Where does that say America DESERVES 4? I was talking about MAKING MONEY. And to MAKE MONEY you need the American market. Therefore America (and by America I really mean MLS which includes 3 Canadian teams) should have 4 bids. Rather they DESERVE them or not is an entire different debate. Deserve: do something or have or show qualities worthy of Should: must;ought Deserve indicates a judgement of the quality of American soccer. Should indicates a judgement of how the tournament should be structured. Entirely different statements when using should vs. deserve. That said since Canada plays it pro soccer in US leagues if Canada and its 5 teams playing in US leagues "deserve" 2 bids than the US and its 30+ pro soccer teams by definition must "deserve" at least 4. So if I concede the point that Canada deserves 2 than yeah I'd say the US deserves at least 4. But does the US deserve 4 on merit? I have no idea but they SHOULD have 4 in order to make the event attractive in the nation that leads the world in spending on sports entertainment. I do love your absurd cherry picking. Give Canada 5 berths and see how they compare to American teams. You do realize they literally play in the same leagues and share the same talent pool? Separating them doesn't even make sense. MLS deserves 3 bids (Canada or US based since they play in the same league). The US Open deserves 1 bid (only to guarantee representation from the USA). The Canadian Championship deserves 1 bid (only to guarantee representation from Canada). If you want to get down to "deserves" than that is what each "deserves".
You're wrong tho, Latin American and Caribbean markets can sustain this thing. You're giving yourself too much credit. You don't need the anglo-usa market to make money. No, that's too many. C'CAF doesn't go by league, they go by Federation. We can all agree that the allocation should go: Mex 4 usa3 RC 3 Can 1 And protection from MX teams must be abolished. C'CAF basically puts a shield over usa teams during the group stage, on some "Don't worry children, I am shielding you from these Mx teams. You're safe under my watch". While the rest of the region is hung out to dry.
You mofos ignore the point that Mexico does not want more than 4 spots. More Mexican spots in the CCL would mean weaker teams going to Copa Libertadores. Shit if the FMF had a choice they would drop 2 CCL spots in exchange for getting back the 2 Copa SudAmericana spots they lost (because of Concacaf). Now to make it "fair" Concacaf could remove the rule that only American teams can qualify in MLS play (so far no Canada team has been affected by this). and remove 1 MLS spot and give it to the defending champion. That way the 9 North American spots would be divided as follows 1 Canada (Canada Cup) 1 USA (US Cup) 2 MLS (USA or Canada can win the spots, as opposed as of today where only USA team are allowed to win them) 4 Mexico 1 Defending champion. (so basically Mexico gets 5). Edit: In Mexico I would also like to see the Runner ups being replaced with Copa Mx champions, that way Ascenso MX teams would have a shot at the CCL. Just make the Liga MX runner ups qualify for Copa Libertadores as Mex1 and Mex2.
For Mexico, I kind would like to see the following opportunities. CCL #1 for the CCL defending champion. CCLMex1 Apertura champion CCLMex2 Clausura champ. CCLMex3 Copa MX apertura champ. CCLMex4 Copa MX clausura champ. Copa Libertadores Mex1 Apertura runner up CLMex2 Clausura runner up. CLMex3 Best record in Apertura but not qualified to the CCL. Copa Sudamericana CSAMex1 best over all record in Clausura but not qualified to CCL or CL. CSAMex2 2nd best over all record in Clausura but not qualified to CCL or CL. That wold be 10 Mexican teams in International competition. But I would also change Copa MX (I would prefer just 1 per year, but oh well) so that even teams playing in international competition, still have to play Copa MX, even if they send their U20/U17 teams to Copa MX.
No, Concacaf told Mexico that they would not be allowed to play in Copa Sud when the new CCL started. I am sure the sponsors of Copa SudAmericana would love to have Mexican teams back.
I understand what it goes by, doesn't mean I agree its what it should go by. Canadian teams play in US leagues. They should qualify through that competition. And we can't all agree. Can the event survive (and maybe make some money) without American interest? Of course it can. Can it maximize its profits without American interest? Not a chance in hell. And I am not giving anyone too much credit. I just happen to live in reality. America is still the largest economy in the world and Americans spend far more money on sports entertainment than anywhere else in the world. You'd have to be a fool to reduce the access to that market for any sporting event.
It's even more foolish to compromise the integrity of the competition. Nonetheless, reducing usa's allocation to 3 berths would not reduce access to this market. It would probably increase it since now people will notice that C'CAF is getting it's head out of its arse.
Again, how is giving 2 out of 3 Canadian MLS teams and only 3 out of 19 US MLS teams bids create a better tournament? Giving access to 40% of the pro teams in a country that doesn't even have its own pro league does far more to destroy the integrity of the competition than letting 4 US teams in does. Wouldn't it make far more COMPETITIVE sense to allow 3 bids from MLS, 1 bid from US Open, and 1 bid from from the Canadian championship? Just because till now bids have been granted based on federation does NOT mean that is the most logical approach. Canadian teams play in US leagues. They should be able to qualify through those leagues.
I'm not advocating more Canadian teams. When I said Maxi was on point, I meant the part about reduced usa allocation. C'CAF awards berths by member association, and not by league. They will never go by your idea because that makes the usa or Canada allocation variable every year, as if it were an ARM. They want a fixed allocation. Your idea is dead in the water, and not a good one because it still gives 5 berths to Northern North America, which is too many.
Why can't it be both? What law is violated by having both? Its a pretty simple common sense approach. Just because its different than how its currently done doesn't mean it doesn't make more sense.
I made a simulation, and for me, this is the best for Concaca format : 32 clubs, 8 groups of 4 clubs seeds by coefficients, and not by pre-league position : 1 club - TH (last champions have dirrect slot in groups stage) 4 clubs - top3 associations (Mexico, USA, Costa Rica) / 3 in groups / 1 in preliminary 3 clubs - associations 4th-6th (Honduras, Guatemala, Panama) / 2 in groups / 1 in preliminary 3 clubs - associations 7th - 9th (El Salvador, Jamaica, T&T) / 1 in groups / 2 in preliminary 2 clubs - associations 10th - 12th (Canada, Haiti, Nicaragua) / 1 in groups / 1 in preliminary 1 club - associations 13th+ / 0 in groups / 1 in preliminary 4 stages : Groups Stage Play Off Preliminary Round 2 Preliminary Round 1 Groups stage : 22 dirrect clubs (top3 x top3 associations, champion and runner-up x 4th-6th association, champion of 7th-12th associations) Play OFF : 3 dirrect + 17 clubs from Preliminary Round 2 (4th in top3 associations) Preliminary Round 2 : 29 dirrect clubs + 5 from Preliminary Round 1 (3rd from associations 4th-6th, 2nd and 3rd from associations 7th-9th, 2nd from associations 10th-12nd, champions of associations 13rd-30th) Preliminary Round 1 : 10 dirrect clubs (champions of associations 31st-41st) And don't tell me that some leagues are amateurs .... this will be showed by results. If Surinam league is very low, then they will lose in second preliminary round or third. In groups stage, we can ave a group with Mexican, USA and Costa Rican teams .... the seeds must be made by CLUB COEFFICIENTS, and not how is done now, with no mexican-usa meetings. In groups stage are guaranted places for top12 associations, and in Play Off 10 clubs which will win can be all from top10 associations, so , much power for the competition. Small countries, like Guyana, Haiti, Suriname, Puerto Rico will begin probably from second preliminary round (2 games home-away), and will qualify for play off, where can met USA, Mexican or Costa Rican clubs. First preliminary round are for the weakest CONCACAF associations, like Dominica, Saint Vicent and Grenadine or Saint Lucia. Probably more will say bye from first round, but the format will remain so, and rival clubs will receive bye for current round.
You have math problems. Champions of associations 31st-41st are 11 clubs, not 10. Preliminary Round 2 says 29 direct clubs but lists 30 clubs. The way the math works is to make Preliminary Round 1 have champions of associations 28th to 41st (14 clubs) and Preliminary Round 2 to have 27 direct clubs (what you listed without the champions of associations 28th-30th) and 7 clubs from Preliminary Round 1.
Ok, b, I'll compromise. I support your Adjustable Berth CCL, with 1 difference. Let's make the allocation this: 3 berths for Ticos 1 berth for Canada Champ 1 berth for USOC Champ 1 berth for MML Champ 1 berth for Supporters Shield winner And that's it. Canada or u.s. can have a max of 3, minimum of 1. So now the league season will be even more competitive since ccl allocations will also be at stake.
The vast majority of these games would not be played, due to one or both clubs declining to participate for financial reasons or failing to meet stadium requirements. And they don't really seem to serve any purpose, since the CFU Club Championship is already a play-in tournament for the lower ranked federations. Seeding by coefficient is a good idea, although I have to wonder how many CONCACAF voters would be willing to make the process entirely math-based, with no room for bribery and corruption.
Yah, I made a little error, but the idea is very very good for first preliminary round 5 matches for second 17 matches (29 direct clubs + 5 from first round) play off ( 10 matches (3 direct + 17 from second round) the plan is for 41 associations I know in first and second preliminary round many teams will leave without matches, because they are too poor for this competition. But this happening just in preliminary stages and just for some years .... with the time, many associations will send profesional clubs in CL. Wait my images, you will understand
All results from Groups stage + Knock Out phase are results by the team against rival in the group, or another clubs from riival association (last 5 years results). Results with "red" backgroup can be not played due of too big difference of first leg and due of the club are too poor for the competition. 22 dirrect clubs in groups + 10 clubs from play off. 5 Mexican clubs (4 spots + 1 TH) - use club coefficient to make the groups !! - clubs from same association can't be in same group or can't play in Round of 16. - clubs from same association can play togheter in quarterfinals, semifinals or final FINAL : Monterrey - Alajuelense (I forgot to edit semifinal name). CONCLUSIONS : - in first years ... Mexican clubs can qualify very easy in Round of 16 - in play OFF, majority clubs which are favourite will qualify, but anytime will exist one or more surprise - I USE FOR Preliminary stages the system like in Copa Libertadores "first club -vs- last club" to make easy the matches. Definitely this is not good, and for these phase we need draws with seeds and no-seeds to equalise the chances. - Many clubs from Honduras, Guatemala or another association can reach the Knock-Out - phase - at least 12 associations will have guaranted spots in groups stage (in our chase 13 associations give clubs in groups) - with this format, the weakest countries can develop fast their football, even if they will not qualify for groups, they will have matches in continental phase, which is very important for clubs, for suporters and for sponsors.
AlleXyS correctly suggested to move a debate from another thread to here: It began with this comment: Or, they could: give Canada one spot; give another one to the U.S.; and let all three MLS spots up for grabs between both countries. If they can treat the Caribbean as a unit, why not MLS? The official rule could be stated like this: USA and Canada, together, will have 5 spots. Then, it would be up to CSA and USSF to divide those between them. As I suggested above: - Voyagers Cup, 1 spot; - US Open Cup, 1 spot; - MLS Eastern Conference Regular Season, 1 spot; - MLS Western Conference Regular Season, 1 spot; - MLS Cup, 1 spot. - In case of any team getting more than one spot, those extra ones will be awarded to the best qualified teams in accordance with MLS Supporters' Shield standings, among those not yet qualified to play in CCL. [P.S.: (Off-Topic) My dream, though, would be this: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/how-to-include-usa-can-in-copa-libertadores.1934897/]
Well the Coeeficient thread also has discussions about what leagues deserve how many spots, so it is not off topic in that thread.
No, is not offtopic there I just wanted to take your attention at my simulation with 32 teams in 8 groups CFU Clubs Championship is a preliminary stage for CCF CL (same with UEFA Intertoto Cup for UEFA Cup in past). I think these regions must be dissolved, CFU or NASL and let all countries to participate in preliminary stage for Champions League
4 spots for Mexico 3 spots for USA 3 spots for CR 3 seeds for Mexico, 3 seeds for USA, 2 seeds for CR Simple.
Why to put seeds for country and not for clubs? So, if Veracruz or Queretano qualify for CL, they must be seeds? Then, one of Saprissa, Alajuelense or Herediano must be outsider? All these Costa Rican clubs have more matches in CL than both mexican clubs. So, I think, the seeds must be made by team performance, and not fixed seeds by countries.