Proposed venues for Spain according to Marca
2030 FIFA World Cup
2030 FIFA World Cup
A new thread since the old thread has been locked: viewtopic.php?t=6249
Proposed venues for Spain according to Marca
Proposed venues for Spain according to Marca
Could the following format work for future 48 team worlds cups?
12 groups of 4
Top two advance to round of 24. Winners play runner ups like old 32 team format.
The 12 winners advance and 4 groups of 3 are created.
Before the tournament, the drawing of which teams go into the 4 groups could happen. Say for example winner of 1A vs 2B goes to Group M.
Each group plays 2 games with group winners becoming the semi finalists, and then after third place and final.
What are your thoughts?
At the very least it removes the best x from y third place issue.
12 groups of 4
Top two advance to round of 24. Winners play runner ups like old 32 team format.
The 12 winners advance and 4 groups of 3 are created.
Before the tournament, the drawing of which teams go into the 4 groups could happen. Say for example winner of 1A vs 2B goes to Group M.
Each group plays 2 games with group winners becoming the semi finalists, and then after third place and final.
What are your thoughts?
At the very least it removes the best x from y third place issue.
Group of 3 may not be a preferred format as there is one team has to get a byeKev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 03:04 Could the following format work for future 48 team worlds cups?
12 groups of 4
Top two advance to round of 24. Winners play runner ups like old 32 team format.
The 12 winners advance and 4 groups of 3 are created.
Before the tournament, the drawing of which teams go into the 4 groups could happen. Say for example winner of 1A vs 2B goes to Group M.
Each group plays 2 games with group winners becoming the semi finalists, and then after third place and final.
What are your thoughts?
At the very least it removes the best x from y third place issue.
Yes that is a downside to this.Shing wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 13:49Group of 3 may not be a preferred format as there is one team has to get a byeKev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 03:04 Could the following format work for future 48 team worlds cups?
12 groups of 4
Top two advance to round of 24. Winners play runner ups like old 32 team format.
The 12 winners advance and 4 groups of 3 are created.
Before the tournament, the drawing of which teams go into the 4 groups could happen. Say for example winner of 1A vs 2B goes to Group M.
Each group plays 2 games with group winners becoming the semi finalists, and then after third place and final.
What are your thoughts?
At the very least it removes the best x from y third place issue.
Another proposal, a bit more radical than the previous one.
12 groups of 4 but with a twist:
2 sections, one for lack of a better word, called the GOLD section, which contains 8 groups of 4. ( groups A to H) The other section, the SILVER section contains 4 groups of 4. ( groups I to L)
Top two in each group advances. The twist is the winner of the GOLD groups goes directly in the round of 16. The GOLD runnerups and the top two in each SILVER group playoff in the round of 24. The 8 winners then play the 8 GOLD group winners in the round of 16. Knockout stages continue as usual.
This can be done in 96 matches and eliminates need for the third place combinations.
How do you determine what section you go in?
At the draw there are 4 pots.
Pot 1 contains 8 seeded teams ( the host/s plus the remaining highest ranked qualified teams)
Pot 2 contains the next 16 ranked teams
Pot 3 contains the next 12 and Pot 4 the last 12.
Pot 1 teams are drawn into GOLD groups. Pot 2 are drawn in 8 GOLD groups and 4 SILVER groups with SILVER groups having 2 each from Pot 2.
Pot 3 are drawn into GOLD and SILVER groups, starting with all GOLD before SILVER.
Pot 4 as above with Pot 3.
The GOLD group winners would play a maximum of 7 games where as the others would play 8.
To decompensate for having a somewhat easier group than the other 8 Pot 2 teams, the SILVER groups lose the ability to go directly to the round of 16, since they are not having to play the 8 seeded teams.
Round of 24 matchups could look like this:
2A vs 2B, 2C vs 2D, 2E vs 2F, 2G vs 2H, 1I va 2J, 1J vs 2I, 1K vs 2L, 1L vs 2K
Round of 16 matchups:
(1) 1A vs 2C/2D, (2) 1B vs 2E/2F, (7) 1G vs 1K/2L, (8) 1H vs 1J/2I
(3) 1C vs 2A/2B, (4) 1D vs 2G/2H, (5) 1E vs 1J/2I, (6) 1F vs 1L/2K.
Quarter Finals:
(1) 1 vs 2
(4) 7 vs 8
(2) 3 vs 4
(3) 5 vs 6
Semi Finals:
1 vs 4
2 vs 3
Third Place
Final
What do you think of this? Too controversial? Unfair?
12 groups of 4 but with a twist:
2 sections, one for lack of a better word, called the GOLD section, which contains 8 groups of 4. ( groups A to H) The other section, the SILVER section contains 4 groups of 4. ( groups I to L)
Top two in each group advances. The twist is the winner of the GOLD groups goes directly in the round of 16. The GOLD runnerups and the top two in each SILVER group playoff in the round of 24. The 8 winners then play the 8 GOLD group winners in the round of 16. Knockout stages continue as usual.
This can be done in 96 matches and eliminates need for the third place combinations.
How do you determine what section you go in?
At the draw there are 4 pots.
Pot 1 contains 8 seeded teams ( the host/s plus the remaining highest ranked qualified teams)
Pot 2 contains the next 16 ranked teams
Pot 3 contains the next 12 and Pot 4 the last 12.
Pot 1 teams are drawn into GOLD groups. Pot 2 are drawn in 8 GOLD groups and 4 SILVER groups with SILVER groups having 2 each from Pot 2.
Pot 3 are drawn into GOLD and SILVER groups, starting with all GOLD before SILVER.
Pot 4 as above with Pot 3.
The GOLD group winners would play a maximum of 7 games where as the others would play 8.
To decompensate for having a somewhat easier group than the other 8 Pot 2 teams, the SILVER groups lose the ability to go directly to the round of 16, since they are not having to play the 8 seeded teams.
Round of 24 matchups could look like this:
2A vs 2B, 2C vs 2D, 2E vs 2F, 2G vs 2H, 1I va 2J, 1J vs 2I, 1K vs 2L, 1L vs 2K
Round of 16 matchups:
(1) 1A vs 2C/2D, (2) 1B vs 2E/2F, (7) 1G vs 1K/2L, (8) 1H vs 1J/2I
(3) 1C vs 2A/2B, (4) 1D vs 2G/2H, (5) 1E vs 1J/2I, (6) 1F vs 1L/2K.
Quarter Finals:
(1) 1 vs 2
(4) 7 vs 8
(2) 3 vs 4
(3) 5 vs 6
Semi Finals:
1 vs 4
2 vs 3
Third Place
Final
What do you think of this? Too controversial? Unfair?
I think it is an interesting proposal and looks intriguing on the first glance.Kev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 15:09 Another proposal, a bit more radical than the previous one.
12 groups of 4 but with a twist:
2 sections, one for lack of a better word, called the GOLD section, which contains 8 groups of 4. ( groups A to H) The other section, the SILVER section contains 4 groups of 4. ( groups I to L)
Top two in each group advances. The twist is the winner of the GOLD groups goes directly in the round of 16. The GOLD runnerups and the top two in each SILVER group playoff in the round of 24. The 8 winners then play the 8 GOLD group winners in the round of 16. Knockout stages continue as usual.
This can be done in 96 matches and eliminates need for the third place combinations.
How do you determine what section you go in?
At the draw there are 4 pots.
Pot 1 contains 8 seeded teams ( the host/s plus the remaining highest ranked qualified teams)
Pot 2 contains the next 16 ranked teams
Pot 3 contains the next 12 and Pot 4 the last 12.
Pot 1 teams are drawn into GOLD groups. Pot 2 are drawn in 8 GOLD groups and 4 SILVER groups with SILVER groups having 2 each from Pot 2.
Pot 3 are drawn into GOLD and SILVER groups, starting with all GOLD before SILVER.
Pot 4 as above with Pot 3.
The GOLD group winners would play a maximum of 7 games where as the others would play 8.
To decompensate for having a somewhat easier group than the other 8 Pot 2 teams, the SILVER groups lose the ability to go directly to the round of 16, since they are not having to play the 8 seeded teams.
Round of 24 matchups could look like this:
2A vs 2B, 2C vs 2D, 2E vs 2F, 2G vs 2H, 1I va 2J, 1J vs 2I, 1K vs 2L, 1L vs 2K
Round of 16 matchups:
(1) 1A vs 2C/2D, (2) 1B vs 2E/2F, (7) 1G vs 1K/2L, (8) 1H vs 1J/2I
(3) 1C vs 2A/2B, (4) 1D vs 2G/2H, (5) 1E vs 1J/2I, (6) 1F vs 1L/2K.
Quarter Finals:
(1) 1 vs 2
(4) 7 vs 8
(2) 3 vs 4
(3) 5 vs 6
Semi Finals:
1 vs 4
2 vs 3
Third Place
Final
What do you think of this? Too controversial? Unfair?
I understand that proposals of different formats of different competitions on this forum have an entertainment value in the first place, so we shouldn't judge them too strictly. But whenever any proposal of a new format is made, I am interested to see what problem (and whether it is a problem in the first place) it tries to solve. And once that problem is solved whether it introduces new problems, which are bigger than the initial problem or maybe there are also some potential positive externalities.
I see a problem where Gold group winners have a week of rest before facing teams that had an extra match and 3-4 days of rest. An extra match means an extra amount of yellow/red cards.
8 less games net I can see as a neutral, can be spinned both ways.
Probably some minor changes needed to the seeding itself, as in the age of 3 hosts WC you can have them all be in a top seeded pot.
But overall it is one of the interesting and not very intrusive format changes.
-
rpo.castro
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4373
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 17:39
- Location: Braga, Portugal
Deportivo doesn't want to expand their stadium and asks for the stadium to be retired from the list. They consider that the stadium has the right size and they will makes works to fit into UEFA category 4 but under club financial availability and asks the city governor (the owners) to stop this idea (a wise decision IMO).
My proposal does have flaws, although I’m yet to find a 48 team format that doesn’t. Like you mentioned the gold winners have extra rest over the others. With the yellow/red cards I wonder if they could reset that like they have at previous tournaments.
This could be done in around 37 days with a minimum 3 day rest, except for quarter finals to semi finals where I could only fit in 2 for some teams.
That’s true, the more hosts there are, less seeded spots for the top teams.
I feel having an easier group is a good compromise for not getting a direct bye to round of 16.
This format is kind of a variation on one where top 8 winners get bye to round of 16 and the rest playoff to meet them. But how do you matchup 4 winners and 12 runner ups without some sort of combination system.
Yes giving best 8 winners is more on merit where as my proposal is more luck of the draw.
Football purists may find my proposal too left field.
This could be done in around 37 days with a minimum 3 day rest, except for quarter finals to semi finals where I could only fit in 2 for some teams.
That’s true, the more hosts there are, less seeded spots for the top teams.
I feel having an easier group is a good compromise for not getting a direct bye to round of 16.
This format is kind of a variation on one where top 8 winners get bye to round of 16 and the rest playoff to meet them. But how do you matchup 4 winners and 12 runner ups without some sort of combination system.
Yes giving best 8 winners is more on merit where as my proposal is more luck of the draw.
Football purists may find my proposal too left field.
-
rpo.castro
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4373
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 17:39
- Location: Braga, Portugal
It will be like Euro and as it as been always: winners, runners ups and best thirds until we have the number that fits the progression 2,4,8,16,32,64,128. In this case,32.
My preference was to stay at 32 teams but if they must have 48 then I preferred one of their original proposals: 16 teams get byes to the group stage and the other 32 have a play-off round to decide who joins them. That would effectively keep the existing format, but just add a giant intercontinental play-off as part of the world cup as a "starter course." In some ways it would improve on the current format, since some of the weaker teams would get chopped more quickly, resulting in a stronger 32-team group stage with better teams. It avoids the "best 3rd place" nonsense. The downside is that some teams would go home after 1 game. Another issue is that some federations could have no teams in the group stage. The latter could be taken care of by saying that the byes would include the top 2 from each federation (except Oceania) with the remaining teams being the best in FIFA rankings.Kev wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 01:06 My proposal does have flaws, although I’m yet to find a 48 team format that doesn’t. Like you mentioned the gold winners have extra rest over the others. With the yellow/red cards I wonder if they could reset that like they have at previous tournaments.
This could be done in around 37 days with a minimum 3 day rest, except for quarter finals to semi finals where I could only fit in 2 for some teams.
That’s true, the more hosts there are, less seeded spots for the top teams.
I feel having an easier group is a good compromise for not getting a direct bye to round of 16.
This format is kind of a variation on one where top 8 winners get bye to round of 16 and the rest playoff to meet them. But how do you matchup 4 winners and 12 runner ups without some sort of combination system.
Yes giving best 8 winners is more on merit where as my proposal is more luck of the draw.
Football purists may find my proposal too left field.
The trans-continental thing is silly too. If they were going down that route the best thing to do would have been to split the group stage and round of 32 into 4 regional quarters each of which would host 3 groups.
Q1: in South America
Q2: in Morocco (with Malaga if needed)
Q3: in Portugal (with Seville if needed)
Q4: in Spain
In each quarter, the top 2 teams would qualify then, instead of doing best eight 3rd placed teams from twelve, you would have the best 2 from 3 in each quarter.
The reason for doing it that way would then be that the 8 teams who qualify from the South American quarter would fly to Spain where they would play each other in the round of 32. Thus in the round of 32 all the teams which had played in South America would be playing each other, with none of them having a jetlag disadvantage. By the time the round of 16 came along they'd be more adjusted to European time.
This would also make it better for fans, as teams in each quarter would be playing R32 in the same country as they did the group stage, meaning fans would have less uncertainty as to where their country would be playing after the groups if they went through. The South American countries would then get a decent amount of group games (18) rather than a token opener.
Q1: in South America
Q2: in Morocco (with Malaga if needed)
Q3: in Portugal (with Seville if needed)
Q4: in Spain
In each quarter, the top 2 teams would qualify then, instead of doing best eight 3rd placed teams from twelve, you would have the best 2 from 3 in each quarter.
The reason for doing it that way would then be that the 8 teams who qualify from the South American quarter would fly to Spain where they would play each other in the round of 32. Thus in the round of 32 all the teams which had played in South America would be playing each other, with none of them having a jetlag disadvantage. By the time the round of 16 came along they'd be more adjusted to European time.
This would also make it better for fans, as teams in each quarter would be playing R32 in the same country as they did the group stage, meaning fans would have less uncertainty as to where their country would be playing after the groups if they went through. The South American countries would then get a decent amount of group games (18) rather than a token opener.
Grand Stade Hassan II: Design revealed for one of the world’s largest stadiums ahead of 2030 World Cup
The Grand Stade Hassan II soccer stadium in Morocco – one of three countries co-hosting the tournament alongside Spain and Portugal – is being touted as potentially “the largest football stadium in the world” by designers Oualolou + Choi and Populous, with a planned capacity of 115,000.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/22/spor ... index.html
The Grand Stade Hassan II soccer stadium in Morocco – one of three countries co-hosting the tournament alongside Spain and Portugal – is being touted as potentially “the largest football stadium in the world” by designers Oualolou + Choi and Populous, with a planned capacity of 115,000.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/22/spor ... index.html
Format for an 48 team World Cup:
16 Groups of 3 teams (A-P), top 2 advancing to Round 2.
Round 2 Group AB contains the teams of groups A and B. (etc...) They only play against the 2 teams coming from the other R1-group. The results from the match against the team from the same R1 group are carried over. This reduces the risk of collusion on the last MD of Round 1.
Top 2 from each R2-group go to L16/QF/SF/F (in seperate halves of the bracket).
Yes, that's 8 matches for the winner, but no bullshit with best 3th places.
16 Groups of 3 teams (A-P), top 2 advancing to Round 2.
Round 2 Group AB contains the teams of groups A and B. (etc...) They only play against the 2 teams coming from the other R1-group. The results from the match against the team from the same R1 group are carried over. This reduces the risk of collusion on the last MD of Round 1.
Top 2 from each R2-group go to L16/QF/SF/F (in seperate halves of the bracket).
Yes, that's 8 matches for the winner, but no bullshit with best 3th places.