2020 Voyageurs Cup Format

[IAmPappy]

Is it too early to be talking about this? I saw some folks discussing format proposals on other threads, so let’s get a dedicated thread started. For what it’s worth, here’s my proposal:

Primary working assumption: For consistency, continuity, and financial reasons, CSA will want to continue using 10 dates (2 per month) across five months (May to Sept). That means fitting / stretching available teams into five rounds.

Round 1 in May (2-legs): The top three clubs from L1O (work with me here) and top 3 from PLSQ. Six clubs total, three ties, three winners advance.

Round 2 in June (2-legs): Three winners from R1, plus all seven CPL clubs. Ten clubs total, 5 ties, 5 winners advance.

Round 3 in July (2-legs): Five winners from R2, plus all three MLS clubs. Eight clubs total, 4 ties, 4 winners advance.

Round 4 in Aug (2-leg semi-final).

Round 5 in Sept (2-leg final).

Be gentle with your criticism! Thanks!

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by IAmPappy

[Blackdude]

I don't see CSA bringing 6 PLSQ/L1O clubs. There aren't many stadiums in here that have the requirements to play games in the V'S Cup and the ones that do are expensive. Imagine having to have 2 in the same region. 

[SthMelbRed]

As long as they fuck off the bullshit, unnecessary byes. Byes should only be used to get the numbers down to a multiple of four. MLSE doesn't want to potentially play 3 rounds/6 matches? Suck a dick, assholes. Feel free to forfeit.

[SthMelbRed]

Round 1: 8 teams (L1O, PLSQ, Pacific, FCE, Valour, Y9, Forge, HFX) - open draw

QF: Impact, TFC, Whitecaps, Cavalry (seeded); 4 R1 winners (unseeded) - seeded draw

SF: 4 QF winners - open draw

VC Championship Final

As simple a task as you could imagine, until some CSA fuckwit manages to balls it up.

[Rintaran]

I agree with @SthMelbRed. That's a pretty good route, IMO.

 

We should focus more on how they're going to "balls it up", since CSA doesn't exactly have a good track record for simple or sensible.

 

Think about this madness:

Group Stage: Round Robin with 3 Groups of 4

SF: 3 winners + best 2nd place, random draw, single-match knock-out

Voyaguer's Cup Final: single-match

 

Or how about this, which would please both TFC (top MLS) & Montreal (prev V-Cup):

Rd 1: L1O, PLSQ, Bottom 2 CPL, 2-legs

Rd 2: 2 winners from Rd 1, next 2 CPL, 2-legs

Rd 3: 2 winners from Rd 2, next 2 CPL, 2-legs

Rd 4: 2 winners Rd 3, top CPL, Whitecaps, 2-legs

Rd 5 (SF): 2 winners Rd 4, TFC & Impact, 2-legs

Rd 6 (Final): 2 winners Rd 5, 2-legs

 

Or, to preserve the previous V-Cup champ only, there's this monstrosity:

Rd 1: L1O, PLSQ, Bottom 6 CPL  (in future, swap 1 CPL for L1BC), 2-legs

Rd 2: 4 Rd 1 Winners, wildcard (in future, 2nd CPL), Top CPL, Vancouver & TFC, 2-legs

Rd 3 (SF): 3 Rd 2 winners, Impact, 2 legs

Rd 4 (Final): 2 Rd 3 winners, 2 legs

[narduch]

My prediction is they will keep the same format.

So Montreal will start in the semis.

Forge wills start in the quarters with TFC and the Caps.

The first round will only be 2 match ups (I think that's how it needs to work with 1 less team.

[Kent]

Here is what I would do, which of course will not even come close to happening.

L1O teams 2 through 5 and PLSQ teams 2 through 5 play off to find 4 winners. I guess it would be L1O 2 vs PLSQ 5, L1O 3 vs PLSQ 4, etc.

Then those 4 winners join the other 12 teams (L1O champs, PLSQ champs, and the 10 pro teams) in a random draw. I don't care if it's a new random draw after each round, or if the random draw fills in a bracket.

Done. And I don't care if the stadiums of the D3 teams isn't up to snuff. If need be, they've got a few months to put up lights, a fence around the field, and some sort of change rooms. The CSA and/or the pro teams can help subsidize the costs. I can't imagine anything else being a deal breaker for hosting games. If they really can't get the stadium up to that minimum standard, find the closest place that works.

P.S. If BC gets their D3 league for 2020, let them do a mini qualification tournament and send a champ (similar to what CPL did for CONCACAF League, but less stupid), and then reduce the preliminary round for L1O and PLSQ teams down to 3 teams from each of those leagues. The following year BC can join in that part and have some other solution for coming up with the 3 best representatives (in addition to the league champs) from the 3 leagues. Or maybe this part disappears in 2021 if CPL does indeed expand by 3 more teams.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Kent

[Stouffvillain]

15 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

Round 1: 8 teams (L1O, PLSQ, Pacific, FCE, Valour, Y9, Forge, HFX) - open draw

QF: Impact, TFC, Whitecaps, Cavalry (seeded); 4 R1 winners (unseeded) - seeded draw

SF: 4 QF winners - open draw

VC Championship Final

I think that is your winner right there in terms of format.  

We aren't going to see any more L1O or PLSQ teams added.  Most clubs aren't interested in the additional cost of cup matches.  

I really don't like the two legged matches.  I understand that it means more money and that is why it is done but I prefer the unpredictability of one game, winner moves on.  Reserve the "2nd leg" dates as replay dates at the opposite ground.

Also, open draws all the way instead of seeded.  The competition is so short the bigger clubs should be able to take on the task of winning three random matches instead of ones that are favoured to them.  Again I understand why the CSA does it (to play nice with the MLS clubs).  Single match, random draw just means so much more.  Every minute, every pass, every miss is critical and you don't have clubs looking at the competition as a chance to rotate the squad. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Stouffvillain

[deschamp86]

Previous Voyageurs Cup winner seeded number one, then in order of MLS Standings. Previous CPL winner highest seeded then in order of CPL standings plus PLSQ and L1O

[deschamp86]

6 minutes ago, deschamp86 said:

Previous Voyageurs Cup winner seeded number one, then in order of MLS Standings. Previous CPL winner highest seeded then in order of CPL standings plus PLSQ and L1O

Upon further thinking, might be a good idea to have that play in round based on location (west to east) and re-seed once MLS enters, so:
Pacific vs. Cavalry
Edmonton vs. Valour
York 9 vs. Master's
AS Blainville vs HFX

Edited November 12, 2019 by deschamp86

[ted]

Why are we making this so complicated?

Put all names in the hat and simply draw for opponents. 

In round one, if there an odd number of teams, the previous year's champion gets a bye.

In subsequent rounds (if there are an uneven number of teams) throw another "bye"-ball into the bag.

These rules allow for any number of entrants and give every team the same chance with a tiny reward to the previous year's winner.

We literally never have to discuss it again.

 

For me the best part of the VCup (or the FA Cup, US Open Cup) is the the random pairings of lower-division playing higher-division teams.

 

[IAmPappy]

So, am I nuts for thinking that CSA will absolutely positively want to preserve the 10-date/5-round format from 2019?

If I’m CSA, on the assumption that the tournament will grow in the coming years, I would be squeezing, twisting, and contorting the 2020 competition into that mold (10-dates/5-rounds).

(Although I really like Ted’s proposal).

Edited November 13, 2019 by IAmPappy

[SthMelbRed]

6 hours ago, ted said:

Why are we making this so complicated?

Put all names in the hat and simply draw for opponents. 

In round one, if there an odd number of teams, the previous year's champion gets a bye.

In subsequent rounds (if there are an uneven number of teams) throw another "bye"-ball into the bag.

These rules allow for any number of entrants and give every team the same chance with a tiny reward to the previous year's winner.

We literally never have to discuss it again.

 

For me the best part of the VCup (or the FA Cup, US Open Cup) is the the random pairings of lower-division playing higher-division teams.

 

So, with 12 teams, you would have us go from 12 to 6 (round 1), then from 6 to 3 round 2), then give a bye to one of those teams to the final, with the other 2 playing a semi-final? Really? 

There's a reason that knockout competitions start with multiples of four for contestants, or find a way to get to that stage as quickly as possible.

Edited November 13, 2019 by SthMelbRed

[Kent]

18 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

So, with 12 teams, you would have us go from 12 to 6 (round 1), then from 6 to 3 round 2), then give a bye to one of those teams to the final, with the other 2 playing a semi-final? Really? 

There's a reason that knockout competitions start with multiples of four for contestants, or find a way to get to that stage as quickly as possible.

I agree, except I have to point out that 12 from your example is a multiple of 4. It is 2^n that you need to get to ASAP. So 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc.

[ted]

13 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

So, with 12 teams, you would have us go from 12 to 6 (round 1), then from 6 to 3 round 2), then give a bye to one of those teams to the final, with the other 2 playing a semi-final? Really? 

There's a reason that knockout competitions start with multiples of four for contestants, or find a way to get to that stage as quickly as possible.

So add more teams. The whole point of this is to foster competition and the more teams the better all around.

We had 13 teams this year and we could have up to 38 teams (7 CanPL, 9 PLSQ, 16 L1O, 3 MLS, 3 USL2) for 2020 as it stands today without Fury and before the potential BCD3 is launched.

[Rintaran]

21 hours ago, ted said:

So add more teams. The whole point of this is to foster competition and the more teams the better all around.

We had 13 teams this year and we could have up to 38 teams (7 CanPL, 9 PLSQ, 16 L1O, 3 MLS, 3 USL2) for 2020 as it stands today without Fury and before the potential BCD3 is launched.

Which 2 of 5 of the following USL2 teams folded?

• Victoria Highlanders
• TSS FC Rovers
• Calgary Foothills
• WSA Winnipeg
• Thunder Bay Chill

I can see excluding WSA Winnipeg, which hasn't won a game in several years, but the other 4 are good teams.

Also, PLSQ is now down to 8. FC Gatineau & Dynamo de Quebec folded, while Celtix de Haut-Richelieu will be joining the league for 2020.

[ted]

2 hours ago, Rintaran said:

Which 2 of 5 of the following USL2 teams folded?

• Victoria Highlanders
• TSS FC Rovers
• Calgary Foothills
• WSA Winnipeg
• Thunder Bay Chill

I can see excluding WSA Winnipeg, which hasn't won a game in several years, but the other 4 are good teams.

Also, PLSQ is now down to 8. FC Gatineau & Dynamo de Quebec folded, while Celtix de Haut-Richelieu will be joining the league for 2020.

LOL, I forgot about Calgary and Winnipeg and I just went by the numbers on the wiki article for PLSQ when I checked yesterday.

The concept still holds. They can and should have way more than 12-13 teams simply by making a truly open cup competition.

 

[Kent]

Maybe I'm a jerk, but personally I am OK with excluding the USL2 teams from the Voyageurs Cup to try to spur some motivation to create more D3 leagues in Canada that they can join.

[Stouffvillain]

I'd love to have all Canadian clubs added to the competition however adding more teams doesn't work if the teams don't want to be there.  I couldn't find the tweet but I remember Rollins stating last year that L1O clubs were not interested in more spots in the Voyageurs Cup because of cost.  Based on what is happening with PLSQ I don't think clubs would welcome increased cost either. 

I dream of the day when clubs look past cost and look towards making history.  When this competition includes all of the D3 clubs and above (even if it is regionalized in the early stages).

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Stouffvillain said:

I'd love to have all Canadian clubs added to the competition however adding more teams doesn't work if the teams don't want to be there.  I couldn't find the tweet but I remember Rollins stating last year that L1O clubs were not interested in more spots in the Voyageurs Cup because of cost.  Based on what is happening with PLSQ I don't think clubs would welcome increased cost either. 

I dream of the day when clubs look past cost and look towards making history.  When this competition includes all of the D3 clubs and above (even if it is regionalized in the early stages).

Better yet, when they can profit from playing in this tournament instead of it being a financial burden. If there was good money from TV/streaming and crowds came out in big numbers regardless of the match up.

[IAmPappy]

So, I’ve been thinking hard about what CSA will actually do for 2020. Not necessarily what I like, and not what others like, but what they will actually do to satisfy whatever business constraints they have. Here’s my conclusion:

R1: 1 from PLSQ, 1 from L1O, 2-legs in May, 1 winner. 

R2: 1 from R1, 7 from CPL, 2-legs in June, 4 winners. East/West regional draws only. East = HFX, Forge, Y9, R1. West = Wpg, Cal, Edm, Pac.

R3: 4 from R2, plus VAN (West) & TOR (East), 2-legs in July, 3 winners. VAN and TOR draw vs regional opponents this round.

R4: 3 from R3, plus MON, 2-legs in Aug, 2 winners. MON avoids the TOR/VAN bracket this round.

R5: 2 from R4, 2-legs in Sept, 1 winner.

That’s what I believe CSA will actually do. I’ll try to get that into a picture in the next few days.

[themodelcitizen]

USL2 clubs couldn't do much in the final anyway with the current scheduling, as most of their players would have gone back to school by then

Edited November 20, 2019 by themodelcitizen

[Ansem]

MLS teams to enter US Open Cup earlier to face more lower tier teams.

Hoping the CSA takes notes.

 

 

 

[Ansem]

Edited December 18, 2019 by Ansem

[Gian-Luca]

https://www.canadasoccer.com/canada-soccer-announces-2020-canadian-championship-schedule-p162525-preview-1?fbclid=IwAR12g6w9kkXoDOEonqa4MkUeZgoTDqphVIZs0Q8aEM5cjf15ZdXZO6rLIo8

A more geographic-based draw, which makes sense to cut down travel costs.