I´d say not really cause some other teams like Perez Zeledon, Heredia, Brujas are improving and playing better, but then somebody will post the stats and i´ll have to eat my words, cause Saprissa and alajuela have 100% of the last 10 championships, so i´ll accept it, the CRL is like the SPL. sad but true.
Thats what everyone says about EVERY CUP that's not Copa Lobertadores. A cup is a cup, mostly all of them end up having some meaning in the end. CCC has taught me that even though I still fell it's a terrible tournament.
A good start for concacaf would be not shafting the small teams from small countries by making them jump through endless hoops just for the priveledge of playing a MLS team. Concacaf represents the whole of north and central america, not America and Mexico. Have a system like UEFA, the leagues of Concacaf are ranked based on a points/game coefficient. Each season the leagues would be ranked based on results against teams from other leagues, and places in the CCC awarded based on those rankings. So for example: Mexico: 3 places Costa Rica: 3 places America: 3 places Jamaica: 2 places etc. 32 teams in the first round, with EVERY league in concacaf represented with at least 1 place. Then just have a straight home/away knockout with a one-off showpiece final at a neutral venue that rotates. And a decent name wouldn't go amiss. If you're talking about inviting teams from conmebol and vice-versa, then you may as well just merge the two and be done with it.
how is he wrong? in terms of competition, they're terrible. the only time they seem to advance is when they play carribean teams. in terms of revenue, they seem to always have the worst attendance. there's no reason why there should be more mls teams than all of central america. that would be rediculous. and for the people that there's only two good teams in costa rica, have you actually ever watched any cosa rican league games? if the best mls team can't do crap in the CCC, what makes you think the 4th best team would do any good?
Because the difference between teams 1 and 8 in MLS is very little. The 8th seed won MLS Cup 2 years ago and the Dynamo were the 5th best regular season team last year and came within 3 minutes of making the CCC final. MFL has a large pool of strong teams, but even it does not have as deep a league as MLS (although the league is in fact better the difference between top 4 and bottom 4 teams is much bigger than MLS).
No, it's not. The Mexican league has a deeper league, and by far. The 18th place team in the Mexican league can beat the champion of the MLS anyday. The same CANNOT be said about the MLS. As for the topic, only Mexico can compete in Conmebol, as history has proven.
Youre going to have to explain this sentence one more time. A league with a LARGE POOL vs a league thats DEEP.
mexico can compete with conmebol, they reached the copa america final twice while other south american teams never reach the final, they won the sudamericana, and have came close to winning the libertadores, and when they go to the world cups they always pass the first round
Okay. MLS had 12 teams last year and the MFL has 18. MFL has bigger outliers than MLS. For instance, MFL has only 2 teams this year that have won more than half their games (Pachuca and Cruz Azul). Morelia and Veracruz have each lost more than half of their games. In addition, Chiapas, Necaxa, and Monterrey have each lost half of their games. Look at MLS. Dallas did win half of their games, but nobody else did. Nobody lost half of their games. So what I am saying is that within MFL there is a larger pool of strong teams (by their league standard), but that there is a greater variation of quality between the top teams and the bottom teams than in MLS. Pachuca 30/14 = 2.14 ppg Veracruz 10/14 = 0.71 ppg DC united 55/32 = 1.72 ppg Columbus 33/32 = 1.03 ppg On a 32 game schedule Veracruz would project to have 22.7 points or be 4 games behind MLS' worst team while Pachuca projects to finish 68.5 points or 5 games ahead of MLS best team. So while we can argue that the MFL has a larger pool of good teams than MLS you can also see that MLS top to bottom is more competitive. Veracruz would project to be 16 games behind Pachuca in a 32 game schedule! That's horrible.
last season, there was only one team qualified for the playoffs going into the last match day of the season. the team that was first for the most part of the season ended up playing in the repechaje. the eighth placed team won the title. while UNAM spent most of the season in the bottom three places of the table, they beat DC United by five goals. Cruz Azul reached the final of the libertadores, beat Boca Jrs in argentina, and didn't make the playoffs that season. chivas finished 8th place over all last season, but went to the semi finals of the libertadores the last two editions of the tournement.
The MFL is, arguably, the league with the most parity in North and South America. In Mexico, we get different champions year-in, and year-out, that's what makes it even more exciting. Just yesterday, Tigres defeated Pachuca (the best Mexican team this year), when Tigres has been playing very poorly this season, and past seasons. By implying that the MLS is more competitive all around, you imply it's the league with the most parity on this side of the world, which is an absolute joke, but keep dreaming, though.
I just posted that first to last in MLS is much closer than first to last in MFL. And then you are just going to post your opinion as fact? I used a fact. You talked out of your arse. /shrug Would hate to see facts get in the way of your opinion of the MFL.
In an undoubted futile attempt to bridge the gap, I'd like to point out that the parity in BOTH leagues is clearly very high relative to much of Europe and South America. We have more in common than we do differences...