CONCACAF Champions League Changes Similar To MLS Structual Changes
The changes to the CONCACAF Champions League may have slipped by some due to all the MLS SuperDraft news. The new format breaks into four positives and three negatives. Travel for most clubs will be reduced, for the clubs in the Preliminary Round that advance it can drop by about 10,000 miles through the elimination of two cross-continental trips (there was a scenario last year where Seattle could travel 4700 miles one way in the Group Stage). For MLS and Mexican sides travel is an inconvenience that weakens players' ability to compete. For the tiny clubs in Central America and the Caribbean it can be a huge financial burden compared to simple busing through much smaller home leagues.
As MLS changed it's schedule format to reduce travel as well, there are some times when the schedule can get congested. Eliminating two or four games from the Seattle Sounders, LA Galaxy, Houston Dynamo and Real Salt Lake's summer schedule helps as well. Now the Summer and Fall overlap of 13 weeks only 12 MLS, four CCL and possibly one US Open Cup Final (Aug 7/8) for Seattle. With MLS play only being among the Western Conference during that stretch should result in more training days rather than days sitting in planes and buses.
With only the winner of the mini-groups advancing this raises the importance of every Group Stage game. There's less room for a casual performance. With bye weeks and strong imbalance and no Mexican team to crush everyone, blowing a single game against the lowest pot team could mean elimination.
All three of those benefits were noted by Sigi Schmid yesterday;
It reduces the workload for everybody. It takes everybody from six group games to four group games. Now, out of the six original planned dates now you only have to play in four of those. It relieves a lot of the schedule congestion and so forth... Certainly, the one thing the change will do is it raises the importance of each game. You can’t start slowly in the tournament or have a throwaway game because you’ve only got three left, so you have to make better use of the games. From that standpoint, I think it’s a positive change because I think it brings a greater level of competitiveness into each game and I think it’s also a positive change because it relieves that schedule congestion that was happening to a lot of the teams.
The next benefit is also a disadvantage. Two US MLS teams will be favored, and while one may face Canada they should be strong favorites to make it to the Championship Round. In the other two US/MLS groups there is unlikely to be a clear favorite. They will face fairly strong Central American teams. One favorable result should mean advancement. One poor one will equal elimination. The size of the group favors two teams and hurts two more.
This leads to two other issues. The number of meaningful games with Mexican teams is reduced. Those eight or ten showdowns between the dominant league in the region and MLS are gone. It is little benefit that when they do meet more will be on the line. And while every game within three team groups is more important, the chance that a "not best" team advances increases. One wacky result changes the whole dynamic of the Group Stage.
In any sort of playoff or championship the structure should encourage that the best team wins while also maintaining financial viability. As happened with the MLS schedule and Playoffs those two things compete to some degree due to the massive travel distances involved, particularly with financial issues dominating CONCACAF nations. Both cases are banking on the idea that less travel should increase quality of play. Fans just have to hope the executives are right.
For an early look at possible pairings please see the FanPost by exSlacker.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I see a potential benefit to more being on the line in MLS/Mexico games: teams will have more of a reason to play their top 11, which could help better gauge team/league superiority.
by yuniform on Jan 13, 2012 11:17 AM PST via Android app reply actions
still much less frequent
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
by Dave Clark on Jan 13, 2012 11:24 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
Why is top 11 a better gauge of team/league superiority?
I would actually argue that depth is a better gauge. At any rate, I don’t think there’s any question that Mexico’s league is better than MLS right now and will be for at least the next few years.
Excitement
I like the excitement of the playoff structure and having every game matter…should be very fun.
IF your team doesn’t make it to the knockout stage ( Sounders two years ago ), however, then you will miss the best rivalry in all of sports, Mexico-US in soccer.
The Fly in the Ointment..
First off, thanks for the link to my post. It’s a proud day in my simple world! :-)
The thing that jumps out at me about the seeding for group selection is the way Panama and Guatemala are handled. The top two teams from each of these countries are invited to CCL. However, the top teams from each are #1 seeds and the “runners-up” are #3 seeds. The thing is, these countries select their two representatives using Apertura/Clausura…the winner of each “season” gets a bid. There isn’t really a “runner-up”. Just two champions. Presumably, there is some framework in place for deciding who is 1 and who is 2…but I can’t imagine that the quality difference between these two champions is going to be great…they are likely to be, essentially, equals. However, the seeding difference will be as great as it possibly can be. One will be treated as the equivalent of Santos, Tigres, LAG and Sounders FC…the other as the equivalent of Joe Public, Peurto Rico Islanders, and the Belizean champ.
Dave, do you have any insight as to how they decide 1 vs. 2 in these systems?
Correction...
Santos is actually a #2…so those Panamanian and Guatemalan teams are actually treated as a step above Santos Laguna.
I am not, by the way, intending to be critical of this process. I don’t think there was a clearer or better way to do this. My post above is intended to emphasize how much more important the “luck of the draw” will be. This is REALLY true for the Canadian rep. They could get FC Chorillo and San Juan Jabloteh, or they could get Tigres and Municipal.
Each group will have a Mex and US team
So a Canada, FC Chorillo, San Juan group is impossible.
ah...good point!
I had only really thought about that rule from the perspective of what it means to the Sounders. For the Canadian rep, it means they get Tigres, Sounders, LAGals or the Clausura winner in Mexico no matter what. Bummer. They are guaranteed a very tough draw. We have a 1 in 4 chance of drawing them. Vancouver is 1 of 3 MLS teams. Presumably, an MLS team will win the Cup there. 1 in 12 chance of playing a (mostly) Cascadia CCL?? :-)
Does this make the group that draws Canada the Group of Death?
Or do you think another country (Costa Rica) would be more difficult?
It may come down to Pot C
A scrappy Guatemalan or Puerto Rican team in the third slot me tip the scales.
But Canada with LA Galaxy in the same group.
Or Canada with Tigres de la UANL would be a tough group to not label the GoD.

by 


















