The ICC cannot believe any of this because for the next Cricket World Cup - in England and Wales, no less - it is planning to reduce the number of teams from 14 to 10. And effectively do away with the likes of UAE and, who knows, perhaps even Ireland.
Why? Well, if the aim was to make the World Cup shorter, then at least it would be possible to agree with the end, if not the means. It is blindingly obvious that the main fault with the tournament is that it is too flaming long.
This particular World Cup is due to last 44 days, which is actually blessedly shorter than the interminable 2007 version, which some say is still going on somewhere in the Caribbean.
But, no, the 2019 tournament will not be any shorter. Television would not like that, now would it? That great god, which must be fed, wants as much bang for its buck as is possible, even if that bang happens to have the soporific effects of a bong by the conclusion of the 30-day group stages.
So, how to make it more exciting, more enticing to the viewers so they do not zoom away like speed junkies at a Rick Wakeman concert? That's right, ensure that the "major cricketing nations" get to play more games against what the ICC calls "marketable opposition".
In fact, introduce a round-robin section and guarantee that each of "the protected eight" - and they are "protected" no matter what the ICC will claim about the opportunity for Ireland and Afghanistan to break into that cabal - get to play each other.
So, England will be certain to meet Australia at least once (OK, "once"), India will definitely play Sri Lanka and so on.
Yes, the number of matches that system entails means that the group stages will be even longer, therefore demanding the ICC removes a knockout stage (ie an exciting bit) by going straight to the semis. But hey, this is the ICC's suggestion and each game will be competitive and that makes it more watchable, right?
Wrong.
Spend no time pondering the fact that this governing body's central remit is to spread the game of cricket around the globe, because that is a debate that the biggest dimwit in Dimwitland would struggle to lose against the ICC.
Instead, consider what have been the highlights of this tournament thus far. That sensational Chris Gayle knock apart, I would say Ireland's two wins - the first, of course, coming against the West Indies - and Afghanistan pushing Sri Lanka all the way and Scotland going down fighting against New Zealand stand out.
That is the way it always is with good and proper World Cups in any sport. The underdogs light up the early stages with dream-fuelled tenacity, before the teams with the pedigree swathe the latter parts with their beauty. Think of the pace of the football World Cup. Think how that never gets boring. Cricket could be the same if it only looked decades ahead and not merely four years to the next TV contract.
If the ICC gave proper encouragement to the likes of Ireland and the UAE then they would get better - they are getting better - and the competitive base would grow.
Eventually, it would have a World Cup worthy of the title and it would be able to flog it for as much as it liked to the TV companies. And the ICC would do so on its terms, on cricket's terms. All it would take is a little gumption now.
Alas, the ICC gumption barrel is drier than its reservoir of ethics. But there is still hope. In this regard, the ICC's quite wonderful trait is its 'jellyfishical' absence in the backbone department and thus its willingness to be bought, whether by the TV millions or by public outcry. It had planned on reducing this World Cup to its imperfect 10 following the 2011 tournament. The storm of protest persuaded the governing body to revert to 14.
Let's hit it with another. Go to www.change.org and search for "Cricket World Cup petition". The minnows can be heroes. For so many one days.
