Re: New Formats Post 2024-
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:07
Why? Because someone like Marseille is so bad, that getting anyone else is so much tougher?
For all discussions on European Football.
https://kassiesa.net/uefa/forum2/
First, we can you the theoretical argument. The reason for the proposed restrictions is that, for example, English teams are tougher so you shouldn’t play two of them. If that claim is true then in Pot 3 and Pot 4 I would want to get a French team over an English team. However, since I got PSG from pot 1, under this restriction, I can’t get a French team and my chances of getting a English team are higher.
Code: Select all
Team ELO
Villa ENG 1,837
Girona ESP 1,780
Bologna ITA 1,780
Stuttgart GER 1,754
Monaco FRA 1,722
Brest FRA 1,700
Where are the other 3 teams from pot 4? I guess they have lower Elo, right?Sagy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 16:07First, we can you the theoretical argument. The reason for the proposed restrictions is that, for example, English teams are tougher so you shouldn’t play two of them. If that claim is true then in Pot 3 and Pot 4 I would want to get a French team over an English team. However, since I got PSG from pot 1, under this restriction, I can’t get a French team and my chances of getting a English team are higher.
Second let’s look at the teams that “predicted” to be in pot 4 next season. The French teams have lower ELO than the English, Spanish, and Italian teams that are predicted to be in pot 4.
So if you get PSG from pot 1, you are likely to get a tougher opponent from Pot 4 compared to someone that got the weakest Pot 1 team (must be from one of these 5 countries).Code: Select all
Team ELO Villa ENG 1,837 Girona ESP 1,780 Bologna ITA 1,780 Stuttgart GER 1,754 Monaco FRA 1,722 Brest FRA 1,700
What difference does that make for this discussion?amirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40Where are the other 3 teams from pot 4? I guess they have lower Elo, right?Sagy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 16:07First, we can you the theoretical argument. The reason for the proposed restrictions is that, for example, English teams are tougher so you shouldn’t play two of them. If that claim is true then in Pot 3 and Pot 4 I would want to get a French team over an English team. However, since I got PSG from pot 1, under this restriction, I can’t get a French team and my chances of getting a English team are higher.
Second let’s look at the teams that “predicted” to be in pot 4 next season. The French teams have lower ELO than the English, Spanish, and Italian teams that are predicted to be in pot 4.
So if you get PSG from pot 1, you are likely to get a tougher opponent from Pot 4 compared to someone that got the weakest Pot 1 team (must be from one of these 5 countries).Code: Select all
Team ELO Villa ENG 1,837 Girona ESP 1,780 Bologna ITA 1,780 Stuttgart GER 1,754 Monaco FRA 1,722 Brest FRA 1,700
given that all top 8 leagues are Western European this restriction (a specific country) will have very limited impact (more likely, no impact)amirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40 Anyway, of course it is all based on the assumption that country is correlated with ability (controlling for pot).
It may not always be case, but it is more likely to be.
I'll add another argument - style of play/physical attributes are correlated with country.
Israeli teams for example are known to have worse performance against western European teams, so by having a country protection, it mitigates the luck of the draw.
The impact of that is negligible. Only a country with 5 teams can get two or more teams into CL with a chance to face Man City. Have to face Man City *2 plus 2 other pot 1 teams compared to Man City plus 3 pot 1 teams from countries other than England is not that meaningful on a country ranking (especially after being divided by 5 or more and the fact that these two teams will play an additional 12 games outside pot 1).amirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40 Another argument would be that the country coefficients variance would increase without protection - let's say two teams from one country x plays Manchester City, then the impact of City on x's coefficients is larger.
See post below for clarificationamirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40 Anyway, these are all subtle arguments, but the thing is that there is very little damage in having this restriction, so it may well be introduced.
Sagy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 23:05What difference does that make for this discussion?amirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40Where are the other 3 teams from pot 4? I guess they have lower Elo, right?Sagy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 16:07
First, we can you the theoretical argument. The reason for the proposed restrictions is that, for example, English teams are tougher so you shouldn’t play two of them. If that claim is true then in Pot 3 and Pot 4 I would want to get a French team over an English team. However, since I got PSG from pot 1, under this restriction, I can’t get a French team and my chances of getting a English team are higher.
Second let’s look at the teams that “predicted” to be in pot 4 next season. The French teams have lower ELO than the English, Spanish, and Italian teams that are predicted to be in pot 4.
So if you get PSG from pot 1, you are likely to get a tougher opponent from Pot 4 compared to someone that got the weakest Pot 1 team (must be from one of these 5 countries).Code: Select all
Team ELO Villa ENG 1,837 Girona ESP 1,780 Bologna ITA 1,780 Stuttgart GER 1,754 Monaco FRA 1,722 Brest FRA 1,700
The others are relevant because they can meet that team as well, so in practice the average is lower
In all cases the team that got PSG is more likely to get a tougher teams in pot 4 than the team that got the worst pot 1 team.
For completeness, all three are below the French teams (1,667; 1,638; 1,598) and no one will be restricted from getting them.
given that all top 8 leagues are Western European this restriction (a specific country) will have very limited impact (more likely, no impact)amirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40 Anyway, of course it is all based on the assumption that country is correlated with ability (controlling for pot).
It may not always be case, but it is more likely to be.
I'll add another argument - style of play/physical attributes are correlated with country.
Israeli teams for example are known to have worse performance against western European teams, so by having a country protection, it mitigates the luck of the draw.
OK, this was just an example, there can be other style of play bad match ups as well. I agree it's not a strong argument anyway
The impact of that is negligible. Only a country with 5 teams can get two or more teams into CL with a chance to face Man City. Have to face Man City *2 plus 2 other pot 1 teams compared to Man City plus 3 pot 1 teams from countries other than England is not that meaningful on a country ranking (especially after being divided by 5 or more and the fact that these two teams will play an additional 12 games outside pot 1).amirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40 Another argument would be that the country coefficients variance would increase without protection - let's say two teams from one country x plays Manchester City, then the impact of City on x's coefficients is larger.
But there are such countries, and the top ones compete for an extra CL spot...“very little damage”amirbachar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 20:40 Anyway, these are all subtle arguments, but the thing is that there is very little damage in having this restriction, so it may well be introduced.
Consider England under your system: Man City and Liverpool will have to play teams from Spain, Germany, Italy, and France from pot 1 (there are not going to be more than 5 different countries in pot 1 in the near future).
Which pot 1 teams will Arsenal and Villa play?
Much worse, Germany (or Spain, or England, or Italy) will have 3 teams in pot 1. The first 2 will play teams from the other 4 countries in pot 1.
Which teams in pot 1 will the 3rd team play?
I don't follow the example, but of course this can be lifted if it leads to a deadlock, first priority would still be to prevent teams from the the country meeting
I don't understand why there is a difference between 3.09 b) and 3.10 c).3.09
If the UEFA Conference League titleholder qualifies for the league phase of the UEFA Europa League through its domestic competitions:
a) The vacancy created in the league phase is filled by the club with the highest individual club coefficient of all the clubs that qualify for the main path or play-offs of the competition, provided that the club is either the domestic cup winner or the highest domestically ranked club from its association that has not already qualified for the league phase of the competition directly;
b) The play-offs and/or main path are adapted accordingly, with priority given to the cup winner(s) (or the club(s) replacing it if qualifies for the UCL) and with each subsequent vacancy filled by the club(s) with the highest individual club coefficient(s) of all the clubs in the previous round of the main path, with the exception of clubs qualifying for the second qualifying round of the main path; in this case, priority is given to the cup winner(s) (or the club(s) replacing it if it qualifies for the UEFA Champions League), so the club with the highest individual club coefficient of all the clubs in the first qualifying round is moved up instead of one from the second qualifying round;
c) The main path is rebalanced accordingly with priority given to the domestic cup winner(s) (or the club(s) replacing it if it qualifies for the UEFA Champions League).
3.10
If the UEFA Conference League titleholder qualifies for the qualifying phase or play-offs of the competition:
a) The qualifying rounds or play-offs are adapted accordingly, with priority given to the cup winner(s) (or the club(s) replacing it if it qualifies for the UEFA Champions League) and with each subsequent vacancy filled by the club(s) with the highest individual club coefficient(s) of all the clubs in the previous round of the main path, with the exception of clubs qualifying for the second qualifying round of the main path; in this case, priority is given to the cup winner(s) (or the club(s) replacing it if it qualifies for the UCL), so the club with the highest individual club coefficient of all the clubs in the first qualifying round is moved up instead of one from the second qualifying round;
b) The main path is rebalanced accordingly with priority given to the cup winner(s) of the UEFA Conference League (or the club(s) replacing it if it qualifies for the UEFA Champions League).
3.11
In the event of any other vacancies, and further knock-on effects in the UEFA Conference League, priority is given to the best ranked club(s) or cup winner(s) (or the club replacing it if it qualifies for the UEFA Champions League) of the association ranked highest in the access list for the previous round of the corresponding path.
3.12
If the UEFA Conference League titleholder qualifies for the UEFA Champions League through its domestic championship, it has the right to choose between entering the UEFA Champions League or the league phase of the UEFA Europa League (see Paragraph 3.07). If it chooses to enter the UEFA Champions League, it vacates its position in the league phase of the UEFA Europa League. The vacancy created is filled in line with Paragraph 3.09.