next soccer question

[pdub]

He needs to take his dudes out when his team has a comfortable lead or a lead with few minutes left.
Manage minutes.

[pdub]

US beats Bosnia 1-0 in a meh.
Good to see Morris back on the field though.

[Cascadia]

Didn't get to watch the match yesterday, but it's always nice when the C squad can get a result.

[pdub]

moneymoneymoneyneedmoremoney

https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world- ... -infantino

"FIFA president Gianni Infantino believes he has majority backing for his biennial World Cup plan, after national football leaders were told the switch would create an extra $4.4 billion in revenues for the world body.

The upbeat findings are in marked contrast to analysis put forward by critics of the proposals."

[Cascadia]

I’d prefer every 3 years , but I’d take every 2 years over every 4 years.

[UnholyLivingDead]

The trick with the World Cup every 2 years is they want to make it to where you can't play in back-to-back World Cups. So essentially you'll have the World Cup version of the NIT filled with teams who didn't qualify the first time. It's such a bad idea.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I’d prefer every 3 years , but I’d take every 2 years over every 4 years.

I think I posted in here before that I'd be down for every 3.

Every 2 is too soon for my taste, but I love the World Cup, so not like they'll lose me as a fan/viewer.

[CrimsonNBlue]

The trick with the World Cup every 2 years is they want to make it to where you can't play in back-to-back World Cups. So essentially you'll have the World Cup version of the NIT filled with teams who didn't qualify the first time. It's such a bad idea.

Really? Yeah, I think I hate this.

[UnholyLivingDead]

The trick with the World Cup every 2 years is they want to make it to where you can't play in back-to-back World Cups. So essentially you'll have the World Cup version of the NIT filled with teams who didn't qualify the first time. It's such a bad idea.

Really? Yeah, I think I hate this.

That's the way it was first proposed. And that's on top of expanding the World Cup to 48 teams. So if they do a World Cup every 2 years with 48 different teams, the on field product is going to be total crap. It would ruin the event.

[Cascadia]

I’d prefer every 3 years , but I’d take every 2 years over every 4 years.

I think I posted in here before that I'd be down for every 3.

Every 2 is too soon for my taste, but I love the World Cup, so not like they'll lose me as a fan/viewer.

Feel very similar. I think the World Cup is the best sporting event in the world so I wish I could enjoy it more frequently.

[pdub]

The trick with the World Cup every 2 years is they want to make it to where you can't play in back-to-back World Cups. So essentially you'll have the World Cup version of the NIT filled with teams who didn't qualify the first time. It's such a bad idea.

Really? Yeah, I think I hate this.

That's the way it was first proposed. And that's on top of expanding the World Cup to 48 teams. So if they do a World Cup every 2 years with 48 different teams, the on field product is going to be total crap. It would ruin the event.

Holy crap, this would be terrible.
And every 2 years with all the teams is already terrible.

[pdub]

Too much of a good thing makes it less important.
If it's every two years, it's not as big a deal.
Fact of life.

[pdub]

If you MUST make more money ( which is a must today ) then maybe could you do every 3 years and not expand the tournament?

32 teams, 3 years.
Rather than 96 teams, 4 years.
Please?

It's like the NFL playoff expansion.
You have .500 teams competing for the final spot.
If you can't win more than half your games, you don't belong in a postseason.

[Cascadia]

I'll never understand the "I want to limit my fun" crowd.

[pdub]

Oversaturation makes things less appealing.

When I come to Lawrence/KC, it's very special to attend KU games and get KC BBQ.
When I lived there, wasn't nearly as dear.
The World Cup has been every 4 years for what, around 100 years? No need to change it.

[UnholyLivingDead]

If pressed to answer, I would say soccer is my favorite sport. The World Cup is my favorite sporting event. But this is how I feel about it: I also have a lot of other interests and while a normal World Cup is appointment viewing, I don't need to watch a group stage match every other summer between North Macedonia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. My preference would be to pick one. Either expand to 48 teams or do it every 2 years. At some point, the players are going to break down playing all these games year-round. I like college basketball and I watch KU play. But I don't care when Mississippi Valley State plays Cleveland State. The quality of play matters, at least for my personal enjoyment.

[pdub]

Why can't we have 2 Super Bowls in the same year?
Or 2 NCAA tournaments?
Why limit your fun?

[Cascadia]

If every 2 years, I would prefer 32 teams.

Every 3 years, I'm fine with 48.

[UnholyLivingDead]

Look at bowl games. There are 130 FBS teams and 82 get bowl game spots. 63% of the teams make the "postseason". When the more teams make it to the postseason than don't, it's not much of a special reward. Any time teams with losing records (or damn near losing records) are knocking on the door for playoff spots, that's not fun to me.

[Cascadia]

I'm not sure college bowl games should really be classified as "postseason" in the same way playoffs that decide champions are considered postseason.