BRENT LATHAM – There wasn’t too much news to come out of the Bob Bradley “four more years” presser this morning. That is, until Sunil Gulati dropped a bomb at the very end, in response to a question about CONCACAF qualifying.

It was announced after the World Cup that the region’s qualifying structure would likely be changed to try to get some more games for smaller countries that had faced a simple home-and-away elimination at the onset.

But the proposed changes hinted at by Gulati could end up drastically effecting who goes to the World Cup from the region, and spell disaster for the region’s giants.

What Gulati outlined was a final stage of two four-team groups, from which the winners would advance directly to the World Cup, and the two second place teams would play off for the third slot and playoff spot with South America.

Not only does it mean that Mexico and the U.S. potentially would not play each other, it sets up a nightmare scenario for either in which a short group phase will determine their World Cup fate.

The hexagonal is not perfect, but it’s pretty close to as fair as it gets in a region with so many teams. The most harried part of CONCACAF qualifying over the years for the U.S. and Mexico has come not in the hexagonal as much as in the semi-final round, which is structured in four team groups much like the proposed final round for 2014.

In 2002 the U.S. barely escaped a group with Guatemala and Costa Rica. In 2010 Mexico was lucky to advance on goal differential over a group that included Canada, Honduras, and Jamaica. It’s a Russian roulette of three tough road games combined with three home games fighting for three points against packed-in defenses.

Gulati said the U.S. would be fine with it. Really?

Fine with a structure that vastly eliminates any margin for error and improves the quality of the three opponents the U.S. would face in the crap shoot of that four team group?

Africa has a similar structure and it provides some shocks just about every time around, because six games among decent teams in unbalanced groups is just not enough of a sample size for the best teams to rise to the top.

Even if the U.S. is not paired with Mexico, which Gulati wouldn’t discount, picture these final groups for 2014:

Group A: Mexico, El Salvador, Trinidad & Tobago, Canada

Group B: U.S., Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica or Guatemala

How confident do you feel about the U.S.’ ability to win that group? What chances would you place on not finishing in the top two? Are those chances not significantly higher than the chance of not finishing in the top four of the hexagonal?

There’s another just as dangerous scenario – one in which the fourth team is a weakling. Replace the last team in the Group B with, say, Haiti or Cuba. Now the margin for error becomes even less.

This change may give some more games to the smaller teams, but it does it at the potential expense of putting the federation’s best out of the World Cup. That’s not good for anyone – except the team that creeps in playing negative soccer at Mexico’s or the U.S.’ expense.

With the potential for so little room for hiccups, it’s probably a good thing that Bob Bradley’s still in charge.

by Brent