Olympics and World Cup qualifying systems

[NaBUru38 208]

Hi folks! I have written quite a lot here complaining about bad qualifying systems for the Olympics and World Cups in different team sports. I wanted to make a centralized thread to discuss it.

 

Of course, each team sport has its particularities. Rugby union matches require 5 days of rest, whereas a full 16-team rugby sevens tournament can be played in two days. Some sports have more worldwide parity (like football) while others have strongholds (like handball). And of course some tournaments have more teams than others.

 

The first problem is using world rankings, which prevent upsets. For example, Brazil and Argentina are at the top of nearly every team sport in South America. When rankings are used, no team has a serious chance of qualifying instead of those two. On the contrary, continental tournaments should be mandatory. The worst offender is volleyball, whose Olympic tournaments will have 5 teams directly from the world rankings.

 

A related second problem is using world qualifiers to award most if not all spots. This causes some problems: drawing can help some teams and punish others despite seeding, and some continents may get squeezed out. I'm fine with using world competitions (be it previous World Cups or Olympics, world qualifiers or world repechages) to set a few teams, but not most of them. For example, the Olympics field hockey and women's basketball feature no continental qualifiers at all.

 

The gold standard is football, which features very few repechage spots. Another excellent example is rugby sevens. The 2024 Olympic men's basketball qualifying is complex and could be improved in many ways, but is not strictly bad.

[JoshMartini007 2,536]

There's always been a struggle between having the best and having diversity, especially in sports where the best are not very diverse.

 

I'm not a huge fan of world rankings because it benefits athletes who compete more (more money) rather than the best athletes.

 

Personally I've always liked the "World Qualifier - Continental Qualifier - Final Qualifier" format. It gives athletes three opportunities to qualify (can't say they had a bad day) and promotes some diversity without it always going to the same large non-European nations.

[phelps 7,674]

to me, it's as simple as it looks...

 

diversity can be accomplished in individual sports with at least 32+ competitors/groups/teams in each discipline.

 

if there are less than 32 spots per discipline, only the best must be included in the Olympic tournaments.

 

the Olympics must be the most important and most qualified tournament in each Olympic sport...if you're not good enough, you can always try and get your minute of celebrity at continental (and maybe world) championships.

 

I don't see why the Olympic tournaments must be destroyed and lose all of their interest/competitivness by allowing teams/athletes not good enough to play the same game as the best in the world.

[dodge 1,024]

I disagree. I'm all for inclusiveness. The argument that "only the best" must be included falls down when you're talking about competitors ranked in the low 20s/early 30s. For me, it's better that those last spots go to continental qualifiers to ensure a good geographical spread, rather than athletes unlikely to challenge for medals, but who come from established nations

[Dunadan 1,103]

I find the current volleyball OQS nearly perfect: it ensures continental representation (but only 1 per continent - not like those systems with the continental qualifiers being held after the world qualifier), it gives great importance to every match played in the previous years with a good ranking system*, and the direct qualification spots are awarded via 8-team pools rather than a knock out playoff. Every team sport should follow.

 

* with one critical point: the VNL being an almost-closed league, coefficients should be reworked in that case.

[phelps 7,674]

1 hour ago, dodge said:

I disagree. I'm all for inclusiveness. The argument that "only the best" must be included falls down when you're talking about competitors ranked in the low 20s/early 30s. For me, it's better that those last spots go to continental qualifiers to ensure a good geographical spread, rather than athletes unlikely to challenge for medals, but who come from established nations

no, it doesn't fall down because it's that "average" group of athletes that makes the early rounds of a competition interesting...

 

I'm gonna make an example to explain this: take Rowing...except for single sculls, we only have up to 15 boats per discipline.

 

and among those 15 boats are included continental representatives for non competitive continents, repechage regatta (where no country already qualified in other boats can participate and with very limited quota places for any participating Nation) ensuring to spread participation all around the globe.

 

In the end, only those 7/8 boats coming from the top spots of the previous year's world championship are going to race for a place in the final/the medals, the remaining crews are tons of seconds behind.

 

this makes the heats, repechage round and semifinals basically useless and cut the interest for the sport down to the medal races only, meanwhile we normally have global championships where is very difficult even making the top 12 in most cases and all the early rounds are worth watching.

 

and it's the same for almost every sport/discipline with limited entries.

 

I only agree with a pre-selection being the National championships in each "powerhouse", having  as much as possible only a few representative per Nation (if not only 1 in most disciplines) in each event, but watching a non competitive athlete/team in a small starting field only because of "inclusiveness", no thanks.

 

 

p.s. of course my POV is the spectator on the couch's, not the athlete's...I understand all the different situations, but still, I have to support my own interest...

Edited October 18, 2022 by phelps

[dodge 1,024]

Rowing is the wrong sport to use as only the Lightweight Doubles (to bring more countries outside of the power houses in) and the Singles (much like the 100m in athletics for representation) use continental qualifiers

 

10 of the 14 events don't use continental qualifiers at all.. It's world championship and world qualifiers only.

 

So even though you cite them as a problem sport, they're acting in a way that you're advocating. Oh and Uruguay qualified through the continental route for Mens lightweight double and they made the final.

[JoshMartini007 2,536]

For the most part there are enough spots to have both the top athletes and continental representation. For example, a 16 athlete event would have the top 10, the five continents and the host. Besides, the continent/host quotas aren't all complete wastes as some are filled with athletes that deserve to be there.

[NaBUru38 208]

5 hours ago, Dunadan said:

I find the current volleyball OQS nearly perfect: it ensures continental representation (but only 1 per continent)

The Olympics volleyball tournament qualifying format was changed for the worst for 2024. The continental guarantee is based on world rankings, not continental qualifiers.

[NaBUru38 208]

23 hours ago, phelps said:

if there are less than 32 spots per discipline, only the best must be included in the Olympic tournaments.

I disagree. Let's keep with volleyball.

 

Th 2022 Men's World Cup had 9 European teams in the top 16. The 2022 Women's World Cup had 4 European teams in the top 8. The World Rankings has 6 European men's teams and 7 European women's teams in the respective top 12.

 

It would be perfectly reasonable that the the Olympic volleyball tournament have the host, the previous champion, 3 European teams, 2 Americas teams, 2 Asian teams and 1 African team, and 2 world repechage teams. This would guarantee that any of the 200+ countries can qualify.

 

Instead, the Olympic qualifiers are restricted to the top 25 teams in the world rankings. That's absolutely ridiculous! Teams like Peru and Spain have literally no opportunity.