I know that, and that's why I ignored the Canadian spot they won. The relevant issue is they took 1 of the US qualifying trophies. Whatever. It's like the least important issue. I'll move on.
Race for CCL Spot 2019
- Thread starter adam
- Start date
In the phrase “regular season standings points”, the words “regular season” work as an adjective, which is how they can refer to more than one season without being a plural. In other words, the points gained from games played in a regular season.
That’s a fully valid interpretive point which gives way too much credit to the folks who drafted that language.
It gives them no credit. I think it is the best interpretation, but they should have drafted better to correct the ambiguity.
Kangaroo Jack
Registered
EDITED by Tiger for clarity...
how can we even be sure you wrote this. For that matter how do you know i wrote this.
Kangaroo definitely wrote this
So let’s say the end result is “no” for NYCFC and they say that it goes to the aggregate points 2017/2018 winner instead. So only one berth decided - SKC Open Cup.
Fast forward to next year and either 1) SKC wins another title - Open Cup or MLS Cup or 2) a Canadian team wins MLS Cup again. Now you have 2 slots to fill: 2017 MLS Cup winner and 2018 Open/MLS Cup winner. Then what do you do?
Fast forward to next year and either 1) SKC wins another title - Open Cup or MLS Cup or 2) a Canadian team wins MLS Cup again. Now you have 2 slots to fill: 2017 MLS Cup winner and 2018 Open/MLS Cup winner. Then what do you do?
ZYanksRule
Registered
That's why the 2017-2018 aggregate makes no sense -- someone won MLS Cup this year. Someone needs to take that spot. Someone's going to win 2018 MLS Cup, and someone needs to take that spot. Why would you do aggregate points over two seasons when that spot goes to a single-season winner?
Now on the other end, it's pretty ridiculous that the spot doesn't go to the MLS Cup runner-up, but instead goes to the regular-season winner. But that's a whole different argument.
Makes sense that they want a team that was more consistent/better over a longer period of time (regular season) than a team that won/did well over the course of 5/6/7 games (playoffs). No offense to the teams that do well in the playoffs, but there's a lot more luck involved with the playoffs and winning the cup vs. being a legitimate team over the course of 34 games.
I don't really find it to be that ridiculous. But, bless the rains.
Kangaroo Jack
Registered
I'm exactly with you here. I personally think the aggregate over the course of two seasons makes a bit more sense. Then, if you do have a scenario where SKC wins next year's Open Cup, then you take the top two from the 2017/2018 aggregate. If TFC also wins the MLS Cup again, take top 3. This would limit the possibility that a team like Colorado sneaks into CCL (this is going to be a disaster for them this upcoming CCL).
Now, the whole shit show that's currently happening, that's a whole 'nother story.
Exactly - plus the Cup runner up simply won a division, and in the case of 2017, a much weaker division. Remember that the top 5 teams in the East all had better records that the top team in the West.
So, where do we stand?
12/11 AM - Concacaf sends out official release congratulating NYCFC on qualifying for CCL.
12/11 Afternoon - MLS admits rules were confusing and changes the MLS.com article to read NYCFC qualified
shortly after - That article is taken down and one similar to the original is posted not showing NYCFC has qualified
12/11 night - word leaks that Concacaf & MLS are arguing. (we assume concacaf says rules read NYC in, and MLS says out)
12/12 - radio silence.
Is there even a timeline to give us a definitive answer, or do they just let 2018 play out and see if it's a moot argument. Then let shit storm really begin. We still haven't heard from our own club regarding this.
12/11 AM - Concacaf sends out official release congratulating NYCFC on qualifying for CCL.
12/11 Afternoon - MLS admits rules were confusing and changes the MLS.com article to read NYCFC qualified
shortly after - That article is taken down and one similar to the original is posted not showing NYCFC has qualified
12/11 night - word leaks that Concacaf & MLS are arguing. (we assume concacaf says rules read NYC in, and MLS says out)
12/12 - radio silence.
Is there even a timeline to give us a definitive answer, or do they just let 2018 play out and see if it's a moot argument. Then let shit storm really begin. We still haven't heard from our own club regarding this.
No one's even talking about this on the radio. It's weird.
12/13 - Profit
Needs a third choice, for the Schrödinger's Cat option.
I'm tempted to add that but I want some actual opinions.
