The four-year-old competition will remain a 24-club tournament, but instead of an initial knockout phase of 16 teams, all qualifiers will proceed to a main stage of eight, three-team groups, from which only the winners will advance to the quarterfinals.
The knockout, or Championship Round, will not be altered.
This will result in fewer games early so less travel. Three team groups can get clunky, but only 4 matches rather than 8 is a significant change.
Sigi had some ideas about CCL formats in the past so that gets added to the list today.
5 months ago
Dave Clark
62 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Question
The “top 2 teams in the US get a #1 seed”
Top 2 in points? – or more likely MLS cup finalists? leaving Sounders as a # 2 seed.
My guess is that
the change of format will not change the way countries determine their own seeding. My understanding was that with LAG winning both the Cup and the SS, we were next in line for the #2 seed. I assume that’s still true, and that we will, as a result, be in the top group for seeding purposes.
Seattle already had the second seed
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
As others have noted elsewhere
With 8 groups, 4 Mexican and 4 American teams, and the requirement that “each group will contain either a Mexican or American team,” and “no team will face a team from the same country in the first round,” there will be no US-US, MEX-MEX, or US-MEX pairings at all in the first round.
I think there is a chance that the top 2
from either USA or Mexico could play one of the bottom two from the other league.
Can't happen.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
Some of this is the big nations
flexing muscle.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
I wouldn't say so
This does not increase the chances of them qualifying from their group. It pretty much stays the same.
For MLS teams it is a bad thing to not be able to play against Mexican teams. Playing competitive matches against teams that are better than you are helps make the team and even players as individuals better (in the short and long term). This also a financial loss for MLS teams as playing against Mexican teams was beneficial because Mexican teams draw bigger crowds than Central American or Caribbean teams. It could even affect the overall marketability of the tournament in the USA, because you no longer can market it as the tournament where you get to play against Mexican teams, which have much more name recognition than Central American or Caribbean teams,
Yeah, i can definitely see this point
I get why the move was made, but the group stage became a lot less interesting, which is a big shame. US teams are going to play Mexican teams less often and that’s not good for us, IMO.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 12, 2012 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
Hmmm....
That could be a tricky group stage. If a team wins its first two games, it could play for two draws to advance? So losing either of your first two games could put you in a big hole.
Wouldn't
that been the same in 4 group 4 team format depending on how its scheduled up?
Maybe...
It’s more complicated with 4 teams and the top 2 advancing, but I’m not sure you can play for draws after winning the first two games in that format.
It's possible.
If the Sounders win the first two games, then draws the next two, that leaves them with 8 points. The best another team could hope to accomplish would be 7 (two wins, one loss, and one draw). As we all know, 8 > 7, Sounders advance! Hooray!
Or another way to consider the 4 games in a group versus 6
The 2 home games are an even bigger decider for your chance to qualify.
Think playing on a crappy “grass” field in Honduras or Panama where the field is coming up in chunks.
Draw should look like this
Pot 1 US 1 & 2
Mex 1 & 2
HON 1
CR 1
GUAT 1
SAL 1
Note: since a MEX team and a US team must be in each group if a MEX or US team is selected from POT 1 then MEX and US are excluded from POT 2. IF a MEX or US team is not selected from POT1 then a MEX or US team is required from POT 2
POT 2US 3 & 4
MEX 3 & 4
HON 2
CR 2
GUAT 2
SAL 2
Pot 3CAR 1, 2 & 3
PAN 1 & 2
NIC 1
BEL 1
CAN 1
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense....
If US and Mex can’t be drawn to the same group the only logical thing to do is put them all in the same pot
Pot A
USA 1,2,3,4
MEX 1,2,3,4
Pot B (something like this)
HON 1
CR 1
GUAT 1
SAL 1
PAN 1
CAN 1
CAR 1,2
Pot C the rest
HON 2
SAL 2
CR 2
GUAT 2
PAN 2
NIC 1
BEL 1
CAR 3
Divide up pot 2
If a group has a Pot 1 US or Mexican team in it – draw from Pot 2B, If not draw from 2A.
Pot 1
US 1 & 2
Mex 1 & 2
HON 1
CR 1
GUAT 1
SAL 1
Pot 2A
US 3 & 4
MEX 3 & 4
Pot 2B
HON 2
CR 2
GUAT 2
SAL 2
Pot 3
CAR 1, 2 & 3
PAN 1 & 2
NIC 1
BEL 1
CAN 1
Toronto FC, Isidro Matapan (El Savador), Motagua (Honduras), Herediano (Coast Rica)
The teams that qualified to this tournament, in positions to be the 2nd team in the Sounders group for next tournament. All four went though preliminary rounds and won. 2 teams advanced to the quarterfinals, 2 teams finished bottom of their group.
Hoping for Vancouver to win the Canadian Championship, then have a 25% chance to be in our group.
I love the change
It does not degrade the tournament while making the earlier rounds far less onerous for the paticipants. Further, it keeps teams from your big two markets involved for longer. It feels strange to say this, but great job CONCACAF.
Mostly Good
I’ll miss the group stage games against the Mexican teams, but otherwise this seems positive. It will be easier to sell tickets to if you are the US3 or 4 team since you know for sure you’ll have three games. Also, selling tickets to three games instead of 4 or 5 will be a plus.
Only selling two games
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
Hopefully FO dedicates the same marketing budget to CCL
Before Prelim + Group was 4 games, now just 2 from Group. Allows for double the marketing spend per game, provided they keep their budget the same. Could help fill the lower bowl for each of those as they’d now be a bit more exclusive as well.
by bmvaughn on Jan 12, 2012 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Meh
From a fan’s perspective, less games is necessarily not more attractive to me. I don’t believe the schedule was too onerous, look how the Sounders handled it this year.
I also this makes it more of a crapshoot. The random, inter-continental ties this competition sometimes creates brings together foes that are often very unfamiliar to each other. The sample size for showing what team is best in this situation was already too small. Making the group stage so tiny actually decreases the chances the better/MLS/Mexican teams advance out of them.
Look at what Sounders did this year vs. San Francisco for example. Was the 0-1 result/loss at home due to strategic/motivational reasons that would be solved by less matches where more focus was key? I don’t think so – it just is the type of result you are going to see a lot of when advancing to the knockout stage now comes down to a few, really anecdotal moments. Will be exciting I suppose but don’t complain when one misstep and you’re done.
fitting into tight schedules
and travel expense reduction for thoes teams from central america and the caribbean help most teams.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
Will this lead to some very dull and meaningless games?
If Say team A beats B and C, and B and C draw each other. That would be A= 6 B=1 C=1. Now C and B play another game and draw. so A= 6 (w/ 2 games to play) and B= 2 (w/ 1 game) and C=2 (w/1 game). Does this mean, depending on schedule, a team can win a group after only playing 2 games? Those last 2 games are going to be boring.
-Ben R.
By your example
Team A was clearly the best team of the group by the first two games. But C or B could win their last two and have 8 pts and make the last 2 games for Team A meaningful…
Playing 2 games. You need at least 4
But the best team can be determined after it plays only 2 games and the other 2 teams play 3 each.
-Ben R.
That could be an issue for sure
and probably the biggest concern.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
I understand why I do that
but not having games played within each group at the same ttime, or at least same day, can give a bit more advantage to the person who plays after seeing the most results. Do we know if scheduling is related to seeding at all? Will 1st seeds get the advantage of playing in the second game of the group instead of the first?
-Ben R.
Or it's it's a win?
It could be a good thing from our perspective if we win the first two games and we can play the reserves for the last two :)
Between the USOC shifting their schedule and CCL streamlining the tourney
This is a huge win for any team that wants to regularly compete for multiple trophies.
By having fewer games the importance for Sigi to focus his team on that specific game will be greater. This is a win.
Hate this
Fewer matches mean reduced value for the competition. Chance plays a much bigger role now.
I also hate that MLS teams wont play against Mexican teams as often now. Those were a great measuring stick for teams individually and the MLS as a league. Also, playing competitive matches against teams that are clearly better always helps a team and individual players to get better.
Reduced travel and relief on fixture congestion obviously helps in MLS competition, but as a fan I cannot get excited about making a competition shorter and more
Heck, removing 4 MLS regular season matches would ease fixture congestion. Better yet, remove all matches against the Easter Conference team, and you get even more relief and also travel is so much easier. Of course you cannot directly compare the CCL changes to this., but it follows the same logic, and it is a dangerous path. The integrity of the competition should not be sacrificed.
Did the prelimary round add or hurt the "integrity" of the CCL?
By the “more games, more integrity” logic, this change would be an improvement as you could not be knocked out after a chance to play only two games.
I am not crying about fewer CCL group stage games – of the three competitions, these games are the least exciting from my perspective. The crowds are sparse, the games are on weeknights, and the play is often hit and miss due to reserve laden line ups. I still go because I have an addiction problem but I am not going to be upset about one less home CCL group game this year.
They could have done 6 groups of 4
larger groups is better for competition
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
This would have been better in some ways
Problems:
1) Only two of the best second place teams would have qualified from each group, making it very difficult to qualify.
2) Uneven distribution of Mexican and U.S. teams.
I'm talking about what it takes to qualify from the group stage to the Championship Round
Your argument about the preliminary round does not make any sense in that context. The Preliminary Round only made it more difficult to make it to the Championship Round.
One of the reasons I do not like the changes in the format is that it sets the CCL back towards what was the Champions’ Cup. I have been hoping that the CCL would become a more valued competition. That the crowds would no longer be sparse, that the lineups would be less laden with reserves. This change of format does not bode well for that hope.
Reply fail :(
Was supposed to be a reply to @Thomas513.
I agree
With your points. We may or may not feel very different about these changes if the Sounders either really big, or disappointingly small, crowds vs Santos (and possibly then beyond) this Spring.
Either way I’d like to see the Sounders fan base at large get a little more excited about the CCL. I know we have it in us.
I'd like everybody in the MLS to get more excited
Heck, I want everybody in the whole CONCACAF region to get more excited.
Figure you guys might be able to help me on this one:
Can an MLS and a Mexican team be in the same group? And what would this mean for the Canadian champions? Do they even count as MLS?
Writer for Toronto FC blog Waking The Red
http://wakingthered.com/
Seems to me that Canadian champ does not count as MLS and will be drawn with MLS 1 or 2 seed or Mexico 1 or 2 seed. That really is bad news for Canada’s teams if this is the case
Writer for Toronto FC blog Waking The Red
http://wakingthered.com/
It's US not MLS
It’s based on country. You are correct that they will be in pot 2 and will get US1/2 or Mex1/2. That group will be the most interesting for sure.
Canadian teams enter through Canada only
There aren’t MLS teams for CONCACAF. There are US teams that enter through MLS
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
the article on mls site is riddled with errors then including saying there is a 75% chance of Canadian champs being drawn with MLS brethren. Would seem that number should be 50%. At least now we know that the Canadian champ has a 50% chance of getting one of the top 2 mls seeds. Makes it pretty certain that the Can champ will be in the hardest group of all
Writer for Toronto FC blog Waking The Red
http://wakingthered.com/
Seems to me that the chance is 25 %
Two of the eight groups that the Canadian champ can get drawn into has a U:S. MLS team from Pot A.
The Canadian Champion cannot get drawn into the same group with the two MLS teams that are in the same pot with them (Pot B).
50% is correct
because the US and Mexican teams can’t be in the same group the remaining teams from US and Mexico are in. So they have to seed the US and Mexico teams first. The remaining four (Canada among them) would be placed in US or Mexico.
100% chance of playing top 2 from US or Mexico.
You are correct!
I had to go through this in detail before I understood, so I’ll show it here for everybody’s benefit. They will first draw the teams from Pot A. It has
USA1 USA2 MEX1 MEX2 CRI1 GTM1 HND1 PAN1
They will then draw the U.S. and Mexican teams in Pot B to the groups that do not already have U.S. or Mexican teams. We’ll have for example (each column is a group)
USA1 USA2 MEX1 MEX2 CRI1 GTM1 HND1 PAN1 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX USA3 USA4 MEX3 MEX4
After that the remaining teams in Pot B will be drawn to the groups marked with XXXX above. One of these teams is the Canadian team. This gives a 50 percent chance of getting a U.S. team, and it will either be USA1 or USA2 (LA or Sounders this year).
From this we can also conclude that the Sounders have a 25 % chance of getting a Canadian team in the group. And that team of course could be the Whitecaps.
by AAAA on Jan 12, 2012 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The article that is linked in the article that you are commenting
says that each group will have one U.S. or Mexican team. As a consequence, U.S. and Mexican teams cannot be in the same group.
Need not be a Canadian or US MLS team that is in CCL
If Edmonton wins the Canadian Championship and Richmond wins USOC… assuming USSF and its Canadian equivalent keep their criteria for who they send the same.
Just sayin…
Has CONCACAF said this is how it will be after 12-13?
Because the Sounders not the Rhinos won the USOC…just sayin
The coin toss!
That’s always a possibility to determine a winner in a 3 team group!
The USOC just got huge.
Combine the fact that there’s no playoff for USOC winner and they’ll be the only team from either US or Mexico in their group, and winning the USOC becomes almost as valuable as winning the MLS Cup in terms of CCL.
I met a possum.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Sounder At Heart
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
