Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Compound disinterest.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                     

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Risk-style World Cup

Think of the board game.
 
(+4, -4)
  [vote for,
against]

The "World" Cup has 32 teams. 32 countries out of...200-plus countries. That's not the World! To have a real World Cup, every country has to participate. And this is the way to do it. The World Cup, Risk-style.

Every country in the world can participate, that's the 203 teams in the FIFA rankings (plus a 2nd Chinese team, for population reasons and to make it even). A team may challenge any team above them in the rankings to a single match. Therefore, the nuber one team has to wait for a challenge. All challenges must be recognized by the FIFA. The match itself goes on as normal. Challenged team gets home field. Now here comes the elements of Risk. The winning country "conquers" the losing country. If the losing country already had conquered teams, the winner now owns those, too. From that point on, the winning team can use players from countries they have conquered, but they must use at least 5 natives per game. Then, when a team "conquered" 101 countries, they get a bye to the finals. 2 countries plus 101 conquered coutries each equals 204. The winner of the finals has "conquered the world" on won the World Cup.

This would give lower-ranked coutries a chance to play. The teams are always identifies by the "head team", the only team that is undefeated.

HomerX, Oct 07 2002

[link]






       You do realise that each of the 200 countries in the world can enter the world cup? Every team has the same chance of qualifying for the Worl Cup Finals, which is the final stage of the World Cup, not World Cup in its entireity. So thus, all teams who choose to participate in the world are fully entitled to do so.
[ sctld ], Oct 07 2002
  

       Yeah, but out of the 32 that make, 25-or-so of 'em are there almost at each tournament. Canada made it to one World Cup since the first one in '30. Japan, also once. The U.S., not very often. This format would give the chance to play in a single tournament. Plus, the better players will keep on playing, but for a different nation, though.
HomerX, Oct 07 2002
  

       Japan made it twice actually.   

       And you forget about regional tournaments, such as the European Cup, the Asian Cup, the African Cup of Nations, etc.   

       And i think there is a reason why teams don't qualify for the world cup: They're crap.   

       And would you, as a Canadian, wish to don a team U.S.A. shirt without wishing to sabotage the game? Remember, you have just been beaten by them.
[ sctld ], Oct 07 2002
  

       And then we can fix up the World Series by doing the exact same thing?
DrCurry, Oct 07 2002
  

       DrCurry, in this quarter-baked world, anything is possible. And, yes, sctld, i WOULD screw the U.S. of A. over I lost to 'em.
HomerX, Oct 08 2002
  

       You played in the cup?
skinflaps, Oct 08 2002
  

       Every country in the world has the right to, and most do, enter the World Cup. The tournament that takes place every four years is simply the World Cup Finals. ie. the culmination of a tournament that begins almost as soon as the last finals ended. Every region of the World has its own qualifying tournament, with various qualifying systems being employed to determine which teams from each region qualify, usually dependant on the quality of the region's football teams. Europe get more places in the finals because many of the best teams in the World come from there, whereas the winner of the Australasian qualifying section invariably has to take part in a play off with a country from a different qualifying region, due to the quality of footballing nations in that section being poor.
ChewTheBeef, Oct 08 2002
  

       HomerX: See. If you screw over U.S.A, then the best players from the loosing team will never get a chance to play for the winning side, and thus you return to the original World Cup.
[ sctld ], Oct 08 2002
  

       Also, club managers are already loathe to allow their players away on international duty, in case their vastly overpriced and paid 'stars' get injured/have to miss important club fixtures. The amount of games that would be necessary to play this tournament to the end would be massive, and players would simply not be allowed to play by their clubs. Or is that just nit-picking?
ChewTheBeef, Oct 08 2002
  

       You should probably research your posts a little better [HomerX]. If you did you would know that ALL countries that qualify DO play in the World Cup. They play for years before they get to the final 32. Did you notice that the 32 teams change every year?
Jiimmhh, Jan 07 2004
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle