As entertaining as the World Cup has been so far, the corruption allegations for Qatar's 2022 hosting linger, a specter that seems to be staying on the fringes just until the current tournament ends. That specter took center stage briefly when it was reported that FIFA had contacted the US soccer federation about taking over. That blew over after a few days, but leaves the thought: how would the US host the World Cup if it was reassigned?

Group Stage

For the eight groups, I would pair two reasonably close stadiums to host three group games each:

New England - Gillette Stadium and Rentschler Field or the Yale Bowl. Gillette is a no-brainer, as Foxboro hosted in 1994. They'd have to use the grass trays, but that's hardly a drawback at this point. The other venue would either be an expanded Rentschler Field (capacity is currently 40,000) or the Yale Bowl (which is old but a reasonable size at just over 61,000).

Mid Atlantic - Lincoln Financial Field and M&T Bank Stadium. Two newer stadiums with capacities in the high 60,000s and low 70,000s. No brainers.

Southeast - Bobby Dodd Stadium and EverBank Field. I went with Georgia Tech's home over the new stadium for the Atlanta Falcons as Bobby Dodd Stadium is open air, and I'm favoring those where I can (though the use of the Pontiac Silverdome in 1994 shows they could be used). EverBank Field hosted a pre-Cup friendly earlier this year and it went pretty well, so I'm giving them the nod. Jacksonville is also closer to Atlanta than Tampa or Orlando.

Mid-Central - Heinz Field and Ohio Stadium. I'd thought about putting both stadiums in this group in Ohio, but opted to go with Heinz Field instead. Ohio Stadium reflects the support Columbus has given the USMNT over the years and the reality that Crew Stadium is too small to host Cup games.

Great Lakes: Ford Field and Michigan Stadium. Ford Field has hosted Gold Cup matches, and is plenty big enough for the World Cup. And the idea of the World Cup at the Big House is certainly appealing. Maybe too close to each other?

Show-Me: Arrowhead Stadium and Edward Jones Dome. Kansas City gets in thanks to supporting their MLS team and to recognize Lamar Hunt's support of soccer. St. Louis, while a historically important city for US soccer, doesn't have a great venue for it. I'm reluctantly going with it for now.

Lone Star: AT&T Stadium and Reliant Field. Like Mid Atlantic, two newer stadiums with plenty of seating, as well as two cities with MLS teams.

Northwest: Levi's Stadium and CenturyLink Field. Also not particularly close, but both home to dedicated MLS crowds, Seattle especially.

Round of 16 and Quarterfinals

Also two stadiums per group, three games in total.

Garden State: MetLife Stadium and High Point Solutions Stadium. MetLife, of course, gets you New York atmosphere with New Jersey location. Getting actual New York location is a problem, as Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, and both planned soccer-specific stadiums are too small. So we do down to Rutgers to borrow their stadium, which is on the smallish side as well but larger than any other option.

Sunshine: Raymond James Stadium and Florida Citrus Bowl Stadium. You could flip these two with the Atlanta/Jacksonville pair and it would be OK with me.

Midwest: Soldier Field and Lucas Oil Stadiu. Indy can handle one game, right? Solider Field was a host in '94, and unless the renovation made the field to narrow they'd be an easy pick to host again.

Southwest: Qualcomm Stadium and University of Phoenix Stadium. OK, not particularly close, but for three games you can make it work.

Semifinals and Finals

Rose Bowl. Of course. Why would it end anywhere else? 

If you follow soccer at all you've likely heard the grousing about the 2014 World Cup draw, which has the US in the "group of death" with Germany, Portugal and Ghana and England in a very difficult group with Italy, Costa Rica and Uruguay, while host Brazil and (of course) France get what are considered to be fairly easy pathways to the round of 16.

All of which got me to thinking - is there a way to improve this? I think so, leading to...

MAKING IT BETTER: World Cup Draw Edition.

Here are my five suggestions for improving the tournament draw, leading off with one major change for the tournament itself.

1. Expand the field. I think the field should expand to 40 teams. That's still less than 20 percent of all FIFA members, and would allow for eight groups of five teams each (which I know presents various challenges, which I will presently ignore). I have no plan for how to expand beyond giving each confederation at least one more guaranteed spot (I'd limit UEFA and CONMEBOL to only one new slot each). But by expanding the field you'd create more cushion within groups. You'd likely still have a group of death somewhere, but not the sort of murderer's row we're getting in some of the groups for 2014.

2. Fix the FIFA rankings. The eight seeded teams for 2014 were determined by their FIFA ranking as of October 2013. The ranking is based on how a team has performed over four years, with results earning points, and with the final ranking based on some sort of averaging. Problem is that teams can game this system, as Switzerland did by not playing as many friendlies, and not against teams that are towards the bottom of the rankings. This article gives a good idea of how the ranking works and how teams can make it work in their favor.

I don't have a particularly good idea of what to use to replace it (Nate Silver's Soccer Power Index is an interesting example), but I don't think teams should be penalized for playing friendlies against lower ranked teams. If FIFA can give Qatar a World Cup based at least in part on growing the game in certain parts of the world, it can easily support that ideal by making games against teams from those areas not be an albatross around the higher-ranked team's neck.

3. Use the improved ranking to place teams in pots. As it stands now, there's one pot that includes the ranked teams and then the pots have some sort of geographic theme to them, so as to avoid any confederation from having more than one team in a group (or in the case of Europe, two teams). There's no seeding in those other pots, which is how you can get teams of similar ranking but different continents in the same group.

If you use rankings all the way through, you'd likely get groups that are more consistent with each other, and still use different pots to bring about geographical diversity (although using the SPI you could still wind up with a group having Germany, the US, and Portugal, as the US would the lowest seed in their pot and Portugal the highest in theirs).


4. Have someone outside of FIFA manage the draw. No one trusts FIFA. Even with a draw as apparently transparent as the recent one, you'll still get conspiracy theories based on FIFA's long history of corruption and cronyism. So just as the Oscar results are tabulated by an outside accounting firm, find someone else to run the draw. Not sure who exactly could do this that wouldn't have a vested interest in some team getting an easy group. Maybe some Canadians. They never make the World Cup.

5. Cut back on the pomp during the show. It's only an hour, but it's like some awful combination of the American Idol results show and the Eurovision song contest. If the lottery folks can draw six balls in under a minute for Mega Millions, we could wrap up the draw in ten minutes, easy. That'd give everyone an extra 50 minutes to complain about their team's group and devise conspiracy theories.

There you go, FIFA. Get crackin'.

Book Log 2011 #19: The World is a Ball by John Doyle

John Doyle has what might be my dream job. He gets to travel to major soccer competitions and report on them, sometimes as a sporting event but more often on the other aspects of the games and/or event (personal, social, political, etc.). I should also note his full-time job is as a newspaper TV critic. I think he really does have my dream job.

Not that it's all a dream. The travel is punishing, the accommodations marginals, and the isolation often maddening. Even so, what comes through clearly is that the payoff for these irritations - between seeing games, meeting fans, and going to places that might otherwise have gone unvisited - is well worth it.

And for all that Doyle isn't a sports reporter, he does a nice job of talking about the players and games in layman's terms, making it easy for a casual but long-time fan of the game to follow along. He also manages to sell his main point about these contests - how the joy of the experience transcends the day to day problems people face - effectively, better than I expected and better than your usual book about the transcendental nature of sports.

A worthy read for the novice and intermediate soccer fan.

So while the Internets are blowing up over Qatar being tapped to host the 2022 World Cup, let's take a second to look at three reasons why this might not be a bad idea:

1. Money. Qatar has pledged to spend over $50 billion dollars to prepare the country for the event, which is a good thing given that they do not at present have anything close to the infrastructure necessary to host the tournament. And that money is more or less guaranteed, as the country's economy is based on oil and natural gas (neither of which seem poised for a drop in price any time soon) and its ruling family clearly has the will to run the thing, as they've made international sports a focus (they're hosting the Asian Cup in 2011 and hosted a WTA event for much of the previous decade).

2. Regional and international goodwill. This was apparently a large part of the Qatari presentation to FIFA. They pitched the hosting as a way to bring the wider world and the Middle East together, to help dispel stereotypes and serve as a bridge to better understanding. It also helps that Qatar is, by local standards, moderate. And, once the tournament is over, Qatar says it will disassemble the stadia they've built for it and send them to developing nations. Who, I'm sure, will have the resources necessary to run the under-field air conditioning systems.

3. Better viewing hours. Qatar offers the best viewing experience for Europe, with the bulk of the continent only being two hours earlier. It's also, theoretically, going to be a better experience for those of us in the Americas, or at least better than what we went through when South Korea and Japan co-hosted. An 8 pm start in Doha airs on the East Coast at noon, which isn't too bad. And you have to figure that there are going to be plenty of 8 pm starts.

Of course, there are also three (at least) reasons why this is a terrible idea:

1. Lack of almost everything besides money. It's a good thing that Qatar has 12 years to prepare for the Cup, as they have to build all but one of the stadia needed for it, and probably invent some technology to help handle local conditions as well. They're also short on hotels, decent local soccer leagues and international success. The national team is currently ranked 113th in the world, nestled between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Thailand, two countries that may be about as ready to host the World Cup.

2. Mother Nature. The average high temperature for Qatar in June is 106 degrees. In July? 115. The average lows don't drop below 80. One description of the summers there mention alternating periods of dryness and humidity. Don't know how humid it gets, but one of those average June days with 50 percent humidity feels like 137 degrees. I don't think they'll be dumb enough to schedule games at the height of the day, but you get a sense of what players and fans will be up against.

And then there's also the chance of dust storms and the general lack of drinking water to worry about. Hopefully the winds stay down and the desalinization plants stay up.

3. Tough neighborhood. For all the feel good Kumbaya talk, the Middle East is still, with reason, considered a difficult place for outsiders. The laws are restrictive, customs are significantly different, and there is a not insignificant percentage of people who want to kill you if you pray less than five times a day and drink the occasional beer. As much as Qatar is comfortable with the west, hosting this event does present a juicy target to those who are not so comfortable with the west.

And what if Israel qualifies for the tournament? It's not inconceivable. They are currently 55th in the world rankings, which is among the lower-ranked teams in Europe, they've been putting together mid-table finishes in qualifying events. Some better talent and a favorable group and we could have an interesting situation on our hands. Qatar is cozy with Hamas and Iran, and cut ties with Israel over the Gaza conflict. A lot can change in 12 years... except when Israel is involved.

If nothing else, the 2022 World Cup will not lack for storylines.

Oh for three in my guesses, and I can't say I mind at all.

Playing England to open will be tough, no doubt. But once the chance to play South Africa went by the boards, any of the other seven teams would present a significant challenge. It's a better draw than getting Brazil or Germany, but not by much. But given England's tendency to land in the Group of Death (or at least the Group of Agonizing Pain), karma looked to be running against the US.

But then Algeria and Slovenia wound up in the group, and things improved considerably. Both have short World Cup resumes and were among the lower FIFA ranked teams in their respective pots. Like I said yesterday, neither team is exactly a pushover, but playing them makes going through to the round of 16 more likely than if we'd drawn, say, Cote D'Ivoire and Portugal.

Speaking of those teams, I'd mentioned both as teams in a potential Group of Death (well, I'd picked Greece but mentioned Portugal as a close runner-up), along with Brazil. And guess which three teams wound up in the same group? Ladies and gentlemen, your Group of Death. Just with North Korea as your fourth rather than us. Thank God.

Now we just have six months to figure out how to pull a repeat of 1950 on the English.

OK, World Cup draw starting in a couple of minutes. My prediction for the US group: The Netherlands, Paraguay and Serbia. Well, as much of a prediction as you can make for a random draw.

The draw for the 2010 World Cup is tomorrow. Each of the 8 groups in pool play will be populated by four teams drawn in semi-random fashion. The teams are divided into four pots: one for host South Africa and the 7 qualifiers who finished highest in FIFA's October rankings, one for all the teams from Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF (the US's confederation), one for teams from Africa and South America, and one for the remaining European qualifiers.

(There's some controversy over the pots, as the use of the FIFA rankings alone - which don't include November's playoff games and don't take into account past World Cup performance, which was used in the past - led France to fall from the first pot to the fourth. Some see a conspiracy to punish the French, and they may not be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time with this Cup that FIFA has changed rules on the fly, as they made late changes that wound up pitting France against Ireland in the first place.)

So with that set up, what's the best the US can hope for?

Pot 1: South Africa: As hosts they get to be seeded, but on rankings alone they'd never make it into this pot (they were 85th in the October rankings; the only qualifier ranked lower was North Korea at 91). They missed the 2002 World Cup, and some people wonder if they'd have qualified for 2010 if they had to play their way in. Even with the expected bump from playing in front of home crowds, they'd be the team to get here. Honorable mention goes to Argentina, who does have world player of the year Lionel Messi, but also has him (and the rest of the squad) being coached by Maradona, whose coaching skills can charitably be called uneven.

Pot 3: Algeria: They've not made the World Cup since 1986, making them the least experienced team in the pot. On the down side, they are currently at their highest ranking ever, so they may have enough skill to make up for the inexperience.

Pot 4: Slovakia or Slovenia: Slovakia is in their first World Cup as an independent country, while Slovenia was a qualified by surprising Russia in their playoff. Neither is exactly a pushover, but the rest of the teams promise a tougher road. An article over on ESPN.com suggested any team beginning with 's' would work here, but I'm not so sure. Both Switzerland and Serbia won their qualifying groups, and the Swiss are ranked 18th. Serbia did have a lousy 2006 World Cup, for what that's worth.

Now that we have the dream bracket, what would be the US's Group of Death?

Pot 1: Brazil: Avoiding Brazil for as long as possible is a good strategy for getting deep into the tournament. Having them in your pool automatically means you have three teams playing for one place. Of course, if you don't get Brazil you could just get Germany or Spain or Italy (or England or the Netherlands for that matter). Simply put, if you don't get South Africa from this pot the team you do get from here is likely to be a challenge. It's just a question of how big a challenge you want.

Pot 3: Cote D'Ivoire: They're much more than Didier Drogba, as their entire roster is made up of European club players. They're the deepest team in the pot, and they get to play on their home continent.

Pot 4: Greece: It's a hard pick here given the strength of teams like Denmark and Portugal (even with their difficult qualifying experience). But I went with Greece as their style of play will wear down and frustrate teams. I suppose France might be a problem, too, but their qualifying path was nearly as chaotic as Argentina's (moreso at the end), so they may be ripe for the plucking. Plus, I kind of want to draw them in the hopes of getting some Irish-American justice.

The bottom line for the US, and really for most of the teams in their pot, is that the way the pots were filled none of them are going to have an easy time getting through to the knockout stages. Given that many of the teams are lower-ranked there's an argument that that's the way it should be. On the other hand, consider this: the US is 14th in the FIFA rankings. There's a chance their group will include the teams ranked first, fifth, and 11th, while Slovakia, ranked 34th, could get a group with the teams ranked 37th, 84th and 86th. Granted, the US could also get two of those teams, but I still don't think one ranked pot and three geographically assigned pots was the best way to go. Unless you're a European team.

Fans of the beautiful game (and people who like to choose winners in international sports based on flag colors or whatever) are welcome to join the group I set up on ESPN.com for their Euro 2008 pick 'em game.

Group Name: Go England! Wait, what?!?
Password: cornerkick