I've been thinking about this for a while now.
You know how in most tournaments, the number of teams in a group is often lopsided, and the lowest ranked team in many of the larger groups almost always loses, to the end that people consider playing against said teams little more than an exercise in stats-padding, or a complete waste of player time that could better be spent in club matches.
So here's the proposition.
Instead of having to change the
system for every single tournament, here's what I propose.
- Have the main qualifying stage
always comprise eight groups of six. In EURO, simply bump out the <insert number of hosts here> worst third-place team(s) from advancing (after all, this EURO is going to be the last one with only 16 teams). In the World Cup quals, qualify the two best second-place teams and have the rest play off against each other.
- Have a preliminary qualifying stage for the "minnows," making them earn the right to play in the main stage.
Two possibilities:
1. This would be made up of six teams during WC qualifying where a Euro isn't a host, five teams during WC quals when a Euro
is a host or during EURO when there is one host, or four teams in a EURO with two hosts. (I do hope there is never a three-host event EVER
That would keep the minnows participating to three.) Only the top team would move on.
2. This would be made up of eight teams regardless of the situation (similar to the final WC qualifying stage in Asia), and the number of teams qualifying would depend on how many teams were needed - a bare minimum of three (WC not hosted in Europe) and a theoretical max of five.
Pros and cons of both:
Pros - don't waste the time of more skilled teams with matches they'd be almost guaranteed to win, which would simply pad their stats. Gives all minnows a chance to actually win games. Yes, even San Marino.
Cons - would require disproportionate adjustments to the leagues of these "minnows." Might overextend time needed for qualifications.
Pros and cons of option 1.
Pros - gets the "worst" of Europe out of the way without overdoing it.
Cons - Sometimes involves too few teams.
Pros and cons of option 2.
Pros - consistent number of teams involved. All one needs to do is change the number of promotions to suit the tournament situation.
Cons - Might overdo it with team numbers, allowing a "big minnow" to pad their stats a little.
Now, how would these teams be implemented into the main phase? Obviously they'd go in pot #6, but the number of teams would range from 1 (if using Option 1) to 5 or 6 (in extreme cases of option #2). Here's a hypothetical one-host EURO tournament based on the current FIFA rankings to help you understand:
Let's make the host Spain.
(using system #1)
Preliminary tournament:
Faeroe Islands
Liechtenstein
Malta
Andorra
San Marino
(Say Liechtenstein won)
Pot 6 for the main tournament:
Moldova
Cyprus
Azerbaijan
Iceland
Wales
Luxembourg
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein (would start as an open spot and then the winning team got added)
Now using option 2 (always eight teams, making the number of qualifying teams four in this case) it would look a little more like this:
Group 1 - Wales, Faeroe Islands, Malta, Andorra
Group 2 - Luxembourg, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, San Marino
Two from each group would move on, and for hypothesis' sake let's say it was Wales, the Faeroes, Kazakhstan, and Luxembourg that moved up (if more qualifiers were needed you could always have a one-match playoff).
And then you don't have to worry about wonky scheduling based on goofy numbers of teams in a group.
I can see how this would work, and I could see how it might not be able to.
Your thoughts?
0 Replies
3817 Views