Comments on: Expanding the Euros to 24 teams is a terrible, horrible, no-good idea

By: schmutzdeck

schmutzdeck — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:38:00 +0000

Money. Follow the money.

For some time now the Champion’s League has been considered to be highest standard of football surpassing even the World Cup. I think the expansion of the Euros is an attempt to pump life back into the national teams by making it a more lucrative event.

As an American I find the attempts to integrate the CONCACAF teams more with Copa America and the CONMEBOL nations of more interest. I would find such a combined tournament far more interesting than the Euros. It would really raise the stakes for the USMNT, give us two major trophies to play for and in general make the USMNT a more viable World Cup contender.

By: mikeevergreen

mikeevergreen — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 01:41:26 +0000

I’m fine with the Euro at 24 teams. Had they not done that, CONCACAF & CONMEBOL wouldn’t have their new tournament, The Pan Amerrican Cup.

By: iainrwb

iainrwb — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:38:26 +0000

Sure, but the seedlings and qualifying groups would be organised differently if there were to be 24 qualifiers.

By: handsofsweed

handsofsweed — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:12:38 +0000

I’m with you. However, of all the teams you mentioned, only Turkey would have qualified for 2012 if 24 were taken.

By: hjworton46

hjworton46 — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:18:08 +0000

Greed is good in Platinis world. 16 makes for a perfect tournament. UEFA suck big dogs knobs.

By: iainrwb

iainrwb — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:02:48 +0000

If it means Scotland qualify, I’m all for it. I could care less about quality and competitiveness. There’s been a bunch of rotten games so far this year anyway – all of Germany’s games, all of Greece’s games (bodes well for tonight) and even last night’s game sucked.

England v Ukraine, Spain v Croatia and Italy v Ireland were also pretty dire.

Teams like Scotland, Switzerland, Belgium, Serbia, Turkey, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania would be just as competitive as teams like Poland, Greece, Ukraine, Russia, Czech Republic, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark.

By: handsofsweed

handsofsweed — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 04:11:52 +0000

Six groups of 4, All group winners (6) and 2nd-place teams (6) get into the Round of 16, along with the 4 best of the 6 third-place teams. I believe that the 1994 USA World Cup had only 24 teams, also.

If I’m right, the 8 extras @ this EURO would have been: Estonia, Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro (All 4 of the playoff round losers), while the 4 best 3rd place teams were Hungary, Armenia, Israel and Norway.

By: ndnut

ndnut — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:20:49 +0000

I want to know what format will be used to make 24 go to 16. Is it 4 6-team groups with the top 4 advancing from each group? Is it some other wacko idea? This seems interesting and there are too many questions for me to support it.

By: sampulls

sampulls — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:24:46 +0000

24teams=waybetter

By: handsofsweed

handsofsweed — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:16:04 +0000

I couldn’t agree more, favre. 2016 is gonna be epic.

By: farvefromover

farvefromover — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:21:03 +0000

I don’t mind more teams being in the tournament. I don’t give a rats ass what you say, it’s more soccer that I get to watch.

By: congocash

congocash — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:54:24 +0000

The euro cup could improve if it was renamed, euro-south american cup….