The group stage rule change doesn't give US MLS teams any more "protections" from Liga MX teams than the old group stage did. In the old format, there was one Mexican and one US MLS team in each group. However, two teams advance. In order to advance, therefore, the U.S. team hadto finish better than the other two non-Mexican teams. They didn't have to beat the Mexican team. In the current format, the US MLS teams still have to finish better than the other two non-Mexican teams. The Mexican team is still irrelevant to the MLS team advancing. Given that the new rules don't actually benefit MLS any more than the old rules did, is it so much of a stretch to think maybe they were put in place for the obvious reasons--increasing the number of games played by the minnows, who were getting one home game in the prelims and nothing else, and decreasing the number of group stage games played by everyone else, by reducing the group stage from six games (eight if you played a prelim) to four? If you want to argue that the US shouldn't have had second seed in the old system, knock yourself out---but the new system keeps the status quo as far as the US is concerned.
While it can be argued the USA teams didn't get new protections it did get an unfair protection while making the new group format a lot less forgiving for the Central American clubs. Under the old system a team like Herediano could potentially advance by finishing ahead of the SJ Earthquakes even if the Mexican representative finished ahead of them. Now they have to finish ahead of Cruz Azul or they are done. Costa Rica's first seed is generally going to be the best representative from Central America there is no reason the Dynamo and SKC should get an easier path to the knockout rounds. I would also argue the USA representatives groups are much easier now then under the old system. The Dynamo's groups is a perfect example of that to say the new rules don't add any extra benefits to the USA representatives is a bit naive Protecting America's 4 representatives is so important to CONCACAF that they didn't even think twice about how foolish they looked by redrawing the groups when they noticed American teams grouped with Mexican teams. There was no other reason for that redraw other then protecting the American representatives
Okay, besides the MLS or Liga MX clubs being obvious favorites to win the CCC; what central american or caribbean club(s) would pose as a threat to be actually make it far in the tournament?
I would say Herediano and La Liga but they probably won't get out of the groups stage. Cominicaciones also might have had a chance but will also likely be bounced out in the group stage. So that leaves Olimpia and Cartagines with the best chances. I don't see any surprises like Xelaju in this tournment
Sure there is. It's called seeding. The whole point of seeding is so that the strongest teams don't face each other until late in the tournament. Here's how Costa Rica's top seed has done in the last few tournaments: 2012-13: Knocked out by LA Galaxy 2011-12: Knocked out in group stage behind LA Galaxy 2010-11: Knocked out by Real Salt Lake 2009-10: Knocked out in group stage behind Columbus Crew On balance, the groups are pretty much the same, except that there's a chance the minnow you face will be a little smaller. Houston's group has Panama 1 from Pot A, Houston from Pot B, and a CFU qualifier from Pot C. Add a Mexican team, and this could easily have been a group under the old system. Meanwhile, if it's such a benefit to Houston not to have a Mexican team in the group, how is this not also a benefit to Arabe Unido and W Connection? Hell, even for the teams that get drawn against Mexican teams, the new system makes an upset more likely, if only by decreasing the number of games. Do you think it's a coincidence that the first year with the new system saw the first Mexican team to get knocked out in the group stages? Xelaju squeaked by Chivas on, basically, one result and an away goal. If there had been a U.S. team in that group that would have been a much harder needle to thread. They looked foolish by forgetting the rules in the first place, not by correcting themselves after they screwed it up. And if you think the group Houston ended up with was ridiculously easy, why would you want them to have stuck with the original Group A, which had Arabe Unido, Isidro Metapan, and W Connection? Would that really serve the purpose of getting the best groups to the knockouts?
To be fair, in practice they did. The usual reason for which a Central American team would slip past a US opponent in the group stage is that the former would win their home game against the Mexican team in the group, while their US counterpart would blow it (see: Marathón in 2008 and 2009, Árabe Unido in 2009; Saprissa also outdid Seattle with their home fixture vs. Monterrey in 2010).
Fair enough. But in order for that to matter, the Central American team also needed to beat the US team, or outperform them against the other team in the group. For example, even with the win over Pachuca, if Houston in 09-10 had beaten Metapan at Metapan, or Arabe Unido had lost to Metapan at Metapan, Houston would have gone through instead. The same year, if Marathon hadn't taken three points off of DC at San Pedro Sula, DC would have gone through despite the fact that they beat Toluca at home and DC only drew. And Marathon over DC in 08-09...well, that's not really a good example of anything, since DC finished the group stage with one point. Fun fact: if DC hadn't gotten that one point, on the road to Saprissa, the group would have ended with both the Mexican and MLS team being eliminated.
So that is 4. Just talking about the CCL scores, maybe the Canada team deserves "protection" over 1 of the USA teams. By my point was just that we have not really been the second best historically in the CCL, we fucked up big time the first 2 years and have been recovering since then (again talking about arsenals scoring system)
Based on @ArsenalMetro's system, US teams screwed up one year, but since then have been consistently better than any other country except Mexico and sometimes Canada, in every tournament. And the margins by which the US teams are better than teams from the Central American leagues is growing every year. Since the second tournament, Canadian teams have sometimes scored higher than American teams under AM's system because they are also MLS teams, usually relatively bad ones, but they earn four times as many points as US teams for each win. The four US teams usually average out; some have good years, some not so good. Canadian teams don't average out, so some years their coefficients are high, some years they're low. On average, though, they're still well below the US numbers for the tournaments after the very first one--Canada has earned 37 points in four tournaments; the US has earned 46.5. Basically, if the US hadn't crapped out so badly in the very first tournament in 08-09, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The US, at this point, is clearly the second best team in the tournament and has been for four years. Next year, when 2008-09 falls off AM's statistics, they'll show that clearly.
True, year 1 was horrible; year 2 was just ok, about the same as Honduras. But yes, year 1 drops off and after this year the score will more closely reflect the true strength of each leagues top teams (with CFU and Canada being a little weird), where Canada+USA are a clear #2.
You are conveniently ignoring that I have said the USA should have 2-3 seeds depending on what criteria is used to seed them. I am not arguing that the strong teams shouldn't be seeded. The USA hasn't earned 4 seeds based on performance is my point. There hasn't been a single year in which all 4 USA representatives have advanced where as Mexico has in all years but one. Yes the Galaxy have knocked out Costa Rica's best representative and on one of those occasions they were the Supporters shield champions which put them in the top seed. That the USA outperforms Costa Rica isn't in dispute the degree to which they do is. The way the tournament is set up now the USA gets extra protection in the seeding I am not arguing the USA should get no seeds. Xelaju was a fluke of the stars aligning. It is very possible given the state of Chivas at the time that Xela advanced over them even under the old format. Highly unlikely we see that happen again this year. This system does help a team like Arabe Unido or W Connection but helping them is a byproduct it isn't CONCACAF's intention and given that they are generally weaker then Costa Rica's teams this new system is helping the wrong teams. On balance the groups are not the same for Central America's strongest teams if you can't see that then you probably don't understand the difference between Arabe Unido and Herediano which is not minimal. The fact that you use the word minnow leads me to believe that is the case They looked foolish because the only mistake being corrected is one intended to protect America's teams beyond what they have earned. It is fine to have seeds but they should be merit based The Central American teams will outperform the USA team a lot less now that several of the stronger ones only face a Mexican squad now. Heredianos chances of advancing are worse under the new format not the same. 3 of the 5 strongest Central American representatives are grouped with Mexican squads including arguably the strongest one CR 1
They would have looked even more foolish if they had ignored their own rules regarding the groups. People complain about CONCACAF making up the rules as they go along and accuse them of rigging draws; now you are complaining about them following their rules in an obviously not rigged draw.
Really, the best way to go about it would be to seed clubs based on their actual performance in the CCL. But, CONCACAF can't even follow its own rules when conducting a draw, so LOL at that idea. Honestly if they paid me $50 a year, I'd set up this tournament for them. And probably do it better.
chapka, It has to be said: the US performance in the CCL got a lot better once us East Coast teams stopped showing up.
Flying east to play a game is always easier than flying west to play a game. Wonder if that's part of it.
Ok, so let's say you take one seed away from the US, and give it to Costa Rica. Where do you put US#4? You can't put it in the same group with US#1, 2, or 3. You can't put it with a Mexican team, because you want them to be protected. So you put it with the Costa Rica seeded team. And miraculouly, you've just come up with the exact same groupings we use now.
Why can't you put USA 4 in with a Mexican team? If they are no longer seeded then they can go into any group that doesn't have a USA representative which would include the Mexican teams groups. Also that isn't the grouping we have now. The grouping we have now has Costa Rica 1 in with a Mexican team not an American one
I'm really wondering something ATM: If Canada gets a CCL berth through the Canadian Champion and USA gets a CCL berth through the US Open Cup then why does Mexico have the Copa MX?? like I know im off topic but what is the point of the Cup if there's no real benefit other than giving younger players a chance to play.