for that when you have the resources available that we do (not to mention the population). But, here we are, still assuming the US can be trusted to put together a World Cup quality team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to give Canada an automatic spot in the tournament? Don't award a World Cup to a bid that includes Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have an issue with giving Canada an automatic bid. But all three? That’s overkill IMO. 

 

If anything, it’s further incentive for the US to get their :censored: together. I don’t trust the US to do the necessary work to improve the product if they don’t have anything tangible to lose. Hosting a World Cup in which you didn’t even qualify for? That’ll light a fire if for nothing else but to avoid the embarrassment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S., Canada, Mexico and the defending champ would take up 4 spots. There would still be 44 spots available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wings said:

U.S., Canada, Mexico and the defending champ would take up 4 spots. There would still be 44 spots available. 

Defending champ hasn't gotten a guaranteed bid since 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wings said:

U.S., Canada, Mexico and the defending champ would take up 4 spots. There would still be 44 spots available. 

And the bids have always been taken away from the host nation's confederation's bids, not in addition to them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

Relax. I’m just saying that the US being a lock to qualify isn’t a sure thing. And when I say “all too regularly” I mean that even dropping any match to carribean island nations, especially when a loss kills your World Cup hopes, qualifies as just that. I’n not trying to take anything from those teams, as they’re very well run all things considered. But there’s really no excuse for that when you have the resources available that we do (not to mention the population). But, here we are, still assuming the US can be trusted to put together a World Cup quality team...

 

But CONCACAF will have 6 bids, right?

 

Despite our piss poor 2018 WC qualifying cycle, we would still have qualified if this WC were a 48-team tournament. We were still one of the top 6 nations in CONCACAF (not that it says much considering how weak our confederation is).

 

Acting like there’s a legitimate chance we’d fail to qualify for any 48-team WC going forward when our confederation has 6 bids is bit out there for me. 

 

Personally, I don’t have a problem with all three of us getting an automatic bid considering how many teams there will be from CONCACAF at the WC. And it’s not like México or the US would need an automatic bid to qualify for this WC. Both nations would qualify on their own without it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closest precedent we've got is the 2002 Japan-South Korea World Cup. Decent chance that that was the most fun WC in my memory, and South Korea (who are a pretty close USA analogue in quality) made it to the frickin semis. It'll be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, willmorris said:

Defending champ hasn't gotten a guaranteed bid since 2006.

Ok then 3 automatic and 3 more CONCACAF qualifiers with a total of 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the good thing about an American bid is that it doesn't require the temporary stadiums that become such boondoggles for the host countries. Buuuuuut, part of me wishes we could throw up a temporary SSS in New Orleans so that a World Cup can be played in such a distinctive American city. You can't honestly play World Cup soccer at the Supertomb, nor could a new stadium be handed down to the Saints, so you'd pretty much have to dismantle it soon after. Or play at Tulane? idk, I just think New Orleans would be fun for everyone.

 

EDIT: I have just relearned that Tulane has not had a stadium for over 40 years. Not my best outing, folks

 

EDIT 2: actually, it turns out now they do again, somehow I'm doing worse here, help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Obviously the good thing about an American bid is that it doesn't require the temporary stadiums that become such boondoggles for the host countries. Buuuuuut, part of me wishes we could throw up a temporary SSS in New Orleans so that a World Cup can be played in such a distinctive American city. You can't honestly play World Cup soccer at the Supertomb, nor could a new stadium be handed down to the Saints, so you'd pretty much have to dismantle it soon after. Or play at Tulane? idk, I just think New Orleans would be fun for everyone.

 

EDIT: I have just relearned that Tulane has not had a stadium for over 40 years. Not my best outing, folks

No they do. Yulman stadium, seats 30,000. Opened in 2014. So you was right 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the episode of Scrubs where Dr. Cox keeps killing all his patients and The Fray is playing? That's me right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Obviously the good thing about an American bid is that it doesn't require the temporary stadiums that become such boondoggles for the host countries. Buuuuuut, part of me wishes we could throw up a temporary SSS in New Orleans so that a World Cup can be played in such a distinctive American city. You can't honestly play World Cup soccer at the Supertomb, nor could a new stadium be handed down to the Saints, so you'd pretty much have to dismantle it soon after. Or play at Tulane? idk, I just think New Orleans would be fun for everyone.

 

EDIT: I have just relearned that Tulane has not had a stadium for over 40 years. Not my best outing, folks

 

EDIT 2: actually, it turns out now they do again, somehow I'm doing worse here, help

 

this actually is a fine idea. I've been wondering which of the potential host cities would use this as an excuse to build a new ginormous stadium at taxpayer expense, but there don't seem to be any clear candidates. Maybe we'll at least get a boondoggle renovation of the Rose Bowl out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Digby said:

I've been wondering which of the potential host cities would use this as an excuse to build a new ginormous stadium at taxpayer expense, but there don't seem to be any clear candidates.

 

Edmonton. Again.

 

I assumed the Los Angeles games would be played at the Kroenketorium. Or would the artificial turf disqualify it? Or could they roll some grass in temporarily?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Edmonton. Again.

 

I assumed the Los Angeles games would be played at the Kroenketorium. Or would the artificial turf disqualify it? Or could they roll some grass in temporarily?

LA would beat Kroenke-land which is an all seater which I believe is required. If it's turf they'll just swap it out for grass. They did that in 1994 but have managed to screw it up since then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now