masster Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I think they need to reduce the amount of teams in the Champions League. Instead of having 24 and a playoff for the group stage, go straight to 16 teams. The US does not deserve as many spots as they currently get and the second teams from Trinidad and Jamaica have been dreadful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 It is MLS that doesn't deserve the number of spots it has not the US. I think they should stay at 24 because that will help club soccer develop more throughout CONCACAF instead of keeping the status quo of one top league and a bunch of mediocre ones. They do need to distribute the spots more fairly though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly It is MLS that doesn't deserve the number of spots it has not the US. Your beef is with the US soccer federation. They control who gets those 4 US spots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montry Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 quote:Originally posted by CanadianSoccerFan Your beef is with the US soccer federation. They control who gets those 4 US spots But CONCACAF controls how many spots each country gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the biologist Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Montry But CONCACAF controls how many spots each country gets. ...so they give USA as many spots as Mexico since they are ranked higher in the FIFA rankings. After that, it's only up to the U.S. Soccer Fed. They should award all the spots to the final four teams in the Open Cup. This way USL teams will at least get a decent chance to reach the big tournament and if MLS still gets the four spots, well everyone will then be sure that the four MLS teams in CCL will be the best/more deserving ones. As I see that's a long shot, maybe they could start with two spots (winner & runner-up) for the Open Cup tournament and stay put with both the Supporter's Shield and MLS Cup winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 ^Do the Netherlands get more Champions League spots than England because they are higher in the world rankings? Country rankings have nothing to do with club football. In the first 2 years of this tournament the US has shown that they do not deserve 4 spots. If Charleston or Carolina would have replaced DC United or NYRB would they have done any better?? Who knows. How the USSF decides to alocate their 4 births is irrelevant though. The fact is that Mexico is way ahead of the US in terms of club football so there is no way that the two countries should receive the same amount of births. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The reason the US has 4 berths in this tournament is the same reason the gold cup and superliga are always held in the US. The sponsors are buying into this tournament for the hispanic-americans. You'll notice that almost every CCL sponsor is a direct competitor of the mexican national team's SUM tour sponsors. In theory, having 4 US berths would mean more hispanic teams playing meaningful matches in the US which is exactly what the sponsors want. It hasn't quite worked out too well with several not making the group stage but you get the idea behind it. Secondly, if you take spots away from the US, who do you give them to instead? It's not like any other countries aside from Mexico are making a case for an extra spot. The Costa Rican and Honduran leagues which have traditionally been considered the best in central america have been lacklustre. Alajuelense failed to make the group stage last year and Saprissa didn't get out of their group. This year, two more costa rican clubs failed in the prelims and Saprissa failed to get out of their group for a 2nd time while losing multiple times at home. Marathon has done well both years from Honduras but the other Honduran clubs have stunk. El Salvador has stunk. Comunicaciones got through this year from Guate but their other teams have stunk. Panama aren't allowed any more berths until they get more than one stadium that meets regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I didn't say give the spots to anybody else. I said make the tournament smaller. Right now there is no competition. Get the best 16 teams in that will take this thing seriously and that is how it will grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazzer Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 quote:Originally posted by masster I didn't say give the spots to anybody else. I said make the tournament smaller. Right now there is no competition. Get the best 16 teams in that will take this thing seriously and that is how it will grow. But what if one year the second team from Jamaica or the fourth team from USA is better than one of the 16 teams that only get in if you reduce the format. That's why we have the prelim round, to determine which are the best 16 teams, making an assumption on what are the best 16 and only letting t hose 16 in could leave you with 16 teams that aren't the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I wonder if CONCACAF is looking at building some sort of club coefficient that UEFA uses. It's not perfect but would take some of the subjectivity out of it. And I think 18 teams would probably work out better now; there just isn't enough depth in CONCACAF to warrant 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the biologist Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 quote:Originally posted by JamboAl I wonder if CONCACAF is looking at building some sort of club coefficient that UEFA uses. It's not perfect but would take some of the subjectivity out of it. That's why I think they kind of sort the seeds according to the rankings of the MNT. I know that's CONCACRAP we talk bout here so of course there are "political and financial" considerations when it comes to allowing the seeds, but in a kind of "official way" they gave more to countries ranked higher CAUSE THERE'S NO LEAGUE AND/OR CLUB COEFFICIENTS EXISTING IN CONCACRAP. I'm not stupid, I know MNT's rankings aren't relevant for that purpose, but 1) we're in CONCACACRAP; 2) there's nothing else to base the number of seeds each country gets on (unlike UEFA); 3) they must find a way to make it look logic despite all the politics involved in the decision making process. So I agree with you JamboAl, this is better than what we have currently (or have not actually). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franco-Ruskie Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly MLS sure continues to impress in Champions League. One of their top teams plays a game that will bring them to the quarters if they win. Their opponent is a team from El Salvador that didn't belong in the group stage and was only there because CONCACAF gifted El Salvador an automatic spot in the group stage. This team had been blown out throughout the tournament, had not scored a goal until this last game and had a goal diffential of minus 17 before the game (0 for, 17 against). Houston loses 3-2 once again proving the validity of MLS' first division claims. Im an Impact Fan but questioning the validity of MLS as 1st division is petty and dumb. Real Madrid just lost to a 3rd division team. 4-nothing! Does this mean La Liga is no longer the Spanish 1st Division? Do you think the Ultras in 3rd division are questioning why Real belongs in 1st division and not themselves? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/soccer/10/27/spanish.roundup.ap/index.html The Impact are the best team in USL. Everybody knows that so stop picking at staws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 ^^ There are several mistakes in your post. First you are confusing a domestic cup competition with a continental championship. Bigger teams often don't play their best players in domestic cup competitions and those who do play are often not very motivated or looking to avoid injury. In a continental championship teams do play their best players and if they do not they don't really belong in the championship. Thus, upsets do occur more often in domestic cups. Secondly even though they occur more often in domestic cups, upsets like this are still rare enough that they make international news. MLS doing poorly in CCL is a regular occurance. Third, there is another leg to this tie and Madrid may well win the second leg and advance. MLS teams have been getting eliminated in CCL in games where similarly there are 2 legs or a group stage which make upsets less likely so if they are truly better like RM in this case they should be advancing. I did not say USL is better than MLS but rather that there is no 1st to 2nd tier relationship between the two. I do think that MLS is better than USL right now but that the difference is not that great, more like the difference between La Liga and the Bundesliga than a 1st and 2nd division. This is because MLS spends too much of a proportion of their salary on a few good players but then fill out the teams with cheaper poorer players. They need to increase their salary cap and improve the minimum wage and wage distribution. If they do this they will be as much better than the USL as they claim although the USL's course of destruction at the moment may make the argument moot anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 ^^ There are several mistakes in your post. First you are confusing a domestic cup competition with a continental championship. Bigger teams often don't play their best players in domestic cup competitions and those who do play are often not very motivated or looking to avoid injury. In a continental championship teams do play their best players and if they do not they don't really belong in the championship. Thus, upsets do occur more often in domestic cups. Secondly even though they occur more often in domestic cups, upsets like this are still rare enough that they make international news. MLS doing poorly in CCL is a regular occurance. Third, there is another leg to this tie and Madrid may well win the second leg and advance. MLS teams have been getting eliminated in CCL in games where similarly there are 2 legs or a group stage which make upsets less likely so if they are truly better like RM in this case they should be advancing. I did not say USL is better than MLS but rather that there is no 1st to 2nd tier relationship between the two. I do think that MLS is better than USL right now but that the difference is not that great, more like the difference between La Liga and the Bundesliga than a 1st and 2nd division. This is because MLS spends too much of a proportion of their salary on a few good players but then fill out the teams with cheaper poorer players. They need to increase their salary cap and improve the minimum wage and wage distribution. If they do this they will be as much better than the USL as they claim although the USL's course of destruction at the moment may make the argument moot anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montry Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Well, at least the arguments of MLS being better, equal or slightly worse than the MFL are dead and buried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.