¿Deriamos de Tener Coeficiente en la Libertadores?

I can help with the endless arguments on what league is better, by results we see that Chile, Uruguay and Colombia are very close for the #3 spot.

 

Definitely, it was great to see your work. But I think it is widely known that (in leagues) Brazil is a clear #1, Argentina a clear #2, Mexico a clear #3 and Chile, Uruguay and Colombia fall in the 4-6 range. Also, that Venezuela and Bolivia are the weakest.

It'd be interesting to see trends, that is, taking windows of 5 years results from both Copa Libertadores and Copa Sudemericana to see the overall trend (say, 2002-2006, 2003-2007, 2004-2008 and 2005-2009). I'd say the Argentina league is dropping in points, while the Mexican league is rising. Also, I'd say Chile has gone up while Colombia has come down.

The analysis cannot go back beyond 2002, because the format of Mercosur and Merconorte does not help with the calculations.

You know, now that I think about it, yes, having league coefficients (and perhaps even team coefficients) may be useful.

 

If there were coefficients there would be still the issue with the amounts of spots, i guess both Argentina and Brazil should get 1 spot less each.

 

It has nothing to do with making it look like something else.

That is the problem of third-world countries: they are so "proud" that they are willing to stay poor instead of admitting that their "way" of doing things is mediocre.

This has to do with taking the good qualities you see in others, mixing it up with the good qualities we have, and making the product better.

Coefficients would not only decide and give slots more transparently, but it would also be an extra-motivational tool for football leagues to create a better system of football (crappy results, less slots. simple as that).

 

I thought that supposing that only South American sides played the Libertadores using a ranking/coefficients or whatever would help to share equally the spots, like leagues ranked 1-4 get 3 group berths and 1 qualifying round berth, each and so leagues ranked 6-10 get 2 group berths and 2 qualifying round berths each, meaning that leagues ranked 1-4 would get a minimum of 3 teams on the Groups Stage and a maximium of 4, while leagues ranked 6-10 get a minimum of 2 but also have the possibility to get 4.

 

Coefficient in libertadores (updated to results of the pre-group elimination).

Brazil.........84.684
Argentina...60.016
Mexico.......49.6
Chile..........49
Uruguay.....45.333
Colombia....44.833
Paraguay...39.167
Peru..........36.167
Ecuador.....36
Venezuela..27.499
Bolivia.......20.999

I only used the results for Libertadores in the past 5 years (2007-2011), I used wikipedia, so some numbers could not be correct. Also I do not know what to do for the year were Mexico did not finish the libertadores. So their score can be under reported because they had 5 teams in 2010 but 2 did not get any bonus points for the group play.

Win in pre-group 1 point
Draw in pre-group .5

Making it to the group 4 points
One extra point for each round a team advances

Wins on and after the group is 2 points
Draw is 1 point

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...3YzBzZk85Zzh5U0E&hl=en&authkey=CMmuzYgC#gid=0

 

Coefficient in libertadores (updated to results of the group stage).

Brazil.........92.35
Argentina...66.016
Mexico.......55.933
Chile..........55
Colombia....50.5
Uruguay.....49.667
Paraguay...45.834
Ecuador.....40.667
Peru..........38.833
Venezuela..30.166
Bolivia.......23.333

Colombia now ahead of Uruguay
Ecuador now ahead of Peru

I only used the results for Libertadores in the past 5 years (2007-2011), I used wikipedia, so some numbers could not be correct. Also I do not know what to do for the year were Mexico did not finish the libertadores. So their score can be under reported because they had 5 teams in 2010 but 2 did not get any bonus points for the group play.

Win in pre-group 1 point
Draw in pre-group .5

Making it to the group 4 points
One extra point for each round a team advances

Wins on and after the group are 2 points
Draw is 1 point

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...3YzBzZk85Zzh5U0E&hl=en&authkey=CMmuzYgC#gid=0

 

ceezmad Thank you for such information, I really appreciate it. I'm surprised of seeing Colombia in a better position than Ecuador. I mean, from 2007 to 2010, only one time a colombian team reach semifinals, on the other hand, liga de quito from Ecuador had good performances during such period of time.

But anyways,,, forgive my ignorace, i really don't understand such coefficients, if Colombia has a Coefficient of 50.5, that would mean how many berths for Colombia?

 

It would depend on what conmebol would want. I like the current system where 3 teams per country (5 for Bra and Arg)

But if Conmebol were to go the way of Europe (again I hope they don't)

it wound be more about gropings

For example they could set it this way.

Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru would get lets say 2 teams

Then Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay would get 3

Colombia, Chile and Mexico (if they continue to be in it) would get 4

Brazil and Argentina would continue to get 5,maybe Arg 5 and Brazil 6 since their league is far and above the rest.

Note: I guess they could use something like this in the case Mexico is not allowed to continue, then they could split Mexico's spots to Chile, Colombia and the pre-group to Uruguay.

 

Argentina y Brasil 5 equipos
Uruguay 4
Paraguay, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador y Peru 3
Bolivia y Venezuela 1



Los Mexicanos no tendrían qe jugar la Libertadores, no son de esta confederación y no estan a la altura de ningun club Sudamericano con historia, no tendrían ni merecen jugar en una copa tan importante como lo es la Libertadores..

 

Asi es, no estan a la altura ni tienen la historia ni gloria ni las copas que tienen los clubes de Brasil, Argentina, Ururguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia y Chile que han ganado la Libertadores

 

Coefficient in libertadores (updated to quarterfinals).

Brazil.........93.85
Argentina...67.416
Mexico.......57.266
Chile..........56.667
Colombia....52.166
Uruguay.....51
Paraguay...47.834
Ecuador.....40.667
Peru..........38.833
Venezuela..30.166
Bolivia.......23.333

I only used the results for Libertadores in the past 5 years (2007-2011), I used wikipedia, so some numbers could not be correct. Also I do not know what to do for the year were Mexico did not finish the libertadores. So their score can be under reported because they had 5 teams in 2010 but 2 did not get any bonus points for the group play.

Win in pre-group 1 point
Draw in pre-group .5

Making it to the group 4 points
One extra point for each round a team advances

Wins on and after the group are 2 points
Draw is 1 point

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...3YzBzZk85Zzh5U0E&hl=en&authkey=CMmuzYgC#gid=0


2 from Paraguay
1 Brazil
1 Colombia
1 Mexico
1 Argentina
1 Chile
1 Uruguay

Are still alive and can get points for their federations.

 

Surprised to see Chile so high. 2 Semis in a row cant hurt (assuming Catolica beat Penarol)

 

Using a real criteria to allocate the spots isn't a bad idea even if Europe does it, the matter is that it doesn't neccesarily has to be exactly like theirs, true, it could be coefficient but it may also be average, the sum of points or another crietria. Now I think that having a groups stage of 32 teams and pretend to carry on with a second competition is excessive considering that there're few countries(even if you include Mexico), I think the groups stage should be reduced to 16 teams if they want to keep the Sudamericana. Now using the order from your table the spots would end like this:

-1st to 3rd(Brazil, Argentina and Chile): Each one gets 2 spots for the groups 1 for the qualifying round.
-4th to 6th(Colombia, Uruguay and Paraguay): Each gets 1 spot for the groups and 1 for the qualifying round.
-7th to 10th(Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia): Each gets 1 spot for the groups only.

So there would be 13 teams that qualify directly to the groups strage and other 6 on the qualifying round, from there you'd get the other 3 for to complete the 16.

 

En 1999 se pasaron el coeficiente y la historia de la Libertadores por el forro de las pelotas. La CONMEBOL decretó que Argentina y Brasil son los mercados más fuertes y que de ahí en más participarían con más clubes que el resto para regocijo de Leoz, Grondona, De Luca, Pelé, sus alcahuetes y las grandes cadenas de televisión.

Si ahora quieren empezar con el tema de los coeficientes deberíamos empezar todos de cero para barajar y dar de vuelta con el viejo sistema de 2 clubes por país.

Recién ahí se podría hacer justicia con los coeficientes.

 

Remember the score of a country is divided by the number of teams that country sends to the tournament.

If Argentina with 5 teams did not have any team make it out of the group stage, their score would suck.

If all 3 of Uruguay's teams were to make it to the quarters then they would get a very high score.

 

Whatever system they choose, the most important thing is that is clear and the rules are set...

I like the present number of clubs (38), but I would love to have more preliminary round matches..

champion directly to group phase
1st ranked 5 teams (4 group, 1 preliminary)
2nd 5 (4 group, 1 preliminary)
3rd 4 (3 group, 1 preliminary)
4th 4 (2 group, 2 preliminary)
5th 3 (2 group, 1 preliminary)
6th 3 (2 group, 1 preliminary)
7th 3 (2 group, 1 preliminary)
8th 3 (2 group, 1 preliminary)
9th 3 (2 group, 1 preliminary)
10th 2 (1 group, 1 preliminary)
11th 2 (1 group, 1 preliminary)

That will leave the same number of teams in each round, but will make a little more rewarding being a better federation..

 

Pero usted también recuerde que, por ejemplo, cuando juegan 2 equipos de un mismo país no pueden perder los dos.

Y que las chances de que esto ocurra aumentan con el correr de los años y la cantidad de equipos con la que uno participa.

Argentina desde el año 2000 tiene 4 cupos seguros + 1
Brasil también, 4 cupos seguros + 1

El resto de los mortales tenemos 2 cupos seguros + 1

 

Y pensar que hasta el año 1995 Peñarol y Nacional tenian ganadas más Copas Libertadores que todos los clubes brasileros juntos! Cierto es que entonces los equipos uruguayos no ganaban una desde 1988, pero Brasil también pasó sus sequías, y mucho peores.

Los clubes brasileros estuvieron 13 años sin ganar nada, de 1963 a 1976, y luego otros 10 años, de 1983 a 1993. Pero claro, un día esto le pasó a Uruguay y se decretó a Brasil y Argentina como amos absolutos del Universo CONMEBOL.

O mejor dicho, se auto-decretaron. Los tipos hacen lo que quieren con sus alcahuetes.

 

I say 2 teams per country and that's it

11 countries(counting Mexico) = 22 teams plus the last champion and the Sudamericana champion = 24 teams

6 groups of 4

first 2 of each group(12) plus the 4 best third place teams qualify to the next round = 16 teams

and then home and away games until the end like it is today

Simple

 

Estoy de acuerdo.

Tal vez con la salvedad de que en 1ra fase preferiría que clasifiquen solo 2 por grupo y nada de mejores 3ros. Y luego exactamente como en el mundial de España 1982.

Algunos argumentan que no es viable definir semifinalistas con 4 grupos de 3 equipos porque se corre el riesgo de que en esos grupos se jueguen últimos partidos al pedo o con un equipo ya eliminado. Pero eso se resuelve haciendo jugar en el 2do choque al eventual perdedor del 1ro con el que todavía no jugó.

En definitiva:

6 groups of 4

first 2 of each group (12)

4 groups of 3

first of each group (4)

Semi-Finals

Final

Total: 14 (7x2) matches for to be champion

Simple

 

Works for me

I was thinking about ending up with 16,8,4...
but going from 12 to 4 in one step sounds even better


Sold!

Get that fat ass Leoz on the phone

 

Vió que no es ninguna locura tampoco? Ni siquiera le haría perder dinero a la FOX. Prácticamente se jugarían la misma cantidad de partidos que ahora.

 

Mexicans should not play Libertadores

 

Don't forget that there were years in which not all the countries took part, for example Brazil missed it three years(If I recall correctly), one of them was 1970. If i recall correctly Argentina and Uruguay were the only ones that never missed it.

FOX should take hike, we shouldn't ask them their take on anything, because it isn't going to do us any good.