Talk:CONCACAF Gold Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on CONCACAF Gold Cup is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] South Korea

Wait why is South Korea listed there? They arent part of CONCACAF. Are they?

The Gold Cup invites other nations to participate in the tournament hence the Korean participation Thecolemanation 09:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Needs more information on how the tournament works

How are teams eliminated and/or points collected? This is the only thing I could find from the web, but is it the same every year?

The 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup will consist of three groups of four teams for the first round with the top two from each group, along with the best two third-placed teams, progressing to the quarterfinals with the group stage running from 6-13 June throughout five stadiums in the USA.
Presumably, the quarterfinals on up are single elimination...

Let me throw out this question to all the intellectuals...why does this farse we call the gold cup only played in the united states...is it because the CONCACAF headquarters is based in NY...or because the us cannot win outside of their home country...ouch. The Concacaf is the only tournament that does not revolve...poor americans.

It is because the stadiums in the United States are better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.52.103 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Concacaf believes that it can make more money having the gold cup in the us than having it in another country. The us holds immigrant populations from all of the gold cup nations. Consequently all of the teams (other than canada and cuba) draw well in the us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.194.234 (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canada Hosting in '09?

I looked around for a source on this, but I can't find one. If you included it, please give a source. Thecrookedcap 00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to find a source for this and all i've come across is this: http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2007/06/06/gold_cup_now_glittering_event/ Famousian 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Toronto has been announced as a host city, but I don't think that means that Canada is the exclusive host nation. Mountainhawk 16:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Cup Results vs. CONCACAF Championship Results

This is the article for the CONCACAF Gold Cup, so only results for Gold Cup tournaments (1991 and forward) should be reflected in the table. Perhaps the CONCACAF Championships prior to the Gold Cup should be split off into their own separate article. Any thoughts? - 70.254.243.14 02:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree- why has someone changed it back once again to "All Time Results" after it was restored to Gold Cup Results?? --Zippyt 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think someone is mad that the USA has finally caught up to Mexico in wins so they are putting the all time results so that it looks like Mexico is still leading in championship wins.Nygiantboy 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No, im not mexican. im from costa rica living in the usa. congratulations for a successfull title defense. we hadnt had anyone win the gold cup twice in a row in quite a while. you have to understand that the concacaf championship was basically the same thing like the gold cup. the gold cup is just a more revised version of it. just like the Euro cup and the copa america. the euro cup used to be known as the European Nations Cup until 1968 and the copa america used to be known as the South American Championship of National Teams until 1967. 8 years later, the tournament was reborn as the copa america. those 2 continents still count the titles countries have won before their current format so why shouldnt we. i gave a pretty detailed story of how the championship of north america has evolved. im sorry if i offended anyone but i wasnt trying to make mexico look better. as a matter of fact, i was happy when you brought the mexicans back to reality. im going to work on detailing the NAFC and the CCF in a few hours. thanks for your understanding.
The fact remains that you continue to change the results without any kind of a consensus. That is incredibly rude behavior. - 70.233.233.121 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should split the old championship out completely and then link to it, the old CCCF and the old NAFC tournaments. On top of that, I think we should have a combined stats page, and also link to it in the results section. My reasoning is that the tournament wasn't simply renamed - it is completely different. If you look around, that seems to be how other tournaments were handled. For example, the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup are separate, but they both link to a combined stats page as they are basically the same (Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics). By following this example, we will preserve all data, but will still be able to discern all the information logically (ie 2007 was the 9th edition of the Gold Cup tournament...not the 19th...but is the 19th CONCACAF Championship overall). I hope this helps the discussion. --otduff t/c 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
all those cup like the fifa club world cup, intercontinental cup, etc. are all invitationals. yes, they want thte champion of whatever region they are on but some times the champion does not go and it goes to the runner up or whatever. plus, those tournaments are club football. you should know world football is completely different. that is a whole different subject. if thats the case, then all the titles south american and european teams won before their current edition shouldnt count. once again, THIS ARE CONTINENTAL CUPS, NOT CLUB FOOTBALL. club football are sponsored and financed by private companies (nissan, toyota, etc.). continental cups are done by their respective organization.
Which doesn't make them the same event...all it means is that they have the same PURPOSE. As for the other articles, perhaps that simply means this needs to be referred to the football project for further discussion. In the meantime, a board discussion on this topic is taking place right here, which means that the article should be in the condition it was before the controversy arose -- in other words, Gold Cup titles only. Please stop reverting. - 70.233.233.121 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I do see his point and if you look at the OFC version of the Gold Cup (OFC Nations Cup), they have a unified page because of historic likeness - despite being different tournaments, the confederation used it for the same purpose. However in that case there were only two previous tourneys and it was a very short article as is. I don't think those same criteria apply here. Again, I still have an issue with not splitting as the infobox says the tournament started in 1991 and yet we have champions from before this date. On top of this, there were only two actual CONCACAF tournaments before the Gold Cup - the others were not real championships as there were no tournament and they just named a champ based on World Cup qualifying match results. The US and many other CONCACAF nations did not even participate for many of those years. They just do not seem to have the same weight to me as a legitimate champion via a knockout tournament like the Gold Cup, where all 40 CONCACAF national teams have a chance to participate. Again, this is just my opinion. But despite my bias, I still say this article is about the Gold Cup tournament. I think it would be best to change the CONCACAF Championship page from a redirect and put the combined history/stats there, along with more detailed historical info on how CONCACAF has selected their champion over the years. We can then crosslink the two articles and let it fill out that way. I still see no reason not to do this, so unless I see another reason why, I will be splitting the article and linking accordingly in the coming week. --otduff t/c 09:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That looks to be a moot point. The title of the article would tend to agree with you, but the lead paragraph clearly involves the whole history of the CONCACAF "championship", regardless of changes in name or format from time to time in the scope of the article. Kevin McE 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The Gold Cup is the direct descendant of the CONCACAF Championship: I do not think there is any real debate about that: the inclusion of results from the former tournament, and the text of the lead paragraph atest to this being consensus. This creates a situation largely similar to that of the King Fahd Cup and the Confederations Cup: the results of these two tournaments are usually integrated. Given that there is no separate article at CONCACAF Championship, and considering that there has been no voice raised here against the 1963-89 tournament results being included, an integrated table of cumulative results seems most appropriate.
However, although I have a suspicion that some editors, on both sides of the argument, might be motivated by the desire to see their team at the top of the table, I can understand, given the title of the current article and the change in format that took place in 1991, the desire for a Gold Cup only table. Thus the sensible compromise seems to be to include both tables, which I have done.
In the process of making this change, I also changed the section headings. Not only did the previous capitalisations go against the MoS, they also misdescribed the information: these sections do not record the best finish by each of the nations that have acheived a top 4 finish, it records their cumulative records. Kevin McE 09:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
See my argument above about the difference between a bonafide tournament champion involving all 40 CONCACAF teams and a paper champ named based on qualifying matches for the World Cup. Particularly damning of these "championships" is that they involved at most 6 teams (1973, 1977, 1981, 1989) and only possible to be won by the 6 teams playing in WC qualifying games. In some cases, there were AS FEW AS 3 TEAMS INVOLVED (1985). Even the real tournaments of the time had few teams invited - only 6 in the last actual tournament which occurred way back in 1971. And during this time the teams who played were generally not what we consider CONCACAF powerhouses - ie most years excluded Costa Rica, US, Guatemala, Canada, etc. Face it, the Gold Cup is the first time there is qualifying such that all CONCACAF nations are involved in a true championship format and thus should have some differentiation from previous champion selection methods used by CONCACAF. --otduff t/c 09:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, your opinion of the competitions is irrelevant here. If CONCACAF considers a competition, regardless of its format, to be their championship, then their championship it is. For what it's worth, according to the evidence here, 16 teams entered the 1985 tournament and the first two Gold Cups had only eight teams in each. Kevin McE 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I agree we should keep all CONCACAF Champions info but just move it to that article. The Gold Cup should discuss the Gold Cup tournament, which is currently used to determine the CONCACAF Champion. Does this better explain my position?
And I completely jumped the gun on those other tournaments (not noticing the 1985 CONCACAF Championship qualification article, etc). But as for the low number of teams in the Gold Cup, the difference is the Gold Cup uses the UNCAF Nations Cup and the Caribbean Cup as qualifying tournaments. For instance, in 2007, 31 teams participated through those tournaments plus the 3 invitees (US/CAN/MEX). Again, it's a moot issue - shouldnt have used wikipedia for soapbox ranting.
So again, I think we should add more detail by splitting the info into a CONCACAF Championship article (which would then probably be the most important of the two). And until someone convinces me of why this would be a bad thing, I will continue to argue we do split them up. --otduff t/c 06:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I really can't see the Gold Cup as anything other than a re-branding of the CONCACAF Championship: I would find it far easier to argue for splitting up the King Fahd Cup and the Confederations cup than I would these two. The format did not only change at the time of change of name, it has changed several times since then. Kevin McE 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well that's fine - if that is the consensus then we will just leave per the way you combined them. It still seems odd to state the tournament started in the 90's and then count/list championships from before this date.--otduff t/c 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article says When it was held for the first time in 1963,: where does it state that the tournament started in the 90's? Kevin McE 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In the infobox it lists as founded in 1991. And think it used to say elsewhere but with the edit wars who knows what it says now.--otduff t/c 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
One last point on my argument we should separate the Gold Cup article and the CONCACAF Championship article is that when I go to concacaf.com and click on their link to goldcup.org and look under the previous edition and history section, there is no mention of ANY of the tournaments/champions prior to 1991. It just seems if CONCACAF considered these two as the same (as is claimed), you would think they would mention it somewhere on their website! It just seems you guys are ignoring the facts which the tournament organizers say their own history is. I'm interested to see what you guys think. I mean it's possible I just cannot find it on their site and someone will be kind enough to post a link to disprove me. --otduff t/c 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently I scanned right over it...seems they have a small section called CONCACAF CAMPEONATO DE NACIONES’ ERA where they discuss the previous tournaments and the old CCCF, etc tournaments prior to the creation of CONCACAF. When searching I also found an interesting link at concacaf.com where they showed the results of all the regional champions going back even before CONCACAF was formed so I still think this justifies that we split the Gold Cup section out - even if it will have some duplicate content for 91-present. This would fix the inaugural event being in 1991, 2007 being 9th GC (not 19th), etc - not to mention solving the overall result edit wars that has been going on. Either that or you think CCCF, etc articles should be merged here also. Based on the edits, it seems others think it should be kept together too, but nobody is really commenting here.... --otduff t/c 00:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm telling you go to CONCACAF Gold Cup Real. type that in search exactly. I already have the Gold Cup chart on theiralready. We can split this since I already made a new article.Nygiantboy 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent champion

Why USA is posted as Most recent champion ? in fact Mexico is. they won 7 times. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the USA won the last Gold Cup 2007. Mexico and USA has 4 Gold Cup titles each, but Mexico has also 3 CONCACAF Championship titles. JC 21:21, 25 July 2007 (PST)

[edit] Splitting CONCACAF Championship Results from CONCACAF Gold Cup results

I know this subject was covered above, but it looked so messy I wanted to start this down here instead. As proof that an article for the CONCACAF Championship needs to be created and split from this one: FIFA recognizes the U.S. victory in the 2007 Gold Cup as "their fourth overall, bringing them level with arch-rivals Mexico." So if FIFA only recognizes four Mexican Gold Cup titles, and CONCACAF lists the champions in different ways on their website, identifying only Gold Cup champions as such, in my mind that means only Gold Cup results should be included here in the Gold Cup article. Thoughts? -- 74.192.3.135 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (This post was RESTORED from vandalism that took place on 28 November 2007)

The confusion here arises from the fact there this is one article for two different competitions. The Gold Cup replaced the Championship, but FIFA and CONCACAF distinguishes them from one another. I would suggest a separate article for the Championship, where those results can be recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.241.124 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think is a simple case of name change...so this table can remain here... Maybe we can add other two§:one with only Champioship and another with Gold Cup... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanza13 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why split if the article states that the CONCACAF Championship is "renamed" to the CONCACAF Gold Cup? Despite the name change, the Gold Cup remains as the top championship of the entire region. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the article states, CONCACAF clearly recognizes the events as different. So does FIFA. Follow the links above. The Gold Cup is not a "renamed" Championship; it is a separate event which serves the same function. The articles need to be split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.25.240 (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yet, the fact that the two serve the same function is reason enough to keep the two tournaments together. The amount of content for either is not enough to mandate an article split. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The headline clearly states that this is a CONCACAF Gold Cup article. It says nothing about "Various CONCACAF tournaments that fulfilled the function of determining the continental champion." If you insist on keeping them together, then we need a clearer indication of this, complete with separate tables for each tournament. --74.192.25.240 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if necessary, that headline can be changed to "History of CONCACAF Championships". The premise would be similar to History of National Football League Championship. The NFL had undergone a similar change back in 1970 where its main championship changed name to the Super Bowl. The same idea can be used here. I seem to notice other championships, like the Central America championship. After the title change, that can be merged here too, as a title change like that would incorporate every soccer tournament with some kind of association to CONCACAF. KyuuA4 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the classic "We can always change the headline" argument. "If a Gold Cup article shouldn't incorporate prior championship material, then let's just call it a History of CONCACAF Winners article instead." No way! Why not just split one of those off from this one, and make this one a 1991-and-up article dealing solely with the Gold Cup? If the issue is that we need more material to make two separate articles, then let's get more material...I volunteer. The analogy with the NFL is a bad one, by the way, since the main championship didn't "change names." There had already been four Super Bowls before the NFL and AFL merged under the new NFL banner, and during those years the Super Bowl didn't decide the championship of the NFL--instead, the NFL champion went on to play in the Super Bowl. --74.192.25.240 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this section it's poor!! And this is bad!! Take a look to Copa America, European Championship, Asian Cup, Oceania Cup, African Cup....each is very complete...CONCACAF Gold Cup and Championship NOT!!! I think that we have to do a section with both competition....but we can search a compromise! Stanza13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanza13 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Scorers Table

Is it reasonable to recommend a Top Goal Scorers table? This is presuming data for such exists. KyuuA4 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About CONCACAF championship I can't find the topscorers of 1963,1965,1967,1971 tournaments...I think do a overall topscorer is very difficult with incomplete records....Stanza13

[edit] 1985 Concacaf Championship

The final round of CONCACAF Championship 1985 is composed by the second and third round of world cup qualifying as reported on RSSSF archive...and so the fourth position is for El Salvador due to better goal difference... Stanza13

Good catch. --74.192.25.240 (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As a Canadian I almost feel guilty claiming the 1985 win, as Mexico didn't take part in WCQ due to their hosting the finals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.93.210 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Additions

When I talk about distinction between Championship and Gold Cup in the same page, I means as I do on the table for Host and Apparences....I think is the better solution...Stanza13 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the entire discussion page, and I got the impression that there was a consensus that this article would be treated as dealing with The Gold Cup as starting in 1991 as a result of CONCACAF only considering the Gold Cup to start as of 1991 as shown here http://www.goldcup.org/competitions/goldcup/ . Also, it seemed to me as the consensus was that the article should make a clear distinction between the Gold CUp and the period of World Cup qualifying, also that the tournament winners table would only include results from the Gold Cup. Could somebody please comfirm this for me. I the article should be reverted to the Revision as of 16:25, 14 April 2008 in accordance with the consensus' that was reached in the discussion page, as the current form is contradictory to the previous consensus. NeilCanada (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with NeilCanada. --74.192.46.234 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)