Talk:2008–09 CONCACAF Champions League

Move to CONCACAF Champions League 2008-09?

There's no apostrophe in the official name, therefore, I believe it should be moved. Che84 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Whenever listing specific team qualifications, please include a source to confirm the berths. There are multiple teams listed without any references to substantiate. Ltv100 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the original supplier of the qualifications, but I've found proof of Mexico's means and cited it (3) presently) though it is in spanish its fairly simple to translate. I'd suggest looking on the national F.A.s of each country and/or perhaps the top league's website's standings page. Theasfl (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Teams

Olimpia of Honduras is not yet qualified as the second Honduran team. They are in the final against Marathon. If they beat Marathon, then they qualify. If they lose the series to Marathon then they would have a playoff against Motagua with the winner qualifying.199.244.214.30 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olimpia is qualified. If the beat Marathon in the finals they will be in as the winner of the 2008 Clausura. If they lose they will be in as the team with the highest points in the 2008 Clausura regular season, since Marathon will have won both the Apertura and Clausura.Maizenblue07 (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:CONCACAF Champion's League Logo.jpg

The image Image:CONCACAF Champion's League Logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Draw

While watching the CBC broadcast of the Toronto vs Montreal match yesterday they talked about the draw for the prelim round. They said it would be like this. Pot A: Mex3, Mex4, USA3, USA4, CAN1, CRC2, HON2, PAN1 Pot2: GUA2, EL Sal2, Belize, Nicaragua, Pan2, CFU1, CFU2, CFU3. I didn't know if I should put any of this on to the article as there is no online reference that I can find so if someone else wants to the info is here. NeilCanada (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a source can be found, this should be included. (Yes I realize the actual draw has already taken place) Theasfl (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is the youtube video of the draw that concacaf posted. Here is the link for Concacaf's youtube page. http://youtube.com/user/concacaf and here is the video for the draw itself. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ffpTUV6Fkgc&feature=PlayList&p=DB1C1A08BD092F63&index=0 They clearly list the Pots A and B as being that of what I indicated previously. NeilCanada (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Champions

Is it true that Panchua, as the defending Champions, would not qualify automatically? What about future editions of the tournament? Henryong (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV Coverage

Is it possible or necessary to list the TV networks covering the upcoming games? Does the infobox allow for "TV Rights holders"? --Coppercanuck (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant tables

Hey, does anyone think the tables in the QF, SF, and Final section is a little redundant given we already have the bracket?? They're saying the same things as above really?? Could we just have one section with the dates of the matches and the bracket? Nlsanand (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of redudant, but the tables are there at first to put the match dates in them. Unfortunately, CONCACAF chose not to come up with specific match dates. They can also have extra information like if the game went to extra time. We should leave them there at least until the matches are played. As Grant.Alpaugh stated, the UEFA Champions League articles also have them. Lineofire (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current revert of Grant Alpaugh

I felt strange for the revert of Grant Alpaugh. What I have done is putting the matches by the drawing order shown in the video provided by CONCACAF official site. It shows no problem to use the drawing order at the AFC Champions League 2008 article. I wonder why he revert my edit. Raymond "Giggs" K o 06:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it shows that there should have no "round" word in the names of the knockout phase. I don't know why he keeps using the word "round". Raymond "Giggs" K o 06:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official article, the knockout phase names have not to be capitalised.

Mexico City rivals Pumas and Cruz Azul will meet in the quarterfinals of the CONCACAF Champions League, selected Wednesday to face each other in the tournament’s knockout-round draw.

Raymond "Giggs" K o 06:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested for a temporary full protection, for the nonsense reverts. Please make sure you have read the official article before you reply. Raymond Giggs 04:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, don't use Twinkle if you're not an admin. Second, don't give warnings for 3RR unless there have been three reverts on a single article within 24 hours, something you'll not see from me. Third, there are no hyphens in official CONCACAF info either, so I don't know why you're including them. Fourth, adding Round is more grammatically proper, and there is more than enough room. Fifth, if you want to revert things to use your format, at least take the time to make the whole article consistent, which is all I'm trying to do. Sixth, the format CONCACAF's website uses is slightly different from WP's default format, which places the team at home in the first leg either first or on top, depending on the layout of the matchup. The format that matters on WP is the one used in the rest of WP, not CONCACAF. Seventh, you're in Hong Kong, I'm in the U.S., so why do you care about this? Please answer all of these before you revert anything, thank you. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Do you know what Twinkle is? Quoting the words in that project page, "Twinkle is a set of JavaScript functions that gives autoconfirmed registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism." It is not only for admin, but for every autoconfirmed registered users i.e. you can use Twinkle too. I think I can't use Twinkle if I am not admin according to your wording, but I can!

Second, I am not telling you that you are violating the 3RR, but reminding you are likely involved into a edit warring. Just don't want you to be punished. And me too.

Hyphens problem, if you say that is a American English usage, okay. In British English, a hyphen should be included. But CONCACAF is not a British country, so I could deal with it. Excuse me.

"Round" word, well. See the wordings in UCL article last season, "Round" can be rejected, but if you think that is okay, fine.

Consistency, I don't think I have made a major edit. I'm just doing something could improve the quality. But if you don't think so, sorry for the conflict.

Format problem, I know that the first leg at away in the CONCACAF website. The matter I want to do is, to put the order into drawing order instead of tournament order. That is, Atlante v Houston Dynamo, is the quarter-final 1 in the draw, I want to put that as quarter-final 1 in the article. But in tournament format, that will be quarter-final 4. That doesn't actually correct.

Last, why do you care about where the editor from? I admit that I am from Hong Kong, but I usually edit the European leagues, championship. But did you see that I always edit the Hong Kong tournament? No. Editing is just my interest, not a fundamental business. Thank you.

So I will only revert the drawing order. The other thing, I can deal with using an American English format, because it is an American English based tournament. Raymond "Giggs" K o 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Away Goals Rule Doesn't Apply in Extra Time?

I have a question here about how the Away Goals rule is applied in this competition. If a knockout second leg goes to extra time, does the Away Goals rule not apply to goals scored in that extra time period? Because if it did, we wouldn't have gone to a shootout last night, as the Puerto Rico Islanders would have moved on after extra time with a 1-0 away goals edge over Cruz Azul. However, this is in contrast to the Away Goals rule in UEFA Champions League, where extra time goals can count as away goals. What is the official word on this issue? Rougue1987 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I was surprised about that when I saw it, but I guess CONCACAF only use the away goals rule for the first 180 minutes (so the away team in the second game doesnt have 30 minutes extra you know). A somewhat reverse rule of the one used in the English League Cup where its only after the 30 min of extra time the away goals count (happened in Tottenhams favour this year). Must be in the rules, and the ref probably would know, so it can probably be found in the regulation pdfs. chan dler · 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Away Goals article on Wikipedia and there is an added section to it explaining this very situation. It appears that the CONCACAF Away Goals rule explicitly does not apply to extra time periods, which is the opposite of the UEFA Away Goals rule. Personally, I prefer the CONCACAF Away Goals rule, but I was pulling hard for Puerto Rico last night and I didn't realize until today that the CONCACAF rule is different from the UEFA rule. So I went to bed thinking Puerto Rico had gone through to the final. Still, the USL-1 put the MLS to shame this year. Rougue1987 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is bull shit, Puerto Rico needs to appeal this. 3-1 in the 2nd leg? I think that means Puerto Rico advances, right now this is an outrage. – Michael (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:FORUM. This isn't even close to the first time you've done this either, Mike. Save it for BigSoccer. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. – Michael (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008–09 CONCACAF Champions League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]