TFC without Giovinco. NYRB without Adams. ATL without Tata and Almiron. would tfc be in ccl without giovinco? would nyrb without adams? atl without tata and almiron? ....likely that all of these teams won't even qualify for ccl next season without these difference makers.....and won't finish in CCL spots as currently constructed............. Not helping MLS at all that the teams they send to MLS are often shadows of the team that earned the berth in the first place.... Not to mention Houston (and the Gold Cup winner in general) who isn't even a top 10 MLS team and has no business being in CCL..... No easy answer to making sure that the teams in CCL are actually deserving...i realize....but this is just one example of how MLS' inwardly-focused and insulated rules and operating procedures prevent its teams from being competitive internationally....
Real Madrid qualifies for Champions League. Ronaldo moves to Juventus. Real Madrid competes in Champions League without Ronaldo. Anything else?
Wow. A lot of errors in there. The "lag" has been greatly reduced. Two of the MLS teams in this CCL did qualify in 2017 but that system is going away. MLS teams will now qualify for the CCL in September-November for the tournament that starts in February. It can't get any shorter than that. Most CCL teams from other federations qualify much earlier than that. Kansas City that just eliminated a Mexican team in the Round of 16 qualified in September of 2017 for this tournament. Didn't seem to hurt them. The Open Cup winner slot has traditionally done better than the Supporter Shield winner in the CCL. The USA2 slot which typically goes to the Shield winner has dropped out of the top seeding group for the CCL. USA4 which is usually the Open Cup winner is still in there. Kansas City got into this tournament by winning the Open Cup, BTW. Toronto and the Red Bulls made the semifinals last year, Toronto was PKs away from winning the whole thing. They did that under the MLS rules and operating procedures. Here are the coefficients for the CCL which ArsenalMetro posts on the CONCACAF board. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/concacaf-champions-league-coefficient.1187575/page-27 MLS is doing OK, it hasn't overtaken the Mexican teams but it is much more competitive than it used to be. Code: As of February 21, 2019 Federation Coefficient Nation 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Overall Mexico 14.375 22.000 18.000 14.125 1.125 69.625 Canada 22.000 4.500 19.500 21.000 0.000 67.000 United States 9.875 12.875 10.625 7.125 2.250 42.750 Costa Rica 15.667 6.000 8.500 3.125 4.125 37.417 Honduras 8.500 6.750 7.500 3.125 3.167 29.042 Panama 2.250 6.000 10.750 4.625 4.625 28.250 Guatemala 6.000 4.500 4.500 0.000 0.000 15.000 El Salvador 0.750 3.000 3.750 3.333 1.667 12.500 Nicaragua 3.000 0.000 3.000 2.250 1.000 9.250 CFU 2.000 3.000 1.000 0.250 1.000 7.250 Belize 0.000 4.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.500
Just wondering if the OP ever gets tired of posting without bothering to research basic facts on his topics first...
By next year qualifying will have normalized for all MLS teams and there won’t be any significant lag. I will tell you who has a significant lag however – Liga MX. As of now the FMF is not sending the most recent winner and runner-up determined in December 2018 (America and Cruz Azul). Instead it is sending: Santos (May 2018) Toluca (May 2018) Tigres (December 2017) Monterrey (December 2017) That means some teams have to wait 14 months before playing the CCL. Anybody know why the FMF hasn’t adjusted qualifying after the group stage was axed?
When I read quotes like this, I understand why people get so annoyed at your posts. The Gold Cup winner? I think what you were looking for there was "US Open Cup" winner. Check your post, and your facts.
Clubs change, and it could happen in many countries and sports. The Kansas City Royals won the 2015 World Series and went 81-81 the next season. Playing champions league games during a baseball season is impossible, but that's an example I came up with of a team that would have qualified for a champions league if it existed doing much worse the next season.
because then you would have to give the "reward" to teams that reach the finals in different seasons, is not the FMF's fault that CONCACAF decided to pander to MLS and change the whole format to give them a better chance to win the competition. At the end they most likely don't care, you can send anyone from the top 10 in Liga MX and they would still have a better chance to win the whole thing than anyone in MLS.
youre right...i meant us open cup thats how houston got into CCL...the only way they could ever..... at this point i think MLS methods for doling out CCL spots is not enhancing the odds of its teams winning chances.... IM NOT TROLLING - but i honestly believe that if MLS just wrote all the names of every MLS team on a separate piece of paper for each team and pulled out 4-5 and that's how they picked the MLS CCL entrants - the odds of MLS winning CCL would be the exact same that they are under the current "results-based" approach....maybe even better....(cuz in that method there's a better chance that the best players on those randomly chosen teams arent already gone, imo) what I would really like to see is the USL winner get a spot - give those guys something to fight for - and maybe unearth a gem or two in the process....I'm not seeing why MLS deserves 5 spots at the present time - they should give one to USL. (also big picture - my personal opinion is that as long as MLS keeps its byzantine roster rules/mechanisms and enforced parity/mediocrity - they will never win CCL - imagine a LIGA MX team having to cut a signed gio dos santos to be fair to the rest of LIGA MX - that idea is ludicrous. Once MLS teams can just make soccer decisions when managing their rosters and are not forced to stratify their players into straight-jacketed, artificial tiers of players - and dont have to decide to cut a guy like yamil asad cuz of roster compliance tomfoolery and not based on PERFORMANCE they will be able to compete with Liga MX despite the complexity of its rules - PARITY doesnt even exist in MLS anyway -so the complex rules MLS has are in effect more about lowering the ceilings of MLS teams and capping spending than anything to do with competiteveness, imo...the rules are designed to keep different teams on top of the standings from year-to-year...the rules are designed to prevent good teams from sticking together over the course of several seasons - which is necessary to do anything in CCL - minimum 2-3 years together AND dominant - to have any chance of doing anything in CCL - but will never happen in MLS under current rules. )
MLS only has THREE spots. It's not MLS' fault that no lower division team has won the USOC since Rochester did back in the late 90's. Maybe a CPL team will win Canada's spot by winning the Canadian Championship (Voyager's Cup). It's not the fault of the three Canadian MLS teams that no other Canadian team has been able to win that tournament the past 10 years.
Just re-name the first half of the calendar year Apertura and the second Clausura. Problem solved. Of course it's not the FMF's fault that CONCACAF changed the schedule but you should aim to send the most recent Liguilla champions - no? The USSF made adjustments, why can't the FMF? If Toluca (in their awful form) had been one of the clubs who waited 14 months to play this discussion would be more prominent.
I looked back at the last time the competition was played in one half of the year - the 2008 CONCACAF Champions Cup. Back then the FMF had no issues sending two representatives from different (full) "seasons". Pachuca - 2007 Clausura (Part of the 2006-07 Season) Atlante - 2007 Apertura (Part of the 2007-08 Season)
This Is riciculous! Why would they give a lower division team an automatic berth? Your entire content, validity, and credibility lose all value with statements like this. Honestly, it is why no one values anything that you post. BTW - USL does have a spot available to them in Champions League. They just have to win the Gold Cup... er, I mean the US Open Cup.
Ever? This is Houston's 7th appearance in a CONCACAF competition and the first time by wining the Open Cup. That got me to thinking. How many times have various MLS teams been in the CONCACAF Champions League and Cup? Here are the numbers: CCL only 6 times: Toronto 5 times: Houston, NY Red Bulls, Seattle, LA Galaxy 4 times: Kansas City, DC United 3 times: Dallas, Salt Lake 2 times: Colorado, Portland, Vancouver, Columbus, Montreal* Once: Atlanta, San Jose, New England, Chivas USA So in 11 years of this competition, 18 MLS teams have taken part. *Montreal was also in once as part of the USL. If you include the CCC, then the numbers look like this: Overall 12 times: DC United 10 times: LA Galaxy 7 times: Houston 6 times: Kansas City, Toronto 5 times: NY Red Bulls, Seattle* 4 times: San Jose 3 times: Dallas, Colorado, Salt Lake, Columbus, New England, Chicago 2 times: Portland, Vancouver, Montreal Once: Atlanta, Chivas USA That makes 19 teams with the addition of Chicago. *Seattle was also in once as an A-League team. Correct me if I'm wrong on some of the teams.
i meant this version of houston vis a vis the current versions of every other mls team...sure, when mls had ten teams and there was more of a semblance of parity...houston was one of the best teams. now, they are an also-ran compared to the upper echelon mls teams....and wouldnt make the top 10 of most people's mls power rankings so therefore "shouldn't be in CCL"....
trolling? how? if you think I am being insincere....i can assure you i'm not. i've only posted my honest thoughts....not sure how that can be something i shouldn't do....am i not allowed to express what i think? can you give me a definition of trolling so I can avoid doing it?
You can’t possibly be that stupid. And I don’t mean that as an insult. There’s absolutely no way you believe what you wrote, because I’m giving you the benefit of being smart. Which means you’re trolling. There’s no way you genuinely believe that because some of the top teams lost players prior to their CCL runs that it wouldn’t make a difference if we swapped out Atlanta for the Earthquakes. You’re not that stupid.
It doesn't matter who MLS sends, results will be the same. Sad but true. The fact is that MLS can't compete with Liga MX when it operates with a salary cap while Liga MX doesn't. Liga MX teams have a lot of depth, MLS teams don't due to the "cap". Look at teams like America, Tigres, Monterrey, Chivas, Santos, Pachuca etc some players in their bench can be DPs in MLS. Monterrey the weekend before playing ATL used an entire different 11 to play versus Chivas and still pulled out a 2-0 win. That is how deep their rosters are. TFC's run last year was ended by injuries and their "depth" just was not up to par. Maybe about 7 or 8 players of any MLS team are up to par with Liga MX teams but after that....it drops significantly. Look at ATL now too, they lose Gressel and Escobar and they bring in Shea and Ambrose, who honestly shouldn't be playing in first division at all but that is all you, as a team, can afford based on "rules". Eventually MLS will catch up, it is growing, no doubt about that. But Liga MX is also growing and their teams are getting better and some spending as much as lower to mid table La Liga clubs.
Actually that's apropos that you picked SJ as your example because i most certainly WOULD take the team coached by the same coach who WON THE CCL last year over the one coached by deBoer.....I AM that stupid. at the very least i think an mls team coached by almeyda would do no worse in CCL than the teams MLS sent to CCL this season....coaches like deboer, armas, cabrera and vanney are way out of their depth in CCL, imo....and their teams are setup to fail before a single kick is taken oftentimes. for instance, last year NYRB had no business losing to chivas but armas was simply outcoached by almeyda.... a few posters have tied the failure of MLS in CCL to MLS spending and it is crucial but coaching and other factors are also huge impediments as well..... overall, i'm not saying that the teams at the bottom of the standings are necesarily as good as those at the top of the MLS standings they often arent...but i'm saying that 2018 success in MLS is not predictive of 2019 CCL success for MLS teams in CCL so THEREFORE MLS would likely do just as well in CCL by randomly picking their representatives .....that way they might even get one of those "surprise" teams like chicago was a few years ago in CCL actally playing in CCL the year that they are actually good instead of the year after they are actually good. whatever the case MLS can't and couldnt have done ANY WORSE under a different scheme than they have done under the current one in 2019 so I don't get the indignation. I'm pretty sure MLS really wants to do well in CCL, too....and what they are doing is not working CLEARLY.... so how would you change MLS' approach to CCL then if my idea is so stupid?????
My apologies, then. You are that stupid. And? If what you're saying is true, that MLS teams have failed because they got outcoached, that still doesn't mean that sending lesser teams in their place is a solution. Wait wait... they OFTEN aren't? What are you on about? They're NEVER as good as those at the top of the MLS standings. That's why they're on the BOTTOM of the standings, genius. But apparently you're saying that 2019 CCL failure is predictive of 2020 CCL failure. Isn't that lovely. You're nuts. It's not going to make MLS more successful to randomly pick bad teams and insert them into an international competition. Besides, it's a Champions League. Entrants should actually have done something. The indignation is because you're an anti-MLS guy, no matter how much you're going to try to spin to the contrary. The only time you post in MLS Forums is to bitch about things it's doing wrong, or to whine that it's not doing enough for the national team. You never post about matches in MLS play; you only show up to talk about CCL, because it's international. I see no evidence that you could give less of a damn what happens inside the four walls of the league, except for when it affects international perception or the national team. Great. They had a lousy year in the Champions League this year. It happens. That doesn't mean everything sucks. If you had just left it at "is the "Lag" hurting MLS Clubs", you'd have asked a valid question. Because this is one case where it seems like it absolutely did. But since player turnover is a reality in worldwide soccer, and sports in general, you can't guarantee that rosters for international competitions are going to be identical to what they were when they won their league/cup/spot. Like I already said once, Real Madrid qualified for this year's Champions League when they had Ronaldo. Now they don't have Ronaldo. It happens. Here's what I would change about MLS' approach to CCL: NOTHING. Nothing at all. The "approach" isn't the problem. Playing against better teams is the problem. And I'm not mortgaging the competitive nature of the league just to make two or three teams better so they can beat Mexico.
While it wasn't good to lose to a club doing poorly in Liga MX, the Red Bulls won both legs against Tijuana, and outscored Liga MX 2-1 in two games in Mexico. I wonder how many MLS clubs have played at least 2 games in Mexico in one CCL and had a positive goal differential there. As for coaching, Armas took over in the summer. Jeese Marsch coached in the 2018 CCL. MLS clubs don't do poorly enough in the CCL to say that MLS couldn't do any worse by randomly choosing clubs.