Geofixing, Revisited: Imposed Fairness
Posted on April 13, 2012 4:15 pm
Last year, shortly after Monterrey won their maiden CONCACAF Champions League title, club president Luis Miguel Salvador presented CONCACAF with a list of proposals for improving the competition. At the time, I found his suggestion of reducing the number of group stage fixtures incompatible with the goal of introducing that round in the first place: to increase the presence of and exposure to continental tournaments throughout the region. Sure enough, the next CCL (2011-12) started up with the same format as the last, and I remained certain that the idea was dead and buried.
Then the bottom fell out of CONCACAF’s leadership, with Chuck Blazer excusing himself from the organization; and the remaining Executive Committee (Justino Compean, Alfredo Hawit, Ariel Alvarado and Sunil Gulati), along with acting General Secretary Ted Howard, decided to announce a new setup for the Champions League. You can imagine the cereal guy moment I had after seeing Salvador’s proposal incorporated into the new format; even more surprising, the three-team groups allow for increased exposure, with all 24 CCL participants involved from July to October.
The change does present a major concern, however: with only group winners advancing, there is currently no merit-based differentiation between the quarterfinalists. In other words, as it stands, anyone can get paired with anyone else. My Mexican readers already know where I am going with this: there is nothing stopping CONCACAF from having Mexican clubs eliminate each other ad infinitum in order to keep the tournament international as long as possible. At least my geofixing proposal would have been applied only after the quarterfinalists had been separated into group winners and runners-up, a classification dependent only on the performance of the teams in question. For instance, Toluca in 2010-11 and Morelia in 2011-12 had only themselves to blame for ending up with a domestic opponent in the CCL quarterfinals; and were geofixing codified, Mexican clubs would know in advance that they could avoid such an outcome by sweeping the groups (as they did in 2009-10).
Now that the new format has rendered it inapplicable, I advocate the adoption of another Salvador proposal: rewarding teams that finish with more points in the group stage by letting them host the second leg of their knockout-round ties. More explicitly, CONCACAF should adapt and implement the system used in the Copa Libertadores, with the quarterfinalists seeded from 1 to 8 based on group-stage performance. To start off, I would rewrite Article 2.2.3 of the current regulations, deleting subpoint c (the new format renders it vestigial) and rewriting subpoints d and e in the following manner:
“The teams will be ranked from one to eight based on the following criteria:
- Greater number of points earned in the group stage
- Greater goal difference in all group matches
- Greater number of goals scored away from home in all group matches
- Greater number of points earned in matches against the group runner-up only
- Greater goal difference in matches against the runner-up
- Greater number of goals scored away from home against the runner-up
- Drawing of lots”
The bracket would then be automatically set up by ranking:
1 vs. 8
4 vs. 5
–
2 vs. 7
3 vs. 6
…with the higher seed hosting the second leg of each series, up to and including the Final.
I do not retract my apprehension to seeding knockout-round participants for the Copa Libertadores: with group winners and runners-up already separated, seeding them unfairly benefits clubs that dominated easy groups over runners-up that had to survive more difficult ones. However, in the absence of any merit-based differentiation (as with the new CCL format), this system should be adopted in order to avoid the complaints of favoritism or discrimination that can arise from simply announcing a draw outcome without a live broadcast.
Two other benefits would be extended to all participants: with the adoption of the ranking system, after CONCACAF announces the initial groups, the rest of the tournament organizes itself, with teams knowing in advance the knockout-round journey that awaits them based on transparent criteria. Also, anyone can take advantage of the reduction in the number of group-stage matches in order to earn a high seeding.
For instance, let us assume that for the 2012-13 Champions League, Real Salt Lake end up in a group with Arabe Unido and Alpha United, while Tigres get drawn with Deportivo Saprissa and Comunicaciones. Based on their past performance, RSL would have a realistic shot at 10-12 points in their group, while Tigres would struggle with hostile away games in Central America and scrape through with 7-8 points. Should RSL and Tigres run into each other in the semifinals, then, the Americans would get to host the second leg, an advantage they will have earned in a clear, transparent manner (Tigres fans could fairly complain about the initial group-stage draw, but their team would only have itself to blame for not winning in Costa Rica and Guatemala).
In short: while a random, live draw remains the best option for setting up the knockout round of the Champions League, a ranking system is far preferable to the status quo.
I’m not sure I like the idea of seeding teams based on their points within their group when the groups are inherently unequal. I’d rather see the knockout bracket set up simply with:
Group A Winner vs. Group B Winner
Group C Winner vs. Group D Winner
E vs. F
G vs. H
That way, you know in advance who your potential knockout opposition could be, and it’s transparent in that there is absolutely no way to meddle with this.
Now, if you have Mexican teams in Groups A-D or E-H, I’d say mix it up, so you don’t have the “Mexican bracket” and the “non-Mexican bracket” in the knockouts.
But of course, like you said, a live, open draw would be greatly preferable.
Something out in the open in CONCACAF? Blasphemy.
I am thinking this new format will only last 1 year.
I like your idea. Is it too late for them to change from the random draw method of seeding, to your idea? Because not only will the matchups be random, but so will HFA, which can be crucial.
The CONCACAF is such a joke. Has anyone interviewed the guy who decided on the Mex/usa separation in the Group Stage? I’d like to hear that guy say with a straight face that that format is deserved.
That’s why I put this up now – hopefully the idea will get passed on and eventually reach the decision makers’ desk. In any case, once the new CCL regulations are out, I will be sure to check what provisions for the knockout round (if any) were implemented.
Well, there’s no guarantee that they read this site. Here’s contact information you can send your ideas to:
CONCACAF
725 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY
10022
For general inquiries please contact us at CONTACT@CONCACAF.ORG. (For webcast issues regarding the live stream of our games on CONCACAF TV, see below).
For media inquiries please contact us at MEDIA@CONCACAF.ORG.
Also follow us on Official Concacaf (English), Concacaf Oficial (Spanish) Facebook pages and Twitter for the latest news and multimedia coverage.
http://www.concacaf.com/page/ContactUs
Let them know before it’s too late.
The fairest way is to pre-bracket the knockout stage as ArsenalMetro suggests, and then set up the groups so there’s a Mexican team in each quadrant. If that means four Mexican teams in the semis then so be it. Randomness isn’t fairness.
If we want a setup that lessens the chances of four Mexican teams in the semis we should be honest that we’re sacrificing fairness for aesthetic reasons. Confeds do this all the time when setting up their club tournaments so it’s not a huge deal.
For the group stages–and this will never happen–they should form the 16 non-Mexico/US teams into 8 pairs that are as equal as possible and then put each pair in a group. So if you get Alpha United you also get the best Central American team or Canadian MLS team.
Since you’re building off of ArsenalMetro’s suggestion, I’ll respond to both of them here.
Let’s be honest: unless the new-and-hopefully-improved CONCACAF comes with a new MO for their main tournaments, the groups for the 2012-13 CCL will be announced, not drawn live. If the knockout round is already set (A vs. B, C vs. D, etc.), then CONCACAF will retain the capacity to set up the bracket as they please. And if three or four Mexican teams arbitrarily end up on the same side of the bracket, then the Mexican conspiracy theorists will be out in force, and rightfully so.
One could hope that they keep the Mexican teams apart; but say they decide to do it by letting the US/Mexican top seeds head Groups A-D, while the Central American top seeds head Groups E-H. How, exactly, would it be fair for the Mexican Apertura and Clausura champions to end up on the same side of the bracket?
The groups are already unfair – one of the US/Mexican second seeds will luck out and draw the Panamanian champion (with all due respect, PAN1 has been generally horrible in the CCL era; Arabe Unido achieved their historic run in 2009-10 as PAN2), while the other three will have to face stiffer challenges. And lest we forget, the US and Mexican teams will be kept apart, an entirely unjustifiable decision from a sporting perspective. So, with fairness no longer the primary goal, my proposal aims to take the knockout-round setup entirely out of CONCACAF’s hands.
It would be easy enough to put the Apertura and Clausura champions on the opposite side of the bracket. The important thing is that (from a fairness standpoint) you should either have to beat a Mexican team, or the team that beat a Mexican team, in order to make the semis.
The groups will never quite be equal, but we should try to make them as equal as possible. Someone will draw PAN1, we should make sure they can’t also draw Alpha United or Tempete.
One other thing to keep in mind: if CONCACAF deliberately keeps the Mexican clubs away from each other in the bracket, then the rest of the region will cry foul and accuse CONCACAF of favoring Mexican teams (to say nothing of CONCACAF’s preference for avoiding all-Mexican semifinals).
My main point is that little good can come from CONCACAF deliberately setting up the knockout round, one way or another. The ranking system would not be perfect, and as you and ArsenalMetro have argued, its fairness is certainly in question. But the most important thing is that the system would be in the teams’ hands, not CONCACAF’s.
Any thought of implementing a formal seeding system? There is the one thread that attempts to create a ranking based on the UEFA-style multi-year point average. http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=4284f9c4d5887b41596b58577ed9506b&t=1187575&page=38
Then, you would seed the groups (and later, the knockouts) based on the point systems.
A few changes I would make in the ranking models: Mostly, go to maybe 7-10 years (with the most recent years weighted higher). This is because with only 24 teams in the main draw (UEFA has over 200 teams in their two tourneys), you will end up with many teams whose rating points would be effectively zero [at least your club's points, over half of the club+confederation number of points]. Adding a few extra years would help overcome that.
Now, to the main point of the article; I did like the one year where all Mexican teams were in one half of the knockout. It was kind of fun playing to be “the best non-Mexican team in the region.”
As A-Metro said, I’m not sure that seeding the knockouts solely on the group results of that year is best. Again, I would go with the multi-year point-average. (Of course, the current year’s group games would be incorporated into the average, but over multiple years that could even out, after the weighting.)
A seeding system would help with determining a fairer distribution of CCL berths (with the exception of Canada, but that’s another story). I do not know of any continental club championship in the world, however, that uses a country seeding system for setting up the knockout round.
As for CONCACAF, if we used a formal seeding system, then the US and Mexican teams wouldn’t be kept apart (again, no sporting justification whatsoever).
Doesnt matter what Concacaf does this tournament will always be in the Mexican teams favor. They have all the wealth in the region.
the region does not have the Money to compete. to even provide some sort of competition
For god sakes Herc Gomez is making DP money at Santos Laguna. and hes isnt even a starter. Mexican teams send b Squads to Central america that can manage to get results and they blow everyone out at home.
the reason all the other continental competitions work is because there a sort of financially parity between the big leagues in the regions.
Asia has the J league the K league and the Oil rich Arab leagues.
South America has Brazil then everyone else is about the same in terms of finances. Heck Mexico is the other big spending league that plays in the Copa lib as well
UEFA has the big six leagues
i cant speak for Africa but seems the competition is very x
competitive there is always a different champion
then theres concacaf 1 big league that is in the top ten worldwide $$$ wise
All we can hope for is MLS upping the Salary cap to compete here and there
or the Mexican league tanking financially…
which will not happen in my lifetime
Popular Store Items
Popular Posts
Latest from the Forum
About Big Soccer
Copyright © 2011 Big Internet Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Click here for our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Views expressed by the bloggers and users of BigSoccer do not represent the views of Big Internet Group, LLC.