Other than a larger money prize, the drama at the CWC will make teams want to be a part of that even more. Let's see if 2011 will show a Mazembe effect. I guarantee that CAF CL ratings will be higher than ever this year. Will the CCL respond in the wake of the Mazembe Miracle?
Even though a KO tournament would still give an uninterested MLS team the chance to punt 2 games and be done with it? Besides, last year's CCL put paid to that idea, of MLS teams possibly being motivated to tank it in the prelims. The New York Red Bulls had long since crashed and burned in MLS, so the CCL was all they had left to play for. Toronto FC put out their best team for the series against Puerto Rico, and got a strong turnout for their home game, because as a Canadian team they're living under the shadow of Montreal's historic run in 2008-09. And DC United, with the perfect opportunity to dodge the group stage by throwing the shootout against Luis Angel Firpo, scored with all 5 of their shots. Alternatively, it gives you the opportunity to send a B team for a road game or two and still be fine (see: Columbus Crew). With a KO tournament, you're forced to send the best team that can handle the job each time, which is probably more annoying if the end of the season and the playoffs are at hand. Other than Group B, I'd say that all the groups from the current CCL were "interesting and competitive" from start to finish. But the requirements force such countries to take their stadium projects more seriously, e.g. Nicaragua finally getting their National Stadium up and running.
Are you saying that you want luck-of-the-draw to be more of a factor? If that's the case, then that's terrible. This isn't an FA Cup, this is a Champions League. Competitive integrity must be a priority. Having luck play more of a factor would be a step backwards for this tournament.
-Punting 2 games would only avoid 2 more games instead of 6. -Playing high pressure games close to the playoffs would be better for some of these teams as they're already in a playoff mindset. Which would be a max of 4 instead of 8. -You could have still gotten those countries to take their stadium projects seriously by making them play all road games. Yes. Luck of the draw should be a factor. UEFA Champions League is also boring (for the most part) until the KO stages. Every result should mean something. Which is why the old CCC was better. No margin for error. No time wasting. That's what league play is for. And I agree that competitive integrity should be a priority, which is why Mexico and USA should both lose a spot. No reason for them to have 4 guaranteed spots.
...and the MLS teams currently playing in the CCL don't bother avoiding the 6 games, so their alleged aversion to international play's not really a factor here. Yes, because MLS teams are known for handling multi-tournament fatigue pretty well (see: Seattle, RSL, and Columbus in last year's playoffs). Because making their national teams do just that has changed anything? I'll hear out arguments for the US losing a spot, but unless you want nobody getting that many spots in the Concacaf championship...I'd think it a given that FMF deserves the maximum number of guaranteed spots that Concacaf is willing to give any one country.
RSL and Columbus had 6 games tacked on to their schedule. Seattle had 8. Which is the point of what I'm talking about. There's no reason for that many games. Make every round a 2-legged knockout round. Shorten RSL's and Crew's load to 2 games and Seattle's to 4. -In that road games deal I was talking about, I meant that they shouldn't get a return leg. I don't know much about Nicaragua's stadium situation though. -You are right. I don't think there's any reason for anyone to get that many guaranteed spots. I would still keep a place for the defending champion so that anyone can get an extra team (though it is likely a Mexican team would take it).
If Concacaf is trying to improve the level of play region-wide (like what is happening with the new WCQ format), then maybe the 16-team group stage would need to stay. But I have a couple format suggestions: (a) 32 teams, play 2 knock-out rounds, with the group stage at the round of 8. (b) play your preliminary round(s) in the home+home ties, then have the finals in a WC-style tournament. Have 8, 12, or 16 teams, in single round-robin groups (hosted by 2, 3, or 4 remaining teams), with single-matches from the QF's/SF's. (16 may be too many for this format, as it would be near a month.) This may look like the SuperLiga (but with more than just US-MEX teams), but I say that this tournament would be promotable for TV purposes (even if all games wouldn't be on home fields). And this would give the Central/Caribbean clubs a number of quality matches.
Good idea OP, we can start by taking the uncompetitive MLS teams out of the tourney, or at least reducing their appearance to just one team. God those teams are awful.
Africa has a qualifying round to reduce it to 32 clubs and then does that. There is no rule requiring country separation seeing as that both Egyptian clubs in the final eight of the 2010 CAF Champions League were in the same group. Considering the probability that each group would have two Mexican clubs if CONCACAF did that, I like the current format better than having only eight clubs in the Group Stage.
Pot 1 Defending Champion Mexico 1 Mexico 2 USA 1 Costa Rica 1 Honduras 1 Guatemala 1 Panama 1 Caribbean 1 Pot 2 USA 2 USA 3 Mexico 3 Canada 1 Costa Rica 2 Honduras 2 El Salvador 1 Pot 3 Nicaragua 1 Belize 1 Caribbean 2 Caribbean 3 Panama 2 Guatemala 2 El Salvador 2 1st round - Teams from Pot 3 drawn against Pot 2 at random 2nd round - The 7 winning teams from Round 1 face 7 teams from Pot 1. The 2 leftover teams from Pot 1 face each other. Only 1 draw for Rounds 1 and 2. Quarterfinals, semifinals, final For the remaining 8 teams - the draw will be completely random. They will be drawn into a bracket like the UEFA Champions League does when it draws teams into fixed brackets for the quarters, semis, and final. The final - a one-game final. The host is determined by this same draw.
The false assumption that I'm reading here is that teams don't take the tournament seriously because of where it falls on the calendar and the fixture congestion it causes. Teams don't take it seriously because they simply do not care about it. There's no tradition in it like you have in the UEFA and CONMEBOL tournaments. There aren't enough challengers; Mexico dominates with reserves. And when you get right down to it, there isn't a big enough payout to make it worthwhile to the clubs to actually go all out in their attempts to win it. Like I said before, the only way this tournament will see a rise is status is a higher degree of competitiveness. If Mexican clubs actually have to play their best 11 to beat MLS and Costa Rican clubs, then this tournament will really take off. As it is right now, it's just another opportunity to get some PT for the reserves, at least until the semi-finals. Also, higher quality refereeing wouldn't hurt.
Adding a group stage has made it less competitive. Adding more subpar teams and keeping them around is not a good thing.
When I mean competitiveness, I mean the amount of leagues that have legitimate title contenders in the tournament. You can have 8 or 16 or 32 clubs participating, it will not matter if the Mexican clubs are dominating with reserves. Until that is no longer the case the tournament will remain a sideshow to the actual league seasons.
How so? Since adding the group stage + prelim round: - Canadian teams have held their own - Honduran teams now actually challenge MLS opposition - Caribbean teams (the Puerto Rico Islanders, last year's W Connection, Joe Public in 2008) have competed toe-to-toe with MLS and Central American opponents (see: all the MLS Cup runners-up in the last three years having been eliminated by Caribbean teams) - MLS teams now struggle just to reach the quarterfinals, this year being the first time we got 2 teams there If you want to argue that the CCL is less interesting or too long for having a group stage, I'm listening, but I really don't see how you could argue that it's less competitive. Unless you're talking about actual contention for the title, in which case adding 2 more Mexican teams made it that much more difficult for everyone else.
There are simply too many games in too many places that very few people watch. These are only the crowds under 2,000 since the CCL started: Attendance: 253 -- Brujas v. Joe Public (July 28, 2010) Attendance: 300 -- Puerto Rico Islanders v. Columbus Crew (October 20, 2009) Attendance: 300 -- San Francisco v. Luis Angel Firpo (October 22, 2008) Attendance: 400 -- Joe Public v. Atlante (October 21, 2008) Attendance: 426 -- Luis Angel Firpo v. San Francisco (October 1, 2008) Attendance: 500 -- Tauro v. Chivas USA (August 26, 2008) Attendance: 500 -- Hankook Verdes v. Cruz Azul (September 3, 2008) Attendance: 500 -- Joe Public v. Brujas (August 5, 2010) Attendance: 500 -- San Juan Jabloteh v. Marathón (October 22, 2009) Attendance: 500 -- Árabe Unido v. Real Salt Lake (September 22, 2010) Attendance: 500 -- Joe Public v. Municipal (September 23, 2010) Attendance: 500 -- Joe Public v. Columbus Crew (October 21, 2010) Attendance: 501 -- Árabe Unido v. Toronto FC (August 24, 2010) Attendance: 675 – Liberia Mía v. Real España (July 29, 2009) Attendance: 700 -- San Juan Jabloteh v. Toluca (August 20, 2009) Attendance: 725 -- San Francisco v. Cruz Azul (July 27, 2010) Attendance: 763 -- San Juan Jabloteh v. Santos Laguna (July 27, 2010) Attendance: 800 -- Real España v. Comunicaciones (September 30, 2009) Attendance: 847 --Joe Public v. Olimpia (September 24, 2008) Attendance: 850 -- Árabe Unido v. Olimpia (August 6, 2009) Attendance: 900 -- Joe Public v. Santos Laguna (August 18, 2010) Attendance: 900 -- Alajuelense v. Puerto Rico Islanders (August 27, 2008) Attendance: 1,000 -- Real Estelí v. Montreal Impact (September 2, 2008) Attendance: 1,000 -- San Francisco v. Jalapa (September 4, 2008) Attendance: 1,000 -- Árabe Unido v. Pachuca (August 19, 2009) Attendance: 1,000 -- Municipal v. Tauro (October 8, 2008) Attendance: 1,000 -- Olimpia v. Joe Public (October 28, 2008) Attendance: 1,000 -- W Connection v. Real España (October 21, 2009) Attendance: 1,083 -- Isidro Metapán v. Seattle Sounders FC (August 3, 2010) Attendance: 1,200 -- Isidro Metapán v. Houston Dynamo (October 21, 2009) Attendance: 1,237 -- Herediano v. Cruz Azul (July 30, 2009) Attendance: 1,237 -- Tauro v. Marathón (July 28, 2010) Attendance: 1,300 -- Árabe Unido v. Houston Dynamo (August 26, 2009) Attendance: 1,483 -- Marathón v. Toluca (October 1, 2009) Attendance: 1,500 -- Real España v. Liberia Mía (August 6, 2009) Attendance: 1,500 -- Jalapa v. San Francisco (August 8, 2008) Attendance: 1,500 -- Isidro Metapán v. Marathón (August 27, 2008) Attendance: 1,500 --Tauro v. Santos Laguna (October 2, 2008) Attendance: 1,500 --Tauro v. Puerto Rico Islanders (October 29, 2008) Attendance: 1,509 -- Luis Angel Firpo v. Universidad Nacional (October 9, 2008) Attendance: 1,600 -- W Connection v. UNAM (September 16, 2009) Attendance: 1,764 -- Municipal v. Santos Laguna (October 30,2008) Attendance: 1,821 -- Chivas USA v. Tauro (September 2, 2008) Attendance: 1,861 -- Jalapa v. Pachuca (August 4, 2009) It's going to be hard for this tournament to ever get any traction with this many poorly attended games. Personally, I'd leave the group stage but dump the preliminary round, and I'd reset the slots as follows: 3 -- Mexico 2 -- Costa Rica 2 -- Honduras 2 -- Guatemala 2 -- United States 1 -- El Salvador 1 -- Canada 1 -- Panama 1 -- CFU Club Champion 1 -- Defending Champion By including the defending champion Mexico would likely four slots, which is deserved because they have the best clubs and they also provide some of the best support. I know it looks harsh on the CFU clubs, but the Caribbean clubs can qualify through their own club championship tournament. I think this would get better teams, and just as importantly, better drawing teams into the Group stage.
But the Mexican teams don't dominate. 2 of them failed to win their group. This will be the 1st non-All Mexican Final since 2005.
How is that your point? Your point is that it's size is hurting the competition. I said size doesn't matter. The issue concerns the talent of the teams involved. If Mexican sides dominate an 8 club tournament then they'll dominate a 108 club tournament simply because they have the best clubs. Until MLS, Costa Rica, and/or some other leagues catch up, the tournament will remain a minor priority.
I think is good we moved away from this, the CCC is similar to your idea, and the CCC was not very good. This, and by playing more international games will help them improve. The CFU deserves more spots, also eventually Belize and Nicaragua will have stadiums that will meet Concacaf standards, are they going to be left out? https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22059359&postcount=91 the CFU has been the 4th best "country/region" in the CCL. (They will drop to 5th after this year).
As for the former, I'd let them play in with Panama. As for the later, more CFU clubs would be a killer, not a positive. If you look at that list, there have been 22 games that didn't draw a thousand people, and all of those games save one involve a CFU club, a Panamanian club or a club from Belize (either as the home or road team). Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't have a chance to compete, but, as I said, I would reduce the number of games and the number of teams so there are less of these contests where so few people are there -- its going to be very hard to get people excited about this tournament when there are so many games in virtually empty stadiums IMO.
Until they magically catch up..... ok. The size/length of the competition affects all that other stuff. Overexpansion in every direction has brought us a drawn out and boring overall competition. And given us greater domination by Mexican teams. And it also leads to these numbers posted: Thanks to secret Concacaf "draws".
Magic won't have anything to do with it. MLS WILL catch up. It's only a matter of time. Costa Rican clubs have challenged before and I imagine they will again. I would call it proper expansion of a tournament that, priorly, a lot of people didn't even know existed. It brought the tournament closer to the Copa Libertadores and UEFA Champions League. There's nothing wrong with that.
More people know about this competition. Is it because it is better or is it because of FIFA putting more emphasis on the CWC? Having a group stage brought the tournament closer to Copa Libertadores and UCL in form or in stature?