So, obviously if we were going to go this route, we'd do pro/rel. So the question becomes "How many World Cup games are played every cycle?" AFC's elite teams play 13 games. The shit can play in 15 CAF's elite teams play 8 games. The shit can play in 10 CONCACAF's elite teams play 16 games. The shit can play in 24 CONMEBOL's teams play 16 games. OFC's elite teams play 5 games. The shit can play in 8. UEFA's teams play 9 games. But that is, of course, without the marquee event. I imagine teams could easily compete in 22 World Cup matches every four years. So that means Leagues of 12. Eighteen of them. So (using FIFA Rankings, just for the first year) World Cup: ESP, GER, ARG, POR, ITA, ENG,NED, COL, RUS, CRO, URU, GRE World League Championship: BRA, MEX, CIV, SUI, ECU, FRA, ALG, BEL, CHL, DEN, SWE, JAP World League 1: CZE, NOW, USA, MAL, GHA, HUN, BIH, KOR, AUS, MNE, PAR, IRL World League 2: ROU, TUR, ZAM, BUL, EGY, SRB, SVK, IRN, PER, PAN, TUN, VEN I'd definitely watch those promotion battles. Can Serbia make League1 to play against cross-town rivals Bosnia and Montnegro? How about the bottom leagues (which will 10 and 7 in them, to keep the leagues managable)? Who, among Turks and Caicos, San Marino, Bhutan, Mauritania, Anguilla, Mauritius, and Andorra will join Djibouti, South Sudan, Kyrgystan, Macau, the Cook Islands, the British Virgins Islands, Comoros, Papua New Guinea, the Seychelles and Somaila in the 17th Division of International Football, known for sponsorship reasons as the "Larry McFlannigan's Autobody and Repair Shop from Canberra Premier Division A"
I would have thought that a bottom basement no frills, no seats, no stewardesses airline would sponsor good old Division XVII. Think of the investment opportunities available in an airline shipping the national teams of all these tiny island around the world every few months.
So if 61% advantage to the higher seed is not enough of an advantage, what would be? This is a serious question - at what point does the advantage become significant enough to be "enough" of an advantage? 75%? 80%? 99%? And in a league where parity is such a dominant feature, I think it is very hard to say how much being the higher seed matters for the statistic. I do think there is an advantage to having the second game at home, if for nothing else you have the 30 minute extra time at home. No doubt the 61% edge is a combination of seeding and format, but I would be inclined to argue that the format contributes more to the higher seed than some would give credit for.
This reminds me of my favorite John Madden quote ever, from the Stillers/Cards Superb Owl: "If a guy goes 100 yards, you kinda have to give him a touchdown"
Reminds me of a Tim McCarver quote. After a pitcher throw three straight balls, McCarver expertly responds, "Now he will have to throw three straight strikes."
You're right that the 'better team effect', for a single game, is almost non-existent. The Sagarin ratings measure how much better one team is than another over a single game (adjusted for strength of schedule, goal differential, and counting any playoff games already played): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/mls12.htm There are a few significant differences--had the Whitecaps made it as far as playing the Earthquakes, for instance, the Quakes are about 0.8 goals per game better than the Caps, a pretty big difference. The Quakes should be almost half a goal better than the Galaxy per game, but that number's going to be pretty heavily skewed by the early part of the season when the Galaxy didn't have Omar Gonzalez. If you just look at the time he was available I'd bet it's almost wiped out. And other than that, you're talking differences of 0.1 per game, often less. (A team that's 0.1 goals better should advance 55% of the time on average if there's no seed advantage, and 0.2 difference 60% and so on). The bigger point that was first made by scaryice over here and recently picked up by the Forbes article is that when 'fewer games played that season' is a better predictor than 'better performance that season', something seems wrong. And it's a fair point, but it's also worth noting that MLS has tweaked the system over the last couple years both to give the teams playing extra games slightly more cap room, and by adding the bye that will make life tougher for the low seeds. For what it's worth, I seem to recall the single-game at the higher seed rounds in MLS history moving on something a little bit better than 70% of the time.
What kind of percentages would one want in the playoffs? Number-wise, I wouldn't be able to say, but I'd like to see the top seeds make the final more often than not. I suppose it all depends on how predictable you'd like your post season to be. As for the 61% edge being a combination of seeding and format, the article asserts that seeding is the overwhelming factor, not format (i.e. higher seeded teams hosting the second leg). If hosting the second leg was, in fact, an advantage, we would expect 2nd leg hosts to maintain some statistical advantage even as the clubs become more equal deeper into the tournament. The authors found that not to be the case. Of course, that's the Champions League, and our format isn't exactly the same. It makes sense to assume that being able to play an extra 30min at home might give the 2nd leg hosts some kind of advantage, but we still need a few more years of this format to be able to prove it empirically.
I am not at all surprised if results show that the higher seeds win more often. MLS (usually) gives the better teams a higher seed. If having a higher seed wasn't an advantage, that would mean the league has parity (which is not a bad thing) or that the playoffs were a crapshoot (which could be a bad thing). At the same time, all playoffs in North America that are longer than a single game work this way. Someone once posted around here that having 30 minutes of ET is pretty much the same as hosting four games out of seven. While baseball teams made a big stink about having to start on the road in the division series this year, most people believe that the only real advantage in a seriws is having the last game on the road. Baseball playoffs are admitted by almost all to be total crapshots and in deciding games the home team went 3-2 this year. But everyone wanted the at least psychological advantage of playing at home in Game 5/7. MLS is just like everyone else in this matter; except for the four coaches who said they wanted to start at home.
This is patently untrue for the simple fact that they play an aggregate series. Therefore, unlike every other playoff system, MLS' lower seeds are not required to actually win a game at the home of the higher seed in order to advance. They don't even need to get a result. The only reasonable way that you could ever equate the extra time period to a third game is if it were actually treated like a third game instead of the extra time period of one 180 minute game played in two venues. It's not the same advantage bc it's not simply a matter of defending your home if you're the higher seed. It's also not getting the score run up so as to make the home advantage null and void before the game is even played. Take the first round of both of our Conf Semi-finals. To truly call the ot a "deciding game" akin to the playoffs in other sports, then ot should have been played in both series since both series split their games. At least LA managed a win in San Jose, which is somewhat mollifying, but Houston gets by the team with the "home advantage" in Sporting KC without even getting a result there? That's not much of a home advantage if you ask me. That's not a home advantage at all. A home advantage means if you defend your turf you win the series. That's what it means in every other league but MLS. Sounds like one game with each half played in each teams venue. This works for tournaments and cups, not for playoffs.
I'll give you most of what you are saying. I'll even admit that I always think of two game series as one 180 minute game played at two stadiums. But technically, neither team actually needs to win a game or even score a goal if their defense is good enough.
Yeah, except in Mexico, I'm pretty sure you can't advance unless the ball ends up in the back of your opponents' net, at least once
Actually - all good points, I think. It has always bothered me a little that the higher seed has had to start on the road, and the possibility of having to dig yourself out of an insurmountable lead can make the second leg an almost impossible task. Eliminating the aggregate goals would actually be helpful for a higher seed that has to play on the road. Therefore, you could tie the series merely by winning the second leg, and not having to make up a goal differential. (However, I think MLS really likes the drama created by the aggregate goal, and it encourages scoring, so I am not sure they would want to change it). Getting rid of aggregate goal would be akin to the first to 5 that they used to do, but it would really be a first to 4, I guess. If you draw both games, or split the games, you go to the mini game, which I would think would favor the higher seed.
Of course. Every time someone starts to bring this up, whether to Don Garber or on an MLS sponsored radio podcast, the question just get's nicely ducked. Don will act as though you were asking to go to a single table/no playoff format. Even when you phrase it properly. And it happened again last night. Look at the exchange between Simon Borg and Jason Saghini at 1:55 : BTW, the sound is really horrible at the beginning of the vid, so get some earbuds or headphones into your audio jack. It helps. That pissed me off, and I don't even blame Jason for this. He's simply saying what MLS pays him to say. I was pissed at Simon Borg bc that was NOT what he was saying at all. He let Jason put words in his mouth, smiled,... and said nothing. WTF? Hey, how about going into depth and actually proposing a real alternative,... of which there are many, and quit perpetuating this MYTH that the only other solution is single table with no playoffs. Simon Borg you're a coward! Way to tuck tail and run from the argument. MLS wants to pretend that when ppl like me or Simon Borg say that we want to give a true advantage to higher seeds, that we're talking about getting rid of the playoffs. Bullshit! It's not a coincidence that the year that they give the higher seed the home final, they subsequently turn the Conference finals into an aggregate home and home. That's not a coincidence. The home final is window-dressing, especially since it went into effect in a year when the conferences went unbalanced. MLS' owners clearly don't want the playoffs to reward higher seeds, bc they want more upsets. They think that that's what creates excitement, but to me, it ruins it bc they feel like engineered upsets. And I'm wondering if watching any regular season games is a complete and total waste of my time since MLS clearly doesn't value them at all.
No doubt MLS tends to duck such questions. No doubt the two leg aggregate doesn't give the same advantage to the higher seed as in other sports. But I cannot fathom where you get the idea that MLS wants to engineer upsets. MLS wants high-spending teams in their marquee events. They want their best teams on TV and in CCL. I can't see any reason MLS would want low seeded teams winning the cup more often. Yes, they made the conference finals two legs, but they also added a play in game so that the 4 or 5 seed would have to play on less rest than the other teams. Perhaps they went to the two leg aggregate because playoff matches are moneymakers now? Because national TV stations like playoff games more than regular season games? Because having a single elimination play in game then a two legged series then a single elimination game was a bit confusing? Because the two legged aggregate format has produced some incredible drama the last few years while most of the single elimination games have been dour? Because it's a format familiar to fans of European soccer? To give MLS teams more experience with the format for CCL play? Any of these reasons seems more likely than wanting to see your big name teams lose early. Anyway there are compromises with any playoff system. Single elimination gives high seeds a great advantage but is too short and keeps some teams from hosting a game. Three game series is too long and a scheduling nightmare. Two games no aggregate plus an autonomous mini-game is something no one else in the world does and I'm not even sure playing a mini-game like that is even legal by FIFA rules. For me the best system is two game aggregate with the higher seed advancing on a tie score. Both teams get to host, scheduling is easy, lots of drama because the lower seed can't hope for PKs, obvious advantage for the higher seed to play for during the regular season. Still not perfect but for me it strikes the best balance of competitive and off the field factors.
The most economically successful sports league in the entire world is based on a parity system that uses drafts and salary cap restrictions. Just saying.
From Twitter: Brian Straus @BrianStraus MLS Cup format tale of the tape: High seed has won 23 of 40 2-leg series, 57.5%. High seed won 29 of 42 best-of-3 series, 69%.
And the most economically successful collegiate sport is based on absolutely no parity whatsoever. Americans tune into football because it's football. Period. They've sold the sport and it's ingrained in our DNA. NHL has more parity than both the NBA and MLB respectively, yet still lags behind those two sports. When you have the most popular sport coupled with some of the most sophisticated television contracts imaginable in the biggest and wealthiest media capital in the world that is our country, then you have the recipe for the most profitable single league in the world. Look at the World Cup. There is absolutely no parity in that competition yet that doesn't keep it from being the most profitable athletic competition in the world. If there is passion then you can find a way to profit from it. I'm not saying that some parity is bad, just that the notion that complete parity is some sort of panacea. It's not. I think that a delicate balance works best in our markets.
But where is the balance? The NBA has much looser salary rules, leading to the creation of "superclubs". Yet we see one team run by the league and multiple other franchises barely keeping their heads above water because fan interested as completely disappeared in those markets. MLS has already opened avenues for more ambitious clubs to go out and acquire better talent through the DP mechanism. These same clubs "super clubs" could invest more in the academy system, and develop better talent as a result. Talent that would be free of the salary cap mind you. They already have in place that teams that qualify for the Champions League get a bonus added on to the salary budget. I believe the bump is $600K. Which doesn't seem like much on the surface, but when compared to the annual salary budget, it is a 20% advantage. I don't think it is a coincidence that since MLS started opening some of these doors for more ambitious clubs we've seen the LA Galaxy and Seattle Sounders have qualified for each CONCACAF CL tournament since 2010, and those teams are in the western conference finals. In fact, 3 of the 4 MLS finalists also happen to be teams that were in the CONCACAF Champions League this season. The notion that MLS is punishing teams and holding them back is ludicrous. You want a delicate balance. There already is one. We are seeing traditional powers emerge in this league. Houston, Salt Lake, Galaxy, Seattle have consistently been towards the top of the league for several seasons now. But the parity aspect still allows for KC and San Jose to to put up the two best records in MLS this year. And that is still possible for every team. The delicate balance is already there. We have traditional powers. And they have been built in very different ways. LA and Seattle prefer to pile on DPs. Salt Lake and Real have chosen a more "grass roots" methodology. We've seen an ambitious club like NY not able to get over the hump. At the same time, we've seen Kansas City grow into a legitimate league contender. League attendance is up and ranks #7 in the world. TV revenues are up. While Forbes hasn't released numbers in several years, I would venture to guess that more than just 2 teams are turning a profit at this juncture. New stadiums are being opened. Expansion is still on the table with the reported fee estimated to be near $100 million. Every single possible metric that can be measured indicates that this league is growing, and at a pretty rapid pace at that. So why the hell are people so desperate to change the way the league is operating?
Aside from a similar spelling, the two countries couldn't be more far apart. One is a small island nation in the Indian Ocean. The other is a large nation on the western edge of the Sahara desert.