LMvCP
12 Sep 2005, 11:50 AM
I have noticed that in the past 10 years (and even as recent as 2 years ago), that many of the central american leagues have steered away from a league system and gone into a knock out system to determine the champion.
Was this done copy the Mexican league?
Although the Mexican league implemented this back in 1970 with the hopes to generate more interest, attendence, and revenue for smaller clubs, the league (competition) was still a level playing field.
Out of 54 clubs that have ever played in Mexico's 1st division, 23 of them have been crowned champion. 27 have been either champion or runner up. 15 out of those 23 have been crowned at least twice. The margin of total titles from the team thas has the most to the team that has the 5th most titles is only 5.
10 [9] Guadalajara
10 [6] América
08 [6] Cruz Azul
07 [4] Toluca
05 [5] León
05 [5] U.N.A.M.
03 [4] Necaxa
03 [1] Pachuca
2 clubs are tied with 2 titles
As you can see, the Mexican leagues is not like the Scottish league where out of 100 titles disputeds, Rangers and Celtic have 90 of them. The Mexican league is pretty much even. The clubs that do invest more are more successful (like America, Cruz Azul, etc)
I guess what I am trying to get at, If the Central American leagues (Hon, ES, CR, Gua) have gone to a knockout system to level the playing field and give the underdog a chance, why is it that the teams of the past (Municipal, Saprissa, Firpo, etc) are still winning? Have the smaller clubs been able to generate money? Is there really a difference (with respect to resources) from a top club to a middle club?
Was this done copy the Mexican league?
Although the Mexican league implemented this back in 1970 with the hopes to generate more interest, attendence, and revenue for smaller clubs, the league (competition) was still a level playing field.
Out of 54 clubs that have ever played in Mexico's 1st division, 23 of them have been crowned champion. 27 have been either champion or runner up. 15 out of those 23 have been crowned at least twice. The margin of total titles from the team thas has the most to the team that has the 5th most titles is only 5.
10 [9] Guadalajara
10 [6] América
08 [6] Cruz Azul
07 [4] Toluca
05 [5] León
05 [5] U.N.A.M.
03 [4] Necaxa
03 [1] Pachuca
2 clubs are tied with 2 titles
As you can see, the Mexican leagues is not like the Scottish league where out of 100 titles disputeds, Rangers and Celtic have 90 of them. The Mexican league is pretty much even. The clubs that do invest more are more successful (like America, Cruz Azul, etc)
I guess what I am trying to get at, If the Central American leagues (Hon, ES, CR, Gua) have gone to a knockout system to level the playing field and give the underdog a chance, why is it that the teams of the past (Municipal, Saprissa, Firpo, etc) are still winning? Have the smaller clubs been able to generate money? Is there really a difference (with respect to resources) from a top club to a middle club?