Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'CONCACAF Champions League' started by ceezmad, Jan 23, 2017.
Looks to me like Central American leagues get royally screwed with this format. Now they only get one team into the final round (two if the first round champion is from CA).
Seriously messed up.
Yes, the CRC League gets screwed... they deserve more then 1 team in Phase 2.
One benefit is Phase 2 from start to finish will be completed in 3 or 4 months... there will be no giant gap in the middle of the tournament. Although, there could be some real cold weather for some of the early MLS games.
I guess the group phase was to costly too.
I'm ok with the format change but they should've dropped spots for Mexican and U.S. clubs from four to three. Since there's 16 teams in Phase 1 why not give the top 3 finishers a spot in Phase 2 so that way a 3rd place game would mean something. Or why not give the two finalists from Phase 1 a spot and put in the two finalists from the Caribbean Cup directly into Phase 2? I also hope the knockout games are blind draws with no seeding. If they were looking for more representation this isn't going to do it.
The most ridiculous format for a continental competition. Even than AFC Cup 2017 !! Which own these confederation? I think some childs can think better than these idiots :|
And this is only for incompetent MLS clubs ... destroy a competition for americans. sick.
I dont think it was destroyed for MLS or Americans. It was destroyed, because there was not enough interest in the group stage to justify the cost. This is my guess anyway.
Lets see if they will put MLS clubs wih mexicans as seeds in Round of 16, to prevent MLS from shame to be eliminated from first stage!! I see they will use a ranking for clubs from last 9 years (another idiot think). I don't know who is CCF owner, but I'm sure they have nothing in their heads.
for me, Canada and Costa Rica need more respect than MLS clubs in CCL. Even hondurian clubs
At least they are using actual results for ranking… 9 years seems to be a bit much though.
Yes..but is a ********ing number ...9 '.. ,no logicaly )) is not 5 like in UEFA, is not 10 like in Libertadores.....is 9....????? Asia have 4 years...each confederation want to have their own system.....another think I can`t have now. Anyway...i wait to see how look their ranking. Anyway, Alajuelense, Saprissa, Herediano must be ahead some many MLS clubs. Maybe only Salt Lake, LAG and another 2 3 teams will be in top. In rest, MLS are outsiders
Because they were doing it wrong.
They started with 16-team group stage. They saw it isn't interesting enough. What they do? They increase it throwing in crap teams along with introduction of dumbest format ever.
UEFA started (unarguably) the biggest club competition in the World with only 8 teams in group stage (for three seasons). That was later expanded three times - up to 16 (three seasons) then 24 (two seasons) then 32 (14 seasons, still going). Top competition/product didn't came all of a sudden, it was a long process. I am not saying CONCACAF could made such money maker, of course they couldn't, but they made horrible mistake when they started it's own with doubling UEFA's starting number.
Also, qualifying system was ridiculous. Three Caribbean teams in group stage, ridiculous. Two-three wins against sunday-league footballers and you are in. Same goes for weak Central American teams, there was no qualification at all lately. You win apertura/clausura and you are in, no matter how weak those are. LOL. Then you see Red Bulls field their C team in CL game against Salvadorian runner-up. Of course rating were disgraceful, of course attendances were pathetic, of course few people cared. Imagine if UEFA gave direct berths to Bosnian or Finnish or Kazakh leagues. At first all teams were forced to play qualifiers, later they introduced direct slots.
There were millions of options for new format as this horrendous 24-team competition clearly didn't worked, but they decided to go with the dumb one - two cup competitions in one, again going up with number of participants, top teams playing only for three months and so. It would really be interesting to see what happens if all US teams get knocked out in first round without playing any Mexican side. And MLS-LMX matches are only ones that can bring money. And it (Americans out in round of 16) is pretty possible, solid Central American teams in mid of their season vs. US teams in their preseason.
Even that "League" term pisses me off as there's no league anymore. It's Champions Cup.
I think every football fan there would appreciate Champions League with preliminary round(s) followed by 2 groups of 4. Give it a try for few years. If that shows any potential, and I am sure it would as two groups would be filled with top Mexican, American, Costa Rican teams without Joe Publics, Bayamons, Santa Teclas, Belize Warriors, Walter Ferretis - unless they take some big gun down in preliminary round. - they could expand it up to 12 then eventually 16.
That is because of the hate.
No doubt Liga MX is far and away the best federation in club soccer, by performance they would deserve to have like 10 teams in the tournament.
So nobody should bitch based on performance that LMX deserves to have all 4 teams in phase 2.
MLS is a distant second, so they do deserve to have some teams in phase 2, IMO they should have at least 1 if not 2 teams in phase 1.
Canada does not have a league, so they can not get more spots, they are supposed to get a league in 2018, we will see if that happens, if they do then they should get more teams, perhaps 1 or 2 in phase 1.
Costa Rica does deserve at least one more team in phase 2.
I would drop 1 MLS team from phase 1 to phase 2 and move 1 Costa Rica team from phase 2 to phase 1.
But this is concacaf and this is more about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
9 is the start of the new format. When it went from the CC Cup to the CC League. This is the reason they probably chose this date.
As far as deserving leagues these are the stats since 2008:
US MLS: 19
CAN MLS: 3
El Salvador: 1
US MLS: 3
CAN MLS: 2
ALL OTHERS: 0
US MLS: 1
CAN MLS: 1
ALL OTHERS: 0
ALL OTHERS: 0
CR clearly deserves more then US MLS. It's debatable between CAN MLS and US MLS, but considering CAN MLS only has 3 teams, and they rely on the US league for existence 1 spot seems right.
thanks for these statistics !! So, MLS (4) have a final played, equal with Canada (1). MLS (4) have 3 semifinals played, Costa Rica (2) have 4 semifinals. You see something? MLS began all time with 4 teams, so, many chances to reach these phases much better than others. Costa Rica had only 2 teams, Canada only 1, every year. But these leagues obtained better performance than MLS !! Now, Seattle Sounders and Colorado Rapids said that they will not play in CCL in 2017, and the new format appear and put MLS clubs to play in 2018. This is a corupt confederation, influenced by one country (America, the world). So, why don't give 3 teams for Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, and only 2 for MLS? Let other countries which want to play there. Anyway, mexicans are the strongest of this confederation ... with MLS teams or not there.
And how can help this format the MLS clubs? In 2018, they will be in same pre-season .... due of it they can win this trophy (CCL). Champions League must have groups stage + knock out phase (by me), and this confederation have force to do it ... with only 5 countries : Mexico, MLS, Costa Rica, Canada and Honduras.... and some outsiders, as in every competition. But, need some brain to think a little.
We all can make easy formats , simulations, and can find something better for this I continue to believe that CCL can have 8 groups of 4 teams and be a strong league with many rivalities (and maybe mexicans will leave Libertadores, how is normal). and only an example : Mexic (6), MLS (6), Costa Rica (3), Honduras (3), Guatemala (3), El Salvador (3), Panama (3), Canada (2), Nicaragua (1), Belize (1), CFU (1).... and definitelly will be a strong competition. Will gain more money from TV rights, will earn more money from tickets (and not especially from MLS vs Liga MX, hoduras vs el salvador or vs guatemala vs costa rica can have 70 - 80% tickets sold), etc, etc.... and especially, using an coefficient ranking for clubs to determinate the groups stage.
And this is only an idea from a million, from a world !! and is much better than the 2017/18 edition, much exciting. (sorry for my english)
Because of the one extra semi-finalist they've had?
From the Coefficients thread, MLS is certainly second. Now given Mexico's dominance, I don't think MLS should have equal footing, especially as we kinda sneak an extra team in via the Canadian Cup.
I'd certainly have been fine with two Costa Rican clubs in Phase 2, with the US dropping one into Phase 1.
While the tournament again shafts Central America, I do prefer this to the previous format. If they would institute a coefficient system with slots based on a 4 or 5 year average, I'd be all for it.
I understand that revenues might dictate that CONCACAF really has to emphasise and foster MLS vs LMX but it's still a shame that Phase 2 isn't more diverse. It also concerns me that this focus might ultimately be holding the likes of Costa Rica and Honduras back instead of helping their clubs progress and grow.
Given the challenges of hosting a Champions League in CONCACAF, this seems like a reasonable attempt. Though we might be able to do better...
I think you are mis-reading what Colorado and Seattle are reporting.
Seattle and the Rapids qualified for the 17 - 18 CCL. In the old (current) format the group stage would have started in August 0f 2017 and the knockouts would have started in February of 2018. CONCACAF aren't doing it this way anymore.
Now there are 2 tournaments with 2 winners. The winner of phase 1 advances to phase 2.
Phase 1: is the Central American and Caribbean CCL tournament starting in August 2017 to October 2017.
Phase 2: Starts in February of 2018 and ends in May of 2018... this is when Seattle and Colorado will enter the CCL, and they have no choice but to enter at this time.
The 5 MLS teams are not skipping 2017 on purpose the new format dictates that they skip 2017 along with the 4 LMX teams, the Caribbean Club Championship, the national champions from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama, plus the winner of "Phase 1" (the combined Central American and Caribbean tournament)
I agree CR should have another spot in phase 2, but Canada MLS should not. For 1, Canada does not have a league, and second, the 3 teams that enter the CCL perform well because of the existence of the US league.
I agree MLS is second, but CR is a solid 3rd.
CR should have one of MLS's spots. So it would look like this...
MLS US: 3
MLS CAN: 1
Caribbean Club Champ: 1
El Salvador: 1
Phase 1 winner: 1
Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. CR should have an extra berth in Phase 2, while US MLS drops its 4th qualifier into Phase 1 to compensate.
I think I misread your post as saying CR should have more berths than US MLS overall.
Yes, drop a US MLS team down to phase 1 or just have 3 US MLS teams compete. Having 3 makes more since anyway. 1 spot for the MLS Cup winner, 1 for the supporters shield and 1 for the US Open Cup.
Are you thinking if they drop a US team into phase 1, then CR will just get 1 team in phase 1 and the other would go to the US team?
how can you guys seriously think MLS is second? they have so many more teams qualify, and one less semifinal appearance than CR. but lets not forget the real kicker: they've inexplicably been given a pass from playing mexican teams in the group stage. this new format is ridiculous, and gives them so much advantage and rewards them for no reason apart from money, and federation influence. its sickening.
I agree that Costa Rica has been shafted by CONCACAF, however I still think the MLS teams are generally stronger. I know that the Canadian teams enter via a different tournament but they're still MLS teams for the most part and if we're honest, not usually very good ones. Yet if you include those guys, MLS has 5 semi-finalists and 2 finalists.
Then there's the fact that the KO stages are less about how good the teams are and more about whether they avoided getting seeded against a Mexican team. That in itself is pretty much a crapshoot because the seeding is based on the results of that stupid group stage.
MLS is 3-1 vs Costa Rica league in CCL elimination stage (2 wins by US teams, 1 win by Canadian). Costa Rica has 3-1 in qualification from 3-team group stage against MLS (all US teams).
When looking matches, Costa Rica league leads 8-4-6 in group stage matches, while MLS has 5-1-4 in elimination matches (W-D-L).
It's about the same. We all know sporting criteria isn't the most important one for CONCAClowns so it is clear why there are 4 US teams. I find something else funny beside this USA vs CRC allocation. Costa Rica league is treated the same way as leagues of Honduras, Panama, Guatemala and Salvador. In nine seasons Costa Rica qualified from group on seven occasions, remaining UNCAF leagues did it 8 times combined. Costa Rica had four semifinalists, remaining UNCAF leagues none. And what? They are all the same.
I wonder how will they react when they see what would coefficient table look like once they calculate it.
With the CONCACAF reform I got curious how many games a club has to play to be crowned continental champion in the six confederations. Some clubs enter earlier than others (qualifying rounds) so therefore we have a min-max range. I think it's safe to say that most of the times the winner will play the minimum amount of games:
*Assuming we see the CONCACAF "fall tournament" as a qualifier and not an independent tournament with a carrot at the end (i.e. Europa League with a UCL spot for the winner)
In short - only the OFC winner plays less games...