Possible changes to champions league ranking

rob316

So I was reading earlier that there is a proposal to change the ranking system so the teams in pot 1 would be the 8 top countries respective champions.

It's an idea and I do feel a team like arsenal who have finished 4th time and time again are seeded in pot 1 is a bit ridiculous. It is called the champions league after all.

But then it's sounds equally ridiculous having inferior teams like malmo and Ajax as pot 1 picks.

What does everyone think?

klose

Like the fifa country ranking thing it will never be perfect and will always divide opinion, personally think it makes the groups more interesting.

rob316

Sorry sweeden and Holland are way down the rankings so those teams are poor examples.

Just thinking about it more there and think it's a great idea.

I just don't see how man city who have won there 2nd domestic title in 3 years are in pot 2 when arsenal a team who haven't come close to winning the league in 10 years and have done nothing in the CL of note and who also have to pre - qualify are ranked higher.

Current system stinks of protecting the established elite. I don't think domestic mediocrity should be rewarded.

dfx-

France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Germany, England..who would be the other two spots - Russia as one?

rob316

dfx- wrote: »

France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Germany, England..who would be the other two spots - Russia as one?

Russia and Ukraine.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

dfx- wrote: »

France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Germany, England..who would be the other two spots - Russia as one?

Turkey?

brianregan09

Russia and the holders are the last two

klose

Lets try apply this to the current one so....

Pot 1: man city/ atletico madrid/ munich/ psg/ juventus/ benfica/ zenit/ shaktar?

How do you decide the rest though? League positions again or a points system?

rob316

klose wrote: »

Lets try apply this to the current one so....

Pot 1: man city/ atletico madrid/ munich/ psg/ juventus/ benfica/ zenit/ shaktar?

How do you decide the rest though? League positions again or a points system?

Sorry it would be the top 7 champions plus holders so shaktar would drop out for real madrid.

Probably stick with points system after that, taking league position into account would be too complex.

hullaballoo

I wouldn't be the one to over-complicate, but would the team that comes first in the top eight leagues go into pot one, the team that comes second go into pot two etc. be the sensible solution?

Why have coefficients, which are generally worked out on an ill-thought-out basis, be the dominating factor? Let year-on-year accolades sort themselves out?

Maybe I'm mad.

dreamers75

So pot 1 would become pot 3 mostly.

Suppose it would work itself out.

Guy:Incognito

rob316 wrote: »

Sorry sweeden and Holland are way down the rankings so those teams are poor examples.

Just thinking about it more there and think it's a great idea.

I just don't see how man city who have won there 2nd domestic title in 3 years are in pot 2 when arsenal a team who haven't come close to winning the league in 10 years and have done nothing in the CL of note and who also have to pre - qualify are ranked higher.

Current system stinks of protecting the established elite. I don't think domestic mediocrity should be rewarded.

Arsenal are there because they've won cl games and got out of their group consistently. City haven't performed all that well.

The system rewards established teams that do well. The new one rewards a team that spends huge money to buy a league straight away.

FatherTed

rob316 wrote: »

Sorry it would be the top 7 champions plus holders so shaktar would drop out for real madrid.

Probably stick with points system after that, taking league position into account would be too complex.

Actually it would be CSKA Moscow. Shaktar are Ukraine I think. And Real as holders would be in. So this year, Man City, Juventus, CSKA Moscow & PSG would have been in pot 1 instead of Chelsea, Barca, Arse & Porto.

FatherTed

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Arsenal are there because they've won cl games and got out of their group consistently. City haven't performed all that well.

The system rewards established teams that do well. The new one rewards a team that spends huge money to buy a league straight away.

And are Champions. It is called the "Champions" League after all. It's been a decade since Arse have been Champions of anything.

rob316

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Arsenal are there because they've won cl games and got out of their group consistently. City haven't performed all that well.

The system rewards established teams that do well. The new one rewards a team that spends huge money to buy a league straight away.

I don't mean to target arsenal but they are a prime example. It's called the champions league what exactly are they champions of? Regardless if the league was bought they are the champions and deserve to be rewarded.

Plus it would throw up some different fixtures as currently it's gone a little stale, Arsenal and Dortmund again, Schalke and Chelsea again.

Think most will agree it needs a shake up.

Guy:Incognito

I think it's long passed the time when we need to let the whole "it's called the champions league......" thing go.

If the name doesn't mean it's limited to just league winners then I don't think we can have too much issue if the seedings weren't automatically based on who won each league.

Coming 2nd in a top 3 league is harder than winning a low level one.

Oranage2

It's an absolute joke, arsenal drawn Dortmund every year same with other teams, Liverpool and psg given the easiest possible groups too.

Uefa want the biggest revenue and it's make the cl very dull. Group stages use to be very exciting but now I don't bother watching it till the last 16 were the same teams draw each other again anyway.

One pot, teams from the same country can't play each other.

batistuta9

people used to complain the group stages were boring, too easy for the big clubs, money making by uefa (that's true) now with the new rich clubs & some strong teams coming back in with poor coefficients they complain that the same teams always face each other, which really means 'my club/countries clubs got a difficult draw i don't like it'.
overall the group stages are better now than they've ever been, one or two weaker ones still however.

it still has to be voted on by the clubs & it's unclear what happens from pot 2 & down, that's what'll be interesting.
if it only changes pot 1, will teams really vote that through, what's the point for them? that'd only really benefit a team that won the league having a low coefficient, like dortmund or psg a few years back when they entered in pot 3 i think.

i don't really think this will make much difference if it goes through regards the same fixtures, all it's doing is rejigging the teams slightly, new fixtures for a season or two maybe then back to the same problem

the reason for the same fixtures is the splitting of teams from the same country into different parts of the draw for TV. 4 or 3 teams in, only 2 on the same side. 2 teams in, 2 in different side. that's the real problem. also the fact that it's nearly always the same teams qualifying

whatever about keeping them apart like that in the groups it's bollocks they do in the last 16 as well

current pots



top 7 only, pretty much pointless. CSKA who jump from pot 3, can still face all the same teams except they'll be draw from different pots. helps man city, juve & psg a bit. doesn't help with the TV issue either

real madrid | barca | zenit | Anderlecht
atletico madrid | chelsea | leverkusen| Roma
man city| arsenal | olympiakos | APOEL
bayern | porto | ajax | BATE Borisov
juve |schalke| liverpool | Ludogorets Razgrad
benfica| dortmund| sporting lisbon | Maribor
psg |shakhtar| galatasary | Monaco
cska| basel | athletic bilbao |Malmö


full country based coefficient, hard to know what would happen when the countries that have more than one club
come around again though (below based on county coefficent and league place) & won't help with current TV problem either
real madrid | ajax | Malmö | dortmund
atletico madrid |shakhtar |Ludogorets Razgrad | schalke
man city|Anderlecht | Maribor | leverkusen
bayern | galatasary | barca | Roma
juve | olympiakos| athletic bilbao | sporting lisbon
benfica|basel | liverpool | porto
psg |APOEL| chelsea| Monaco
cska| BATE Borisov |arsenal |zenit

CSF

I do like this idea which is very rare when you see an idea from UEFA

Kirby

I don't like it. It should be based on your past performances aggregated together. That's how it works at the moment and its the fairest system.

If City are in pot 2 and not pot 1 it's because they haven't performed well enough in the competition to warrant it.

Chelsea and Arsenal get pot 1 because they perform better in the competition. It's simple.

ShooterSF

I like it but would prefer to see it slightly reworded (even if 99.999% of the time the result was the same) as the 7 league winning teams with the highest co-efficient rather than the 7 league winning teams from the countries with the highest co-efficients.

AdamD

rob316 wrote: »

Sorry sweeden and Holland are way down the rankings so those teams are poor examples.

Just thinking about it more there and think it's a great idea.

I just don't see how man city who have won there 2nd domestic title in 3 years are in pot 2 when arsenal a team who haven't come close to winning the league in 10 years and have done nothing in the CL of note and who also have to pre - qualify are ranked higher.

Current system stinks of protecting the established elite. I don't think domestic mediocrity should be rewarded.

Because City have consistently been rubbish in Europe including a couple of years in the Europa League, whilst Arsenal have at a minimum gotten to the last 16 for over a decade straight. If its done on European performance I doubt you'd find any criteria which remove would Arsenal from pot 1 over the last 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 years.

And using the 'Champions League' is hilariously bad logic, remove all non champions completely if that's the route you're going (which would make the competition significantly inferior).

rob316

Uefa pretty much confirmed this is going ahead.

thelad95

It's probably fairer than the current system. What leagues constitute the 'top 7'?

The downside is you could end up with Europa League standard groups if Russia or Portugal are considered 'top 7'.

uch

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Coming 2nd in a top 3 league is harder than winning a low level one.

Not if you are at the lower league standard

losthorizon

thelad95 wrote: »

It's probably fairer than the current system. What leagues constitute the 'top 7'?

The downside is you could end up with Europa League standard groups if Russia or Portugal are considered 'top 7'.

Portugal are 5th and Russia 7th. TBH it wont make any difference what ever way they change it. Its still a dead boring stage.

Personally I think it should be an open draw to the groups, with just teams from the same nations not being able to meet at this stage as now.

Co-efficients should be just used to decide ho many teams a nation gets not really help a bigger team get through a competition.

Rikand

rob316 wrote: »

Uefa pretty much confirmed this is going ahead.

Good to hear - mixing things up can only be good for the game

Lukker-

It's stupid.

gosplan

The best way to shake up the CL is to reduce the spaces and
make one qualifier from the group stages.

But that would reduce the funds as less matches.

How about making it more of an actual league?

Either 2 groups of 13 with a final or 4 groups of 11 with semis and final.

Richard Hillman

It is completly ridiculous that Liverpool or Basel could get through the group stage playing awfulling and winning only 2 games from 6. If Liverpool or Basel get through on 7 points that is a record of 1.17 points per game. In a 38 game league season that is 44 points.

Last year Zenit got through on 6 points, that would probably have you relegated on a 38 game season. Form of a relegation team but good enough for the second round of the champions league

SantryRed

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It is completly ridiculous that Liverpool or Basel could get through the group stage playing awfulling and winning only 2 games from 6. If Liverpool or Basel get through on 7 points that is a record of 1.17 points per game. In a 38 game league season that is 44 points.

Last year Zenit got through on 6 points, that would probably have you relegated on a 38 game season. Form of a relegation team but good enough for the second round of the champions league

Surely it's all relative to the team's in the group though? The reason Zenit got through last year on 6 points is because one team was too strong and 3 were of a similar standard?

6 games isn't a big sample size either tbf.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It is completly ridiculous that Liverpool or Basel could get through the group stage playing awfulling and winning only 2 games from 6. If Liverpool or Basel get through on 7 points that is a record of 1.17 points per game. In a 38 game league season that is 44 points.

Last year Zenit got through on 6 points, that would probably have you relegated on a 38 game season. Form of a relegation team but good enough for the second round of the champions league

That's how a mini league/ group system works

anncoates

How about the amazing concept of putting all the actual champions in a pot, drawing them randomly against each other and then straight knockout games.

Oh yeah, some "inferior" team like Malmo or Ajax might have the temerity to knock out one of the fanboy teams.

Will I Amnt

anncoates wrote: »

How about the amazing concept of putting all the actual champions in a pot, drawing them randomly against each other and then straight knockout games.

Oh yeah, some "inferior" team like Malmo or Ajax might have the temerity to knock out one of the fanboy teams.

It's a far better competition the way it is now.

smileyj1987

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It's a far better competition the way it is now.

To me the only way to make it a better competition is draw all the teams at random and see how it goes . No seeding or the likes just pull names out of a hat and be done with it .

jamescd

So basically, people are saying to make it possible for the big teams to take each other out in the group stages so that the smaller teams can go through ? Then, what ? Will the smaller teams give the big teams a run for their money in the knockouts ?

No, it'll just mean the one sided games will be in the knockouts, rather than the groups. Then people will complain the knockouts are getting boring.

At least in the current system, if a smaller team does get through to the knockouts, then they probably earned their spot by knocking out one of the big clubs. Which means they have more of a chance of upsetting another one of the big clubs in the next round.

Will I Amnt

smileyj1987 wrote: »

To me the only way to make it a better competition is draw all the teams at random and see how it goes . No seeding or the likes just pull names out of a hat and be done with it .

Nah, seeding works. You could luckily reach the semi-final or final without playing decent opposition in an unseeded competition. It's supposed to be a competition to find the best team in Europe, you want the best teams fighting it out at the business end of it.
Bayern, Chelsea, Madrid and Barcelona would be an ideal semi-final quartet, you throw a Ludogorets or Bate Borisov in there and it's a free pass for one of them.

UnitedIrishman

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It's a far better competition the way it is now.

Is it really though? I mean there's maybe 2-3 games in the entire group stages that are all that icompetitive/important. The majority of groups are foregone conclusions from the start. They really shouldn't have messed about the UEFA Cup an Cup Winners Cup so much to the point the secondary competition is complete muck until the last 8 or so (they're trying to rectify that with the carrot of a Champions League spot now). At least then you'd have meaningful, competitive knockout games between sides early in the season.

That said anything beats the idiotic two group stages idea in the early 00's. And I admit there's a bit of nostalgia in my post - used to love the knockout CWC and UEFA Cup games.

anncoates

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It's supposed to be a competition to find the best team in Europe, you want the best teams fighting it out at the business end of it. .

Hard pressed to think of any other competition to find "the best" that involves structuring the competition deliberately to keep "the best" in it as long as possible.

smileyj1987

anncoates wrote: »

Hard pressed to think of any other competition to find "the best" that involves structuring the competition deliberately to keep "the best" in it as long as possible.

Maybe it could go back to a full on knock out cup competition . I would be happy to see that .

Will I Amnt

anncoates wrote: »

Hard pressed to think of any other competition to find "the best" that involves structuring the competition deliberately to keep "the best" in it as long as possible.

There is seeding in most major sports tournaments. It's to keep teams from having an easy route to the final rather than to keep the best in the competition.

Iused2likebusts

Something like the Heineken cup would be best 6 groups of 4 with the group winners and the two best runners up making the q finals. Most years in the Heineken cup the qualification goes right down to the wire . If the quarter final line ups were decided on a ranking system like the Heineken cup you would have teams take all games seriously.

ArmaniJeanss

Champions Only and Knockout would be the worst competition ever. It was bad enough back in the day, though nostalgically popular because of the run of victories that English teams had.
Would be even worse now compared to the 80s, as we'd have an extra 25 rubbish teams from the new countries (USSR & Yugo splitups, plus the likes of Gibraltar, Andorra etc) and that force of numbers in an open draw would inevitably lead to some underserving teams getting to the latter stages.

Anyway the ship has sailed and its not going to happen thankfully.

anncoates

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Champions Only and Knockout would be the worst competition ever. It was bad enough back in the day, though nostalgically popular because of the run of victories that English teams had.
Would be even worse now compared to the 80s, as we'd have an extra 25 rubbish teams from the new countries (USSR & Yugo splitups, plus the likes of Gibraltar, Andorra etc) and that force of numbers in an open draw would inevitably lead to some underserving teams getting to the latter stages.
.

Whatever about the pros and cons of the seeding structure, all this talk of 'deserving' or 'rubbish' teams is downright insulting and idiotic.

These teams have supporters and history, no mater how much they are belittled by people that probably couldn't name a Chelsea or Manchester City player 10 years ago.

thelad95

I think the format is grand the way it is frankly. The group stages are always going to be cat anyway but once it gets down to the quarters, it's usually very exciting. I would be in favour of dtiching the likes of Zenit, Malmo, Ludogorets in favour of more teams from the top 6 leagues though.

theoneeyedman

Will I Amnt wrote: »

There is seeding in most major sports tournaments. It's to keep teams from having an easy route to the final rather than to keep the best in the competition.

No its not..... It's designed to keep the bigger powerful teams there as long as possible. Sponsors, TV and by extension 'customers,' demand it

Will I Amnt

theoneeyedman wrote: »

No its not..... It's designed to keep the bigger powerful teams there as long as possible. Sponsors, TV and by extension 'customers,' demand it

That's an opinion not fact.
It works well whatever way it's designed anyway.

anncoates

Will I Amnt wrote: »

That's an opinion not fact.
It works well whatever way it's designed anyway.

Seeding is used in the groups to spread the biggest clubs around thus maximizing the chance of them all making the knockouts.

Even the hardened barstoolers are starting to tune out of the competition until the knockouts these days.

AgileMyth

thelad95 wrote: »

I think the format is grand the way it is frankly. The group stages are always going to be cat anyway but once it gets down to the quarters, it's usually very exciting. I would be in favour of dtiching the likes of Zenit, Malmo, Ludogorets in favour of more teams from the top 6 leagues though.

Those teams work hard to earn their spots already. They shouldn't be ****ed out to accommodate the likes of Newcastle or spurs.

AgileMyth

Personally I'd like to see a straight knockout tournament with no seeding. And it'd actually be for champions. The winner of every European league would qualify.

Can't happen though, uefas policy is to keep the big clubs big and **** the rest.

Borat_Sagdiyev

thelad95 wrote: »

I think the format is grand the way it is frankly. The group stages are always going to be cat anyway but once it gets down to the quarters, it's usually very exciting. I would be in favour of dtiching the likes of Zenit, Malmo, Ludogorets in favour of more teams from the top 6 leagues though.

This is highly offensive to the teams you listed.

Is it that you not only want the big boys to have a guaranteed handy route into the latter stages of the competition, but would prefer if "the likes of" Zenit, etc... be given an even smaller chance of success in favour of even more big boys ? Correct me if I've interpreted this the wrong way.

The competition would be much more interesting if you had different teams in it every year, both in the latter stages and in the competition as a whole.