News: MLS clubs have resolution over qualifying for future CCL after format change

Sure, why go with the simple solution (skip anyone qualifying from the current 2017 season) and go with the one that splits it.

 

To be fair? Why should teams be skipped and not rewarded with CCL? Esp when play in games can be played.

 

Do you want the rapids in the CCL? Because this is how we get the rapids in the CCL.

 

Why should they be rewarded? There's nothing inherent in this years winners that means they have to go to the CCL. It's not like the 2016 winners who were told they had qualified. They could have just announced "no qualifiers this year" and everyone would have set expectations accordingly. That's essentially what they did for the conference winners.

 

CCL is just a way for us to get a dose of reality - MLS is soccer on a VERY low level where our teams have no chance against the weak Mexican teams that go on to fail at the CWC.

 

I do actually.

 

Most first division leagues in the world have at least one Champions League spot a year, including the champion having to go through qualifying rounds in some cases. Asia, where some countries have no Champions League access, and the Caribbean are exceptions. I think MLS clubs should be able to take for granted that every year will provide CCL access. Imagine if the Premier League had one season that had no Champions League or Europa League access, while the other top leagues did have access. That could make fans watch Barcelona and Bayern Munich more and Chelsea and Manchester United less.

 

Every MLS Cup winner since the beginning has advanced to the CONCACAF tournament, so it would be unusual to exempt the 2017 winner (unless it's Canadian). Also, it seems that the CCL opportunity is the main thing that motivates some teams to treat the Open Cup as more than an annoyance. So that would appear to be the logic behind this decision. Sure, they could have declared 2017 a CCL-free zone, but I don't know why that would be better than this choice.

 

Because it solves one of the major gripes people have about the CCL. Teams that qualify don't play in it for (now) over a year. They couldn't fix that this year, having already awarded CCL spots to teams (and those teams then promoted that fact) but they could in 2019 by not having any 2017 teams qualify. Then the 2019 CCL entrants are only a couple months removed from qualifying.

 

What is your malfunction? I mean, seriously, what is wrong with you?

I don't ********ing care anymore. Welcome to ignore.

 

This makes perfect sense to me. Well done CONCACAF.

 

Good call by the USSF.

I would have solved it in the exact same manner. Awarding the second spot to the Open Cup winner (as opposed to the Supporters' Shield holder) makes complete sense as it doesn't lock out the lower leagues from the CCL for two years. The USSF as the custodian of the spots needs to consider the interests of the entire pyramid.

 

They could have done it. It would have been a PITA (with possible extra games) and the teams would have grumbled, but they could have. Canada is doing it. Could be something like "unless you win a spot in both seasons, you need to play off against someone".

This is an imperfect solution to a problem with no perfect solution. I'm dissappointed the 2017/2018 SS winners gets the shaft.

 

More importantly (since a lower league team winning the USOC is getting to only in theory levels), you're rewarding teams that won competitions as opposed to parts of them.

 

I think CCL has been a good way to gauge league improvement. When it started in the current format MLS teams would regularly lose to teams from Central America and I even remember the Galaxy being embarrassed by Puerto Rico. That doesn't happen anymore. MLS has gone from being the 4th or 5th best CONCACAF league to clearly being the 2nd best.

And the thought that Liga MX is a "bad" league is just wrong. The teams get a ton of TV money in a country of 100 million people with who knows how many ex-pats all over the world. The guys in their early 20s from South America that MLS makes a big deal about are a dime a dozen in Mexico.

So don't sit around thinking that MLS isn't improving or that Mexico is a bad league. If anything Liga MX proves how hard it is to compete with the big European leagues, but it also proves that you can have one hell of a league without being obsessed with comparing yourself to Europe every 5 minutes.

 

Amen. I'd add the caveat that if a team wins the MLS Cup & the /USOC, or a Canadian team (Toronto) wins MLS, then take the Shield winner from the season the double occurs.

Hopefuflly, the Crew will solve this by doing the double the next two years.
(OK, FCD is more likely).

 

England fans have already been through that and they survived just fine.

 

I think this was the most sensible solution.

 

Is it unfortunate for the New York Red Bulls and the Colorado Rapids? Yes. But given that the other options are either making the 2018 season irrelevant to the CCL or having play-in games, there are only a few good options.

The only real question was 2017 Supporters' Shield or 2017 USOC winner to go with the 2017 MLS Cup winner. If one of these titles is taken by Dallas or Seattle, (or MLS Cup goes Canadian,) the 2017 Shield winner should get a spot. If both are, I really don't know what the best choice would be.

 

No. Because this doesn't start until 2017. The teams that qualified in 2016 will play in the 2018 CCL. The Cup winners from 2017 and 2018 will play in the 2019 CCL while neither regular season conference champion (which would include the Shield winner) will.

 

Wait... I misread the article then. Wow. That's a strange choice.