Which draw do you prefer?

Discussion in 'CONCACAF Champions League' started by fridge46, Jun 3, 2013.

?

Which draw do you prefer?

  1. USA v MEX draw

    81.8%
  2. No USA v MEX draw

    18.2%
  1. fridge46

    fridge46 Member

    Oct 23, 2011
    So today we saw a glimpse of what the group stage could look like if USA and MEX are placed in the same group. So which do you think would be better for the competition?

    USA v MEX?
    Group 1: Arabe Unido, Isidro Metapan, W Connection
    Group 2: Olimpia, Kansas City, Real Esteli
    Group 3: Herediano, Victoria, Valencia
    Group 4: America, Alajuelense, San Miguelito
    Group 5: San Jose, Montreal, GUA2
    Group 6: Comunicaciones, Toluca, Caledonia
    Group 7: Tijuana, Houston, Firpo
    Group 8: LA Galaxy, Cruz Azul, Cartagines

    OR no USA v MEX?
    Group 1: Arabe Unido, Houston, W Connection
    Group 2: Olimpia, Kansas City, Real Esteli
    Group 3: Herediano, Cruzl Azul, Valencia
    Group 4: America, Alajuelense, San Miguelito
    Group 5: San Jose, Montreal, GUA2
    Group 6: Comunicaciones, Toluca, Caledonia
    Group 7: Tijuana, Victoria, Firpo
    Group 8: LA Galaxy, Isidro Metapan, Cartagines
     
  2. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The first one even if it was technically against their stupid rules.
     
  3. Otaku

    Otaku Member+

    Dec 9, 2003
    Club:
    CDSC Cruz Azul
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    4 groups of 4 teams. No teams, MLS or MX, should be gifted a pass to the next round.
     
  4. fridge46

    fridge46 Member

    Oct 23, 2011
    I agree, the sooner CONCACAF return to this format the better
     
  5. Nerroth

    Nerroth Member

    Feb 9, 2008
    Ontario, Canada
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    Alternatively, if CONCACAF were so keen on having all 24 teams play in thr group stage, could it be an option to split the list of entrants into six groups of four, and then let the top two runners-up follow the group winners into the quarter-finals?

    That would make things a little more interesting in each group, and set a premium on teams putting in that much more effort even if it looks like they won't win their respective groups outright.
     
  6. It's called FOOTBALL

    LMX Clubs
    Mexico
    May 4, 2009
    Chitown
    The CCL won't re-expand, too much money was being lost. There's a bigger chance of further contraction, with teams getting byes, than re-expansion.

    I predicted contraction after the 1st edition, and it happened a few years later. You gotta have revenue to cover the expenses, and the CCL simply doesn't have enough to go back.
     
  7. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Aug 23, 2006
    Donde siempre
    What I don't get is why go through all the circus of having "a draw" only to fix it afterwards behind the scenes to meet their weird rules.

    Why not instead just pre-make the groups meeting all their rules from the start and then simply assign team names to the group spots as they become known? Say, for example, group 1 will be USA1/ESA1/Hon2, group 2 will be Mex1/CRC1/Caribbean1, group 3 will be USA2/Hon2/Pan1, etc, etc, etc and then just fill in the spots as teams qualify out of their respective leagues?
     
  8. Nacional Tijuana

    Nacional Tijuana BigSoccer Supporter

    May 6, 2003
    San Diego, Calif.
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm more of a fan of US and MX teams meeting as late as possible. Gives MLS a better chance anyway, plus it's exciting. However, I am getting a bit impatient for a Tijuana vs. MLS match, just because I live in San Diego, whose country is served by MLS, but whose closest team is in Liga MX.
     
  9. Otaku

    Otaku Member+

    Dec 9, 2003
    Club:
    CDSC Cruz Azul
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico

    And why should they? No teams should have an easier route. Costa Rica, El Salvador, etc., need that help way more and doing well in this tournament would do wonders for their leagues but you don't see Concacaf bending over backwards to give them a hand.

    Instead of grinding out results and earning a place in the next round MLS teams are taking hand-me-downs from Concacaf. Its pathetic.
     
    It's called FOOTBALL repped this.
  10. Nacional Tijuana

    Nacional Tijuana BigSoccer Supporter

    May 6, 2003
    San Diego, Calif.
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, the US needs the help more than Mexico. I couldn't care less about Costa Rica's affairs.
     
  11. Balam

    Balam Red Card

    May 30, 2013
    Club:
    Jaguares de Chiapas FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    CCL is a joke. Why help MLS teams over the central American teams? If anything the best we can do to show our complete dissatisfaction is boycott the MLS vs Liga MX matches to plunge those ratings and watch the Liga MX vs Central Americans matches.
     
    BKR inC and Otaku repped this.
  12. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Watching and going to the stadiums for MX vs. Central American matches would help a lot for sure.

    We all know Concacaf does it because of the money. (In the CCL is reasonable since it is usually a money loser that is subsidized by Gold Cup Revenues).


    I actually liked the 4 team groups a lot better (Monterrey ownership did not), so I would prefer a reduction of teams to 16 or an increase of teams to 32.


    4 groups of 4 would have more quality IMO.

    8 groups of 4 would have more blow outs, but more opportunity for the smaller leagues/teams to at least participate.
     
  13. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also, I would prefer no protection (non Mexican head of group being lets say USA1, GUA1, CRC1 HON1).

    But if Concacaf is going to insist on the separation of Mex and USA why not also make a rule that the top Central Americans and Canada get dropped in the USA groups, that way the Top Central Americans (and Canada) also receive protection from Mexican teams.
     
  14. fridge46

    fridge46 Member

    Oct 23, 2011
    Thats how it is kinda set up at the moment. Dont look at the draw as having 3 pots... it is really 5 pots:

    1A: MEX1, MEX2, USA1, USA2
    1B: CRC1, HON1, GUA1, PAN1
    2A: MEX3, MEX4, USA3, USA4
    2B: CRC2, HON2, SLV1, CAN1
    3: GUA2, PAN2, SLV2, NCA1, BLZ1, CFU1, CFU2, CFU3

    Thus 4 groups will have teams from 1A, 2B and 3; and the other 4: 1B, 2A and 3 [why CONCACAF just didnt do this in the first place, it would have avoided the mess they got themselves in on Monday]

    So, the "top" central american teams (Pot 1B) play against the "weaker" north american teams (pot 2A). The top north american teams (pots 1A) play the weaker central american teams (and canada, pot 2B)

    I would rather CONCACAF have some sort of ranking list like UEFA or CAF... but given that most teams dont requalify the year after (we have atleast 14 teams who didnt qualify last year), it would be rather difficult to come up with an accurate list
     
    ceezmad repped this.
  15. slaminsams

    slaminsams Member+

    Mar 22, 2010

    Except under Ceezmed's proposal Herediano would't be in Cruz Azul's group they would be grouped with a team like Kansas City where the possibility of advancing are a bit more favorable
     
  16. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Good point.

    But I imagine that CRC1 would rather face USA1 over MEX4 (Economically probably MEX teams would draw better in terms of home attendance than USA teams so maybe I am wrong).

    So I guess the change I would make is;

    1A: MEX1, MEX2, MEX3, MEX4,
    1B: CRC1, HON1, GUA1, PAN1
    2A: USA1, USA2, USA3, USA4
    2B: CRC2, HON2, SLV1, CAN1
    3: GUA2, PAN2, SLV2, NCA1, BLZ1, CFU1, CFU2, CF3




    Edit: My proposal would suck for for teams in pot 2B since they would be guaranteed a group with Mexican teams.

    So Maybe:

    1: MEX1, MEX2, MEX3, MEX4,

    2ACRC1, HON1, GUA1, PAN1
    2B: USA1, USA2, USA3, USA4


    3A: CRC2, HON2, SLV1, CAN1, GUA2, PAN2,
    3B: SLV2, NCA1, BLZ1, CFU1, CFU2, CF3.



    Where 4 groups must have a team from Pot 2A and one from Pot 2B; the other 4 groups will get a team from Pot 1, and Pot 3 is used to round up the groups with teams from the same country not allowed in the same group.
     
  17. fridge46

    fridge46 Member

    Oct 23, 2011
    But doing that would be slightly unfair on the salvador and canadian teams... having to play a mexican team each year... they deserve their shot against USA teams too.

    CONCACAF need a proper ranking system, but until theres stability, nothing is going to be accurate... I'd like to see a second club competition.... but thats something for another tread (and when CONCACAF get their finances in order)
     
  18. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes I tried to fix that on my edit
     
  19. ArsenalMetro

    ArsenalMetro Member+

    Arsenal
    United States
    Aug 5, 2008
    Chicago, IL
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I would really like to see the seeding in the draw based on previous CCL performance. There's no reason that Kansas City, San Jose, America, or Tijuana should get guaranteed protection when they've never been in the tournament. Were I in charge, the draw for this tournament would have been set up in three pots (based on my coefficient rankings at the end of the 2012-13 CCL):

    Pot A: Cruz Azul (86.8333), Toluca (56.8333), Houston (45.0417), Los Angeles (45.0417), Olimpia (34.9444), America (33.8333), Tijuana (33.8333), Herediano (31.3889)

    Pot B: Alajuelense (28.8889), Montreal (28.8333), Comunicaciones (22.9167), Isidro Metapan (21.2500), Arabe Unido (17.6944), Kansas City (17.0417), San Jose (17.0417), W Connection (16.8334)

    Pot C: Cartagines (13.3889), L.A. Firpo (13.2500), Victoria (12.9445), Caledonia AIA (10.3333), Heredia (9.9167), Valencia (8.8333), San Miguelito (7.6944), Real Esteli (2.1667)

    So as it works out, you get two Central American teams with top-seed protection, while KC and San Jose drop down to Pot 2. Rather than forcing Olimpia and Herediano into a group with SKC and Cruz Azul, you could have them in a theoretical group with W Connecton and Heredia. I conducted a mock draw with these numbers, ensuring that clubs avoided others from the same country (or other Caribbean teams, in the case of CFU clubs), and got this:

    Group 1:
    Olimpia (HON)
    Isidro Metapan (SLV)
    Caledonia AIA (CFU)

    Group 2:
    Tijuana (MEX)
    Montreal (CAN)
    L.A. Firpo (SLV)

    Group 3:
    Houston (USA)
    Arabe Unido (PAN)
    Cartagines (CRC)

    Group 4:
    Toluca (MEX)
    Kansas City (USA)
    Valencia (CFU)

    Group 5:
    Herediano (CRC)
    Comunicaciones (GUA)
    Real Esteli (NCA)

    Group 6:
    Cruz Azul (MEX)
    San Jose (USA)
    Heredia (GUA)

    Group 7:
    Los Angeles (USA)
    Alajuelense (CRC)
    Victoria (HON)

    Group 8:
    America (MEX)
    W Connection (CFU)
    San Miguelito (PAN)

    This structure just strikes me as more fair and more competitive for all of CONCACAF. With this draw, you get two USA-MEX groups, and you give the better Central American teams (Herediano and Olimpia) a much better chance of going through. You also have San Jose and Kansas City, as new entrants to the tournament, really having to fight their way through to the knockout rounds. Obviously with this, you could still end up with all the US and Mexican teams separated, but it's not likely to happen.
     
    ceezmad and jared9999 repped this.

Share This Page