Jump to content

"Concachampions" to replace Gold Cup?


Daniel

Recommended Posts

Is this some strange joke?

http://www.laopinion.com/deportes/gen3/?rkey=00000000000001918770

Nuevo torneo: la Concachampions

A través de este certamen, México podría clasificar a la Copa Confederaciones 2009

Rafael Ramos Villagrana

05 de julio de 2007

PUERTO LA CRUZ, Venezuela.— Llega Frankestein II. Muere la Copa de Oro, pero nace la Copa Concachampions.

La Concacaf trabaja en los últimos detalles para el funeral de la Copa de Oro y para el alumbramiento de un nuevo torneo en el que participarán 18 de los 40 equipos del área.

La Concachampions se jugará en su primera ronda en el segundo semestre de 2008 y en el primer semestre de 2009. Este torneo se anunciará oficialmente dentro de 15 días.

Pero la Concachampions no llega sola, tiene un premio: un boleto más para la Copa Confederaciones ¿Sudáfrica 2009?.

Justino Compeán, presidente de la Federación Mexicana de Futbol (FMF), indicó que la Concachampions suple a la Copa de Oro para dar más oportunidad a los equipos del Caribe.

"Participarán los tres equipos de Norteamérica, es decir Canadá, Estados Unidos y México. Estarán cinco de Centroamérica: Honduras, Panamá. Nicaragua, El Salvador y Guatemala, además de ocho del área del Caribe que todavía no se determina como serán seleccionados", comentó Justino Compeán.

Las dos etapas de la Concachampions se jugarán en Estados Unidos por cuestiones obviamente financieras. La primera etapa eliminatoria sería de cuatro grupos de cuatro, la que arrojará a ocho para la ronda de cuartos de final, la cual empezará en el primer semestre de 2009.

"Debe jugarse en Estados Unidos. Ya vimos el éxito que tuvo la Copa de Oro en ese sentido y México provocó llenos donde se presentó, además de que los ratings de la televisión en español tuvo cifras nunca antes vistas", indicó Compeán.

El presidente de la FMF manifestó que ésta es una segunda oportunidad para que México consiga el pase anhelado a la Copa Confederaciones.

"La Copa Confederaciones se jugará a partir de 2009 con dos equipos por cada Confederación. Entonces es la oportunidad para que México asista. Queda muy claro que tanto la Confederaciones como la Copa Mundial de Clubes deben crecer en número de participantes", comentó Compeán.

En la final de la Copa de Oro 2007, Estados Unidos venció en la final a México y se quedó con el pase a Confederaciones.

En caso de que eventualmente Estados Unidos ganara esta Concachampions se recurriría a dos mecánicas: un duelo entre el segúndo y tercer sitio o directamente para el subcampeón de la contienda.

Respecto a la sede de la Copa América 2011, Justino Compeán confirmó lo manifestado por Chuck Blazer, secretario general de la Concacaf, durante la Copa de Oro, es decir, que parece inevitable que se le asigne a México, con la anuencia incluso de la Asociación de Futbol de Argentina (AFA), pero hay detalles que negociar aún con Conmebol.

"La Concacaf nos ha dicho que dejemos todo en sus manos. Ellos se encargarán de negociar la Copa América para México porque además en este año se vence el convenio de intercambio entre ambas confederaciones que permite a miembros de la Concacaf participar en torneos de Conmebol, como la Copa América, la Copa Sudamericana y la Copa Libertadores, comentó Justino Compeán.

Además, ya la Concacaf había establecido que no sólo busca la Copa América para México, sino que, en la rotación, se incluya a Estados Unidos para el 2012.

rafael.ramos@laopinion.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I agree they need to change the name but Concachampions is even worse than the Gold Cup. What's wrong with North American Soccer Championship?

Wouldn't there be Central American and Caribbean nations also taking part?

db

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by dbailey62

Wouldn't there be Central American and Caribbean nations also taking part?

db

Central America and the Caribbean nations are part of North America and it is pure stupidity not to consider them as such. Islands of the coast of Africa or Europe are considered African and European respectively so why should it be different than islands of the coast of North America? What makes Mexico part of North America and Guatemala not part of North America? We could also get rid of the ridiculous CONCACAF name in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little off topic but that gets me thinking about a few annoying things in geography, mostly that some people call central america a continent? North and south america are different continents because they are divided by an area so small they could build a canal through it (panama) asia and africa are different continents for the same reason (suez). The only exception to this rule is europe and asia which are divided by russia, which is an ancient (and fairly bigotist) concept creation that was created to divide christian nations from muslim nations centuries ago (btw, technically india has a greater claim to being a continent then europe as it's on seperate techtonic plates, ie a subcontinent).

but yes, Central america and caribbean are most certainly part of North America.

sorry for going off topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tectonic plates are not how continents are defined although some continents do lie on a single tectonic plate while others do not. Continents are supposed to be defined as single land masses separated by bodies of water but this obviously does not apply to all of the continents either. In general there is a combination of geographical division and historical convention. If continents were defined by major tectonic plates, Europe and Asia would be one continent with the exception of eastern Russia which would be part of North America (Greenland would also be part of North America). If minor tectonic plates were also used to determine continents then Central America and half of the Carribean could be considered a separate continent but in this system India, the Middle East and the Philippines would also be separate continents (while Europe would remain with Asia and north-eastern Siberia would remain with North America).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well most of my comments still hold, the only thing that may be askew was saying india has a greater claim then europe, which is kinda true but your right, it is not a definer of continents.

edit: Other people have heard India referred to as a "sub continent" right? I don't think I pulled that term outta my ass. Although I'm curious after grizzly's techtonic map what other places are considered sub continents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think you are right about India. I believe that the country is very slowly grinding itself underneath which ever plate Asia is on. Since this forces the land up where the two plates are running into eachother, you get the Himilayas.

I'm sure this is a very simplified explanation and a geologist would have a fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Juby

well most of my comments still hold, the only thing that may be askew was saying india has a greater claim then europe, which is kinda true but your right, it is not a definer of continents.

edit: Other people have heard India referred to as a "sub continent" right? I don't think I pulled that term outta my ass. Although I'm curious after grizzly's techtonic map what other places are considered sub continents

Your comments weren't wrong, my post was just a clarifier. Wikipedia has a good article and map of the plates at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_plates. If tectonic plates were used to define continents and minor tectonic plates sub-continents, then Central America, the Middle East, India and the Philipines would all be sub-continents and Europe and Asia would be one continent. Regarding gkhs' post, Russia is transcontinental in both the current system (Europe-Asia) and one using plates (Eurasia-North-America: Luch Energiya Vladivostok could play the nearby Whitecaps instead of far away Moscow teams). However, I don't see how either Panama or Yemen are transcontinental in any system. The Panama canal is a man-made division and a better argument can be made that Columbia extends slightly into North America than that Panama extends into South America. Yemen does not extend into Africa either.

All of this geography is just to point out the stupidity of having such long, poor sounding names like CONCACAF when North America would suffice as the name for the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.

Really interesting discussion about nominalism guys, very edifying.

I cannot figure out what they are proposing here, dropping the tournament and making it into a long Cup like for clubs? Sounds to me like some MLS team came up with the idea to avoid losing players for the Gold Cup, how much do you want to bet they'd schedule to NOT coincide with MLS games?

Is this a serious proposition, making our international players fly out from their clubs for every game scattered over the year, rather than just going three weeks for Gold Cup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Jarrek

My suggestion, don't dink around with the name. The tournament is still in its infancy and needs to carve out a name for itself. If they keep on changing the name nobody will recognize it.

I disagree, the name Gold Cup is bland and anonymous and sounds more like the name of a amateur beer league tournament than a continental championship. I think one of the reasons the tournament doesn't get any respect is because of the poor name which contributes to most people not knowing what type of tournment it is. The other confederations have good names for their tournaments so there is no reason we cannot as well. However, Concachampions is an even worse name so I am not in favour of that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the Gold Cup needed to be reformed, but this?

The group stages to be played in 2008, but the Knockout rounds in 2009? WTF?

And still every game will be played in the US.

At least Canada will get a bunch more games, but they seem to be set for the second half of 2008, coinciding with WCQ? The tourney will be officially announced around the 20th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

"Participarán los tres equipos de Norteamérica, es decir Canadá, Estados Unidos y México. Estarán cinco de Centroamérica: Honduras, Panamá. Nicaragua, El Salvador y Guatemala, además de ocho del área del Caribe que todavía no se determina como serán seleccionados", comentó Justino Compeán.

3 N. American, 5 Central American, 8 Caribbean teams, but where is Costa Rica?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

We could also get rid of the ridiculous CONCACAF name in the process.

I know! I know! Let's call it "The Football Confederation"!

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

CONCACAF Nations' Cup / Copa de Naciones CONCACAF / Coupe des Nations CONCACAF(CNC) would be ideal.

I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by Bxl Boy

Other too

Gold Cup is known in Europa as the Concacaf championship

So, it's not necessary to change the name to make it known, a name change would just be useful to give... a better name

No, Spain is part of Europe and here they call it the Copa de Oro, or Copa Oro as they do south of the Rio Grande.

I would imagine something similar in Italy and Portugal.

And it is a good name as it is original, not boring like Eurocup, African Nations Cup, and is even taken as colourful (gives rise to the usual cute metaphors regarding that element).

This new name is atrocious. I think it must be an MLS-Mexico suggestion to undermine the Gold Cup to favour their own private club cup, the weaker the rest the better their private, exclusive inventions look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...