Jump to content

USA-Mexico-Canada Joint Bid for 2026 World Cup


dfwabel

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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. 

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
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. 

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
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.

Showcasing fan-made sports apparel by artists and designers

Link to comment
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...

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
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. 

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
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. 

 

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
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. 

Cowboys - Lakers - LAFC - USMNT - LA Rams - LA Kings - NUFC 

Link to comment
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.

Showcasing fan-made sports apparel by artists and designers

Link to comment
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

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
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 

Link to comment
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.

Showcasing fan-made sports apparel by artists and designers

Link to comment
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?

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
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. 

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.