It looks like I missed one too, and then you included this years SKC loss. so it is MLS 4 to CR3 in the group stage and... MLS 2 to CR0 in the elimination stage. Total of 6 to 3 in favor of MLS.
I get different numbers. I think some are forgetting the 2008-9 edition where DC United and Saprissa were in the same group. The results I have are: Series H2H: USA 6-4 CRC (4-4 in GS; 2-0 in KO) Results H2H: USA - 8 wins, +5GD. CRC - 8 wins, -5GD. 4 Draws
I didn't forget the 08-09 DCU vs Saprissa. I think we didn't count this one because neither team advanced. DC placed 4th in the group and Saprissa was 3rd.
Why ignore it though? They still played each other, I dont think you can dismiss those matches because they couldnt do the job against other teams... Would you have ignored results if a USA and CRC team advanced from the same group?
Because the original conversation was about advancing to the next round, that is why. That was a bit of a tangent for sure, the original post that everyone can agree with is that Costa Rican teams (all teams in concacaf really) would rather have an MLS team in their group than a Liga MX team in their group.
The problem with that premise is that it is skewed in the sense that for a CR team to advance there is a good chance that it would have to do it over a LMX team (unarguably the top performers across the confederation). MLS teams don't have that problem. EDIT: Nevermind, I see now that you were talking head to head elimination. This is actually the way it is viewed in CR. In this particular edition there is the sense that LDA's advancement over Cruz Azul (even though they did not beat them) has more merit than Saprissa's over SKC.
Well this pretty much says it all. Even MLS wins one it is just an anomaly, although many MLS fanboys will declare the gap closed, if it were to happen.
whoooo... that is one big minnow. Seriously, you guys have a very loose definition of minnow. I would argue Mexico, MLS and CR teams are not minnows and all the rest are.
So, to circle back to what started this conversation. It seems this new format is actually harder for CR... and not harder for LMX. MLS has performed better then CR since 2008, So it benefits XML to play CR teams instead of MLS teams. So again if the new format is easier for MLS then it is easier for LMX.
I would put it a bit differently. There are clearly three tiers based on @ArsenalMetro's league coefficients: 1- Liga MX clubs, which are head and shoulders above the rest of the leagues. 2- MLS/Costa Rican clubs which can be expected to win against the teams on tier 3, match up evenly against each other and generally put up a decent fight against Liga MX clubs. 3- The rest.
I´m unsure if Champions Cup is included. I know Saborio scored in the 2nd leg of the Semis of CCC 06 vs Toluca. If they are not counting CCC,(and CCC absolutely should count) then Alvaro Saborio has more than 10 goals.
To really circle back, what is the record of LigaMX teams vs MLS and CRC. What about goal differential? It seams to me that CRC teams match up better against Liga MX (observational only, I haven't seen stats or records). In that regard it would be harder for LigaMX teams.
Well the 4 times liga mx teams have been eliminated in the groups. 3 times by Costa Rican teams. 1 by a Guatemala team if I remember correctly.
All these happened after the format change to the group stage. The old 4 team group is what made it easier for Mexico (and easier for all 4 teams in any given group). MLS teams and LMX teams don't compete in the group stage anymore so this metric can't be measured. The old 4 team groups had a 50% chance of making it out, compared to a 33% chance in the 3 team group. So math is the reason it is harder for Mexico, and harder for all the teams to advance out of the group. 1 out of 3 is harder then 2 out of 4. It has nothing to do with whether LMX have to play MLS or not.
It would for mls. It is easier to advance when facing a CA team and/or a CFU team than if a Mexican team is in your group. Because of concacaf rules the only time we could get data on this is when Canada is placed in a liga mx group. The fairest thing to do with out changing allocation spots would be to replace 2 USA seeds with a Canada and a Costa Rica seed.
LMX vs MLS 2009: 1W 0L 3D 2010: 6W 0L 2D 2011: 3W 5L 2D 2012: 8W 4L 2D 2013: 7W 2L 1D 2014: 2W 2L 2D 2015: 0W 0L 0D TOTAL: 27W 13L 12D LMX vs CR 2009: 1W 1L 0D 2010: 2W 0L 0D 2011: 0W 0L 2D 2012: 3W 1L 0D 2013: 1W 0L 1D 2014: 2W 4L 1D 2015: 0W 1L 3D TOTAL: 9W 7L 7D Liga MX only needs to worry about (at most) 2 CR teams in every CCL. Usually one of them is in a group with MLS. If MLS and LMX could match up in the group stage then LMX could potentially have to play against 4 or 5 MLS teams plus 2 or 3 CR teams. So every single LMX team has the potential to face have to face either a MLS team or CRC team. How is this easier for LMX?
This is exactly what happened in the 2015 CCL. Group 2 Saprissa SKC Real Estelí Group 3 Montreal NYRB CD FAS
This was the one where they had a draw and then they had to change it because some American teams were placed in the same group as Mexican teams correct?
I am not sure how they draw the groups? ...but it is my understanding that LMX and MLS teams cannot be drawn into the same group.
Well, there u have it. I know that I'd prefer to face your teams than Tico teams. Those old group stage games were fun. The Goal Scientist throwin down in Commerce City. Robbie Rogers falling flat on his face at Blue Stadium. Pumas' kids running circles around the dynamo. It's nearly impossible to stomp Rich Coast teams like that. This new format helps your league, hinders LMX. Allocations need to be changed to something reasonable. Hopefully someone out there with clout can bring this to C'CAF's attention. Maybe Paul & I should contact C'CAF again to effect change...