New CONCACAF Champions League format

Discussion in 'CONCACAF Champions Cup' started by chapka, Jan 12, 2012.

  1. SJJ

    SJJ Member

    Sep 20, 1999
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Club:
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would prefer the way that Concacaf did the last WCQ round, where the top two seeded countries played a home-and-home on the final two matchdays. If the top two seeds do their job, and beat seed #3, then MD5 and MD6 become a direct knock-out of its own; it will be up to seed #3 to put the monkey wrench into it during the first four matchdays.

    That would set up a case where all 8 USA and MEX teams would play on MD5 and MD6. How to do that with only six timeslots could be an issue. Either you allow it, include Monday, or have three timeslots on Tue-Wed-Thu (6 pm, 8 pm, 10 pm).
     
  2. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Aug 23, 2006
    Donde siempre
    I dont quite undertand what you're saying here...the teams in Pot A (arguably the 'best 8' since they are getting top seed) are Mex 1&2, US 1&2, CR1, Hon1, Pan1 and Gua1...why do you say that the 4 Mex and 4 US teams are getting preferential treatment?
     
  3. MRschizoid21

    MRschizoid21 Member

    Nov 5, 2004
    Brooklyn, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CONCACAF)

    That's absolutely horrible since those were 4 team groups, and you can't do that in a 3 team group. They even adjusted the Group C schedule to prevent that. And consider that seeds, at best, are reflective of the past.

    Also, 2 teams that played in the preliminary round (so they would be the weakest of the weak) finished 2nd place in their groups.
     
  4. MRschizoid21

    MRschizoid21 Member

    Nov 5, 2004
    Brooklyn, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If they weren't getting preferential treatment, then a Mexican team would be able to be placed with an American team from the 2 different pots.
     
  5. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Aug 23, 2006
    Donde siempre
    Ah I see. I was actually thinking this would be "better" for, let's say, a Caribbean team that now can't be put in a group with a US and a Mex team in it, making it almost certain that they won't make it out. In other words, I thought this rule was meant to protect minnows from facing certain elimination rather than to protect US teams especifically.

    In any case, I agree that maybe it would be better to just stick with the 'no two teams from the same country' rule and let the chips fall where they may.
     
  6. Ganapper

    Ganapper Member

    Apr 5, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Food for thought. Pre-lim matchups this year

    Motagua v Municipal (Motagua won 4-2)
    Morelia v Tempete (Morelia won 7-0)
    Isidro Metapan v Puerto Rico Islanders (Metapan won on away goals 3-3)
    Santos v Olimpia (Santos won 4-3)
    Alianza v Dallas (Dallas won 2-0)
    Toronto v Real Esteli (Toronto won 4-2)
    San Francisco v Seattle (Seattle won 2-1 after extra time)
    Herediano v Alpha United (Herediano won 10-2)

    A couple of things that jump out. San Francisco, Olimpia and Puerto Rico all played tough against teams that made the quarter finals.

    Alpha United and Tempete got absolutely destroyed.

    The rest of the matchups were pretty decent.

    I really don't think US 3 and 4 benefits that much from not being put in with Mexican teams. I'm an avid MLS fan, but I think that assuming that MLS teams will advance simply because they aren't facing FMF is completely silly.

    I think they are trying to prevent nonsense groups like Panama 1, Honduras 2 and Carribean 3 though.

    Tauro was Panama 1 this year, finished at the bottom of their group. Honduras 2 was Motagua, they got zero points this year. And Carribean 3 was Alpha United.
     
  7. slaminsams

    slaminsams Member+

    Mar 22, 2010
    Of course there is no guarantee US 3 and 4 advance which is why its ridiculous that they are treated like Mexico 3 and 4 and guarantees some groups will be much easier then others. There is no greater benefit in this tournament then avoiding Mexican squads.

    Perhaps Panama 1 shouldn't be in the first pot maybe it should be Canada 1 but of course that would require taking into account past results to award benefits which this new system doesn't do which is one of many problems with it.
     
  8. Ganapper

    Ganapper Member

    Apr 5, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think it is ridiculous too. I don't see why they don't just seed all 4 Mexican teams in pot A .

    I'm just pointing out that with their current pots, the no Mexico v US teams is an attempt to avoid a group entirely filled with minnows.

    Which really just means they seeded the pots improperly. We all know the 4 Mexican teams are clearly the best 4 teams. Put them in pot A.
     
  9. MRschizoid21

    MRschizoid21 Member

    Nov 5, 2004
    Brooklyn, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Scratch that, completely random not so good.

    The reduced thing should look a little like this:

    1 pot - Mex 1,2 & 3, US 1 & 2, and either CFU 1, ES 1, HON 1 / GUA 1, CR 1, PAN 1 (have the last 3 switch years in the seeded pot like they do in Copa Libertadores)

    -everybody else in the general pot, 1 association represented per group

    if we have groups like Panama 1, Honduras 2, Caribbean 3, there's a low probability of it happening and so what if it does? draws are sometimes balanced, strong, weak, whatever

    -draw for the knockout round at the same event, pick out the winner of one group to face the winner of another (team with more pts in group stage hosts 2nd leg, next tiebreak would be GD, and finally alphabetical order).
    Example, 2 teams finish with identical 4 wins in group stage and GD of +9. Group A winner to host 2nd leg over B (or anyone else, B over all the others, down to H over nobody)


    -draw for qf, semifinal and final all at once. Keep same procedure to determine who hosts 2nd leg in each matchup
     
  10. Ganapper

    Ganapper Member

    Apr 5, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The point of having pots is to make each group as competitive as possible. They can do better than Panama 1, Honduras 2 and Carribean 3 if they set the pots properly.

    And they can do that without making USA exempt from Mexico
     
  11. haitifrancepsg

    haitifrancepsg New Member

    Oct 28, 2010
    Torcy, Île-de-France
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    Anyone can explain why USA clubs cannot play against Mexican clubs in Group Stage?
     
  12. MRschizoid21

    MRschizoid21 Member

    Nov 5, 2004
    Brooklyn, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Considering the fact that in the previous 2 years, both of those teams finished directly in front of an American team, I don't see it as some big deal if a group had that exact setup.


    haitifrancepsg - All USA clubs are forbidden from facing Mexican clubs because CONCACAF believes that keeping Mexican teams from beating US teams for as long as possible is good for business. Notice how we don't know how the KO round is going to be setup. Based on prior history, they'll most likely have an arrangement where Mexican teams will all show up on one side of the bracket and the American teams on the other, since they will no longer have the restriction of having 1st place teams facing 2nd place teams.
    Every team that qualifies will be a 1st place team.
     
  13. It's called FOOTBALL

    LMX Clubs
    Mexico
    May 4, 2009
    Chitown
    That "Pot A" isn't really a Pot A because of the multi-country protection rule.


    Hey guys, how 'bout we all list the 8 clubs that we feel should be in Pot A. I've already opined that it should be MEX1-4,USA1-2,HON1,CRC1.

    What are the 8 slots you would put in Pot A?
     
  14. Ganapper

    Ganapper Member

    Apr 5, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can make an argument for Honduras, but certainly not Panama. Here is a break down, all pulled from wikipedia.




    2011-12
    Tauro was Panama's 1, they finished last in the group. San Francisco lost to Seattle in Prelims.

    Motagua finished at the bottom of their group, didn't win a single match
    Real Espana finished at the bottom of their group. Worth noting that 4 of their 5 points came from Colorado. Colorado would have been USA 1 or 2 in the new format
    Olimpia lost to Santos 4-3 on Aggregate


    2010-11
    Arabe Unido was panama's 1, they finished last in their group.
    San Francisco lost to Cruz Azul in prelims
    Tauro lost to Marathon in Prelims

    Marathon finished ahead of Seattle, Seattle would have been USA 3 or 4 in the new format. Head to head between Seattle and Marathon was 3-2 in favor of Seattle.
    Motagua lost to Toronto in Prelims
    Olimpia finished at the top of their group, there was no US team in their group as PR beat LA to qualify


    2009-10
    Panama got 2 teams in this edition and Arabe Unido finished Ahead of Houston, Houston would have been USA 1 or 2 It's worth noting that Houston beat Arabe Unido 5-1 and drew them 1-1 in their two matches.
    San Francisco lost to San Juan Jabloteh in prelims

    Marathon was Honduras 1 and finished 2nd, beating DC united out. DC United would have been a USA 3 or 4 The head to head between DC united and Marathon was 4-3 in favor of DC.

    The 2nd Honduran team was Real Espana, they made the group stage, but finished last in their group
    Olimpia was also in this tournament but they lost to Arabe Unido on Aggregate in prelims.

    My point is basically that I don't think Panama should be in a group as a member of the A pot. In fact, I would argue that Honduras 2 is as strong as Panama 1 on a consistent basis.
     
  15. slaminsams

    slaminsams Member+

    Mar 22, 2010
    That looks like a good Pot A. There is an argument to be made that CR 1 could be taken up by Canada or the Caribbean 1 depending on the coefficient system you use. However I think CR 1 would probably be the best choice since they represent a countries league champion instead of a short tournament champion.
     
  16. Ganapper

    Ganapper Member

    Apr 5, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would use these exact teams for Pot A.

    I think it makes the most sense.
     
  17. MRschizoid21

    MRschizoid21 Member

    Nov 5, 2004
    Brooklyn, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    alternate
    Mexico 1-3, USA 1 & 2, CRC 1, GUA 1, PAN 1
    Mexico 1-3, USA 1 & 2, CFU 1, HON 1, ES 1
     
  18. dinamo_zagreb

    dinamo_zagreb Member+

    Jun 27, 2010
    San Jose, CA / Zagreb, Croatia
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    Also, I am convinced we'll see Jamaican teams take part in CFU Championship this year. :)

    For seedings, I would go with

    #1 MEX, USA 1-3, CRC, HON 1
    #2 MEX, USA 4, CRC, HON 2, PAN, SLV, GUA, CAN 1
    #3 rest
     
  19. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  20. jared9999

    jared9999 Member+

    Jan 3, 2005
    Naucalpan Estado de Mex
    Club:
    Club América
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    lame
     
  21. City Dave

    City Dave Member

    Jan 26, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Club:
    Cleveland C. S.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    $$$$$$$
     
  22. jared9999

    jared9999 Member+

    Jan 3, 2005
    Naucalpan Estado de Mex
    Club:
    Club América
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    Helping USA clubs.......
     
  23. haitifrancepsg

    haitifrancepsg New Member

    Oct 28, 2010
    Torcy, Île-de-France
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    CONCACAF clearly discredit itself creating stupid rules like that. On the contrary, it's with big matches against stronger teams that mls clubs can progress and give a history to this competition and that people, players, clubs got a better vision of the tournament. I like this new format but this rule disturbs me. But Concacaf deciders prefers business to football it's a shame and concacaf football will never progress with this mentality.
     
  24. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well the CCL loses money (or at least does not make enough to fill off books bank accounts) so they do this type of dumb shit to make it more profitable.
     
  25. It's called FOOTBALL

    LMX Clubs
    Mexico
    May 4, 2009
    Chitown
    It will be less profitable in the long run. Do twitter searches on concahampions and you'll see that many fans are turned off by this new, biased format, and thus will not watch. It's a shame that the tournament has regressed due to biased rules. The CONCACAF's best bet would be to scrap any biases, and restore some integrity to this much-maligned tournament.
     

Share This Page