CONCACAF Champions League Coefficient

Discussion in 'CONCACAF Champions League' started by ArsenalMetro, Sep 30, 2009.

  1. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

    And yes you can compare them, that's what a tournament does. It compares the teams that play in them on the field.

    Hey, it might not be fair, but what in the world is fair?

    Would you care to elaborate on what you meant by your post and how it relates to the format of this tournament?
     
  2. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Dec 22, 2003
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Just a note, if Arsenal Metro would apply the new UEFA structure (5 bonus points for advancing to the knockout rounds instead of 1) for this year, the US would already be in front of CFU, as they would have 8 more points total (and 2 more for the coefficient).

    And no way does Canada deserve three spots. Two is pushing it. They have no league (their best teams all play in American leagues) and they only have 1 team in per year. Plus their coefficient is skewed by the fluke run Montreal made two years ago.

    Why don't we wait until 5 years are up, and then see where we are? And no team should get more than 4, period.

    Mexico: 4
    USA: 4
    CFU: 3
    CR, Hond, Guat, El Salv, Pan = 2
    Can/Nic/Bel: 1

    Canada should be treated like Lichtenstein is in UEFA. Even though they outperform the other teams, they only get one spot (Cup Winner) because they don't have a league. There is no other method to qualify teams.

    After 5 years, then re-evaluate. At that point I could see Hondruas or another CA confederation gaining a spot at USA/CFU expense.
     
  3. ArsenalMetro

    ArsenalMetro Member+

    Arsenal
    United States
    Aug 5, 2008
    Chicago, IL
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I'll consider doing that for future editions, but I went into 2010-11 with a certain mindset, and I'll stick with that one until I can evaluate it further at the end. With that, I can retroactively go back and (though this won't have an effect on the coefficient posted here) look at what the numbers would have been, and see whether that's an accurate reflection of the history of the tournament.

    I have the opinion, however, that the system currently in place works better for evaluating overall play and for keeping the gap between teams and nations at a reasonable level. Under the new UEFA system, two teams could be level on points but one would get a 5-point bonus for scoring, say, one more goal. I'm not entirely sure that's fair, because, using 2009-10 as an example, Marathon wasn't that much better than D.C. United, nor was Comunicaciones that much better than W Connection.

    Absolutely agree. The only way I would be in favor of Canada getting multiple bids is if they sent the CSL winner along with the Cup winner, but doing so would almost definitely guarantee that Canada's performance would be so poor that they would only deserve one spot.

    Agreed on the 5-year wait. Though I don't think Honduras or another CA nation will take a spot, because I think the performance of the US will prevent that from happening, and I don't think the CFU will get cut down to 2.
     
  4. evangel

    evangel Member+

    Apr 12, 2007
    Right. Not much will ever be considered fair for all. For example, I think the current system of determining slots by country size and league size is a perfectly legitimate way of handling it. I see absolutely no lack of integrity in it.

    On the other hand, I see more of a lack of integrity in using the coefficients systems that have been posted to try and determine country slots. With an analysis solely on the few arbitrary matches in this competition, instead of also analyzing matches in every league and other domestic competitions, it doesn't really seem at all fair to me. League performance should be relevant in club coefficients and seeding in the competition, and that seeding is very, very relevant in how all teams perform. How would league strength be taken account in the club coefficients, I don't know. But it has to be taken into account somehow.

    This should be done as effectively as possible. UEFA doesn't completely do it, and to follow their example is just taking the easy way out. I wouldn't expect CONCACAF to, either, which is why I much prefer what they're currently doing over some half done coefficients that would make things worse (I wouldn't mind a UEFA system too much, but if it's less detailed than that it could make a mess of things). And it shouldn't even be remotely considered until many more years have passed (I would say closer to 10 years from the first competition).
     
  5. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well if a team in the league does well then that helps the league coefficient, as easy as that!
     
  6. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How is it possible to include other competition? Teams are only playing against teams from their own federations. I think I'm misunderstanding you because otherwise it makes no sense. How teams perform within their own feds are already taken into account, it's how they qualify for the tournaments in the first place.

    There is no objective way to measure performance. Unless you want to use some kind of subjective system then you are forced to use what you call "arbitrary" matches. I don't find them arbitrary at all. The are the only pure examples we can use to compare the leagues involved.
     
  7. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Meanwhile, up in Canada...

    I'd disagree with them being able to hope for a group-stage spot at Central America's expense, but since we still haven't heard from CONCACAF regarding the complete format of next year's tournament, it's equally possible that a) they punted on the format issue during the same high-level meeting last month in which they announced they were going after 4 World Cup spots, which means that nothing will change after this year [sorry, CFU] and b) they'll come out of the blue with a different set of allocations that no longer guarantees UNCAF half the field.
     
  8. Czech Soccer...

    Czech Soccer... Red Card

    Mar 14, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Czechia
    What about extedning the pre-rounds.
     
  9. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Unlikely - I doubt CONCACAF is thinking that having more Brujas - Joe Public games is going to raise the profile of the tournament.

    btw, my "sorry CFU" comment is because of the fact that all the Caribbean teams end up in the unseeded pot for the first round. Past results seem to indicate that at the very least, the CFU1 (CFU Club Championship winner) team should get moved up to Pot A for the preliminaries. Then again, it's not like the CFU doesn't have any power in CONCACAF (far from it), so if things don't change in the short term, I'm guessing it's because they don't really see getting a better deal for CFU clubs as a priority.
     
  10. evangel

    evangel Member+

    Apr 12, 2007
    I meant it for the club coefficients. Those are a measure of an individual team's strength, and including other competitions is a better measure of that. This could help give a number to teams that qualify into the competition for the first time, and seedings would be based on this.

    But my worry is that CONCACAF will come up with some stupid system that won't really measure anything at all, but might end up penalizing a country way too much for one off year or something. The UEFA coefficients at least do a good job of not being overly harsh, but UEFA also calculates performance for more matches and for many more teams per league, so it ends up being a better indicator than it would for the CCL (though like I said before, even there it still has its problems).
     
  11. drt2k3

    drt2k3 Member

    Jul 1, 2005
    Wilmington, NC
    Club:
    Wilmington H.
    IMHO, all 4 Mexican teams should be in the group stage...drawing them in a qualifier pretty much means you are eliminated. Mexican teams in the qualifying stages make the qualifiers too draw dependent
     
  12. Czech Soccer...

    Czech Soccer... Red Card

    Mar 14, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Czechia
    True.
     
  13. ArsenalMetro

    ArsenalMetro Member+

    Arsenal
    United States
    Aug 5, 2008
    Chicago, IL
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I'm tempted to agree at first, but then, do we really need more teams like Joe Public or whoever in the group stages? Look at Pot B from the qualifying rounds of this year:

    - Xelaju (3-1 agg. loss to FAS)
    - Tauro (4-2 agg. loss to Marathon)
    - Isidro Metapan (2-1 agg. loss to Seattle)
    - Motagua (3-2 agg. loss to Toronto FC)
    - San Francisco (9-2 agg. loss to Cruz Azul)
    - Puerto Rico (3rd in group, 8 points)
    - Joe Public (4th in group, 1 point, -14 GD)
    - SJ Jabloteh (6-0 agg. loss to Santos)

    Of the 8 teams that could have been drawn against Mexican opponents in this year's prelims, only one did anything of consequence in the group stages.
     
  14. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It wouldn't change pot B, it would change pot A. Two of the teams that currently get auto placed into the groups would go into the qualifiers instead of the Mexican teams.

    It would force teams like Arabe Unido to play another game to get into the groups. In other words, the teams that got placed into the groups instead of the Mexican qualifiers didn't do much better than the teams you mentioned above.

    All you have to do is compare the two Mexican teams that had to play the qualifiers over the past few years against all the other group auto seeds to see that they drastically out perform.
     
  15. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Nassau County, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here are the performances of the 12 Group Stage Pot B clubs (all the clubs not from Mexico or USA that started in the Group Stage):

    2010-2011 Deportivo Saprissa: 10 points, Second
    2010-2011 Olimpia: 13 points, First
    2010-2011 Municipal: 8 points, Third
    2010-2011 Arabe Unido: 3 points, Fourth
    2009-2010 Deprotivo Saprissa: 5 points, Third
    2009-2010 Marathon: 12 points, Second
    2009-2010 Comunicaciones: 9 points, Second
    2009-2010 Isidro Metapan: 3 points, Fourth
    2008-2009 Deporitvo Saprissa: 10 points, Third
    2008-2009 Olimpia: 8 points, Third
    2008-2009 Municipal: 6 points, Fourth
    2008-2009 Luis Angel Firpo: 8 points, Third

    If the pots were indicative of the quality of clubs, each Group Stage Pot B club would finish second in its group ahead of the two clubs that started in the Qualifying Round. Those 12 clubs finished with an average of 7.9 points and an average poistion of 2.8th. 4 of the 12 clubs reached the Group Stage.

    My source is Wikipedia.
     
  16. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm wondering why you didn't include the US teams? They should obviously be considered in this as well. Perhaps Mexico should get one of our automatic bids?

    And if you take the numbers further and compare it with the Mexican teams that started in the qualifiers like I suggested...

    2010-2011 Cruz Azul: 10 points, Second
    2010-2011 Santos Laguna: 13 points, First
    2009-2010 Pachuca: 15 points, First
    2009-2010 Cruz Azul: 16 points, First
    2008-2009 Cruz Azul: 10 points, Second
    2008-2009 Nacional: 12 points, First

    Clearly, as I said it was, that is a superior group of teams.
     
  17. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    OK. I guess I needed to search further, because I don't understand how you come up with those numbers. If it's 'stages passed', then, for example, wouldn't Canada have 1 this time around since they won a match-up to qualify for the group stage?
     
  18. ArsenalMetro

    ArsenalMetro Member+

    Arsenal
    United States
    Aug 5, 2008
    Chicago, IL
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    My point was that the teams who are drawn against Mexican teams in the prelims are teams in Pot B. They usually suck, so whether they get drawn against the third team from Mexico or the second team from Honduras doesn't really matter.
     
  19. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Good catch. It is stages passed. I mistakenly gave a point to Costa Rica instead of Canada for some reason. Here are the corrected totals:


    2010-11
    Pts/Teams
    Mex 6/4*
    Can 1/1
    USA 3/4*
    Carib 2/3
    Hon 2/3*
    CR 1/2*
    ES 1/2
    Guat 0/2
    Panama 0/3

    Total
    Pts/Teams
    Mex 31/12*
    Carib 9/9
    Can 3/3
    Hon 6/7*
    Panama 4/7
    USA 6/12*
    ES 1/6
    Guat 1/6
    CR 1/7*
    Bel 0/1
    Nic 0/1

    If you read the other posts I quoted in my rankings you'll see how the previous years results have matched with the feds that CONCACAF has decided to give the extra spots to. It appears they also have a consideration for region. For example, if a Central American fed like Belize has to drop out they will only give the spot to another CA team.
     
  20. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well that argument doesn't really make any sense either. I mean, it makes sense, what you are saying is correct. But I don't know why you said it in response to his post. Teams other than Mexican teams are getting into the group stage automatically anyway. If the Mexican 3 and 4 teams are performing better than other teams that get seeded into the groups then they should replace them regardless of whom those teams happen to be playing in the prelims. Pot B is always going to suck. We're not talking about the losers, but about the winners.
     
  21. It's called FOOTBALL

    LMX Clubs
    Mexico
    May 4, 2009
    Chitown
    I think they should stop doing that. If Belize and Nicaragua can't get adequate stadiums, then their prelim matches should be 1 leg on the road against the Mexican teams. If they pull off the miraculous upset, then they should have just 3 road games in the group stage and no home games, because of lack of stadium. Sure, it'd make it impossible for them to advance out of either round, but at least they'll get the exposure they so desperately need. Kicking them out and giving the spots to 3rd place teams that will get killed anyway, does nothing for Belize and Nicaragua football.
     
  22. Czech Soccer...

    Czech Soccer... Red Card

    Mar 14, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Czechia
    They can also play at their "national stadiums".
     
  23. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Once those are up and running...
     
  24. Czech Soccer...

    Czech Soccer... Red Card

    Mar 14, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Czechia
    I would say that each of those countries have at least one stadium that is suitable for international soccer.
     
  25. JYDA

    JYDA Member

    Sep 10, 2003
    I have been to Belize and there isn't anything remotely close to suitable.

    As for Nicaragua, an argument can be made for Real Esteli's stadium.
     

Share This Page