Nice stats! Minor Corrections: In 2002: Top-8 teams (regardless of conference) made the playoffs. Despite being only 5th in SS Standings, N.E. was actually the 2nd seed in the playoffs with #1 vs #8, ... #4 vs #5 format. Minor Corrections / Additions: MIF 1 Shield; 0 MLS Cups HOU 0 Shields; 2 MLS Cups
Most of us do this from time to time -- yourself included. I'm not sure you mean this statement. What advantage does any lower seed have in the MLS playoffs? What advantage is bestowed on any team that is not earned? You must mean that you want higher seeds to get more advantage than they get now. Fine, your personal preference. None of our personal preferences are the absolute standard of appropriateness. For whatever it is worth I stand corrected on my earlier posts that this thread is only here because of this years results. Clearly there are a number of folks who would prefer a stronger advantage go to higher seeds. I would find it interesting for someone to actually state how much advantage they think higher seeds should have. How much protection from a better team do folks want? (I realize I phrased that provocatively -- but is not that exactly what handicapping is?)
For everyone who is posting about teams not winning road games, I would suggest that it is all nonsense analysis. Since these are aggregate score cup-ties there are not discreet games to look at. Houston and LA did not have road games in KC and SEA. They had second legs of aggregate score cup ties and those are not the same as games. Especially with 2 and 3 goal leads. It just doesn't make sense to make these statements. Houston is the only team to win a road game in the 2012 playoffs.
This may well be the only "Home Advantage" in MLS Playoffs: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/mls-cup-final-location.1978289/
It may be true with the leads, but what about the quarterfinal round? LA went to San Jose trailing by a goal. Seattle went to Salt Lake City tied. DC United went to New York tied. All three teams had to get a result away and did.
Here's some numbers from the Mexican league, not scientific or proof-read, but worth checking out. Sorry for the crappy margins. Quarterfinals Wins Games Win by draw 2011-12 A 2 4 0 2011-12 C 3 4 0 2010-11 A 3 4 1 2010-11 C 2 4 1 2009-10 A 3 4 1 2009-10 C 1 4 0 2008-09 A 2 4 1 2008-09 C 2 4 0 2007-08 A 3 4 0 2007-08 C 3 4 2 2006-07 A 2 4 0 2006-07 C 4 4 1 2005-06 A 1 4 0 2005-06 C 1 4 0 2004-05 A 1 4 0 2004-05 C 4 4 3 2003-04 A 2 4 1 2003-04 C 2 4 0 2002-03 A 3 4 0 2002-03 C 3 4 0 47 80 11 Win % 0.5875 0.2340 Semifinals Wins Games Wins by draw 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 31 40 7 0.7750 0.2258 Final Wins Games 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 13 20 0.6500
Teams win on the road all the time even though there is a home field advantage. More importantly, I was responding to posts that say it is ridiculous that Houston and LA are in the final even though they didn't win any games on the road in the playoffs.
I can't let this go. So basically you are stating that instead of being required to win road games, MLS playoff teams are required to play NO road games whatsoever in the conference semifinal and final rounds. This being a result of the fact that aggregate home and home series' are basically 180 minute neutral games with each half being played at the home of each team. I'm confused bc you implied that somewhere in this statement you disputed my point. Are they required to win road games that I'm not noticing? Wow,... no. Bc by your own argument they're not even being required to PLAY road games. So this doesn't really change the fact that MLS is the only league that doesn't require it's lower seeds to win road games. So in the end your argument doesn't really dispute anything about my point but rather reinforces it. But let's examine it further to see if there might be anything in your argument that makes sense. Houston won one road game in the first round of the playoffs. What of the other two rounds. Is one road game enough to bypass three playoff rounds for a low seed in the NFL? Is winning one road game enough for an 8 seed to bypass the next two rounds to get to the Finals in the NBA? Can a wildcard team win one road game and make it to the World Series in MLB? In the NHL, can an 8 seed win one road game and get to the Stanley Cup Finals? I'm glad you disputed my point so effectively. What was I thinking? Houston won a road game. That is definitely as impressive as the Rockets winning 9 road games all thoughout the playoffs in 1995. I mean why should the Rocket's have been forced to win at least four road games to get to the finals? That's too much. They finished 6th in the West, one road game should have sufficed. That's ridiculous. Okay let's get back to the validity of "neutral" tournaments. Look at competitions that are set up to be neutral in college athletics and soccer confederation championships. They all have one thing in common; either there is limited previous competition between the schools contesting the title or there is none. Hence the idea of seeding the competition, but playing it under neutral conditions. You say yourself that in MLS there are no road games, so how can there be an advantage in any of those series'? There's not, or very little. Outside of the wildcard, which anyone will admit is an improvement, the rest of the playoffs are mismatched. They play neutral intra-conference playoffs, but give a home advantage inter-conference. It's counter-intuitive. It solved a problem for MLS presentation-wise but they offset it with a neutral conference final. You call into question the logic of my statement yet you consistently bind your whole argument on one of three separate conclusions. One that MLS' playoffs are really no different than any other sport's if you take into account the fact that a road game is being played at some point in the competition. Or there's the second point which is that MLS' playoffs are just like soccer's traditional playoffs that they do in Europe (only they don't have playoffs there). Your third point I guess I have to concede, and that is that the other NA sports don't really want home field advantage in their sports either and would avoid it if they could. I did a bit of internet research and this is evidenced by all of the articles written by the sportswriters who cover those sports; or statements by players, coaches and league officials to that effect. Yeah there's actually a whole bunch of articles stock full of complaints about home field advantage and how they would actually rather use an aggregate system like MLS bc, in the end, they believe that it's more fair. I apologize, the evidence is all in print. I had assumed that it was a baseless conspiracy theory that you had brewed up in your head. Here are some links below if anyone's interested: .
The results favor the hot teams of the moment instead of reflecting any sort of advantage properly belonging to a higher seed (which, aside of the Play-In matches, is zero) in other sports. In other words, as long as a team made it into the Top 8, it's a free-for-all and some of us dislike that premise. PS. I hated the old-playoff system even more but MLS is taking far too long to get it right.
I can let it go. I can only assume that you actually understand my point but decided to misrepresent it so that you could write a long post snarkily attacking it. Your post is a complete non sequiter. No reason to continue this.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/soccer/...y-mls-team-should-re-think-its-offseason-plan This won't go away until MLS fixes it. Most experts seem to agree with that sentiment. As it stands, it's all about making it into the playoffs. Keller said it after the final. It's been repeated over and again in the media. MLS is finally starting to comment on this. It's about time. The regular season deserves to be given meaning. It doesn't mean that the high seeds will win all the time. We may even have seasons end up like this one, but it will mean that what was done in the regular season was taken into account and overcome by the lower seeds. You didn't have that this season and that takes something away from the regular season. All you have to do is read the articles and listen to the narratives being written. The regular season doesn't mean anything more than making the playoffs. Whatever you feel the reality is, that's the impression that's given.
I generally like the current playoff structure setup. As the league gets bigger (lets say to 24 teams) allowing 5 teams from each conference seems reasonable especially when 4v5 does a one game style playoff. You definitely want to be in the top 3. The issue of course is what does being 1 get you. In theory you get a 4/5 winner coming off little rest but a little more is needed. Why not make that 1 vs 4/5 playoff round take place purely at home for the first place team? Keep all the other rounds the same. Yes this means the #5 team would not have a home game until the potential conference finals but besides that everyone gets at least one home game and the #1 team gets a decent bonus for finishing first. Rewards #1- both first round games at home #2/3- dont have to play the 'play-in' round- in theory 2 should maybe get the option of the first or second leg at home #4 the one game playoff is at home #5 a playoff spot
In this format, S.J. (lost to L.A. at home 1-3) would likely still have been eliminated in 2012, though K.C. (beat Houston at home 1-0) could have advanced to conference final instead.