Talk:2017–18 in CONCACAF club competitions

Last US qualifier

Given the current state of the 2016 MLS Cup Playoffs, which US qualifies in the last slot (the 2016 MLS Cup champions slot). The east semifinals are between Toronto FC and Montreal Impact, neither of whom is eligible for the USA slot. If either wins the 2016 MLS Cup, then the qualifying position transfers to a US team. The western team will be either the Seattle Sounders or the Colorado Rapids. If the former advance to the final, they either win the Cup and qualify for the 2017–18 CONCACAF Champions League, or they lose to a Canadian team. Does Seattle advance because the Canadian team cannot, or does the slot go to the team with the next-best record in the 2016 Supporters' Shield? (New York City FC)

Colorado has already qualified for the 2017–18 CONCACAF Champions League, so if they advance, they are ineligible for the slot. Does this mean the qualification slot goes to the team with the next-best record in the 2016 Supporters' Shield (New York City FC), or the team that lost the semifinal to Colorado (Seattle Sounders)? The 2016 MLS competition page does not explain the situation.

From the online sources I've found, it looks like either the Seattle Sounders win the Cup (and thus the qualification slot), otherwise the qualification slot goes to New York City FC. Mindmatrix 13:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it appears the final statement I made is correct. See this from last year's playoffs. Mindmatrix 14:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness:

East	West	Winner	MLS Cup USA qualifier
Montreal Impact	Colorado Rapids	Any	New York City FC
Montreal Impact	Seattle Sounders	Montreal	New York City FC
Montreal Impact	Seattle Sounders	Seattle	Seattle Sounders
Toronto FC	Colorado Rapids	Any	New York City FC
Toronto FC	Seattle Sounders	Toronto	New York City FC
Toronto FC	Seattle Sounders	Seattle	Seattle Sounders

Seattle qualified in 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2015–16. New York City FC has never qualified. Mindmatrix 14:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Split into two articles

There are to be two competitions with different names. See this article on CONCACAF.com. There is to be a CONCACAF League (Qualifying competition) and a CONCACAF Champions League.

CONCACAF announced Monday details for the inaugural edition of the Scotiabank CONCACAF League, the newest tournament in the Confederation’s expanded club competitions platform. The draw for the 2017 Scotiabank CONCACAF League (SCL) will take place on Wednesday, May 31, in Miami.

The Scotiabank CONCACAF League, which kicks off this August, will feature 16 top clubs from the Central America and the Caribbean. It will be played in a four-round knockout format, with home-and-away fixtures in each of the four rounds – round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinals and final. The club that lifts the CONCACAF League trophy in October also advances to 2018 Champions League.

I think we should be splitting the article up into two articles. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"In total, the expanded CONCACAF club competitions platform will feature 31 club teams from across the Confederation, beginning with the upcoming 2017/18 season of club competition" seems to imply that the split isn't entirely simple. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The way I'm understanding it, is it's similar to the situation in South America with the 2017 Copa Sudamericana and 2018 Copa Libertadores. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Spanish version is worded a little differently (the part in bold is not in the English version): "In total, CONCACAF's expanded club competition platform - including the recently launched Scotiabank CONCACAF League and reworked Champions League - will feature 31 Confederation clubs, beginning with the upcoming 2017/18 season of club competition." Bmf 051 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Two different tournaments. Should be split.Fifaddicted (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There will be sub-articles of the two phases, most likely 2017 CONCACAF League and 2018 CONCACAF Champions League, which contains the 30 matches of each phase with details (similar to the articles 2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League group stage and 2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League knockout stage), so this is in effect a "split" of the two phases. This article can then serve as an overview of the two "phases", since sometimes teams qualify for the tournament as a whole, but not yet determined on which phase, so I think it is still worthwhile to have. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping this article for the overarching structure, but I'm not sure if the title should remain 2017–18 CONCACAF Champions League, since the latter half of the tournament is the actual Champions League. Having "Champions League" in both titles may be confusing. Based on this, and the article that TheBigJagielka shared (which calls it the "2017/18 season of club competition"), something like 2017–18 CONCACAF club competitions or 2017–18 CONCACAF club competition season would be better. Bmf 051 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to rename it to 2018 CONCACAF Champions League. The term "2017/18 season of club competition" is just to refer in what season the tournaments will occur, but in fact they will be two different competitions. Davidsousa1 (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I think this article should be removed and replaced with the two seperate articles. Nobreadsticks (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care either way. But if it exists as is, it should not be titled 2017–18 CONCACAF Champions League. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have temporarily moved this page to 2017–18 CONCACAF Champions League season. This is similar to say, 2016–17 Liga MX season, which contains two separate tournaments, and follows the guidelines set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season. Of course, if we can think of a better name, then we can move again. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: I think it should be titled 2017–18 CONCACAF Club Competition season better, not just Champions League, is that OK?114.88.73.41 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bmf 051: I can think of the following choices: 1. 2017–18 CONCACAF Champions League season 2. 2017–18 CONCACAF League and Champions League season (longer but more accurate) 3. 2017–18 CONCACAF club competition season (should be lowercase cos it is a generic term) 4. 2017–18 in CONCACAF club football (maybe too generic cos this may include club football of all CONCACAF associations).Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My preference is still #3. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

But it's not a league season and should include "Champions League" as it's part of the tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I think CONCACAF Champions League does not include CONCACAF League. They are two different tournaments.114.88.73.41 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Not a league season in the same sense as a domestic league? Of course it's not. But other federations with two competitions refer to them as a single "club competition season". See here. And CONCACAF refers to a single Champions League on its own as a "season" (e.g. here). I don't see why we can't call two interconnected club competitions as a "season". A season generically is a sequence of related events, which is what this is. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

They are (probably) two different tournaments. But I think many people would consider the two tournaments to be under the CONCACAF Champions League "brand" or "platform" or whatever you may call it, since the Champions League is still the premier tournament, and for all intents and purposes, the CONCACAF League is the qualifying tournament of the Champions League. That's why personally I prefer the title to at least include the name "CONCACAF Champions League", so #1 or #2 is more preferable to me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is 2017–18 in CONCACAF club competitions. What do you think? Davidsousa1 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: I preferred #2 to #1, because two cups are available, not just qualifying. 114.88.73.41 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If two separate cups will be awarded, then they should be treated differently. I was working under the assumption that they were like the UEFA Champion's League play-in round and the Champion's League, but if they're more like the Champion's League and Europa Cup, then they deserve different names. Of course, the eight third-place finishers of the UEFA Champion's League group round cross over to the other tournament, but that's a different issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: I suggest that we should put links which connect with 2017 CONCACAF League and this article in article 2017 CONCACAF League. 114.88.73.41 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally I have not edited either the article 2017 CONCACAF League or 2018 CONCACAF Champions League. It is Wikipedia, you are free to edit if you want! Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bmf 051: @Davidsousa1: @Walter Görlitz: After considering all suggestions, I think 2017–18 in CONCACAF club competitions (by Davidsousa1) is the best. So I will move this page there. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: Sounds good. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

New map

I created a new map for the "CONCACAF League" part of the tournament. Zooming in on the just the UNCAF and CFU countries will make it easier to map the teams. Bmf 051 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

class=notpageimage|

Teams in the 2017 CONCACAF League

Works for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Date format should be MDY

The original editor erred in not maintaining that date format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And MOS:DATERET is not a policy, it's a guideline. "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a guideline for what to revert to when there is a dispute, before consensus is achieved. That is my point. But, my argument for DMY is that most CONCACAF countries use DMY see here (note that Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean all primarily use DMY). Bmf 051 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a guidline, not for what to revert to, common sense should be used. That is my point. But those countries also use a non-English language by default, so would we switch to that as well? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This the English language Wikipedia. So obviously not. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Also "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." There is obviously no consensus at this point. So stick with the original format chosen, until there is one. Why should "an exception apply", in your opinion? You keep saying this is common sense. Why is not following the guideline common sense in this case? Bmf 051 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And what about the variance between American and International English forms. A reason should be given why a particular date format was "chosen" over another. The format was in the refs, and most ref tools use dmy unless specified otherwise, so we can't assume that it was deliberate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes there are multiple forms of English, and the consensus in WP:FOOTY articles was to use British English unless it obviously makes sense to use another type (like using American English in USMNT articles). There is no clear consensus about what date format to use for CONCACAF articles. But your argument that the language variance even matters is irrelevant in this case. We're talking about dates, not language. Reductio ad absurdum.

2. The first use in the article content (excluding references) was also dmy. That was what I was talking about: I added "28 October 2016" before any other dates were added to the content. And I agree, the format used in references is not important. Bmf 051 (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are. And FOOTY has consistently ignored anything reasonable for various reasons, but mostly because of editors like you. My argument about language is in-line with date formats: they vary and so why did you add a date format that was not used in the previous version. OK. I can resolve that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So no we have an inconsistent date format. This article is dmy. Last year's is MDY. Next year's is MDY. You can go f-off now. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not necessary. Stick to the matter at hand. Bmf 051 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I added it because there is no clear consensus. Other date formats are used in other CONCACAF articles. In those cases other editors who prefer another way change them. Wash-rinse-repeat. I think it's reasonable to follow the guidelines until a consensus is established. Bmf 051 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

How about this personal attack then: you clearly lied. The first edit with a date was the first edit after your redirect was replaced with content. Notice the ref dates: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017%E2%80%9318_in_CONCACAF_club_competitions&oldid=700934838 I'll wait for you to add MDY now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Like you said above, the dates are in the references, not the article's content. In fact, it was copied from the 2016–17 article: "Don't assume it was deliberate" (your words). The first edit that added a date to the article's content (which is what MOS:DATERET and MOS:DATEUNIFY talk about) is at this link. The "28 October 2016" below the table is the first instance of either mdy or dmy in the article's contents. With all due respect, I really think you're taking this too personally. Bmf 051 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You're not looking at the first edit with a date. I provided that link. Yours is 2016-10-30T20:11:05 a full nine months after the one on 2016-01-21T14:16:12. Time to fix your errors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Where is there an mdy date in the revision, other than the references? Bmf 051 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And if the edit were an actual inserted date from a ref tool, ignore it, it was a bot. But a human made that intentional insert. MDY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Kind of convenient that dates in references matter, but only when it supports your view. Those references were copied from the 2016–17 article. Says so in the edit summary. That's unintentional to me. And regardless, the guidelines talk about the article content itself. MOS:DATEUNIFY talks about how dates in the article may influence dates in references. It says nothing about the other way around. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not a convenience it's the difference between a conscious decision made by a human and one made by a program or script. You don't know they were copied from the 2016 article you assume they were. Even if they were, the editor had the choice to change it, but elected not to. Unlike filling a reference in using reFill or similar tool. Granted, WebRef lets the editor choose when it creates the ref. I'm not sure about other tools.

The guideline does talk about keeping the body and references in the same format (MOS:DATEUNIFY) but common sense should prevail and your change does not show that, instead, it shows your bias. But if you want to be a wikilawyer about it, it's OK. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I know your M.O. is to get your way by stomping your feet, calling people names, swearing at them like above, attacking them personally, even sock-puppetry (in my personal experience with you), etc. but you also shout "common sense!" a lot without anybody else backing you up on it. Supposedly I don't have it. Supposedly the WP:FOOTY folks all don't have it. But maybe you're the one approaching this wrong, not us. I humbly ask you to give this essay a read, and take it to heart. Cheers. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not my M.O., but thanks for thinking you know something. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And yet you ignore the parts of the guideline that say your argument is wrong when it's convenient for you. Yes. The shoe does fit you as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is becoming increasingly redundant

I don't see the continuing need for this article. If they are two separate tournaments, why not simply have two separate articles? And if not, why not include the Caribbean/South American, Central American tournaments, and Canadian qualifying tournaments as well? Either way, there's a lot of redundant material that can be removed. This article if retained doesn't need be very long at all. Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Six months later ... I'm still not understanding much of the point of this page, and it simply replicates information in 2017 CONCACAF League and 2018 CONCACAF Champions League, and doesn't mention many other 2017-18 competitions, particularly the Caribbean Club Championship. Do you have any thoughts on this User:Chanheigeorge? I think we make sure all the content is in the other 2 articles, and redirect this to something - perhaps 2018 in association football#Men Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Thanks for your input. I will think about it and decide what to do with this article later (perhaps do as what you said), most likely after the CONCACAF Champions League is finished. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough @Chanheigeorge: - no rush. And being in Toronto with season tickets to TFC, I might be a bit preoccupied until then! :) Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)