32 teams CONCACAF Champions League (how slots will be allocated?)

Discussion in 'CONCACAF Champions League' started by pc4th, Aug 18, 2010.

  1. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Country:
    United States
    I believe there will be a 32 teams CONCACAF Champions League some day down the road.

    What will the allocation be when CONCACAF have 32 teams CL? Let's assume this will happen 7 years from now.

    My allocation for the 2017-2018 CONCACAF Champions League:

    Mexico 6
    USA 5
    Honduras 4
    Costa Rica 4
    CFU 4
    Panama 3
    Guatemala 2
    El Salvador 2
    Canada 2


  2. coppercanuck

    coppercanuck New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    I would break down the 32 teams a little differently. My current, 2-bit, unofficial, stats rookie, CONCACAF Country Coefficient (based on UEFA's formula) has the qualifiers ranked with their current allocations and the 32 team allocation :
    1- MEX - 4 (4)
    2- PUR (C) - 3 (4)
    3- CAN - 1 (3)
    4- HON - 2+1 (3)
    5- PAN - 2 (3)
    6- USA - 4 (3)
    7- TRI (C) - 3 (2)
    8- GUA - 2 (2)
    9- SLV - 2 (2)
    10- CRC - 2+1 (2)
    11- NCA - 1-1 (1)
    12- BLZ - 1-1 (1)
    13- JAM (C) - 3 (1)
    14- CFU (C) - 3 (1)

    (note: I added a C for the Caribbean nations)
    The plan is to give the first 2 associations 4 spots, the next 4 each 3 spots, associations ranked 7-10 each 2 spots and the remaining 2 associations one spot each
    The CFU Qualifier seems to throw a curve in the plans. I put 3 next to each CFU country because it seems possible that one country could get all 3 spots. In the new system maybe you give PUR, TRI and JAM (assuming they get some teams in soon) each 1 separate from the CFU (they get byes to the finals anyway) leaving 5 for the CFU qualifiers.

    I guess I'm biased. I want to see the expansion on the bottom, not on the top. I also want to see it fair for associations that do well in the CCL, to be rewarded with extra spots. USA is ranked 6th (currently) and the associations ranked 2-5 all have fewer spots allocated to them. Fair? If the USA is good enough, they will have to earn it.
  3. adrenaline11

    adrenaline11 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    Canada
    I would leave a spot open in the group stage for the defending champs (similar to UEFA's tournaments). That would guarantee that if a cinderella were to win the Champions League, they would be given a shot to defend their title the next year. If that team has already qualified through their domestic cup, give the runner up in the domestic cup a slot in the knockout round (assuming that all domestic cup winners are given knockout round slots) and allow the defending champ to keep their group stage slot. If they already qualified through their league cup, give the Champions League runner up the slot if they have anything less than a group slot. If they do have a group slot, give it to the next best team and so and so.
  4. ArsenalMetro

    ArsenalMetro Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    I sincerely doubt this tournament will EVER be a 32-team tournament. However, I'll indulge:

    Mexico - 4 (3 group, 1 prelim)
    USA - 4 (3 group, 1 prelim)
    CFU - 4 (2 group, 2 prelim)
    Honduras - 4 (2 group, 2 prelim)
    Panama - 4 (2 group, 2 prelim)
    Canada - 3 (1 group, 2 prelim)
    Guatemala - 3 (1 group, 2 prelim)
    Costa Rica - 2 (1 group, 1 prelim)
    El Salvador - 2 (1 group, 1 prelim)
    Nicaragua - 1 (prelim)
    Belize - 1 (prelim)

    And I agree with the previous poster that the defending champion should get an automatic berth, and I'd put them in the group stages.


  5. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    Nassau County, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Country:
    United States
    That's 16 clubs in each category. How does that work unless you want the Group Stage to have more than 16 clubs?
  6. ArsenalMetro

    ArsenalMetro Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    6 groups of 4 in the group stages.
  7. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    Nassau County, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Country:
    United States
    Then how would you work the elimination rounds after that?
  8. ArsenalMetro

    ArsenalMetro Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    Group winners and the two best group runners-up. Or, make the knockouts like the World Cup used to be, before it expanded to 32.
  9. jared9999

    jared9999 Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Location:
    Pachuca, Hidalgo
    Club:
    Club América
    Country:
    Mexico
    To keep the level of football from dropping too much there should be at least 7 Mexican teams

    and the tourney should be 8 groups of 4
  10. destruktion

    destruktion BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Location:
    Sacramento Metro,CA
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    It would only work if you add Mexico's Liga de Ascenso teams also, probably they are more competitive then the regular mediocre teams in the CCL.
  11. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    The same way that copa Mexico work right?
  12. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    Mexico should get 6+ (for the champion)

    Caribbean teams should get 6 if they are going to be considered 1 confederation, if they will be separate then possibly 1 for Jamaica, 2 for Trinidad and 1 P.R. then 2 more for other CFU countries.

    Central America/North America depending on ranking but I would say Honduras and MLS should not get more than 4, Canada should get 2.
  13. It's called FOOTBALL

    It's called FOOTBALL Member+

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    What makes you believe this? The CCL is bloated enough as it is. Please back up your assertion.
  14. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    how is that?
  15. coppercanuck

    coppercanuck New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    I was toying around with a few numbers the other day. 40 member nations in CONCACAF and only 16 association attempted to qualify for CCL this season. Down from 21 in the first CCL year (2008-09). Short story, not enough teams in the confederation can afford to play on a confederation level. Even in Canada, there has been some chatter about getting the CSL (regional league) champion into the Canadian Championship. One owner shot down the idea based on money. roughly quoted "We can't enter the competition because if we win, we couldn`t afford the continental travel"

    In total I counted 14 associations who have never entered a team into qualifying. That is not to say they never will. I would continue to include them in the process, if they have no team, then it is a bye for some other team.

    With the 24 team system now and dropping the CFU, I had drawn up the following:
    MEX-4
    PUR-3
    HON-3
    CAN-2
    PAN-2
    USA-2
    TRI-2
    GUA-1
    SLV-1
    CRC-1
    The next 3 qualifiers come from a play-off of 6 qualifying groups.
    The hosts for the qualifiers are the next associations of the coefficient list.
    NCA
    ANT
    HAI
    SUR
    BLZ
    JAM
    It`s getting sketchy even at that level, eh?
    The next batch is even worse. I basically snaked a draw through the bottom associations. The * is for associations that have never entered.
    group A:
    NCA
    BER
    CUB
    MTQ*
    MSR*

    Group B:
    ANT
    VIN
    VIR
    GPE*
    SKN

    Group C:
    HAI
    ARU
    CAY
    GRN*
    LCA*

    Group D:
    SUR
    ATG
    AIA*
    GYF*
    SMT*

    group E:
    BLZ
    DMA
    BAH*
    DOM*
    SXM*

    Group F:
    JAM
    GUY
    BRB*
    VGB*
    TCA*

    Not much of a group stage if 3 of the 5 teams don't enter. Expanding to 32 teams, I'm not sure if you can gain on the bottom or just on the top. Countries like NCA, BLZ, JAM, ANT and HAI need to get more active before expanding lower.
  16. El_Camino

    El_Camino Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    SLP MX
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Country:
    Mexico
    6 or 7 mexican teams on the tournament??

    I think that will be very dificult to see, for mexican teams play this tournament is more like a punishment, not a reward.

    Maybe four mexican teams from first division and 2 or 3 top mexican teams from 2nd division. That should be interesting.
  17. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    go Veracruz!
  18. MoRado

    MoRado New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    San José. Costa Rica
    Club:
    Deportivo Saprissa
    Country:
    Costa Rica
    I think it would go to 24 before it goes to 32
  19. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    We are at 24, with 16 in the group.

    You mean 6 groups of 4 i take.

    So perhaps 18 automatic to group and 12 to elimination round? total of 30.
  20. SJJ

    SJJ Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 1999
    Location:
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Club:
    Michigan Bucks
    Country:
    United States
    OK, I'll join in the "what format should be used in the future" party:

    32 teams, two knockout rounds, group play in the round-of-8

    This tournament is so poorly-attended, tell me why there are 48 group games. Once the tournament gets some stability in attend, go back to 16 teams in the group stage.

    A little out-of-the-box thinking, how about making the finals a tournament (8 or 16 teams), with single-round-robin group play, then single-game knockout rounds. (I think that Africa, with the infrastructure from the FWC, could play this format.) This, as a small, tight tournament, could actually be marketable. Sixteen teams could be difficult, since you would be taking clubs away from their domestic play for upwards of a month, but eight teams would be viable. Who says we have to be locked into the home-and-home ties, and home-and-away double-round-robin groups?

    At least thinking of 32 teams (moderate growth of the current tournament) is more reasonably talk then asking for a second tournament (a "Concacaf Cup") for second-level sides.
  21. jared9999

    jared9999 Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Location:
    Pachuca, Hidalgo
    Club:
    Club América
    Country:
    Mexico
    exactly, 32 is not that far off of a stretch from where we are now.
  22. winster

    winster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Club:
    Besiktas JK
    Country:
    United States
    First off, I doubt CONCACAF will ever give the US less slots than Panama, Honduras or any of the Central American nations regardless of performance because the American teams have way better attendance. With Seattle in the tournament this year they may decide that they don't even want to give Mexico more slots than the US.

    I'd be ok with expanding to 32 teams if they kept a 16 team group stage. I would want 8 automatic group stage qualifiers, 16 teams playing in a 1st qualifying round and 8 teams with a bye to a 2nd qualifying round. I think you would have to expand at the bottom and not the top or else you would risk having a group stage with nothing but American league (MLS, USL) and Mexican teams.

    I also think CONCACAF should put Belize into the Carribean qualifying group. This would give Belician club and national teams more competitive matches, and would streamline the Central American Cup (2 groups of 3).

    My tentative country allocation:

    previous year winner: (1 G)
    Mexico (2 G, 2 Q2)
    USA (2 G, 2 Q2)
    Honduras (1 G, 1 Q2, 2 Q1)
    Panama (1 G, 1 Q2, 1 Q1)
    Costa Rica (1 G, 1 Q2, 1 Q1)
    Puerto Rico (2 Q1*)
    Guatemala (2 Q1)
    El Salvador (2 Q1)
    Canada (2 Q1)
    Trinidad & Tobago (1 Q1*)
    Nicaragua (1 Q1)
    Rest of the Carribean (3 Q1*)
    & Belize

    *The Q2 spot that is unaccounted for would go to the Carribean Cup winner which would be determined by taking the 2 PR automatic qualifiers, the 1 T&T automatic qualifier and the winner of the "rest of the Carribean pot" and putting them in a round robin.
    The "Rest of the Carribean pot" would include 1 additional Puerto Rican team, the T&T runner up, a Belician team and whoever else wanted to enter from the Carribean region.
  23. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States


    By the coefficient:



    ………………………..Score…........Teams…...….with max
    Mexico............. 61.625-----8.5 teams……..6 teams
    Honduras ..........28.917-----4 teams………..4 teams
    Canada ............28.500-----4 teams…….…..2 teams*
    United States ....24.125-----3 teams………...4 teams*
    CFU .................23.000-----3 teams………….3 teams
    Costa Rica ........18.667-----2.5 teams……….3 teams
    Panama ............18.583-----2.5 teams……….3 teams
    Guatemala........ 16.250-----2 teams……….….2 teams
    El Salvador........ 12.750-----1.5 teams……...2 teams
    Nicaragua ..........0.500------0.5 team……….1 team
    Belize ................0.000------0.5 team……….1 team
    Champion ---------------------------------1 team


    * Since Canada and USA play in the same leagues, they should have a max of 6 for both countries, split them between them as their teams score in the future.

    Countries/Leagues should have a max of 6 teams that could increase to 7 if the defending champion is from that league.

    A big issue would be that the FMF, fans would not want their top 7 teams in the CCL limiting their opportunities to win the Libertadores.

    My proposal for the FMF would be that the 2 Champions have to go to the CCL, then the best 3 (not champions) in the General table go to the Libertadores. Then the next best go to the CCL.
  24. MRschizoid21

    MRschizoid21 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Country:
    United States
    32 teams?


    Good lord.



    Why would you want to do that to yourself!:eek:
  25. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    True!

    Just have 8 Mexican teams in two groups, the winer of each group makes the final, then the winner is Concacaf Champion.

    That would be a much better tournament! ;)

Share This Page