WCQ: Third Round - Window 5 (March 24 - 30, 2022)

[Allez les Rouges]

1 hour ago, Vasi said:

I think it makes sense to have a large group like in South America. 

We do not have enough teams and decants ones that that in CONCACAF to do what the CAF does. 

You might have playoffs for the minnows to get in to the final group stage. Much like the pre tournament for this qualifying cycle. 

I don't think this would work well. With 6 spots, you'd probably need at least 10 teams to keep things somewhat interesting. Hard to see how you can fit that into the schedule given that, unlike CONMEBOL, we'd need to first cut the field down from 35.

[Kingston]

12 minutes ago, Allez les Rouges said:

Hard to see how you can fit that into the schedule given that, unlike CONMEBOL, we'd need to first cut the field down from 35.

Canada annexes the US.  Mexico annexes Central America.  Cuba annexes the Caribbean.  The new Canada, Mexico, and Cuba join Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana as the six permanent CONCACAF qualifiers.  The field has been cut.

[Approve My Account Pls]

6 minutes ago, Kingston said:

Canada annexes the US.  Mexico annexes Central America.  Cuba annexes the Caribbean.  The new Canada, Mexico, and Cuba join Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana as the six permanent CONCACAF qualifiers.  The field has been cut.

Vladdy what you doing on the Canadian Soccer News forum

[Meepmeep]

1 hour ago, archer21 said:

6 groups of 6 (one of the groups has 5). Top 3 make in each group it to final round. 3 groups of 6, top 2 in each group to WC. I’m completely talking out of my ass right now, but seems like a solution. Would suck (for viewing purposes) to not see USA or Mexico at all during qualifying though, assuming we stay as the highest 3 seeds by then.

How about 4 groups of 4.  Tops teams make it.  4 second place teams have playoff for last 2 spots.  

OR

2 groups of 6

Top 2 in each group qualify them 3/4th place teams have cross over playoff for last two spots  

 

If I were King for a day I’d try and build the game in the region by being brave enough to say we don’t have to have Mexico USA in qualifying every time.  Easy to say too now that we are an emerging regional force.     
Let’s get some of these “smaller” nations involved for a longer time in the process and not eliminated 3 years before the Cup finals.   

Anyways, not really on topic but fun to consider. 

[Allez les Rouges]

2 hours ago, archer21 said:

6 groups of 6 (one of the groups has 5). Top 3 make in each group it to final round. 3 groups of 6, top 2 in each group to WC. I’m completely talking out of my ass right now, but seems like a solution. Would suck (for viewing purposes) to not see USA or Mexico at all during qualifying though, assuming we stay as the highest 3 seeds by then.

I think that's too many teams in the final round, making for a bunch of uncompetitive matches. Also, having 3 groups would likely mean CAN, USA and MEX in different groups and never meeting. With a 2-round format, I'd prefer to flip things: take Top 2 in the first round to make 2 groups of 6, and then take Top 3 in the final round.

To make games more interesting, CONCACAF might want to consider an asymmetric format. Something like:

Phase 1 (3 windows): Preliminary Groups
- Group A: Teams #1-4 (FIFA rankings); top 2 bye to Hex A, bottom 2 to Phase 2A (Pot 1)
- Group B: Teams #5-8; winner bye to Hex A, runner-up to Phase 2A (Pot 1), bottom 2 to Phase 2A (Pot 2)
- Other groups: Bottom 27 teams in 6 groups of 4 and 1 group of 3; best winner advances to Phase 2A (Pot 2), 6 other winners advance to Phase 2B, 20 remaining teams eliminated
In the end, Phase 1 produces 3 teams to Hex A, 6 teams to Phase 2A and 6 teams to Phase 2B

Phase 2 (1 window): Home-and-away
- Phase 2A: Winners to Hex A, losers to Hex B
- Phase 2B: Winners to Hex B, losers eliminated

Phase 3 (5 windows): Hex's
- Hex A: Top 3 qualify, bottom 3 to Phase 4
- Hex B: Top 3 to Phase 4, bottom 3 eliminated

Phase 4 (1 window): Home-and-away
- 3 winners qualify, 3 losers eliminated

The idea is to:
- Start with a group phase so all teams get to play at least 4 games (most teams at least 6, top 8 teams at least 16).
- Maximize number of times top teams meet each other in meaningful matches - so tiered final group phase.
- Give every team a theoretical chance to enter the top final group (what I call "Hex A"), unlike the original format for 2022.
- Do everything within 10 qualifying windows (which is a lot, but no more than AFC and just 1 more than CONMEBOL).

The main downside is that a format like this is complicated. But we get to play meaningful matches against the US and Mexico in both Phases 1 and 3, rather than potentially avoiding them altogether in formats with 2 or more equal final groups. That seems like a huge plus to me.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Allez les Rouges
Improve clarity

[archer21]

19 minutes ago, Allez les Rouges said:

I think that's too many teams in the final round, making for a bunch of uncompetitive matches. Also, having 3 groups would likely mean CAN, USA and MEX in different groups and never meeting. With a 2-round format, I'd prefer to flip things: take Top 2 in the first round to make 2 groups of 6, and then take Top 3 in the final round.

To make games more interesting, CONCACAF might want to consider an asymmetric format like the original one for this year. Something like:

Phase 1 (3 windows): Preliminary Groups
- Group A: Teams #1-4 (FIFA rankings); top 2 bye to Hex A, bottom 2 to Phase 2A (Pot 1)
- Group B: Teams #5-8; winner bye to Hex A, runner-up to Phase 2A (Pot 1), bottom 2 to Phase 2A (Pot 2)
- Other groups: Bottom 27 teams in 6 groups of 4 and 1 group of 3; best winner advances to Phase 2A (Pot 2), 6 other winners advance to Phase 2B, 20 remaining teams eliminated
In the end, Phase 1 produces 3 teams to Hex A, 6 teams to Phase 2A and 6 teams to Phase 2B

Phase 2 (1 window): Home-and-away
- Phase 2A: Winners to Group 3A, losers to Group 3B
- Phase 2B: Winners to Group 3B, losers eliminated

Phase 3 (5 windows): Hex's
- Hex A: Top 3 qualify, bottom 3 to Phase 4
- Hex B: Top 3 to Phase 4, bottom 3 eliminated

Phase 4 (1 window): Home-and-away
- 3 winners qualify, 3 losers eliminated

The idea is to:
- Start with a group phase so all teams get to play at least 4 games.
- Maximize number of times top teams meet each other in meaningful matches - so tiered final group phase.
- Give every team a theoretical chance to enter the top final group (what I call "Hex A"), unlike the original format for 2022.
- Do everything within 10 qualifying windows (which is a lot, but no more than AFC and just 1 more than CONMEBOL).

The main downside is that a format like this is complicated. But we get to play meaningful matches against the US and Mexico in both Phases 1 and 3, rather than potentially avoiding them altogether in formats with 2 or more equal final groups. That seems like a huge plus to me.

That may work well but honestly it’s way too complicated. Good luck getting casuals to buy in to watching those matches when they have absolutely no idea what the implications even are.

[Allez les Rouges]

5 minutes ago, archer21 said:

That may work well but honestly it’s way too complicated. Good luck getting casuals to buy in to watching those matches when they have absolutely no idea what the implications even are.

The thing is that casuals probably don't watch early qualifying games anyway. By the time you're in Phase 3, it's no more complicated than what we have now. If you're in Hex A, you need Top 3 to qualify, and otherwise you go to playoffs.

[Treppy2]

3 hours ago, sstackho said:

@maplebanana  I don't remember seeing any pictures of poutine last night.  And we lost.  Justify your actions. 

 

 

I also have to apologize for my part in last night's result. I'm required to change my work password every 12 weeks. 11 weeks ago I changed it to (a slight variation of) "WeQualifyMarch27!"

I guess if I had changed it to "WeQualifyMarch24!" the result would have been different last night. 🙃

[Kadenge]

20 hours ago, Kadenge said:

#FH

🧢

[CanadianSoccerFan]

7 hours ago, Allez les Rouges said:

I don't think this would work well. With 6 spots, you'd probably need at least 10 teams to keep things somewhat interesting. Hard to see how you can fit that into the schedule given that, unlike CONMEBOL, we'd need to first cut the field down from 35.

Solution is the dual pathway model CONCACAF originally proposed but with 10 or 12 teams in the A pathway.  

[An Observer]

1 hour ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

Solution is the dual pathway model CONCACAF originally proposed but with 10 or 12 teams in the A pathway.  

I haven’t thought it through but I like the idea of top 10 with top 5 going through and 6th playing the winner of the other pathway for the last spot and the loser going into the intercontinental playoffs

[footballfreak]

Single table doesn’t work with 6 teams qualifying. Too many games featuring an already qualified teams phoning it in against teams on the bubble. Huge potential for match fixing or even just unlucky scheduling eliminating teams unjustly. Even with 3.5 spots in the Ocho, there is a good chance Panama and Costa Rica’s hopes will hinge on what lineups a qualified Canada/USA put out on the last day.

Three possible alternatives:

Option 1:

• Preliminary round(s) 35–>24 (Open to interpretation, whatever formats time will allow for)
• Main round: 24 teams. 4 groups of 6. 6 match days. Group winners qualify to the World Cup. 2nd+3rd place goes to the Repechage.
• Repechage 8 teams. 14 match days. Top 2 qualify or winner qualifies and 2 vs 3 playoff for the final spot.

Pros: The big guns qualify early and are removed from the process, allowing the bubble teams to scrap against themselves properly. Chance to recover from an unkind draw or fluke result in the shortened main round.

Cons: 2 spots from an 8 team Octagonal would end up putting a number of teams out of the running early. Lots of pointless games unless you give the teams down the table something to play for. The 6 early qualifiers would need a parallel competition (Did someone say Hex?) to prepare for the World Cup. 

—-

Option 2:

Round 1: 6 teams (29-35). Single location round robin. Top 3 advance. Nations League League C can double as this round if necessary. Honestly come up with whatever suits these nations best financially and competition-wise. Just get us down to 32 teams. ~5 games.

Round 2: 1st-16th (Gold Cup qualifiers) recieve a bye. 17th-29th + 3 Rd. 1 qualifiers: 4 groups of 4. Top 2 in each group advance. 32–>24. 6 games

Round 3: 24 teams. 6 groups of 4. Top 2 in each group advance. 24–>12. 6 games.

Final Round: 12 teams. 2 Groups of 6. 10 games. Top 3 qualify automatically.* 

*Alternatively, top 2 in each group qualify automatically. 3rd and 4th go to a playoff. 3A vs. 4B, 3B vs. 4A. 3rd place finishers host the second leg. 

Approximate number of games played assuming it goes chalk:

1st-12th [16/18]

13th-16th [6]

17th-24th [12]

25th-30th [6]

30th-32nd [11]

33rd-35th [~5]

Pros: Very few meaningless games, particularly if you add the 3v4 playoff. Reasonably forgiving preliminary rounds avoid one-off situations like the Suriname game. Bubble teams are unlikely to be eliminated before the double hex,

Cons: Uneven distribution of games. Not really happy with the 13th-16th cohort only getting 6 games, but those teams are already playing extra Gold Cup games compared to the teams directly below them, so it somewhat balances out. Very unlikely to see USA-MEX. CAN-USA 50/50.

—

Option 3: Modified Swiss

I’m curious to see how this is handled in the Champions League, but if they can pull it off, it would be perfect for CONCACAF. 

Pros:

• It’s scalable and flexible. Swiss tournaments can handle any number of teams including odd numbers. 34 out of 35 teams will play on each match day, so the number of wasted match days is minimized. Teams with a bye are awarded a draw for the purposes of reseeding and drawing new opponents. This might seem like a big deal, but it works itself out over the long run and does not affect overall outcomes. If your point total is lower than it should be because you got an early round bye, you will be matched with weaker team(s) in subsequent round(s) and will quickly find your level. These byes can also be preferentially given to teams in the bottom of the standings to minimize expenses for them. 
• No more situations like the Suriname game where 1 fluke could have sent us crashing out early. Every team would be mathematically capable of qualifying for longer, and 1 bad result matters less in the early stages.
• It is resilient to unforeseen events like countries pulling out of qualifying at short notice.
• Number of games can be scaled up or down at CONCACAF’s convenience. The more games played, the more accurate the final standings.
• Most importantly: Good teams gravitate towards good teams as the rounds go on. We might play Cayman Islands in round 1, but very quickly you’re only playing teams at or around your performance level. Swiss ensures games like USA v Mexico, Canada v USA, etc, continue to occur in a post Hex/Ocho era.
• Games in the first few rounds can be used to try untested players/systems.

Cons:

• Super minnows may not want to play 10+ games.
• Harder to explain to casual fans
• Scheduling becomes trickier: In a normal swiss open, players are reseeded after each game. That isn’t realistic logistically, so some qualifying, where teams are seeded into pots, and you play a certain number of teams from each pot. Ex: 6 pots, each team plays 1 game against a team from each pot over three windows (Sept/Oct/Nov), and then the pots are reseeded based on points earned and the schedule for the next windows in January/February/March. Rinse and repeat as necessary. 

Edited March 26, 2022 by footballfreak

[Allez les Rouges]

2 hours ago, footballfreak said:

Single table doesn’t work with 6 teams qualifying. Too many games featuring an already qualified teams phoning it in against teams on the bubble. Huge potential for match fixing or even just unlucky scheduling eliminating teams unjustly. Even with 3.5 spots in the Ocho, there is a good chance Panama and Costa Rica’s hopes will hinge on what lineups a qualified Canada/USA put out on the last day.

Three possible alternatives:

Option 1:

• Preliminary round(s) 35–>24 (Open to interpretation, whatever formats time will allow for)
• Main round: 24 teams. 4 groups of 6. 6 match days. Group winners qualify to the World Cup. 2nd+3rd place goes to the Repechage.
• Repechage 8 teams. 14 match days. Top 2 qualify or winner qualifies and 2 vs 3 playoff for the final spot.

Pros: The big guns qualify early and are removed from the process, allowing the bubble teams to scrap against themselves properly. Chance to recover from an unkind draw or fluke result in the shortened main round.

Cons: 2 spots from an 8 team Octagonal would end up putting a number of teams out of the running early. Lots of pointless games unless you give the teams down the table something to play for. The 6 early qualifiers would need a parallel competition (Did someone say Hex?) to prepare for the World Cup. 

—-

Option 2:

Round 1: 6 teams (29-35). Single location round robin. Top 3 advance. Nations League League C can double as this round if necessary. Honestly come up with whatever suits these nations best financially and competition-wise. Just get us down to 32 teams. ~5 games.

Round 2: 1st-16th (Gold Cup qualifiers) recieve a bye. 17th-29th + 3 Rd. 1 qualifiers: 4 groups of 4. Top 2 in each group advance. 32–>24. 6 games

Round 3: 24 teams. 6 groups of 4. Top 2 in each group advance. 24–>12. 6 games.

Final Round: 12 teams. 2 Groups of 6. 10 games. Top 3 qualify automatically.* 

*Alternatively, top 2 in each group qualify automatically. 3rd and 4th go to a playoff. 3A vs. 4B, 3B vs. 4A. 3rd place finishers host the second leg. 

Approximate number of games played assuming it goes chalk:

1st-12th [16/18]

13th-16th [6]

17th-24th [12]

25th-30th [6]

30th-32nd [11]

33rd-35th [~5]

Pros: Very few meaningless games, particularly if you add the 3v4 playoff. Reasonably forgiving preliminary rounds avoid one-off situations like the Suriname game. Bubble teams are unlikely to be eliminated before the double hex,

Cons: Uneven distribution of games. Not really happy with the 13th-16th cohort only getting 6 games, but those teams are already playing extra Gold Cup games compared to the teams directly below them, so it somewhat balances out. Very unlikely to see USA-MEX. CAN-USA 50/50.

—

Option 3: Modified Swiss

I’m curious to see how this is handled in the Champions League, but if they can pull it off, it would be perfect for CONCACAF. 

Pros:

• It’s scalable and flexible. Swiss tournaments can handle any number of teams including odd numbers. 34 out of 35 teams will play on each match day, so the number of wasted match days is minimized. Teams with a bye are awarded a draw for the purposes of reseeding and drawing new opponents. This might seem like a big deal, but it works itself out over the long run and does not affect overall outcomes. If your point total is lower than it should be because you got an early round bye, you will be matched with weaker team(s) in subsequent round(s) and will quickly find your level. These byes can also be preferentially given to teams in the bottom of the standings to minimize expenses for them. 
• No more situations like the Suriname game where 1 fluke could have sent us crashing out early. Every team would be mathematically capable of qualifying for longer, and 1 bad result matters less in the early stages.
• It is resilient to unforeseen events like countries pulling out of qualifying at short notice.
• Number of games can be scaled up or down at CONCACAF’s convenience. The more games played, the more accurate the final standings.
• Most importantly: Good teams gravitate towards good teams as the rounds go on. We might play Cayman Islands in round 1, but very quickly you’re only playing teams at or around your performance level. Swiss ensures games like USA v Mexico, Canada v USA, etc, continue to occur in a post Hex/Ocho era.
• Games in the first few rounds can be used to try untested players/systems.

Cons:

• Super minnows may not want to play 10+ games.
• Harder to explain to casual fans
• Scheduling becomes trickier: In a normal swiss open, players are reseeded after each game. That isn’t realistic logistically, so some qualifying, where teams are seeded into pots, and you play a certain number of teams from each pot. Ex: 6 pots, each team plays 1 game against a team from each pot over three windows (Sept/Oct/Nov), and then the pots are reseeded based on points earned and the schedule for the next windows in January/February/March. Rinse and repeat as necessary. 

What I don't like about Options 1 and 2 is that one of the top 3 teams could go through qualifying without playing another top 3 team even once. More generally, having similarly ranked teams play each other should produce more interesting games. That's why I proposed an asymmetric format above (and I assume also why @CanadianSoccerFan and @An Observer like a "dual pathway" model - the format I proposed is a variation on that where teams need to earn their spot in the top path).

Option 3 (Swiss) violates FIFA regulations for WCQ. Of course, regulations could be changed, but even the single round robins this year were only allowed due to COVID.
https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/517ef2ad2bc3665e/original/ytkbpnxyvcghx6bebesv-pdf.pdf

[TGAA_Star]

17 hours ago, Allez les Rouges said:

I think that's too many teams in the final round, making for a bunch of uncompetitive matches. Also, having 3 groups would likely mean CAN, USA and MEX in different groups and never meeting. With a 2-round format, I'd prefer to flip things: take Top 2 in the first round to make 2 groups of 6, and then take Top 3 in the final round.

To make games more interesting, CONCACAF might want to consider an asymmetric format. Something like:

Phase 1 (3 windows): Preliminary Groups
- Group A: Teams #1-4 (FIFA rankings); top 2 bye to Hex A, bottom 2 to Phase 2A (Pot 1)
- Group B: Teams #5-8; winner bye to Hex A, runner-up to Phase 2A (Pot 1), bottom 2 to Phase 2A (Pot 2)
- Other groups: Bottom 27 teams in 6 groups of 4 and 1 group of 3; best winner advances to Phase 2A (Pot 2), 6 other winners advance to Phase 2B, 20 remaining teams eliminated
In the end, Phase 1 produces 3 teams to Hex A, 6 teams to Phase 2A and 6 teams to Phase 2B

Phase 2 (1 window): Home-and-away
- Phase 2A: Winners to Hex A, losers to Hex B
- Phase 2B: Winners to Hex B, losers eliminated

Phase 3 (5 windows): Hex's
- Hex A: Top 3 qualify, bottom 3 to Phase 4
- Hex B: Top 3 to Phase 4, bottom 3 eliminated

Phase 4 (1 window): Home-and-away
- 3 winners qualify, 3 losers eliminated

The idea is to:
- Start with a group phase so all teams get to play at least 4 games (most teams at least 6, top 8 teams at least 16).
- Maximize number of times top teams meet each other in meaningful matches - so tiered final group phase.
- Give every team a theoretical chance to enter the top final group (what I call "Hex A"), unlike the original format for 2022.
- Do everything within 10 qualifying windows (which is a lot, but no more than AFC and just 1 more than CONMEBOL).

The main downside is that a format like this is complicated. But we get to play meaningful matches against the US and Mexico in both Phases 1 and 3, rather than potentially avoiding them altogether in formats with 2 or more equal final groups. That seems like a huge plus to me.

If this is your proposal for like future qualifying cycles then I do not have a problem with it

But then how do you make this work for 2026 especially since Canada, USA and Mexico are all hosting and we are not going to be taking part in qualifying for our own World Cup in our own backyard 

[AvroArrow]

If you haven't watched it already, find yourself a copy of the highlights from the recent US-Mex game and watch the terrible finishing by Pulsic and Pefok.  Brutal.

Actually, just found both on the MLS site:

https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/what-went-right-for-the-usmnt-at-mexico-what-it-means-for-sunday-s-game-vs-panam

Edited March 26, 2022 by AvroArrow

[narduch]

9 hours ago, footballfreak said:

Single table doesn’t work with 6 teams qualifying. Too many games featuring an already qualified teams phoning it in against teams on the bubble. Huge potential for match fixing or even just unlucky scheduling eliminating teams unjustly. Even with 3.5 spots in the Ocho, there is a good chance Panama and Costa Rica’s hopes will hinge on what lineups a qualified Canada/USA put out on the last day.

Three possible alternatives:

Option 1:

• Preliminary round(s) 35–>24 (Open to interpretation, whatever formats time will allow for)
• Main round: 24 teams. 4 groups of 6. 6 match days. Group winners qualify to the World Cup. 2nd+3rd place goes to the Repechage.
• Repechage 8 teams. 14 match days. Top 2 qualify or winner qualifies and 2 vs 3 playoff for the final spot.

Pros: The big guns qualify early and are removed from the process, allowing the bubble teams to scrap against themselves properly. Chance to recover from an unkind draw or fluke result in the shortened main round.

Cons: 2 spots from an 8 team Octagonal would end up putting a number of teams out of the running early. Lots of pointless games unless you give the teams down the table something to play for. The 6 early qualifiers would need a parallel competition (Did someone say Hex?) to prepare for the World Cup. 

—-

Option 2:

Round 1: 6 teams (29-35). Single location round robin. Top 3 advance. Nations League League C can double as this round if necessary. Honestly come up with whatever suits these nations best financially and competition-wise. Just get us down to 32 teams. ~5 games.

Round 2: 1st-16th (Gold Cup qualifiers) recieve a bye. 17th-29th + 3 Rd. 1 qualifiers: 4 groups of 4. Top 2 in each group advance. 32–>24. 6 games

Round 3: 24 teams. 6 groups of 4. Top 2 in each group advance. 24–>12. 6 games.

Final Round: 12 teams. 2 Groups of 6. 10 games. Top 3 qualify automatically.* 

*Alternatively, top 2 in each group qualify automatically. 3rd and 4th go to a playoff. 3A vs. 4B, 3B vs. 4A. 3rd place finishers host the second leg. 

Approximate number of games played assuming it goes chalk:

1st-12th [16/18]

13th-16th [6]

17th-24th [12]

25th-30th [6]

30th-32nd [11]

33rd-35th [~5]

Pros: Very few meaningless games, particularly if you add the 3v4 playoff. Reasonably forgiving preliminary rounds avoid one-off situations like the Suriname game. Bubble teams are unlikely to be eliminated before the double hex,

Cons: Uneven distribution of games. Not really happy with the 13th-16th cohort only getting 6 games, but those teams are already playing extra Gold Cup games compared to the teams directly below them, so it somewhat balances out. Very unlikely to see USA-MEX. CAN-USA 50/50.

—

Option 3: Modified Swiss

I’m curious to see how this is handled in the Champions League, but if they can pull it off, it would be perfect for CONCACAF. 

Pros:

• It’s scalable and flexible. Swiss tournaments can handle any number of teams including odd numbers. 34 out of 35 teams will play on each match day, so the number of wasted match days is minimized. Teams with a bye are awarded a draw for the purposes of reseeding and drawing new opponents. This might seem like a big deal, but it works itself out over the long run and does not affect overall outcomes. If your point total is lower than it should be because you got an early round bye, you will be matched with weaker team(s) in subsequent round(s) and will quickly find your level. These byes can also be preferentially given to teams in the bottom of the standings to minimize expenses for them. 
• No more situations like the Suriname game where 1 fluke could have sent us crashing out early. Every team would be mathematically capable of qualifying for longer, and 1 bad result matters less in the early stages.
• It is resilient to unforeseen events like countries pulling out of qualifying at short notice.
• Number of games can be scaled up or down at CONCACAF’s convenience. The more games played, the more accurate the final standings.
• Most importantly: Good teams gravitate towards good teams as the rounds go on. We might play Cayman Islands in round 1, but very quickly you’re only playing teams at or around your performance level. Swiss ensures games like USA v Mexico, Canada v USA, etc, continue to occur in a post Hex/Ocho era.
• Games in the first few rounds can be used to try untested players/systems.

Cons:

• Super minnows may not want to play 10+ games.
• Harder to explain to casual fans
• Scheduling becomes trickier: In a normal swiss open, players are reseeded after each game. That isn’t realistic logistically, so some qualifying, where teams are seeded into pots, and you play a certain number of teams from each pot. Ex: 6 pots, each team plays 1 game against a team from each pot over three windows (Sept/Oct/Nov), and then the pots are reseeded based on points earned and the schedule for the next windows in January/February/March. Rinse and repeat as necessary. 

This is mainly for 2030 qualifying. 

In all likelihood for 2026 Canada, USA and Mexico will get automatic berths.

Meaning only 3 spots will be up for grabs in 2026.

In that case it may make sense to go back to a final Hex.

[Floortom]

30 minutes ago, AvroArrow said:

If you haven't watched it already, find yourself a copy of the highlights from the recent US-Mex game and watch the terrible finishing by Pulsic and Pefok.  Brutal.

Actually, just found both on the MLS site:

https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/what-went-right-for-the-usmnt-at-mexico-what-it-means-for-sunday-s-game-vs-panam

Pefok scores a ton of goals for his club. Not that the Swiss League is super high quality but it’s shocking how bad he is in a US jersey. 

[Bdog]

32 minutes ago, AvroArrow said:

If you haven't watched it already, find yourself a copy of the highlights from the recent US-Mex game and watch the terrible finishing by Pulsic and Pefok.  Brutal.

Actually, just found both on the MLS site:

https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/what-went-right-for-the-usmnt-at-mexico-what-it-means-for-sunday-s-game-vs-panam

Mexico looks so bad these days, I dunno how they declined so quickly. Maybe they do need Flores more than us lol. 

[VinceA]

17 minutes ago, Bdog said:

Mexico looks so bad these days, I dunno how they declined so quickly. Maybe they do need Flores more than us lol. 

Profits have been prioritized over player development. They are still churning out pros very young with lots of potential but most don't improve much and stay stuck in Liga MX because their clubs slap big price tags that scare off outside suitors.

[narduch]

Surprised there haven't been more stories Iike this during this window.

Cannon won't be available for the US v Panama 

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by narduch

[jonovision]

1 hour ago, narduch said:

Surprised there haven't been more stories Iike this during this window.

Cannon won't be available for the US v Panama 

 

I think Oliver Platt of OneSoccer is stuck in Costa Rica for the same reason. Not quite the same, I guess.

[TGAA_Star]

10 hours ago, narduch said:

This is mainly for 2030 qualifying. 

In all likelihood for 2026 Canada, USA and Mexico will get automatic berths.

Meaning only 3 spots will be up for grabs in 2026.

In that case it may make sense to go back to a final Hex.

If that is the format you propose for 2030 qualifying for CONCACAF, then it is perfect and with 2026 if Canada, USA and Mexico are given automatic berths, 3 more spots up for grabs then if they go back to Hex format...then the teams who I think will be there:

 

Jamaica

Honduras

Costa Rica 

Panama

Suriname (replacing El Salvador)

Trinidad and Tobago (back in the Hex)

[Kent]

17 hours ago, Allez les Rouges said:

What I don't like about Options 1 and 2 is that one of the top 3 teams could go through qualifying without playing another top 3 team even once. More generally, having similarly ranked teams play each other should produce more interesting games. That's why I proposed an asymmetric format above (and I assume also why @CanadianSoccerFan and @An Observer like a "dual pathway" model - the format I proposed is a variation on that where teams need to earn their spot in the top path).

Option 3 (Swiss) violates FIFA regulations for WCQ. Of course, regulations could be changed, but even the single round robins this year were only allowed due to COVID.
https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/517ef2ad2bc3665e/original/ytkbpnxyvcghx6bebesv-pdf.pdf

To be honest I didn't read most of the suggestions for new formats above including the one you are referring to. But I know lots of people agree with you that you need, for example, Mexico vs USA games. I am of the opinion that you already have Nations League and the Gold Cup for having the best countries play each other. You don't need to have the same matchups in qualifying as well. I've loved the Octagonal, but when 6 teams make it through I think it's OK to split teams up so they don't play each other. I'm more interested in having more teams involved for longer. I wonder how Curacao, Suriname, or Haiti could have done if they somehow got into the Oct. I haven't put much thought into it, but I'd probably go for something similar to Asia with a double hex final round.

[footballfreak]

18 hours ago, Allez les Rouges said:

What I don't like about Options 1 and 2 is that one of the top 3 teams could go through qualifying without playing another top 3 team even once. More generally, having similarly ranked teams play each other should produce more interesting games. That's why I proposed an asymmetric format above (and I assume also why @CanadianSoccerFan and @An Observer like a "dual pathway" model - the format I proposed is a variation on that where teams need to earn their spot in the top path).

Option 3 (Swiss) violates FIFA regulations for WCQ. Of course, regulations could be changed, but even the single round robins this year were only allowed due to COVID.
https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/517ef2ad2bc3665e/original/ytkbpnxyvcghx6bebesv-pdf.pdf

The idea that the top teams need to play each other in qualifying only persists because of how few spots were previously available. The time to see which team is the the best is at the Gold Cup. The goal of qualifying should be to create a pathway where the best 6 make it. And, as @Kent said, the Nations League provides an extra opportunity for USA and Mexico to meet.

Your dual pathway model is interesting but here’s my problem with it right off the bat: The bottom section of 27 teams is super draw-dependant. Because only 1 of 4 teams advances, you’re taking the 5-16 subset, the group of teams we most want to evaluate for those last few World Cup berths, and eliminating half of them right away. You could very easily lose the 5th and 6th best teams in the region after 6 games.

The tiered hex system only has value if we can get the best teams into them in the first place.

 

[Shway]

I just realized something….I was wondering where the hell is the good luck charm Christian Campagna, and noticed he’s not with the boys but he just played with WFC2.