It's not about data, it's about structure. Our "home field advantage" is not structured properly to afford the same advantage that it does in other sports. You don't need data to figure that out, all you have to do is look at the mechanics of it. It's like wanting data to find how many times I'll roll a "1" with a six sided dice vs "tails" with a coin. You don't need to do those rolls and flips to understand that something is different here. I agree with most of what you say here excepting the poor choice of words at the end. People who hate this league don't even know what the playoff format is, for the most part. The only people who complain about the format are already fans of the league. People who think the league is a joke complain either because it's a sport played with the feet, or bc it has playoffs period. I agree with your first part. The playoff system isn't what ppl who dislike the league itself care about. It mainly annoys ppl who already follow the league. However, despite the fact that NCAA football could have kept the almost unanimously lambasted BCS format in place in perpetuity and still packed the fans into the bowl games, they are finally going to have a playoff system starting in 2014 when the current BCS contract expires. And they at least had very long-term, concrete, transparent, and specific contractual obligations as an excuse to keep it this long, so what's MLS' excuse? MLS has proven that they can make drastic changes to their format on a yearly basis without upsetting their television benefactors. And getting rid of the aggregate alone or going to a "Mexican tiebreaker" won't change anything about the length or setup so as to upset any contractual obligations that might possibly be in place. So if that isn't all it comes down to, what else are we to surmise? Let me sum up my hopes and aspirations for this playoffs. I hope that both LA and Houston lose in Seattle and DC but win their respective series' in regulation and move on to the title match. It's the same as the ppl who always rooted for chaos in the BCS, of which I was one. And guess what; that got fixed. So this is the only way to keep the pressure on MLS to fix their system. When the worse-case scenario keeps happening much like it usually did in the BCS, they cannot keep ignoring it bc it will keep getting brought up. It will always get some attention on telecasts as it did during the last game in LA. And having your playoffs questioned on national broadcasts is not the impression that you want to give to new fans. And I like all four teams left, but c'mon let's go chaos! Granted, what's funny to me is the fact that LA and Houston likely would stand a pretty good chance of still meeting under a more equitable system due to their form. It could happen. But we'll never know bc they're not being asked to step up to the plate and do that. Truthfully, and maybe unfortunately for me, the fact that it's a rematch of last season's title match will put some gloss on that tarnish, but at least it won't be completely forgotten how they got there.
Who said teams are dogging it in todays MLS? Waltzing through the season? Regular season is meaningless? Where did you get this stuff from?
Both would be perfect for me.... A balanced schedule + a tough to qualify for playoff that rewards each team with something more than the team below them in the table ='s something that is competitive, pure and fun as hell to watch. Playing 34 matches, letting in half the teams then basically reshuffling the deck is less exciting. It just is.
Don't misunderstand my points as support for the current structure. That being said, I am not as worried as some about the constant shifting as they try to get it right. We have examples of leagues everywhere tweaking their system after decades of existence, it should be no surprise that MLS still needs to work on theirs. As for TV involvement, we are still in a league that has not gotten every playoff game on national TV; so even competitive changes are done with an eye on 2014 and a "TV partner" not just a contract. I do have faith, they will get to a system in a few years, through several tweaks that most will be happy with, but I just don't think they would even want to lock themselves in until they get a true TV partner and they have clearer vision on expansion - which defines the schedule and possible TV schedules. *oh and as for the BCS, they are moving to a psuedo playoff but lets not forgive them for re-signing with BCS several times. They don't get to hide behind a contract when they have continually renewed.
I like the sentiment of this post a lot. Unfortunately I don't think MLS is on board with the balanced schedule portion. Indications are they will start to put even more reliance on the conference system, especially if they continue to expand over the next few years. I can see their point too. One of the challenges they have is how do you manage the length of the season and the playoffs combined. I think most of us agree that they playoff schedule was WAY too condensed; and is partly to blame for an ECF where as many as 8 starters will not be on the field. If they grow to 20 teams in two years, 38 games becomes almost impossible while still maintaining playoffs and major international breaks. Personally, I think they just need to (1) get the format right such that the home team has an advantage and (2) space the playoffs such that we get rested teams (wild card team excepted) and we see the best product on the field.
So, I as I sit here awaiting a conference call that seems to never want to start, I thought about the content in this thread. Here are my thoughts: 1) I assume the conference scheduling approach is here to stay. It keeps the season at a fixed length while supporting expansion. Whether I like it or not doesn't matter. In this regard, I am ok with the top 5 from each conference making the playoffs provided they keep that number even at 20-22 teams. 2) Scheduling. Personally I see that as a bigger short term issue. It "seems" to be leading to more non contact injuries and frankly is not allowing the best product on the field due to fatigue. That is one change I would like to see next year is a bit more time between rounds. You can still force the wildcard to play game one and two within a week, but give the higher seeds a week in-between games. 3) Home field advantage. This seems to be the bigger one to tackle. Some of the suggestions here appear to be good ones. The three game series is problematic for scheduling and TV. I would be surprised to see that one. Letting the higher seed pick the order also is problematic for TV schedules. Back to a single game is possible, but I think unlikely due to lost revenue of less games plus we would all just complain about one game is not indicative of quality having an advantage. That sort of leaves us with the points per game instead of aggregate. In general I am ok with it, but it is a bit odd to treat any AET as a different game. It does bring up some logistical issues as well regarding bench size, substitutions, and card accumulation should each team win one game. They can be sorted out, but I worry about ending up with an "overtime" rule that is even more confusing then the NFL's new approach. Hell their own referees can't explain the rules. So what I prefer. Honestly I am not sure yet. In a perfect world I would vote for a best of three series where the first game is at the lower seed and the next two are at the higher seed. I am not sure if scheduling and TV would support that without somehow finding an extra two weeks to run the playoffs.
It's not merely the fact that they still have some tweaks to make. Yes other leagues tweak their playoffs, lengthening and shortening them as they will. But they usually always maintain a basic functional advantage no matter what they do. For the NBA, MLB, or NFL, no matter what changes are made, it doesn't even need to be questioned that the regular season will be represented in whatever format they decide on. What troubles me about MLS' tweaking is that they behave as though they don't understand what the problem is. Especially when you confront the league directly with the problem they always had a way of side-stepping the issue. For years when ppl complained about the playoffs, Don would say: "I hear you. You're upset about the playoffs. I get it. I too am upset. The playoffs has a huge flaw. We play a long regular season and then we get to the playoffs and... and... we have teams playing in different conferences, that's our only big glaring problem." I'd listent to things like this and say "Yea-... wait a minute. What-no, and?" I mean that was mildly annoying, like one solitary fruit fly, but that's never been the biggest problem by a long-shot. So then ppl would directly confront Don with it, and he would start talking about why we can't go to a single table with no playoffs even though noone had even brought it up. Even on Extra Time after the first games of the conference semis, Simon Borg went on a rant and questioned the playoffs inability to properly reward the home teams. Jason Saghini, then promptly went on a Don Garber-esque counter-rant and basically said "what do you want us to do? Get rid of the playoffs?" I nearly threw my computer out the window. And I wanted so badly to punch Simon Borg in the face. Yes Simon Borg, bc he said nothing. He acted like that was the argument right there. No, "well how about structuring the playoffs differently, Jason." Nothing. As if no other solution short of getting rid of the playoffs altogether exists. As if our neighbor to the south doesn't have another possible solution. I understand I'm rambling a bit, but this is how MLS scrambles our minds in order to try to confuse the issue. And this is what makes me less than confident that MLS is entirely truthful in their desire to fix the problem. The NCAA never dodged the question, though they did successfully hide behind their tv contracts for years. What MLS does goes even further. They manage to convince us that what we think is the problem, isn't actually what we think is the problem. It's almost like Don Garber is convinced that Jedi mind tricks actually work. You walk up to him and question when the playoffs will represent the regular season, and he merely waves a hand in front of our faces and says "these aren't the playoffs you're looking for." (Sounds like someone's got a photoshop idea!) It's either that or he thinks we're a bunch of morons. At least the BCS didn't insult our intelligence to the point of acting as though the question didn't exist. Okay, that was a stream of consciousness that I completely apologize for but I'm too lazy to try to condense it so just feel free to skim through it... or not read it at all. I've probably restated the same argument over and over in different ways throughout,... whatever that was, so... sorry.
Currently, playoffs are organized as: Wild Card Play-In - 1 game Conference Semifinals - 2 games Conference Finals - 2 games MLS Cup - 1 game Total: 6 games. I, sincerely, would go for: Wild Card Play-In - 1 game Conference Semifinals - 3 games Conference Finals - 1 game MLS Cup - 1 game It would be the same 6 games. There would be no need for extra weeks.
Quoted a small amount to save space . . . . I would respond with don't take public statements (in any organization) as indicative of what goes on in Board meetings. For example, they may appear not not recognize issues and yet they have made continual changes. They know there is an issue - your just not going to get them to publicly admit a flaw at the same time they are publicly trying to promote their top event. In fact, they didn't necessarily have a home filed advantage issue (or should I say a small one) before this year because the first round and the finals were single games hosted by higher seeds.
They had at the Conf. Semifinals. And they so thought that was not a problem, that they extended it to the Conf. Finals...
Valid, Although my personal opinion is I don't like different rounds having a completely different structure. The Cup, in trying to make it an event is an exception. I can live with a single game for the play in round but I find it competitively odd to have a three game series followed by a single game. Again, personal opinion. I would go Wild Card Play-In - 1 game Conference Semifinals - 3 games (best of) Conference Finals - 3 games (best of) MLS Cup - 1 game You can go Wed (play - in) - Sat (game 1) - Sat (2) - Wed (3 if needed)- Wed (game 1) - Sat (2)- Wed (3 if needed). That is three weeks for play in game and first two rounds BUT in my idea of the home team hosting the final two, you take out travel thus mitigating congestion over the current schedule. It is almost the same length of time used this year but you still get a week in between rounds (exception play in team) and no travel between games 2 and 3.
Obviously leagues want to present their events in a positive light. It's like politics in a way. The question is whether they think that they're actually fooling us. And another is how long they think that they can keep doing this. Because if they don't think that they actually have to talk about the issue, do they really think that it's pertinent to actually fix it? Does there come a point where they wear us down so completely with their non-answers that we just grin and accept it much like Simon Borg did last week? You see, that's what worries me. I'm not a blogger or a soccer writer. Even Grant Wahl, who still brings it up when asked about it, hasn't felt compelled to write a story about it. Probably bc he's getting tired about asking the same questions and getting no answers. Not even an explanation. Not even recognition that the question was even asked. Don Garber works for the owners. The BoG are the owners, I get this. And I think that Don Garber understands the issue from his time in the NFL well enough. The owners are mostly Americans, so they understand this well enough. So the question has to be, is this what they want? It's been long enough for them to make this work. And are we going to have the wherewithal to ask these questions forever without acknowledgement. At what point are we just spinning our wheels. Is this what they're waiting for? As gremio1903 pointed out they took one step forward in the finals yet one step backwards in the conference finals. Do they think that that just evened things out? Was changing the finals a bandaid to soften the blow of what they did in the conference finals? They made alot of noise about one and just kinda pushed the other through under our noses. I hope that you're right about them. I want to believe that. I really do. But they haven't given me the most positive signals up to this point. They have made a few positive steps. The play-in games were positive steps. Expanding the playoffs actually made it more of a challenge for lower seeds. The finals were positive as well. But the middle rounds are now an even bigger problem. Alot of good ideas have been brought up and I'd support all but going back to single games. Not the best idea for soccer. To much chance for the fluke goal to decide a series. But going back to a best of 3, eliminating the aggregate, Mexican tiebreaker, group stage, -whatever it takes. I'm for any of it that can get past the BoG at this point. Which ever one that is most feasible. And most of these ideas are feasible, I believe.
No, but I think any discussion of three games was not considered this year due to international break and the later start to the playoffs. You only test so many things in one given year. My supposition is that the non-aggregate two game series might not have even been brought up. It is a very unique idea and does present some logistical challenges in the case of AET needed for a "third" independent game. Frankly, I think they fixed the conference cross over issue, they added length to the playoffs (which is good), they got all but one game on national TV, and they tested a later Cup final (December). I fully expect changes next year and the year after as well. I just don't put much stock in political statements particularly when they actual do make constant changes despite those statements.
Fair enough. The later date did have to be tested if further expansion of the playoffs is going to be an option. I know shortening the regular season isn't. But it would be nice to hear from the league that they understand this issue. The knew the issues with midweek games in LA but that was workable. They know the midweek attendance issues in some of the older markets. Didn't hurt too much and fans have show that they'll show up for the most part in most markets. The weather was unusually troublesome this year in ways that it won't always be,... I hope. We're already splitting the conference finals by a week and another couple of weeks for the final. So there's plenty of give if it comes to that. But, ultimately, the playoffs don't need expanding to fix the problem. I'm just surprised that noone seems to have ever considered getting rid of the aggregate. Frankly that was one of the first things that I began to consider when we were on this topic last season. It hit me while arguing about why the 2nd game overtime didn't equate to a decisive game. Before that it just felt wrong. It makes me wonder if that isn't the last thing that they'll think to do. They always make things more complicated than need be.
Yep, but nothing is done in a bubble. The expansion of the playoffs was needed for more competitive integrity and for revenue purposes. So that did need to be tested regardless of the home field issue. As for the aggregate: I would guess there is some concern in the HQ about the structure, but I just don't know that keeping two games while removing aggregate as suggested here is a solution that popped up. That answer to the issue is unorthodox. Frankly, I think some sort of three game deal (same result just three distinct dates) is more likely because it is easy to follow, gives appropriate rest for players, and leads to additional revenue. It is a more likely solution - but not possible until a longer season is verified as tenable.
... I have no idea where I got that from... OK, you actually admit you can't ABSOLUTELY dog it like teams used, but you are the one who said "you don't really need to show up each week either. Just make it in". My point is that it is very hard to "just make it in" like you say, and the point of my previous post was to specify that I find it hard to believe that any team feels like they can relax during the season. If anything, I would say that PERHAPS teams at the beginning of the season don't hit the panic button when they are not getting results, but it is illogical to equate not getting results to "not showing up". You could be the hardest working team in the league, and still lose every game. I really have yet to see any evidence that any team does not "really show up each week".
If they wanted to have this "fixed", they could/would have done it by now. It's like MLS has some sort of schizophrenia when it comes to playoffs. The matter what format they choose a cocktail of no home-field advantage with a twist of advantage thrown in. This has been their drink of choice for over a decade now. It would be very hard to believe these guys are going to start all of a sudden start drinking something else. If they did, perhaps fans would actually talk more about the actual games than the format. And speaking of, these Confernece Final knock-out games are usually among the most exciting matches of the season. Win or get bounced. Blood pumping. Edge of your seat stuff. Who will go to the CUP? So much of that juice got sucked out of this weekend now that we basically know who won.
And that is why you have to keep rooting for chaos. If Troutseth is right and MLS is dragging their feet and testing waters, then what more indication that things need to change than the very worst case scenario coming to pass. Perhaps what I should be rooting for is two very boring 1-0 games won by the home side. I want to believe Troutseth is right, but the burden is on MLS to prove that they care about these things. Oh, and I thought that I would use this opportunity to call Simon Borg a coward just one last time. I did that on the Forbes thread and I just want to get one last jab in here. So here it is,... Simon Borg,... you're a coward. Jason Saghini wasn't going to beat you up. He's not that scary. Stand up to him and make your point. Whew, got that off my chest,... again.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/alecko_eskandarian/11/16/mls-playoffs/ Some of the comments here are amazingly ignorant. I want to reach through my laptop and throttle some of these people. Stop comparing a playoff system to tournaments like the Champions League people please! I seriously wonder why there are people who still defend a system that doesn't reward home advantage. Players, coaches, media, they're not all wrong. There are very few ppl who actively defend this system but a segment of fans who think the playoffs should mimic the UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE for whatever reason. Aaargh! Here are a few more articles: http://crosscut.com/2012/11/13/sports/111466/sounders-fall-victim-mls-home-team-advantage-rules/ http://aol.sportingnews.com/soccer/...g-at-ways-to-reward-regular-season-excellence This Sporting News article really hits the points: Wow, finally. I've been waiting two years to see this quote. I mean this is one of the few times I've heard an MLS official actually act like they give a damn about this. Personally I think that their attitude over the past few seasons bled down to some of the fans. If they league thinks it's ok, why shouldn't we. So it's nice to actually hear them say that there's a problem and not assume that it's just the "troublesome Europosers" trying to get rid of the playoffs again. Hopefully Seattle and DC don't come back and make MLS think that everything is ok. I want LA and Houston in the final. I want MLS to have an impetus to fix the system when all the teams with supposed "home field" lost. And to anyone who repeatedly try to compare the UCL or EL to MLS' playoffs, once again, this author nips that in the bud: This is such a simple concept, I don't get why the people who posted on Eskandarian's article can't get this through their fricking heads. It's not rocket science. And the last few paragraphs of the article sum up nicely everything that I've ever said about the format. Close to 70% of higher seeds won under the best of 3. Today it's 54%. Yes there's parity, Mr Rodriguez, but you know very well that that doesn't explain everything that's happening here. You know damn well that's the case. Anyone who can add knows that that's the case. Don't even try to retreat there again. You have pundits saying that the regular season is basically meaningless, but it doesn't help that MLS seemingly has actively tried to sabotage it's regular season. No we don't want the perennial champions of Europe in an American league, but guess what? You won't get that under ANY playoff system. There's enough variance built in even when you give a home advantage. All you have to do is look at baseball to see that. So let's quit with the excuses Nelson and MLS. Get it fixed. And then we come to the final two paragraphs which tell me, that MLS will shit on competitive fairness as long as they think they can thrust it down the fan's gullible throats: Oh and any changes wouldn't come before 2013 bc all of a sudden changes can't be made quickly. Or we'll forget about all this by 2014, whichever comes first. Troutseth, I want to believe you, but there's way to much double-talk out of the mouth of MLS here to really trust anything that they have to say at this point.
I guess I'm going to be odd-duck here, but I just dont' share the concern with the two-leg cup tie. Especially bewildering is that this debate seems to be driven by who has lost and who has won. If does seem that if your really upset by higher seeds losing then you really don't value playoffs at all. You don't like the idea that a team finishing lower in the table will have a more succesful campaign than the SS winner. I don't see a problem at all in Houston and LA, if they do, getting to the MLS Cup. There really is a whole alternative reality that no one wants to admit -- that the regular season doesn't necessarily identify better teams. Don't get me wrong -- I'm a big believer in the value of the Supporters Shield and consider it a major trophy. But in our parity ruled league the SS winner can be the product of random variance just as much as the MLS Cup winner can. Coaches, players and pundits all ackowledge that the first leg visiting team is in good shape if they manage a result no worse than a one-goal loss. That fact, right there, acknowledges that home field advantage exists for the 2nd leg host. Eskandarian even admits that Olsen would have preferred to host the second leg. Prior to 2012 2nd leg hosts had won about 60% of MLS Cup ties. That is not bad, through frankly 40 trials is a low sample. 2012 is knocking that number down a peg so far. It may, or may not, go back up in future years. My own theory is that schedule congestion in the 2012 playoffs is the bigger problem and one-less day of rest really hurt DCU and Seattle. I think MLS really screwed the pooch on the 2012 playoff schedule. Stupidly so. Exactly how much home field advantage do you want? Do you realize that even if it was 75% (which is rediculously high IMNHO) you will still have years that lower seeds sweep higher seeds? Variance happens. Using other sports as examples is not convincing to me. Those sports suffer home-field advantage only to the extent they must. In their sport someone has to have a homefield advantage but they minimize it the greatest extent they can. Otherwise they would not hold out the homefield advantage to the last game of the series. Have you ever seen a playoff series where the higher seed gets all their home games up front? Baseball used to go 2-3-2 in order to eliminate homefield advantage. So the argument that other sports rightfully value homefield advantage for higher seeds is not intirely correct. It should be noted that soccer has the strongest single game homefield advantage in sport. Therefore it is wholly appropriate to mitigate that advantage in the playoffs to a reasonable number. Finally, and I apologize for this post growing out of control, here is what I would like to see. Simply return the conference final to a one-game final. There. You solve the congestion problem. You have pure home field advantage to the higher seed in the conference final. In the Semi-finals the #1 seed gets the additional advantage of playing a knackered winner of the playin game. If they can't prevail with 2nd leg home and additional rest advatages then they don't deserve to advance. There is only slight homefield advantage in the 2v3 game which is appropriate -- finish #1 if you want a bigger advantage.
It is not about the outcome. Now, there is simply no advantage. The playoffs are a plain field. You decide who is in, and it starts all over again. I believe the regular season should mean more, it is 34 games long!, and it should have more meaning in the playoffs. There are a lot of options out there: a) one game at the higher seed; b) two games - best-of-4-points (with a 3rd leg, or OT at the higher seed, if needed); or agreggate tie goes to the higher seed; c) three games (higher seed hosting two) - best-of-5-points; best-of-2 victories. All of them fairer than the one MLS has today. The final could be KC@SJ, and the current system would still have problems. Who goes to the finals is absolutely irrelevant.
This format is the one I'd go with, though I wouldn't mind getting rid of the play-in round. For the people who argue that having 3-game series for the conference semis and finals causes too much fixture congestion, just shorten the regular season to 30 games (which is what it was 2 years ago), and as I suggested, maybe get rid of the play-in round. Problem solved. 2-leg aggregate series have 2 major problems. They minimize home-field advantage and they usually end up with a very dull 1st leg (though the conference finals this year seem to have that backwards). Single elimination, though, is just too few games to determine a champion after a long season. And going with a round-robin with differing numbers of home games based on seeding is just too different to ever happen. It would also likely lead to meaningless games more often than not.
I agree with this. The Dynamo and Galaxy have done great job in recent years under the format given. They show up when it counts. But the issue that most people have is that we need to make it so that the regular season counts more. We need to make it so that teams aren't allowed to feel that they can coast into the playoffs (which was better this year, teams were attempting at least the third seed even if it hasn't seemed to matter). I do want to note that I completely disagree with those that say the playoffs are a "crapshoot." Why would the same teams consistently have success in the playoffs?