Alternative Voyageurs Cup Formats

[yellowsweatygorilla]

I've suggested this idea to others before, but considering CSA/CONCACAF isn't likely to force MLS teams back to CanPL in the near future, why not leverage the crowd and exposure bump of the MLS teams better through the Canadian Championship? This will also lead to more exposure for CanPL.

I think one way to do it would be to use the Carabao Cup format and have group stages so that all CanPL teams (or most) play a MLS team at least once. We can also do the German thing and guarantee home advantage for 'lower league' teams, while foregoing two-legs to appease MLS teams' desire for less matches.

Examples:

 

Depending on how many legs for the knockout stage, the first format 2 more matches than the current format, while the second format 1 more match (though same as the 2019 format).

 

What do folks think? We do limit the chances of giant killings and magic of knock out stages, but if you can convince the MLS clubs, expanding the knockout stage further to have more teams will remedy that a bit.

[yellowsweatygorilla]

.. actually just double check this year's Canadian championship. The current format produced five MLS versus CPL fixtures .. so technically instituting the German home priority rule would achieve pretty much the same thing as my convoluted proposal ...

 

Though I suppose the first format I proposed does guarantee at least one MLS versus CPL fixture per CPL team

[Kingston]

I'm not sure the current format needs serious tweaking because it already produces a lot of what you're after but, hey, discussing things is what these boards are about.

1 hour ago, yellowsweatygorilla said:

We can also do the German thing and guarantee home advantage for 'lower league' teams, while foregoing two-legs to appease MLS teams' desire for less matches.

Two points:

1.  I'm not sure it's just the MLS teams that need to keep an eye on the number of matches they play.  Especially for the teams that make continental tournaments.  (Ask Pacific how they're feeling about travel right now.)

2.  I don't like the idea of giving home field advantage to the lower seeded team AND going to a single game knock out format because it guarantees that the higher seeded teams will almost never host a home game.  Their fans deserve a chance to participate in the Canadian Championship, too.

[yellowsweatygorilla]

59 minutes ago, Kingston said:

I'm not sure the current format needs serious tweaking because it already produces a lot of what you're after but, hey, discussing things is what these boards are about.

Two points:

1.  I'm not sure it's just the MLS teams that need to keep an eye on the number of matches they play.  Especially for the teams that make continental tournaments.  (Ask Pacific how they're feeling about travel right now.)

2.  I don't like the idea of giving home field advantage to the lower seeded team AND going to a single game knock out format because it guarantees that the higher seeded teams will almost never host a home game.  Their fans deserve a chance to participate in the Canadian Championship, too.

Haha yea, I realized upon reviewing the format from last two years, this format offers very limited advantage in terms of match-ups, though maybe it'll mean more interest in CPL teams by MLS fans during the group stages, as it won't just be the one off game.

As for home advantage, I think the way around that is to limit the advantage to the group stage.

Either way, will have to go back to the drawing boards in terms of how to leverage success of MLS teams for the overall pyramid without needing them to join the CanPL. Since, i think that is a worthwhile objective.

[narduch]

I don't mind the current format but I wish they would bring back 2-legs and extra time.

I know that probably can't happen with MLS teams pushing for less matches due to the Leagues Cup.

Also, if the tournament is only going to run from May to July, I think we should be bringing in the USL League 2 teams (Thunder Bay and FC Manitoba). I believe we only have 2 of those teams left but I could be wrong.

---

That being said a Group Stage would be interesting. Think I would prefer 3 groups of 4 with play-ins for the last few spots.

Edited July 28, 2022 by narduch

[Gian-Luca]

22 hours ago, narduch said:

I don't mind the current format but I wish they would bring back 2-legs and extra time.

I know that probably can't happen with MLS teams pushing for less matches due to the Leagues Cup.

Also, if the tournament is only going to run from May to July, I think we should be bringing in the USL League 2 teams (Thunder Bay and FC Manitoba). I believe we only have 2 of those teams left but I could be wrong.

---

That being said a Group Stage would be interesting. Think I would prefer 3 groups of 4 with play-ins for the last few spots.

Agreed on the USL 2 front - though according to this page there is also a team called the "Winnipeg Lions" in addition to FC Manitoba

https://www.thunderbaychill.com/page/show/2374306-2022-league-schedule

I am actually okay without extra time, but I think the final should either have that or two legs. Giving a team home-field advantage for a final by luck of the draw (at least, I"m assuming that was the case) seems too much of an unearned advantage when the other team has got to travel great distances and play in a very short period of time (which is going to be the case unless it's a final between teams in the same vicinity like TFC-Forge was).

And as I mentioned in the final thread, I'd like to see the Canuck starting requirement bumped up to 4 Canadians, plus a rule that you have to have at least one involved in any PK shoot-out (even if they are only designated to take a kick and don't get a chance to take a 5th PK). This not only would prevent teams from cynically taking off all their Canadians at half-time (like I think Greg Vanney did once or twice years ago for TFC) but also would prevent teams from winning the championship with no Canadians taking part in the mechanism used to determine who wins it (as Vancouver just did).

[narduch]

13 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Agreed on the USL 2 front - though according to this page there is also a team called the "Winnipeg Lions" in addition to FC Manitoba

https://www.thunderbaychill.com/page/show/2374306-2022-league-schedule

I am actually okay without extra time, but I think the final should either have that or two legs. Giving a team home-field advantage for a final by luck of the draw (at least, I"m assuming that was the case) seems too much of an unearned advantage when the other team has got to travel great distances and play in a very short period of time (which is going to be the case unless it's a final between teams in the same vicinity like TFC-Forge was).

And as I mentioned in the final thread, I'd like to see the Canuck starting requirement bumped up to 4 Canadians, plus a rule that you have to have at least one involved in any PK shoot-out (even if they are only designated to take a kick and don't get a chance to take a 5th PK). This not only would prevent teams from cynically taking off all their Canadians at half-time (like I think Greg Vanney did once or twice years ago for TFC) but also would prevent teams from winning the championship with no Canadians taking part in the mechanism used to determine who wins it (as Vancouver just did).

According to this it's just the 2 teams now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_USL_League_Two_season

[Watchmen]

Sort of a spin off of this topic, but how do people think about the different "eras" of the Voyageurs Cup?  Wikipedia breaks it down by format:

USL league play (2002-2007) (Winners: Montreal x 6)

Canadian Championship: Round Robin (2008-2010) (Winners: Montreal Impact USL x 1, TFC x 2)

CC Knockout Format - 2 legs (2011-2020) (Winners: TFC x 6, Montreal Impact x 3, Whitecaps x 1)

CC Knockout Format - single leg (2021-present) (Winners: CF Montreal x 1, Whitecaps x 1)

But I think I've started to think about it more as 3 different eras:

Era 1 - USL league play (2002-2007) (Winners: Montreal x 6)

Era 2 - Canadian Championship (MLS + USL + League 1s) (2008-2018) (Winners: TFC x 7, Montreal Impact MLS x 2, Montreal Impact USL x 1, Whitecaps x 1)

Era 3 - Canadian Championship (MLS + CPL + League 1s) (2019-present) (Winners: Montreal Impact/CF Montreal x 2, TFC x 1, Whitecaps x 1)

 

It's clear Montreal dominated the first format either way, while "era 2" is heavy on TFC.  I'm going to be interested to see how this new era goes, and yes I expect to see a CPL team lift it at some point even if to date only 1 "lower division" team has won it.

[Watchmen]

On 7/29/2022 at 7:21 AM, Gian-Luca said:

And as I mentioned in the final thread, I'd like to see the Canuck starting requirement bumped up to 4 Canadians, plus a rule that you have to have at least one involved in any PK shoot-out (even if they are only designated to take a kick and don't get a chance to take a 5th PK). This not only would prevent teams from cynically taking off all their Canadians at half-time (like I think Greg Vanney did once or twice years ago for TFC) but also would prevent teams from winning the championship with no Canadians taking part in the mechanism used to determine who wins it (as Vancouver just did).

I'll listen to the first part of bumping the Canadian requirement, but I dislike the second part of forcing a Canadian to take a shot. Vancouver had 6 different Canadians take part in the game, and I honestly wouldn't want any of them taking a penalty shot - it's not their strength. Even Cavallini is poor at penalty shots, and he's the clubs top striker.

[yellowsweatygorilla]

On 7/29/2022 at 10:21 AM, Gian-Luca said:

Agreed on the USL 2 front - though according to this page there is also a team called the "Winnipeg Lions" in addition to FC Manitoba

https://www.thunderbaychill.com/page/show/2374306-2022-league-schedule

I am actually okay without extra time, but I think the final should either have that or two legs. Giving a team home-field advantage for a final by luck of the draw (at least, I"m assuming that was the case) seems too much of an unearned advantage when the other team has got to travel great distances and play in a very short period of time (which is going to be the case unless it's a final between teams in the same vicinity like TFC-Forge was).

And as I mentioned in the final thread, I'd like to see the Canuck starting requirement bumped up to 4 Canadians, plus a rule that you have to have at least one involved in any PK shoot-out (even if they are only designated to take a kick and don't get a chance to take a 5th PK). This not only would prevent teams from cynically taking off all their Canadians at half-time (like I think Greg Vanney did once or twice years ago for TFC) but also would prevent teams from winning the championship with no Canadians taking part in the mechanism used to determine who wins it (as Vancouver just did).

Alternatively (not saying we should do it this way but I am curious of the outcome) you can just use the CanPL rule of having a minimum of 6 Canadians on the pitch. This would mean that for the penalty shootout, you would either have a Canadian keeper or at least one shooter through 5 rounds.

TFC and Montreal have both fulfilled this requirement in at least one of their V-Cup matches. Vancouver had 5 Canadians (easily remedied by putting in Boehner for Cropper).

 

(Not related to V-Cup format, but I'd really love if MLS reverted back to 2007 rules and have Americans count as internationals or significantly increase the Canadian roster requirements. It's clear with how the clubs have been doing that the excuse of limited player pool no longer stands.)

Edited July 31, 2022 by yellowsweatygorilla

[Gian-Luca]

6 hours ago, yellowsweatygorilla said:

Alternatively (not saying we should do it this way but I am curious of the outcome) you can just use the CanPL rule of having a minimum of 6 Canadians on the pitch. This would mean that for the penalty shootout, you would either have a Canadian keeper or at least one shooter through 5 rounds.

TFC and Montreal have both fulfilled this requirement in at least one of their V-Cup matches. Vancouver had 5 Canadians (easily remedied by putting in Boehner for Cropper).

 

(Not related to V-Cup format, but I'd really love if MLS reverted back to 2007 rules and have Americans count as internationals or significantly increase the Canadian roster requirements. It's clear with how the clubs have been doing that the excuse of limited player pool no longer stands.)

I personally would have no problems with the 6 Canucks on the pitch rule, I just figure that to get there you'd have to do so incrementally and the 3 MLS clubs would likely collectively object if they suddenly went from 3 to 6 Canadians for the V Cup matches, whereas it's more likely to succeed if it goes from 3 to 4 and then eventually creeps up years later to 5 and then 6.

Just to clarify for Watchmen, under my proposed rule change you wouldn't necessarily be "forcing" a Canadian to take a PK as my rule called for at least one Canadian being involved/designated to take part in the original 5 PK's, which includes the keeper the players are shooting against. So if you are worried that all the Canadians on the roster suck at taking PK's, you could still get around that by putting a Canadian keeper in net. While I can appreciate that someone might not want Canucks to shoot the ball if all of the players on the team are lousy at it. for me it's a bigger problem if a Canadian championship is decided with no Canadians taking part in the method/device that is used to actually determine the winner. If TFC had won that with Vancouver using Boehmer in goal and Ricketts and Raposo taking spot kicks while TFC went with all foreigners in net and for all 5 shooters, I personally would have found that cheesy and would feel a bit sheepish about it, even though I'd ultimately be happy that we won.

Other opinions are available of course. 😉

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said:

If TFC had won that with Vancouver using Boehmer in goal and Ricketts and Raposo taking spot kicks while TFC went with all foreigners in net and for all 5 shooters, I personally would have found that cheesy and would feel a bit sheepish about it, even though I'd ultimately be happy that we won.

Other opinions are available of course. 😉

I honestly thought Ricketts was going to take the 5th kick. But as a Whitecaps fan, we have won it so rarely that I'm not sheepish about it at all. 😉

[Kent]

Personally I am automatically against any rule that designates CPL as a clear "lower" league than MLS. Sure it can play out like that on the field, but it can't be thought of as tier 2 for tournament organizers.

I'm not totally against the group stage idea, but I don't love it either. I do like the 2 leg system we used to have, but I realize that's harder to do now with more rounds involved. Maybe a happy medium is to have replays in the event of a tie in game 1 between 2 teams, like they do in the FA Cup.

Ultimately I think the Voyageurs Cup is analogous to the CONCACAF Champions League. The MLS teams in V Cup are like the Liga MX teams in CCL. They will likely often not play their best lineups and won't draw a ton of fans against CPL teams as long as they keep winning every year. If CPL teams can get more and more competitive with MLS teams on the field, I think interest in the V Cup will increase, which anecdotally seems to be panning out in CCL. As MLS teams improved, eventually Liga MX teams had to take it more and more seriously. I haven't done analysis on this, but I suspect attendance at Liga MX hosted CCL games are likely growing (COVID notwithstanding).