Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nighthawk252 t1_jc78g54 wrote

Thankfully they’re scrapping the 3 team group format.

600

Bucksandreds t1_jc78xab wrote

I don’t like the additional teams but groups of three with 2 group games each was going to make collusion inevitable.

My 48 team WC system

Teams 1-16 (based off qualifying start with a bye.

Teams 17-48 play a single game do or die game

Winners of single elimination game are entered into groups with the 1-16 teams and then a typical WC schedule begins.

You’d get more teams in the WC and create 16 more knock out games without messing with the previous format after the do or die games. Also no 3rd place teams get into the knockout rounds

−21

xhyzBOSS t1_jc7eoea wrote

-.- Destroy the sport then.

−26

Cosmos1985 t1_jc7hqcu wrote

Not sure how I feel about more teams and more games, but avoiding the idiotic 3-team-format in the group stage is surely a huge relief.

276

bossmt_2 t1_jc7idee wrote

YASSSS

As someone who loves international soccer this sparks so much joy. Also it means more of a shot for me to get to go to USMNT match that year.

74

bravetab t1_jc7jflc wrote

More football is a good thing. Wonder how this will effect the players having to potentially play extra games though.

5

Jassida t1_jc7joii wrote

Why doesn’t the title explain anything?

−6

Schmaucher t1_jc7n43w wrote

48 teams is way too many. Just decreases the quality of those initial games. It'll be almost certainly the same teams at the end anyway. Just pads it all out and adds some nations that field Championship level teams to get bopped by France so that Mbappe can claim the all time WC goalscorer record before he's 30

106

Minia15 t1_jc7opkx wrote

Replying to Schmaucher (#2,229,760)

Parity will continue to increase. Those lower ranked teams will get better and better and dual citizen players will potentially have more options without having to risk missing.

72

theNatureOf t1_jc7z9az wrote

I usually watch every game but I feel like this is too much? It's only going to wear out the players and decrease the playing quality like someone mentioned before.

9

FrancoNore t1_jc809yc wrote

Replying to Schmaucher (#2,229,760)

Not necessarily. Every year there’s multiple decent teams that get left out our the WC. In 2022 you have Italy, Sweden, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Norway, and Nigeria, for example.

Yeah there will be some lesser teams that make it in, but every WC we see shocking results that change group dynamics, even if a team doesn’t make it through the group they still have a chance to cause chaos by pulling a draw or upset win.

Not to mention WC appearances will likely help the development of the nations that otherwise wouldn’t make it in, and many dual citizens may be more inclined to play for the lesser team in favor of playing time

39

TheNextBattalion t1_jc80nct wrote

Replying to Minia15 (#2,229,860)

They did say the same about the 24 and 32 team expansions, but other nations stepped up. Sure it's always the same few at the very end (or nearly so), but until that point there's a lot of drama

27

DJNerateFUCK t1_jc81zm3 wrote

adding more games without fixing overtime issues? those players are gonna be dead before they reach the final

1

Saltire_Blue t1_jc82puo wrote

Replying to Schmaucher (#2,229,760)

People don’t really watch the WC for the quality in my experience

It’s the biggest sport tournament in the world, football is truly a global sport

It can also give your country a real buzz about it knowing they have qualified for the tournament

63

swagapotomus t1_jc835qk wrote

Great, three teams can make it. Look forward to watching shit teams play for ties 👍🏻👍🏻

1

Magmaster12 t1_jc86bzh wrote

Anything to justify Canada being in the tournament.

−15

sebystee t1_jc8aftn wrote

Replying to poklane (#2,230,929)

It does have the benefit that every team will go into the last match day of having at least a mathematical chance of qualifying as teams a number of teams will qualify from 3rd place. It does have the disadvantage of having teams in later groups knowing results of earlier games and potentially being able 'fix' their games accordingly. Every as system has its flaws, but I feel they should've just left it at 32 as it has the least and ensures only quality teams will qualify for the final tournament.

112

fatamSC2 t1_jc8jdhv wrote

Replying to poklane (#2,230,929)

I agree. The best world cup in my eyes is the same # of teams (or so) but a loser's bracket for the bracket stage. The lower scoring the sport is, the more flukey results you get when it comes to a single game. One lucky bounce, one guy slipping on some bad turf at the wrong time, etc. etc. can mean the worse team wins a best of 1. If we're truly interested in having the best team in the world win, we need to reduce the effects of flukiness like that.

−4

Ali_knows t1_jc8k7co wrote

Replying to Magmaster12 (#2,230,810)

I honestly believe that there was some truth to this. It didn't seem fair to have 3 teams from CONCACAF get a free pass, especially given that one didn't have a good form. But Canada is king of CONCACAF now 😎

3

Sugarbear23 t1_jc8ldh9 wrote

At least the dumb ass 3 teams per group is gone.

4

justreddis t1_jc8nz83 wrote

Replying to Cosmos1985 (#2,229,416)

Man reminded me of the old times when they had 2-team groups. Guys were essentially trying to murder each other by the end of the 4-match back-to-back-to-back-to-back head-to-head stretches.

23

Bashful_Tuba t1_jc8o7f9 wrote

Replying to JohnCocktoastener (#2,231,077)

I would have been fine with 3 team (2 games each) group stage if that meant that the mini-group stage was used as a qualifier for a double-elimination playoff format. I.e., 1st place goes to winners bracket, 2nd-3rd starts in the losers bracket so everyone was guaranteed the 3 game minimum but the bonus of a couple juicy matchups early in the winners bracket a la France vs Brazil with the loser dropping down to the losers bracket the following round but still surviving at least another game.

16

ForWhomTheBoneBones t1_jc8p2fu wrote

Replying to TheNextBattalion (#2,230,527)

There's a superfan turned scout who has jumpstarted El Salvador's football program in hopes of getting the team into the 2026 World Cup.

El Salvador has suffered a major talent drain since the start of its Civil War that continued after it ended thanks to all the gang violence.

As such, this guy is scouring the Earth to find players born to Salvadoran parents in order to rebuild the team and put them on the world stage.

The craziest part is that it's working.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230215051430/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/sports/soccer/usmnt-el-salvador-world-cup.html

10

-cyg-nus- t1_jc8q06e wrote

It'll still be boring. They should make it full contact. At least start calling embellishment penalties for faking an injury every time a blade of grass hits them in the ankle. Swear, biggest bunch of fuckin babies in the world, soccer players.

−9

ForWhomTheBoneBones t1_jc8q4ib wrote

Replying to postmawho (#2,231,868)

I should explain further. In the years since El Salvador's civil war started, a lot of it's able-bodied young men fled the country for their own safety.

Fewer young men in the country means that there's a smaller talent pool to field a team from. As such, the quality of El Salvador's teams have declined over the past 40 years.

As far as sounding like an AI robot, I guess I write at a level that is both generic enough and good enough for a bot trying to be a good writer.

9

SebastianOwenR1 t1_jc8r3h9 wrote

24 more than it would’ve with 3 group teams, which was the original plan. In comparison to the 2022 World Cup, this competition will have 40 more games. From 64-104, due to the expansion to 48 teams.

0

mgmfa t1_jc8racx wrote

Replying to poklane (#2,230,929)

3 team groups, each group is paired with another group. Everyone in group A plays everyone in group B and no one in group A. Then the top team from each group advances to a top 16. Same number of games per team as the previous iterations, same single elim size, and each team plays exactly the same opponents.

6

postmawho t1_jc8t0s1 wrote

Replying to ForWhomTheBoneBones (#2,231,888)

Fair enough. I believe you're real (can't be too careful. Idk where El Salvador is with AI tech).

I'm sorry to hear that. I always like seeing El Salvador in the World Cup and I hope they can prosper from this.

−8

Anutka25 t1_jc8tnpe wrote

I really need a visual flow chart of this.

1

ForWhomTheBoneBones t1_jc8uhfy wrote

Replying to postmawho (#2,232,028)

They've been in it twice. Once in 1970 and again in 1986. They've been close a number of times, but it usually has come down to winning one more game in their conference and it's usually been against Mexico - which is to say that they get trounced before they make it to the Cup.

3

nangarranga t1_jc8uxwj wrote

Replying to Jassida (#2,229,540)

Yes, that’s what the article is for, but I can also see where you’re coming from. Namely, the title doesn’t mention the fact that the 2026 WC will have 48 teams.

Fortunately I, and most other commenters here, already knew that, but without that context it doesn’t make sense how a 4-teams-per-group format has 24 more games than previous 4-teams-per-group WCs

2

guhjcjhfg t1_jc8w5nq wrote

Why have it in human rights abusing countries? The USA politicians who did Iraq war have still not been held accountable. They had the audacity to call out others.

−3

NastyBass28 t1_jc8y9xu wrote

With 24 more games, will that increase the amount of sites for the group stages?

3

nighthawk252 t1_jc8z23r wrote

Replying to yumyumgivemesome (#2,232,258)

They were planning on changing that to accommodate the larger tournament field in 2026. According to the article, that has been scrapped.

The reason I dislike 3 team groups is that it creates un-competitive incentives. Teams pretty regularly would be forced into scenarios where both teams are perfectly content with a draw in order to make sure both teams advance, and it would be to your competitive disadvantage to play in the first two games.

8

Japordoo t1_jc909yj wrote

Replying to pargofan (#2,232,268)

They were. On a whole though you’re seeing more sophisticated tactics at the club level just because the players are picked for a system and it’s honed week in and week out.

3

agoia t1_jc90s83 wrote

Replying to NastyBass28 (#2,232,282)

More countries = 33% more places to sell shit. More games = more time to sell ads. Might lengthen the whole deal vs adding more sites, which could overburden potential host countries.

4

Buv82 t1_jc94k9d wrote

Utter garbage. The only hope for soccer is for Coca Cola and Budweiser to walk away from FIFA

1

Sino13 t1_jc957je wrote

Replying to theNatureOf (#2,230,452)

Start watching in the second round? Lol idk where the line is drawn before any professional sports tournament gets “too big” but I’m generally a fan of welcoming more competition.

I don’t watch much college basketball during the regular season but it’s always a blast seeing some random small-school team who squeaked into the NCAA tournament go on a run for a few rounds. That’s more energizing/entertaining to me than watching the same blue-blood schools who ultimately win the championship more years than not.

When the scope of the tournament starts having a negative impact on the performance of the championship match then that’s too far imo though

2

anonssr t1_jc98tpz wrote

Replying to Saltire_Blue (#2,230,619)

I mean, it's true but it sucks when you blatantly see the switch from "let's have the best of the best compite to see who is the actually the best!" to "alright, how can we make more money outta this?".

It not only decreases the quality, it's just fucking sucks. The football calendar it's already insane at the top level. Some players having you to 70 games per (normal) year. The regular WC adds 7 games in 3 weeks for the top 4. Lots of players end up having injuries bexause of how many games they play and how little rest in between games they get.

So, it kinda sucks overall. It's not gonna be a great thing as a result but it's definitely gonna bring more attention to it and most likely bring more turism cash to the hosts.

3

ojdewar t1_jc9hq5s wrote

I worry that the World Cup will be bloated now, even more 0-0 draws between poor teams and heavy victories by the ‘big’ teams in the group stages and more importantly no all top 10 matches in the group stages to get excited about early on.

I’d probably only start watching from the knockout stages onwards.

1

GongTzu t1_jc9j04a wrote

24 more games, that’s almost unbearable. Last years World Cup had quite a few awful and dull games, adding more teams and more games will just make it worse. World Cup should only be the best of the best, that’s what you want to see.

1

AlexMelillo t1_jc9neyi wrote

Way too many teams. Going will no longer feel prestigious

2

onlythetoast t1_jc9xocn wrote

That's actually pretty cool. Soccer is boring as shit, but that's pretty cool for its premier tournament.

1

Rob-Top t1_jcacid6 wrote

Replying to Picolete (#2,234,615)

Yep, 200 odd countries in the world. 1/4:at the world cup. All they are doing is letting more shit teams enter. It makes the competition worse, not better overall. Its already dragged out over a month. Now what ! It's not like they ain't already making a shit ton of cash from the event, they need more. They need your money

1