Talk:2010 Copa Sudamericana

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Format changes section...?

Should we dedicate a section to describe any format changes for this edition, like we normally would for leagues? Digirami (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the winner of this tournament go to the Group Stage of Copa Libertadores? Or to the preliminary round?

Will the winner of this tournament go to the Group Stage of Copa Libertadores? Or to the preliminary round? Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.2.70.18 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we don't know --MicroX (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we'll probably find out later this year during the draw. Digirami (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's stupid. They should inform the teams now, why would they wait until the draw? The teams need to know in advance so they could plan on which games to take more seriously. If Nissan Cup is an easier path to the Group Stage, then they can go for that more than the through the league. The teams have the right to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.228.29 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bracket

Does anyone think it is misleading to have a bracket with aggregate score knowing full well that aggregate score is technically not taken into account in this tournament? Digirami (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a mistake on it. It says that there's already a Brazilian team on the final, but before it said that two Brazilian teams were going to eliminate themselves on one Quarterfinal, and the other two were going to do the same. But I also know that all is done to make no countries from the same nationality meet themselves on the Finals. Maybe I am the one who's wrong. 1969 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have two quarterfinals with a Brazilian facing another. That means that two Brazilian teams will make it to the semifinals. According to the rules, teams from the same association/country must face each other in the semifinals. So those two Brazilians teams will face each other in the semifinals, leaving one Brazilian team in the finals. And before, the two Brazilian semifinalist were on opposite sides of the bracket. Digirami (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was only a matter of time that you would suggest this. I'm against this anyway. --MicroX (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against what exactly? Digirami (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole GD, GF, AG, Pts on a head-to-head tie instead of the widely accepted aggregate score practice. Yes I know this is how the rules stipulate head-to-head ties but reading it hurts, and if every media source is publishing results as aggregate scores then so should its Wikipedia entry. The articles should reflect verifiability, not truth. This is one of the reasons why we couldn't convince User:Knepflerle to change La Liga to Primera Division. Apply the points thing into the bracket and any casual football reader will instantly think "2 + 6 ≠ 3" and then we'll get loads of IP edits trying to change it to aggregate scores. --MicroX (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to suggest putting the points in the bracket because you're right, that would cause problem. I would have suggested that the aggregate score part of the bracket be removed so it'll look more like this. That's all.

And now that CONMEBOL's site has started to display the points system via those mini table here, the truth is now verifiable. Hooray. Digirami (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Copa Sudamericana. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainMedia.html?id=15171&viewpage=%27full%27
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainCommunicate.html?id=15083&viewpage=%27full%27
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010231359/http://img.mazimou.com:90/3749/documents/310.pdf to http://img.mazimou.com:90/3749/documents/310.pdf

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) 20:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]