CONCACAF must restructure Champions League slot allocation.

Discussion in 'CONCACAF Champions Cup' started by Naui_Ocelotl, Oct 31, 2008.

  1. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Exactly, he does nothing to take into the account the effect that PR and Canada are new entrants. That's only part of the issue. There's the fact that the format of the tournament has changed. The location of the matches, etc. If he did the same thing three years from now and only included only the new format then it would be better.

    Hell, he should have thrown PR in with the rest of the Caribbean teams because that's how they qualified. And if he did that then there would be less of the one year issue.

    It's obviously biased, even if it's an unintentional bias.
     
  2. elcibernetico24

    Jun 28, 2008
    Club:
    CDSC Cruz Azul
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    puerto rico only deserves one spot at most (they have no history,no titles,and no other succesful runs in the tournaments besides the last tourney) so until they begin to do great participations on a regular basis they CANT ask for more spots,and COSTA RICA deserved that 3rd spot more than honduras,when was the last time an honduran team won somethig ? ,i dont know why concacrap gave that 3rd spot to honduras,but its completely undeserved.
     
  3. Nerroth

    Nerroth Member

    Feb 9, 2008
    Ontario, Canada
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    I mentioned this in another thread, but it's worth bearing in mind that the Islanders did not qualify as a Puerto Rico team - they got in as a CFU club representative, based on their Club Championship standings.


    So, if their success was to be a factor in anything, it would be in pushing to give the CFU as a whole a 4th slot.


    (Similarly, had Copa Interclubes remained as a qualifying tournament for UNCAF, it would have likely got that additional slot, instead of Honduras getting it - but since Interclubes is no longer relevant to CCL qualification, it didn't.)
     
  4. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah, I said the same thing two post before yours. ;)
     
  5. Nerroth

    Nerroth Member

    Feb 9, 2008
    Ontario, Canada
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    So I'll just not say anything next time, then.
     
  6. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One of us is confused. Can't say yet who, though. It seems to me that he takes PR and Canada into account quite nicely.

    Regarding Puerto Rico, they competed in '06-'07 and '07-'08, so they're not new. He took into account that they weren't in the tournament before then by giving them 0 points the first two years of his calculations. So, how did he 'do nothing to take it into account'?

    Regarding Canada -- as with Puerto Rico, they got 0 for the years they had no teams in the tournament. In the case of Canada, that's the first four years of his calculations. They only got points for this past year.

    So I don't see how you can say he didn't take into account that they're new entrants.

    Regarding the format of the tournament changing, that's an entirely different issue. I'm using Howard's numbers as a starting point. It seems to me that we need to have something other than 'I think X should have more teams' based purely on personal opinions. Howard does a nice job producing some numbers that we can use.

    And, to be honest, I don't see why the format changing should matter. Howard's numbers give us a good idea of how various countries have fared in meaningful international competition within our confederation. Seems to me that's a pretty good starting point for allocating slots for the next tournament.

    You're right that the tournaments Howard's rankings cover had fewer teams. But other than Canada, every country in CONCACAF had a route to get into the tournament, so they all had opportunities to get points in Howard's ranking.

    So, I'll concede this point -- Canada may be getting hosed in Howard's system. But any system can only be as good as the games it's based on, and Canada had no route into the CCC until this past tournament.

    But now they have a guaranteed spot. That, combined with the fact that teams in the CCL get more points than teams that played in the CCC should shift things more positively for Canada after the next CCL finishes.

    To sum up: Yeah, it's not perfect. But it's better than the current mysterious "whatever the hell we feel like" (i.e. who bribes us the most) system.
     
  7. DaSage

    DaSage New Member

    Oct 27, 2008
    San Juan Puerto Rico
    I agree we need to earn that spot... one year isnt enough ;)


    And Honduras received the 3d spot according to the ranking of the leagues by FIFA. That ranking was released at the beggining of the year.
     
  8. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually, Honduras received the 3rd spot based on how their teams did in this just finished CCL (end of 2nd paragraph).

    It seems to me that if they're going to award it based on just this past tournament, the PR, or the CFU Club Cup, is just as deserving of that other slot. Besides the Islanders, Joe Public manhandled the Revs.

    Ah, well. CONCACAF has made its decision. We'll see starting this fall.
     
  9. Moises

    Moises Member

    Feb 8, 2007
    miami
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Honduras
    not really...
     
  10. IKickAndIm50

    IKickAndIm50 Member

    Apr 13, 2009
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Its shocking how abysmal MLS performed, however do keep in mind Houston Dynamo lost to the ultimate winner of the entire thing.
     
  11. DaSage

    DaSage New Member

    Oct 27, 2008
    San Juan Puerto Rico
    so did the Impact... Actually Montreal tied with Atlante and lost the second game
     
  12. DGreat

    DGreat Moderator
    Staff Member

    CD Guadalajara
    Mexico
    Oct 5, 2007
    El Ombligo
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    what difference does it make who you lose to? :confused:
     
  13. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You must be feigning ignorance. Surely, you've heard the argument before that due to the way a draw goes a team that could have finished in second, third, etc gets knocked out earlier because they play the team that eventually goes on to win.

    Heck, things like that are the reason that teams are drawn from different pots and seeding exists. It's to try to ensure that the teams that meet in the final are the two best involved in the entire tournament.

    Anway, I'm not saying that I agree with his point, which is that the Dynamo could have been second overall had they been drawn with different teams because the team that defeated them ultimately finished first.

    It's a loser's excuse, although it's better than most loser's excuses.
     
  14. DGreat

    DGreat Moderator
    Staff Member

    CD Guadalajara
    Mexico
    Oct 5, 2007
    El Ombligo
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    no excuses period.
     
  15. Azuran

    Azuran Member

    Nov 15, 2006
    Toronto, ON
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    I find that statement hilarious when it comes from you.
     
  16. DGreat

    DGreat Moderator
    Staff Member

    CD Guadalajara
    Mexico
    Oct 5, 2007
    El Ombligo
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    please you dont hear me saying we tied or lost the to reigning champ thats a losers way of thinking.
     
  17. IKickAndIm50

    IKickAndIm50 Member

    Apr 13, 2009
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Look i agree with you all. I said MLS did abysmal. But i'm just saying you cant judge from 1 tournament seat allocations i dont think. I would bet you almost anything MLS teams do significantly better this next time around.
     
  18. invisible_shadow

    Jul 15, 2007
    Club:
    Pachuca CF
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    ok?
    They still lost.
    They didn't have what it took to advance.
     
  19. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And you can say that about all but one other team, so what's your point?
     
  20. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Considering that five out of six CFU clubs have advanced past the qualifying round in the first two Champions Leagues, the only CFU club to lose in the qualifying round lost to a Mexican club, and CFU was the only country or region other than Mexico to have a club reach the 2008-2009 semifinals, CFU deserves better treatment than three clubs all unseeded in the qualifying round. I propose CFU gets four clubs in the next Champions League, one starting in the Group Stage, one seeded in the qualifying round, and two unseeded in the qualifying round. If Belize and Nicaragua continue to be exlcuded for stadium issues, I would give one of their spots to CFU rather than it staying within UNCAF. To allow for CFU to get a club starting in the Group Stage and a club seeded in the qualifying round, I would shift the treatment of MLS clubs if they don't perform better than last time.
     
  21. chec

    chec Member

    Feb 9, 2005
    Toronto
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Trinidad and Tobago

    As good as this idea is, it will not happen :(
    PR Islanders and T&T teams have been doing very well these last two years.
    But MLS clubs have the money. Concacaf really wants a Mex vs MLS rivalry but MLS is falling way short.
     
  22. IKickAndIm50

    IKickAndIm50 Member

    Apr 13, 2009
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    MLS is only falling short because of the parity in our league, unlike these other leagues where pretty much only 1 or 2 teams are any good, and they stack all their best players there, so they can perform decent in these types of tournaments.... all MLS teams are pretty similar overall in ability, so our competition in these tournaments is a disadvantage vs a stacked elite team... also we fall short because of the differences in schedule of our season, MLS teams had so many friggin games in a row last time around, they were exhausted and had to use reserves and stuff.... we dont have huge rosters.... so you guys need to educate yourselves before you bash MLS, its clearly 2nd best behind FMF and above all other leagues in this region
     
  23. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Dec 14, 2005
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Save your breath...
     
  24. elcibernetico24

    Jun 28, 2008
    Club:
    CDSC Cruz Azul
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    and you think fmf has also only two teams stack up with stars and the rest
    of the mexican league is shit,right,you are the one that need to be educated,mexican league has a better parity than mls,mls parity is a crppy one,educate yourself first then write about it,mls is not the only one with your so called parity,if your league is good is gonna perform good in the real tourneys, this only proves mls is just not good enough period.
     
  25. DGreat

    DGreat Moderator
    Staff Member

    CD Guadalajara
    Mexico
    Oct 5, 2007
    El Ombligo
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    let me see tigres should have been relegated last season yet they somehow managed to win that crappyliga cup against Chicago fire one of the strong teams from MLS who is in season.

    Dc United can not even beat a salvadorian team in 90 minutes? sad.

    What about the red bulls and Toronto? pathetic.

    yea so much for your stupid parity.
     

Share This Page