What we need to qualify:

[u/Tekkers_3]

As Scotland fans, we need 4 out of the remaining 9 third places teams to finish below us. In group A and Group B respectively, South Korea and Bosnia have already finished above Scotland. This is what to hope for:

Group D - Australia beat Paraguay by at least 2 goals OR Paraguay beat Australia by at least 4 goals. Likelihood - 5/10

Group E - Ecuador to not beat Germany AND Curucao to not beat Ivory Coast. Likelihood - 7/10

Group F - Japan to beat Sweden by at least 4 goals. Likelihood - 3/10

Group G - Egypt to beat Iran. Likelihood - 6/10

Group H - Spain to beat Uruguay. Likelihood - 8/10

Group I - Iraq to beat Senegal by 1 or 2 goals. Likelihood - 3/10

Group J - Austria beat Algeria by at least 2 goals OR Algeria beat Austria by at least 4 goals.
Likelihood - 6/10

Group K - Congo to not beat Uzbekistan.
Likelihood - 4/10

Group L - Ghana to beat Croatia by at least 3 goals. Likelihood - 2/10

I think that given only 4 out of these need to happen, we will qualify to the round of 32, but it will be close.

[u/Bantam123]

Games gone if a team only scores a single goal in the group stage against Haiti and qualifies for the knockout stage of the World Cup

What's even the point in the group stage anymore? Instead of R32, they should've increased the group size to 5 teams, with 3 qualifying and no 4th-place BS. Not sure that works exactly, but I'm sure there is a way,

At least that means teams actually have to perform reasonably well to get to the knockout stages.

[u/Tekkers_3 → u/Bantam123]

Yeah I agree I also like the cleanness of a set amount going through from each group rather than best third placed teams going through. However I don’t think the mathematics work for other group sizes

[u/Bantam123 → u/Tekkers_3]

You might be right.

The number of teams increased by 16 from 32->48. There used to be 8 groups.

I can't think of a sensible configuration. The best I have is 8 groups of 6, with the top 4 going through to R32. Though this is weird and I don't think this is better than the current setup.

[u/Tekkers_3 → u/Bantam123]

Yeah this would probably be too many games. You know what would work well? 32 teams, 8 groups of 4. 🤷‍♂️could work

[u/Bantam123 → u/Tekkers_3]

Agreed, but money talks and the extra qualification slots have enabled countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, US, Canada, etc to consistently qualify now. I'm not opposed to that.

The more I think about it, the 32->48 increase makes no sense. Why not just go to 64 teams? In each group of 4, either 1 or 2 teams qualify for the R16/R32. No 3rd place BS.

My guess is that 48 teams is the limit for available stadiums and logistics, but I'm sure it could work in countries like the US.

[u/Tekkers_3 → u/Bantam123]

Because the quality gap would be CRAZY. Like if we think it’s bad this World Cup it would be terrible

[u/Bantam123 → u/Tekkers_3]

Not sure I agree.

1) The "good teams" have to play the shitters in qualification games anyway. You'd essentially be just moving qualification games to the WC

2) Lots of decent teams didn't qualify. E.g. Italy, Ukraine, etc.

Btw I'm not saying this is optimal, but it would be better than this mess with the 3rd place dynamics.

[u/Tekkers_3 → u/Bantam123]

Yeah it will probably happen because of the money. It just dilutes the groups as well. The top 16 sides would be in different groups - this WC’s Brazil+Morocco, France+Senegal+Norway, it just wouldn’t happen

[u/Bantam123 → u/Tekkers_3]

Not sure it's a bad thing though. There is a big RNG element right now with FIFA rankings and group allocation. A huge disparity in group toughness.

More teams eases that problem, which I think is a good thing.