CONCACAF Nations League 2023/2024 - Group Stage & ¼finals - General Thread

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

Details about how this edition will work can be found here:
https://www.concacaf.com/news/concacaf-announces-formats-for-men-s-national-team-competitions-for-the-2023-2026-cycle/

As we are in the top 4, we will NOT play the Group Stage in September and October.
We get a bye directly to the home-and-away quarterfinal round in November.

The CONCACAF Ranking Index can be found here:
https://www.concacaf.com/rankings/men-s-national-team/

Until the end of the October FIFA window, this thread will mostly be about seeing how other teams are doing and therefore who we may play in the crucial home-and-away quarterfinal round.

When is the draw?
Tuesday, May 16th

 

Which are the League A teams? (March 31, 2023 CONCACAF Rankings)

The top 4:
Mexico
United States
Costa Rica
Canada
----------
----------

The other teams in League A:

Panama
Haiti
----------
Jamaica
Guatemala
----------
Honduras
El Salvador
----------
Martinique
Cuba
----------
Curaçao
Suriname
----------
Nicaragua
Grenada

 

 

I just thought it might be clearer to start a separate thread since @Obinna , @Watchmen & @CanadaFan123 were already making interesting posts about this tournament.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Olympique_de_Marseille

[Alex]

Does it say anywhere how they will determine which of the top 4 teams play a group winner and which plays a runner up in the quarter finals? 

[Obinna]

14 minutes ago, Alex said:

Does it say anywhere how they will determine which of the top 4 teams play a group winner and which plays a runner up in the quarter finals? 

Right now, I believe it is officially undetermined, but I expect the rankings will guide this decision. I expect Costa Rica (3) and Canada (4) to get the group winners. Mexico (1) and USA (2) will get the runners-up. Seems like the most likely and most fair outcome. 

The groups will be interesting and no doubt they'll be some surprise, so I don't expect it to matter. Panama, Jamaica, El Salvador, Honduras are more or less interchangeable. They are all teams we saw in the Ocho. The real surprise will be if Curacao, Suriname, Guatemala or even Haiti can squeeze in there. Each of them has shown the potential to do so, with Curacao in particular coming ever-so-close to getting to the Ocho in WCQ. They very narrowly lost to Panama on the road to Qatar.

I know we beat them comfortably on their turf, but they are underrated and now is there chance for them (and Suriname) to make a real statement and finally take out one of the traditional Central American teams. With the way both are recruiting Dutch players, it's only a matter of time before it happens. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Obinna

[Obinna]

By the way, I wonder if they keep this format moving forward.

There's a lot to like about it. Giving the top-4 ranked teams a bye into the QF gives some importance to the CONCACAF rankings. It gives these teams a chance a few windows to play some friendlies outside the region, helping those teams grow further, taking away the criticism that NL prevents the big teams from growing, a common thing you hear from USMNT fans. Then, I simply like the fact we have 4-team groups, since 3-team groups are kind of awkward. Some may say it waters down League A, but I would say it gives teams the opportunity to grow up. Concerns about watering down the competition get removed when the biggest teams are removed. USA pounding Grenada 7-1 doesn't happen when Panama and Jamaica are the best teams in the group stage. 

[Kent]

On 3/30/2023 at 6:29 PM, Obinna said:

Then, I simply like the fact we have 4-team groups, since 3-team groups are kind of awkward.

There are actually fewer 4-team groups in this format than in the current format. In the old format all 4 groups in League B were 4 team groups, and there was 1 in League C. In the new format just the League B groups are 4 team groups. League A has gone from 4 3-team groups to 2 6-team groups and 4 teams getting a bye to the quarter finals.

Although there is a method to the madness that you point out about friendlies, I don't like the new format. I wonder how long it will take for a team to controversially miss out on the quarter finals due to having a harder schedule than a team that makes it to the quarter finals, since in League A you only play 4 of the 5 other teams in your group, and 1 time each so you don't get to play the same teams at home as the others in the group. On top of that I don't like teams getting a bye past the group stage, even though we are one of the chosen teams this time around.

[archer21]

12 hours ago, Kent said:

There are actually fewer 4-team groups in this format than in the current format. In the old format all 4 groups in League B were 4 team groups, and there was 1 in League C. In the new format just the League B groups are 4 team groups. League A has gone from 4 3-team groups to 2 6-team groups and 4 teams getting a bye to the quarter finals.

Although there is a method to the madness that you point out about friendlies, I don't like the new format. I wonder how long it will take for a team to controversially miss out on the quarter finals due to having a harder schedule than a team that makes it to the quarter finals, since in League A you only play 4 of the 5 other teams in your group, and 1 time each so you don't get to play the same teams at home as the others in the group. On top of that I don't like teams getting a bye past the group stage, even though we are one of the chosen teams this time around.

I agree, having only 4 group matches in a group of 6 is ridiculous to me. If they were able to play all 5 matches I’d feel better about the format, but too much depends on the draw.
Or do they do it all based on seeding? For example, does the top team not play the 2nd place team in their group? This would give higher seeded teams an advantage, which you could say would be fair but I’m still not that happy about it.

In all honesty, it should probably just be the same format as League B if we’re doing 16 teams. You could still do a QF with the top 2 from each group if you want. Or just put the top team from each group to the semis. We’d be pretty pissed if we were Panama right now. 

[Obinna]

16 hours ago, Kent said:

There are actually fewer 4-team groups in this format than in the current format. In the old format all 4 groups in League B were 4 team groups, and there was 1 in League C. In the new format just the League B groups are 4 team groups. League A has gone from 4 3-team groups to 2 6-team groups and 4 teams getting a bye to the quarter finals.

Although there is a method to the madness that you point out about friendlies, I don't like the new format. I wonder how long it will take for a team to controversially miss out on the quarter finals due to having a harder schedule than a team that makes it to the quarter finals, since in League A you only play 4 of the 5 other teams in your group, and 1 time each so you don't get to play the same teams at home as the others in the group. On top of that I don't like teams getting a bye past the group stage, even though we are one of the chosen teams this time around.

Thanks for the corrections there, Kent. 

Yes 4-team groups in League B, same as before. I don't mind League C going to 3 team groups. It's better than League A having 3-team groups. Those teams in League C presumably have greater financial restraints, so maybe 4 games instead of 6 is not the worst thing in the world? I would rather no group of 3 - but seems like there will be due to how the numbers in our region shake out. 

I think the criticisms of the new League A format are valid, especially the strength of schedule critique, but if I am choosing between that and going back to 3 team groups with no room for Friendlies, I think I would prefer the new format and the Mexicans and Americans feel the same way, I am guessing.

At least the new group stage gives 2 out of 5 teams the chance to advance, so it's not just winner takes all. There is more room for error and less chance of a team like Jamaica or Honduras getting burned by a single play or bad call. Regardless of the schedule, if you are Panama, Jamaica, Honduras or El Salvador and you finish 3rd, you probably have to look in the mirror and not blame schedule. 

[Kent]

2 hours ago, Obinna said:

Thanks for the corrections there, Kent. 

Yes 4-team groups in League B, same as before. I don't mind League C going to 3 team groups. It's better than League A having 3-team groups. Those teams in League C presumably have greater financial restraints, so maybe 4 games instead of 6 is not the worst thing in the world? I would rather no group of 3 - but seems like there will be due to how the numbers in our region shake out. 

I think the criticisms of the new League A format are valid, especially the strength of schedule critique, but if I am choosing between that and going back to 3 team groups with no room for Friendlies, I think I would prefer the new format and the Mexicans and Americans feel the same way, I am guessing.

At least the new group stage gives 2 out of 5 teams the chance to advance, so it's not just winner takes all. There is more room for error and less chance of a team like Jamaica or Honduras getting burned by a single play or bad call. Regardless of the schedule, if you are Panama, Jamaica, Honduras or El Salvador and you finish 3rd, you probably have to look in the mirror and not blame schedule. 

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about traditional 4 team groups, home and away against each team, instead of the 6 team groups. With the 4 team groups you don't have a break for friendlies.

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about traditional 4 team groups, home and away against each team, instead of the 6 team groups. With the 4 team groups you don't have a break for friendlies.

I like 4 groups of 4 better on the face of it, but the one flaw I see is that you don't have a way to rank the 4 group winners who must be ranked to match up with seeds 1 though 4 who await them (Mexico, USA, Costa Rica, Canada).

With 2 runners up coming from the 2 groups of 6, you only need to worry yourself about who is 3rd in the group stage and who is 4th (and same for 1st and 2nd with respect to the group winners).

However, with 4 group winners, the only way you can differentiate them after group play (without having them play each other) is to base it off points, then goals for and against, which are not direct comparisons and therefore less ideal.

Better to have to do that twice than four times, if you know what I mean. 

Edit: I guess they could rank the group winners based on their CONCACAF ranking. Would be fitting considering the 4 teams with the bye are also ranked based on this metric. 

Edit (again): 4 groups of 4 home and away means 6 games instead of four, so unless they do 3 match windows (we now have a precedence for this) they'd need an additional match day.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Obinna

[Kent]

4 hours ago, Obinna said:

I like 4 groups of 4 better on the face of it, but the one flaw I see is that you don't have a way to rank the 4 group winners who must be ranked to match up with seeds 1 though 4 who await them (Mexico, USA, Costa Rica, Canada).

With 2 runners up coming from the 2 groups of 6, you only need to worry yourself about who is 3rd in the group stage and who is 4th (and same for 1st and 2nd with respect to the group winners).

However, with 4 group winners, the only way you can differentiate them after group play (without having them play each other) is to base it off points, then goals for and against, which are not direct comparisons and therefore less ideal.

Better to have to do that twice than four times, if you know what I mean. 

Edit: I guess they could rank the group winners based on their CONCACAF ranking. Would be fitting considering the 4 teams with the bye are also ranked based on this metric. 

Edit (again): 4 groups of 4 home and away means 6 games instead of four, so unless they do 3 match windows (we now have a precedence for this) they'd need an additional match day.

 

I meant splitting up the existing 16 League A teams into 4 groups of 4, hence I mentioned there wouldn't be a break for friendlies. So no teams get a bye past the group stage, and winners make it to the semi finals. Meaning, the same system as the current edition and the first edition, except 4 team groups instead of 3 team groups. Your earlier post was valuing the friendlies, but lamenting 3 team groups. So I was wondering which was more important to you (and presumably some other like-minded people). Would you rather give up the friendlies in favour of 4 team groups? Or would you rather keep the friendlies for the top 4 teams and have the imperfect 4-game 6-team groups for teams 5 through 16?

[archer21]

7 hours ago, Kent said:

I meant splitting up the existing 16 League A teams into 4 groups of 4, hence I mentioned there wouldn't be a break for friendlies. So no teams get a bye past the group stage, and winners make it to the semi finals. Meaning, the same system as the current edition and the first edition, except 4 team groups instead of 3 team groups. Your earlier post was valuing the friendlies, but lamenting 3 team groups. So I was wondering which was more important to you (and presumably some other like-minded people). Would you rather give up the friendlies in favour of 4 team groups? Or would you rather keep the friendlies for the top 4 teams and have the imperfect 4-game 6-team groups for teams 5 through 16?

It depends on how you look at it. As far as what is best for Canada, clearly the current system is best. It just makes me uneasy that we are getting such an advantage. We’ve always complained about CONCACAF doing everything they can to advantage Mexico and USA, and it feels like they’re now doing that for us too. For the integrity of the competition, 4 groups of 4 is clearly better, but selfishly for us, this system is better. Even if they would’ve had the 4 byes based on 2022-23 nation league semi finalists, that would’ve been more fair IMO because it would be based on earning it, not some weird ranking that nobody really knows how it works anyways.

[Kent]

1 hour ago, archer21 said:

It depends on how you look at it. As far as what is best for Canada, clearly the current system is best. It just makes me uneasy that we are getting such an advantage. We’ve always complained about CONCACAF doing everything they can to advantage Mexico and USA, and it feels like they’re now doing that for us too. For the integrity of the competition, 4 groups of 4 is clearly better, but selfishly for us, this system is better. Even if they would’ve had the 4 byes based on 2022-23 nation league semi finalists, that would’ve been more fair IMO because it would be based on earning it, not some weird ranking that nobody really knows how it works anyways.

One of the downsides to making it the previous year's semi-finalists instead of by ranking is that to make it to the quarter finals the next year, there are 4 teams that only need to win 1 game.

Anyway you do it though feels icky to me. I guess it's letting me understand a bit why some people don't like the CPL playoff system, even though I think the way CPL are doing their seeding is much more fair since you have to earn it each and every year. With the Nations League even if say Mexico or USA start tanking hard they probably still get a bye into the quarter finals with the 2024-25 edition as well.

[Obinna]

10 hours ago, Kent said:

I meant splitting up the existing 16 League A teams into 4 groups of 4, hence I mentioned there wouldn't be a break for friendlies. So no teams get a bye past the group stage, and winners make it to the semi finals. Meaning, the same system as the current edition and the first edition, except 4 team groups instead of 3 team groups. Your earlier post was valuing the friendlies, but lamenting 3 team groups. So I was wondering which was more important to you (and presumably some other like-minded people). Would you rather give up the friendlies in favour of 4 team groups? Or would you rather keep the friendlies for the top 4 teams and have the imperfect 4-game 6-team groups for teams 5 through 16?

Totally misread your post and thought you said they would be breaking for friendlies, so I misunderstood your scenario. Now that I see what you are saying, I'll answer your question.

For me I think having the ability to play friendlies due to the bye is more important. I think the Nations League is a good thing, better than just playing friendlies, and since UEFA plays nations league too it makes sense to do the same, since the pool of potential friendly opponents is not what it was. Nations League helps lift the floor of our confederation and gives a second championship to play for. That is all positive.

The con for the larger nations like Mexico and the USA (and arguably now Canada) is that Nations League has reduced the number of windows where friendlies against better teams outside the region can be played. This argument against Nations League struck me as snobbery at first but being part of that club of big nations I now get it.

Some may want no Nations League at all, but I don't fall in that camp. I think getting a bye and not having to play a group stage against teams ranked 8-16 is a good compromise. The top 4 nations get a few more friendly opportunities. The teams ranked 5-37 (can't recall exactly how many teams there are) still get to play competitive matches instead of just having to play friendlies, which doesn't help them grow. I think it's the perfect balance.

The only thing I don't like about it is the awkwardness of the League A group stage whereby teams don't play each other home and away. It's the same thing we had to do in the first round of 2022 WCQ. I don't love that, but it's a worth-while quirk to the new format, in my opinion.

In my last post I was thinking 4 groups of 4 would be better, but I miscounted because it would have to be 3 groups of 4 to have the equivalent number of teams as we will see with 2 groups of 6 - so what I said there can be disregarded. 

Anyways, that's what I think. What are your thoughts, Kent?

[Obinna]

3 hours ago, archer21 said:

It depends on how you look at it. As far as what is best for Canada, clearly the current system is best. It just makes me uneasy that we are getting such an advantage. We’ve always complained about CONCACAF doing everything they can to advantage Mexico and USA, and it feels like they’re now doing that for us too. For the integrity of the competition, 4 groups of 4 is clearly better, but selfishly for us, this system is better. Even if they would’ve had the 4 byes based on 2022-23 nation league semi finalists, that would’ve been more fair IMO because it would be based on earning it, not some weird ranking that nobody really knows how it works anyways.

I also get the sense we have been getting favours lately and it does feel icky, like Kent says. I guess for this particular edition they wanted to give the United States (primarily) a virtual guarantee of making the Copa America, since they will host it. Mexico, Canada and Costa Rica benefit by proxy, perhaps. Either way it's typical cook-the-books stuff from Concacaf - we have all had to learn to live with it, whether it works for us or against us.

Anyways, maybe they keep this format if the plan is to host every second Copa America in the USA? There is a partnership now between CONCACAF and CONMEBOL so perhaps we see this format stick. They could revert to the old format for non-Copa editions, but I don't like things changing back and forth, so I hope they find their feet, settle on a format, and stick to it.  

[Kent]

2 hours ago, Obinna said:

Anyways, that's what I think. What are your thoughts, Kent?

Thanks for your answer.

For me I think the world, and even a lot of fans within CONCACAF, won't take CONCACAF seriously until CONCACAF takes itself seriously. So many things like you mentioned that CONCACAF does undermines competitive spirit. For example, this format tells us that we (Canada, USA, Mexico, Costa Rica) are too good to waste our time with Honduras, El Salvador, Curacao, etc. So what are we going to think when the Gold Cup comes around and we have to play one of those teams in the group stage? For some people I think it's "Meh, who cares, I'll start paying attention to the Gold Cup around the semi finals when we are against teams that matter". What do people think about the Gold Cup (and now Nations League playoffs) being hosted by the USA every time? It tells us that a quick buck is more important than growing the game throughout the region and giving a fair shake to those teams that we already established don't really matter.

Moving competitions around and giving those competitions fair formats (like 4 groups of 4, home and away against each team, group winners on to semi finals) can over time allow us to take the competitions and our opposition more seriously. If for example the Gold Cup over it's existence would have rotated between North America (one of Canada, USA, or Mexico hosting), Central America, and Caribbean, maybe by now we would have a champion from Jamaica, Honduras, or Costa Rica. It might make that League A group game against Honduras (for example) seem like a bigger deal because we have seen them be successful.

[archer21]

5 hours ago, Kent said:

One of the downsides to making it the previous year's semi-finalists instead of by ranking is that to make it to the quarter finals the next year, there are 4 teams that only need to win 1 game.

Anyway you do it though feels icky to me. I guess it's letting me understand a bit why some people don't like the CPL playoff system, even though I think the way CPL are doing their seeding is much more fair since you have to earn it each and every year. With the Nations League even if say Mexico or USA start tanking hard they probably still get a bye into the quarter finals with the 2024-25 edition as well.

If this is going to be the format moving forward, I agree with the bolded part in your post. I just kind of assumed that this format was a one-time thing to try and get the top 4 teams in Copa America but I guess that’s not necessarily true. Anyway, I agree with most of what you’re saying about CONCACAF taking itself seriously and creating fair competitions. It’s easy for us to say it’s a good format now that we’re benefitting from it. It wasn’t that long ago though where we were going to get completely screwed in WCQ where we had to go through a gauntlet for a chance at a play-in game for the WC.

[Obinna]

14 minutes ago, Kent said:

Thanks for your answer.

For me I think the world, and even a lot of fans within CONCACAF, won't take CONCACAF seriously until CONCACAF takes itself seriously. So many things like you mentioned that CONCACAF does undermines competitive spirit. For example, this format tells us that we (Canada, USA, Mexico, Costa Rica) are too good to waste our time with Honduras, El Salvador, Curacao, etc. So what are we going to think when the Gold Cup comes around and we have to play one of those teams in the group stage? For some people I think it's "Meh, who cares, I'll start paying attention to the Gold Cup around the semi finals when we are against teams that matter". What do people think about the Gold Cup (and now Nations League playoffs) being hosted by the USA every time? It tells us that a quick buck is more important than growing the game throughout the region and giving a fair shake to those teams that we already established don't really matter.

Moving competitions around and giving those competitions fair formats (like 4 groups of 4, home and away against each team, group winners on to semi finals) can over time allow us to take the competitions and our opposition more seriously. If for example the Gold Cup over it's existence would have rotated between North America (one of Canada, USA, or Mexico hosting), Central America, and Caribbean, maybe by now we would have a champion from Jamaica, Honduras, or Costa Rica. It might make that League A group game against Honduras (for example) seem like a bigger deal because we have seen them be successful.

I think everyone here thinks USA hosting the Gold Cup in perpetuity is ridiculous and undermines the competitive spirit. Even American fans have acknowledged this doesn't help them in the long run, as many blame this for the USMNT's poor away record. 

I think everyone also understands, if not accepts, the financial realities when it comes to CONCACAF. I don't think we can simply look at making a quick buck and growing the game as being on opposite sides of the spectrum. They go hand-in-hand, at least theoretically, because the more resources the confederation has the more resources can be deployed to grow the game. Whether or not that actually happens is for another discussion. 

Rather than rotate the Gold Cup (because I don't see that happening, ever), we should perhaps accelerate the trend of other nations hosting group stage games. Canada, Costa Rica and Jamaica (I think it was) hosted games a few tournaments ago, why'd they stop? Was this a trial that was abandoned? I think the attendance was light in CA specifically, but BMO was full when Canada hosted a game. Either way, re-exploring this would be a step in the right direction in terms of competitive spirit, but it would have to be done in a way that respects the need to make money. 

I tried to mockup what a tournament would look like with stadiums like BMO and Estadio BBVA (Monterrey) hosting, but it's hard enough trying to shoe-horn teams in American stadiums based on demographic and stadium size, while trying to pick locations that limit travel, and it's just a fool's errand and is exactly the type of gerrymandering you are complaining about to begin with, so I abandoned it and cut it from this post. 

Interesting though, looking back at some of the past attendances and they are quite low. Martinique vs Haiti in Toyota Stadium (FC Dallas) drew a measly 243 people. Panama vs Grenada at Exploria Stadium (Orlando City) drew 1,548. Even Panama vs Honduras in Houston only drew 3,508. So, when we are talking money makers, we are primarily talking about Mexico, USA, El Salvador (in that order). Not going to crunch the numbers, but I bet those teams make up over half the attendance. The takeaway? Maybe it doesn't matter where you host the other games, so long as these games are in the United States.  Maybe you put a final in Azteca or Estadio BBVA with the hope that Mexico is there, but you also run the risk of them not being there (now more than ever) and you really risk an embarrassing attendance figure. 

You know, I think CONCACAF is the only region (besides Oceania) where a final for the continental title has the risk of being a flop attendance wide. I think this is purely demographic. Canada and the USA would have solid numbers for a final because the populations are multicultural. Mexico is far less so and there is no Spain, Brazil, France, or Argentina to capture the imagination of the neutral. The same applies to any of the other countries in CONCACAF as well. You're not selling out San Pedro Sula to see Alphonso Davies.

The more I think of it, the more I think we are doomed to see the current situation persist, because it is the only thing that makes sense, given what the region make up is. If we want to be taken seriously, we just have to get better. That's as much as we can do, I think. No lack of gerrymandering will count for anything and financially it's not smart to abandon it, even though it feels micky mouse (and is micky mouse). 

 

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

You know, I think CONCACAF is the only region (besides Oceania) where a final for the continental title has the risk of being a flop attendance wide.

This got me curious, so I looked up the AFC Cup finals attendance figures going all the way back to 1996. I was sure I would be able to find some low attendance figures. The lowest was 36k for Qatar vs Japan in 2019 in UAE. All the crowds seem to be very large. Many of the games involved the host nation, but not all. 4 of the 7 tournaments I checked the final had 60k or more. Wow.

[devioustrevor]

Not gonna like, I'd have honestly preferred Group Stage games instead of automatically ending up in the Quarter Finals.

[Obinna]

8 minutes ago, devioustrevor said:

Not gonna like, I'd have honestly preferred Group Stage games instead of automatically ending up in the Quarter Finals.

Is this because you'd prefer not to play friendlies or because you have little faith in the CSA getting friendlies? 

[Obinna]

31 minutes ago, Kent said:

This got me curious, so I looked up the AFC Cup finals attendance figures going all the way back to 1996. I was sure I would be able to find some low attendance figures. The lowest was 36k for Qatar vs Japan in 2019 in UAE. All the crowds seem to be very large. Many of the games involved the host nation, but not all. 4 of the 7 tournaments I checked the final had 60k or more. Wow.

Makes sense to me. Thanks for digging that up, Kent. 

Again, I really cannot see a Gold Cup final drawing anything close to 36k in Mexico if Mexico aren't playing. What would Canada vs USA draw at the Azteca? 10k? 15k? What would a USA vs Mexico final draw in Canada? Probably better but you're limited to playing in front of 30k at BMO - whereas you could get double that easily for the same match anywhere there's a grass-NFL stadium. What would Canada vs Mexico draw in San Jose, Costa Rica? 4 figures at best? Our region simply has a lot of uniqueness, no way around it. That's why the Gold Cup is unique as well. I just don't see a viable alternative to the status quo. 

Now when it comes to Nations League Finals there's better potential to rotate. In fact, I thought the play was for it to be rotated, but I could be wrong. Anyhow, the reason I say that is because the host will always play in both, so long as the host is participating. The first edition was hosted in Denver, both the semis and the final placement games. The games are sold as double-headers and attendance was 34k and 37k respectively. You could put this edition in Costa Rica at the National Stadium (capacity 35k) and likely get a sell out for all the games so long as you package them as double headers. You can similarly do the same and get 4 games at BMO with 30k in attendance for each, 120k overall.

We'll see what the attendance is this time in Las Vegas, but I see far more potential for rotation here than Gold Cup. 

Thoughts?

[Kent]

The double headers I'm not a fan of either.

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

What would Canada vs Mexico draw in San Jose, Costa Rica? 4 figures at best? Our region simply has a lot of uniqueness, no way around it. That's why the Gold Cup is unique as well. I just don't see a viable alternative to the status quo. 

Maybe if we didn't have the Gold Cup every 2 years, and it actually moved around then we wouldn't have small crowds for non-home team games. By the same logic in your quote you wouldn't expect games not involving Australia to be well attended in the AFC Asian Cup hosted in Australia. But here are the knockout round attendances in 2015.

QF
South Korea vs Uzbekistan - 23k
China vs Australia - 46k
Iran vs Iraq - 18k
Japan vs UAE - 19k

SF
South Korea vs Iraq - 36k
Australia vs UAE - 21k

3rd place
Iraq vs UAE - 12k

F
Australia vs South Korea - 76k

In 2019 in UAE attendances were also healthy

QF
Vietnam vs Japan - 9k (this is pretty low, but not disastrous)
China vs Iran - 19k
South Korea vs Qatar - 13k
UAE vs Australia - 25k

SF
Iran vs Japan - 23k
Qatar vs UAE - 38k

F
Japan vs Qatar - 36k

UAE has a population under 10 million, and the average attendance in the tournament they hosted (including group stage) was 12,633. The 2019 Gold Cup averaged 33,651 per double header, which works out to 16,825 per game... not a whole lot better, so what would we really be giving up by moving the tournament around?

In CONCACAF we have just always assumed we are incapable of doing what every other confederation does (maybe not including OFC? I don't know what their deal is and I don't care enough to look it up). It's frustrating that we don't even try aside from a couple of one-off games that (at least in Toronto) were poorly marketed.

[devioustrevor]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

Is this because you'd prefer not to play friendlies or because you have little faith in the CSA getting friendlies? 

Honestly, it would be the 5 extra home games.  Could spread the games around a little and not have to listen to the constant whining about "why wasn't Game X played in Red Deer/Sherbrooke/Nanaimo/[Insert City Name], other cities deserve to host games too!!"

[Obinna]

5 minutes ago, Kent said:

The double headers I'm not a fan of either.
UAE has a population under 10 million, and the average attendance in the tournament they hosted (including group stage) was 12,633. The 2019 Gold Cup averaged 33,651 per double header, which works out to 16,825 per game... not a whole lot better, so what would we really be giving up by moving the tournament around?

Fair point on the double headers. They are cheating as far as attendance figures go. Let's just consider single game knockouts and compare:

2015...

3rd place
Iraq vs UAE - 12k (USA vs Panama - 13k)

F
Australia vs South Korea - 76k (Mexico vs Jamaica - 69k)

2019...

SF
Iran vs Japan - 23k (Haiti vs Mexico - 64k)
Qatar vs UAE - 38k (USA vs Jamaica - 28k)

F
Japan vs Qatar - 36k (Mexico vs USA 62k)

When we factor out the double-header factor there still isn't much difference.

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Maybe if we didn't have the Gold Cup every 2 years, and it actually moved around then we wouldn't have small crowds for non-home team games. By the same logic in your quote you wouldn't expect games not involving Australia to be well attended in the AFC Asian Cup hosted in Australia. But here are the knockout round attendances in 2015.

Hard to argue that. I now look at the stats for when BMO hosted in 2015. 17k for a Jamaica-El Salvador / Canada-CR double header, which is unimpressive considering the same group held double headers at StubHub (23k) and BBVA (22k). Now like you said, the game was poorly marketed, but I think beyond that you cannot build up hype and momentum when you are hosting a single game. Therefore, hard to say Canada couldn't be a good host. I guess ditto for Costa Rica hosting (which I cannot find any record for, weirdly). I think Canada (or Mexico) has to host in full, 

Looking at how AFC did it in 2007 (SE Asia tourney), I think we may consider the following potential hosts:

USA (duh)

Mexico (if they can host the World Cup twice, they can host the Gold Cup)

Canada (we hosted the WWC, should be no problem)

Central America + Caribbean (San Jose, San Pedro Sula, San Salvador, Panama City, Kingston)

Quick Not so quick note on Canada hosting before I wrap it up: we obviously go BMO, Saputo, BC Place (even with the turf), but then we now have a great set of medium size and small venues to choose from. The downside is that few are grass. We have Spruce Meadows and Wanderers Grounds, but the latter is basically a pop-up stadium of metal bleachers, which probably rules it out. We could possibly use the 10k stadium in Moncton. The CFL stadiums in Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton and Regina are all turf. Great venues size wise, but it's too much turf. I think we could get away with BC Place, but having half the venues turf would be ridiculous. This is a barrier to Canada hosting the Gold Cup in full, imo.

Maybe when it's our turn to host we do something like BMO-30k, Saputo-20k, Moncton-10k, Spruce Meadows-6k, BC Place-55k, Allianz Field-19k (St. Paul), FirstEnergy Stadium-68k (Clevland). Our stadium situation is dismal compared to most other nations, sadly, so maybe we do a (mostly) Canadian Gold Cup in the meantime? What you think?

[Obinna]

Estadio Cuscatlán	El Salvador	44,836
Estadio Olímpico Metropolitano	Honduras	37,325
Estadio Nacional de Costa Rica	Costa Rica	35,062
Independence Park	Jamaica	35,000
Estadio Rommel Fernández	Panama	32,000

Estadio Doroteo Guamuch Flores

Guatemala

26,000

Estadio General Francisco Morazán

Honduras

18,000

Hasely Crawford Stadium

Trinidad and Tobago

22,575

Estadio Alejandro Morera Soto

Costa Rica

17,895

 

@Kent All of the grass fields that could be used for a joint CA-Caribbean tourney. The good thing too is that with so many host nations you are almost guaranteed sell outs for so many matches.