no matter, is a big difference between national league and continental league I give you 2 examples for CL 2015/16 if the clubs qualify : SEEDS : Club America (Mexico), Alajuelense (Costa Rica) , Pachuca (Mexico) unseeds : Municipal (Guatemala), LAG (USA), Seattle (USA) and second : SEEDS : Alajuelense (Costa Rica), Pachuca (Mexico), Saprissa (Costa Rica) unseeds : Queretano (Mexico), Veracruz (Mexico), Chivas Guadalajara (Mexico) Look in UEFA Club coefficients, when in UEFA Champions League are used club coefficients, and not league. Same years, seeds group have 3 teams from Spain, same years have 4 teams from Spain, depind by clubs. So, we can have many excitement matches even from groups stage ... matches between MX v MLS, MX v CRC or MLS v CRC, even GUA v HON, like a big chance for middle teams in a lucky edition of CL
So, thats 3 Costa Rica semifinalists in the last 2 editions and zero US semifinalists. Yet Costa Rica deserves zero seeds and US all 4?
You cant be that dense. You really have no idea what I was talking about? Seeds should be given based on level. Mexico deserves all 4, Costa Rica at least 1. I responded by saying the 2 champs in Costa Rica because I said 2 of 3 teams in Costa Rica should be seeded, the champs. The third non seeded team would be the non champion. Edit: My post is a mess LOL but I didnt meant it the way you thought
diego, I think you wrong. No mattter how many champions have a country in their internal league. MLS have 2 x Conference, 1 Shield, 1 MLS Cup, 1 Open Cup.... and one country from CONCACAF Wich use European system can have only 1 champions. NO MATTER !!! I give you a simple example : if from USA will qualify Chivas, Portland, Colorado and Chicago. And from Costa Rica will qualify Saprissa, Alajuelense and Herediano, WHICH clubs will be seeds? USA clubs because they are from USA, a country which give many internal champions? this is bad, is not a rule Seeds must be the clubs which played last 1-2-3-4-5 years in continental competition, and which made points for their country there. So, if you ask me, all these 4 USA clubs must be outsiders, even under Isidro Metaphan (El Salvador), Chorillo (Panama) or another club which qualify for current edition of CL, and which made points in preview editions.
The distribution is off, but looking only at semifinalists is an inaccurate way to perceive overall performance in the tournament as well.
So that also means that Alpha United, San Francisco and Joe Public must be seeded ahead of Veracruz, Puebla and Atlas.... For first time qualifiers from competitively leagues like Mexico, USA, where the qualifying teams changes significantly year after year, to be ranked below Real Esteli (who have qualified for the last 4 editions, their record is W0 D4 L10) is absurd!!! Its exactly for this reason that CONCACAF probably dont have a rankings list. For a region where the majority of Associations only have 2 spots in continental competition, its extremely difficult to develop a system that reflects true strengths (Excluding a few weaklings, the minimum number of teams qualifying for all continental competitions in UEFA is 4 - which over a 5 year period is a resonable estimate of relative league strength). So it is at this point you draw my attention to UEFA's coefficient system, where teams that dont play in CL/EL receive rankings points to elevate them against teams from weaker nations, who may or may not have qualified for Europe the previous 1-5 years. To which I say - dont bother, I know all about UEFA's coefficient system. If UEFA's system is applied, there is a level of opinion that has to be used. What percentage of country points should a non-qualifer receive?! Currently UEFA uses 20%. It used to be 33%. Before that it was 50%!!! What about bonus points? UEFA has gives out 5 for progress from CL GS. From 2004-2009 it was only 1 point. Before that it was 0!!! AFC have a similar system to rank their countries - they use 4 points bonus for every round progressed (UEFA uses 1 for progress from QF to SF, SF to F, etc); gives 1/3 to AFC Cup results (UEFA treat CL and EL match results equally) and gives a results based on the 3-1-0 method (UEFA uses 2-1-0). Hell - starting next the next edition - UEFA want to seed the TH and champions from the top 7 ranked countries will automatically in pot A, regardless as to whether they are a first time qualifier or not!!! To that end, anyone can use UEFA's coefficent ranking and fudge several factors to suit their own doing! UEFA is the only confederation to rank their teams for draws (CONCACAF uses the same system as CONMEBOL and AFC), and they have used several methods to do this in the last several years - they cant find the perfect system!!! What if UEFA has used this method from the very start - would this conversion even had started?! In someways the CONCACAF/CONMEBOL/AFC method is better than UEFA. Stronger nations are seeded above weaker ones. League champions are seeded ahead of those who are placed lower...Who should be seeded higher in this scenario: Team A (never been in CCL but just won every match they played in the league/playoffs) or Team B (Appeared in CCL 5 years ago and picked up 1 draw but performed poorly in league play, just scrapped into the playoffs and only qualified because they finished runnerup in both Apertura and Clausura playoffs, before this they were a second division team)? And it is while I write this something else dawns on me.... if CONCACAF didnt have the "Mexico and USA teams must be in separate groups" rule - would we have an issue with the system? I dont recall there being too many complaints back in the 4 groups of 4 teams days!
Is not absurd Think about club coefficient = their results in continental competition + 1/10 * NATIONAL LEAGUE coefficient. (noy only what the club do in continental competition) So, Veracruz and Puebla don't played in preview editions of CL and have 0 points from their results. But Mexico have a HUGE coefficient in last 5 years (for example 90.000) . So, Veracruz and Puebla will have 10.000 points in club coefficient ranking. Real Esteli played in last 5 editions of CL, but tey have 0 W , 4 D and 10L . For these results they have 4 points. But, Nicaragua have a coefficient of 13.000 and from these, Esteli will earn 1/10. So , Esteli will have a coefficient of 4 + 1.3 = 5.300 club coefficient ranking. So, Puebla or Veracruz will be ahead them because they come from a too strongest league. And think about Montreal Impact now They reach semifinals, better than any Guatemala, Honduras or Panama club. Why all these 3 have club in Pot A, and Canadian Champions is in Pot B. Because so, they will meet top2 clubs from Mexico and USA. and now, coefficient of Montreal Impact : they made 10 points, and their league coefficient is 35.000 (low than Mexican). So, TOTAL Coefficient for Montreal will be 10 + 1/10 * 35.000 = 13.500 1. Montreal Impact 13.500 -2. Veracruz 10.000 -2. Puebla 10.000 4. Real Esteli 5.300 now, you understand?
Sorry if I made you angry ) What I try to tell is that CONCACAF rules help too much mexican or USA clubs. Is enough that all these are too strongest for rest of competitors, but these rules give them more protection. I think the CONCACAF members want to see in quarterfinals only MX vs MLS !! ??? So, due of this rule, the group stage is not attractive for us ... why can't see a match between Club America and Kansas City in groups stage? They force us to see America vs Chorillo or Kansas vs Esteli? Or, is not more excitement to see America v Kansas and Esteli v Chorillo? What expectation we can have from Chorillor or Esteli vs America and Kansas? not too much. But with a correct draws year by year, maybe this season Chorillo will play against America (unlucky). Maybe next season will play against Alajuelense or Olimpia (clubs which qualify all time for KO phase, so, Chorillo think that have luck at draws and will try to qualify) Sorry again, I don't try to offend somebody, just to tell my view. press CAPS LOCK again and in both replies I say that should be used club coefficients
I am not the most revolutionary guy. Even my wildest dreams are framed by current conditions; assuming that things are the way they are because that was their possible arrangement. Hence, if I would spice CCL, I would use the current structure as my point-of-departure. Here, my changes: I. Spots a) USSF and CSA would have one spot guaranteed for each (for their respective National cups); and b) they would let their joint D-I league decide the remaining three spots (MLS Cup, Eastern and Western Conferences Regular Season). II. Draw a) teams will be regionally separated as must as possible: one group will have two teams from North America; four groups will have two teams from Central America; three groups will have all teams from different regions; b) teams from the same region will be equally distributed between the 3 pots, in accordance with some criteria of strength - all pots would have 4 teams from Central America, 3 teams from North America and 1 from the Caribbean; c) Two Central American team from Pot 3 will be put in the same group of Central American team from Pot 1 (avoiding teams from the same federation to be together); d) One Central American team from Pot 2 will join the group of a Central American team from Pot 1 (avoiding being from the same federation); e) One North American team from Pot 3 will join the group of a North American team from Pot 1 (avoiding being from the same federation). III - Second Stage a) the eight group champions from the First Stage will be paired in two groups of four teams each; b) groups will be settled by overall record: Group A - 1, 4, 5, 8; Group B - 2, 3, 6, 7; c) teams play round-robin, home and away, within the groups; d) the top-2 teams from each group advance to the semifinals. IV - Semifinals a) single elimination game; b) group winners host the match- 2B @ 1A; 2A @ 1B. V - Final a) single elimination game; b) the best overall record, considering First and Second stages, host the match - 2 @ 1. I made the semifinals and final in one game to compensate the second group stage. Overall, there will be only two extra dates from the current set-up.
So, if you ask me, look how can be some real POTs for draws with participant from CCF CL 2014/15 points are from my ranking, no matter it http://footballsize.com/concacaf-ranking/ With one big rule : TEAMS FROM SAME ASSOCIATION CAN'T PLAY IN SAME GROUP. How you see, no USA club in Pot A. Majority are in pot B. So lets do some posible groups : HARD GROUP ................................. / ..........................Weak group .............................. Normal group : Pot A : Alajuelense (Costa Rica) ......./ Real Espana (Honduras) ........................./ Club America (Mexico) Pot B : Pachuca (Mexico).................../ Real Esteli (Nicaragua)........................../ Isidro Metapan (El Salvador) Pot C : Portland (USA)......................../ Puerto Rico Bayamon (Puerto Rico) ..../ Alpha United (Guyana) How we think about these ? HARD GROUP : hmm... this is a incredible group !! I will follow it Probably best group from CL history with teams from MExico, USa and Costa Rica WEAK GROUP : ahaha, what a luck for .... Espana? YES !! Esteli or Bayamon have a big chance this year to make history for their country. Hhmmm, weak teams, I want to see what can do eny team in this group. NORMAL GROUP (like nowadays editions) : Too borred this group, Club America will qualify without problems ... With a system like this ... I think the matches and expectations for competition will increase very much .... clubs like Waterhouse, Alpha or Bayamon will hope to meet Comunicaciones or Real Espana from first pot. Maybe they will buy some players, will make some transfers to force a qualification in KO round, if they have a good group. But if every year they are obligated to met a club from MX/MLS and one from Guatemala/Costa Rica/Honduras ... for what to fight ?
Depending on how the First Stage goes, you could have a Second Stage group with three Mexican clubs and Arabe Unido (who made the 2013-2014 Quarterfinals) has to play six Second Stage games where they have no chance at advancing.
This can happen in any competition. I believe the advantages would be greater than the downsizes. In your case, for instance, it would give Arabe Unido six games against great competition, increasing experience; and the three Mexican teams could fought up until the end for the first place and/or advancing, generating excitement. Also, in general, a stronger Group Stage could possibly bring more money from TV and sponsors, since the games would have more perceived weight than those in the First Stage. P.S.: It would dilute the effects of MLS calendar - although that is not the reason why DCU lost to Alajuelense, before anyone asks.
Correct Mexico does not need help... but in the current setup they are getting help. Liga MX has to face 1 or 2 CR teams in the group stage and never has to face MLS teams. What helps MLS is also helping Liga MX.
I think can't say that mexican clubs are helped because they play Costa Rican clubs, and not MLS How we see in last editions, Costa Rica and Canada have better clubs than MLS. So, CCF rules help MLS clubs to not face mexicans, but they don't help costa ricans or Canadians, or guatemala or another country to not play against Mexicans, they help only MLS.
You do understand that Canada is an MLS club right? Frankly, separating the success of the Canadian team from the US teams is ridiculously illogical. They come from the same source.