The fact that San Jose has the Shield and LA has the Cup means that the California Clasico is going to be epic next season.
Yes, that was funny. And could have been funnier if you had the color right. (pssst..Lenhart is blonde) Unless you meant Alexi Lalas.
In thinking about this, something occurred to me: You don't get many people in Europe complaining about the single table system, even though it does have flaws. You don't get many people in America complaining about the NFL, even though it's post-season is a lot like the FA Cup. You don't get anybody complaining that the World Cup is completely single elimination after the group stages. You don't hear that Brazil should be champs because (in a hypothetical scenario) they romped to over the CONMEBOL qualification group, made several European powers look bad in the finals, only to be shocked by a scrappy Cameroon in the SF. Yet we have complaints about the MLS format all the time. You know why I think this is? Because soccer is still a divisive thing in this country. People see the league decided by single table in Europe and see the different approach (even though it's used elsewhere) as "Americanisation". Then you get American traditionalists who see playoffs used to great effect, with high drama in other sports and are happy to see it. This is the undelying issue here. Because we've got imput from different sports and leagues, we tend to scrutinize our system instead of accepting it like we do in other games and tournaments. In support of the MLS playoffs (though I personally am a "single table" guy generally), it's not like we just had a full balanced schedule, or even two totally separate conferences. No two teams played the same combination of opponents the same number of times at the same set of venues. The conference teams played each other more than the opposite conference. Each team had a separate set of rivalry games, which in LA's case saw them play the top three teams in it's conference, three times each. So we figured out who made the best of their own schedule, vs their geographical conference. Then we had to see how they dealt with each other in high-pressure, do-or-die scenarios. The opponents one faced (and the number of them) was weighted based on their relative seasons performance. And just to make sure everybody was treated somewhat fairly, San Jose got a CCL berth and a well-regarded trophy anyway. It wasn't perfect, but there was some merit to it. Which can be said about even the most highly-rated systems ever conceived.
I don't really have a problem with the MLS Cup thing. Playoffs are exciting and all that, teams that do well during the regular season are rewarded a little bit in the format. But because of the tiny sample size in MLS Cup, I do have an issue with people making grandiose conclusions about the teams that win. The winner is not necessarily the "best team", depending on exactly how you define "best" of course (a topic that has beaten to death, sorry). IOW the format is OK, but let's be honest about what it actually is. There is a strong element of "Crap Shoot" in it, and yet that doesn't necessarily make it "bad".
I actually think that the league has shied away from having a "Super Cup" type match at the beginning of the following season specifically because they're afraid it will devalue the playoffs. The irony is, I think that a super cup would actually go a long way toward putting this argument to rest. My thinking is that such a game would placate many single table supporters (like myself) by adding further legitimacy to the Supporters Shield.
I think it's a good idea. You'd think they would want to take advantage of the fact that MLS is unique among pro sports in the USA insofar as we have multiple champions.* That's neato IMO. *I'll neg rep the first person who chimes in with the President's Cup.** **What do you mean there's no neg rep anymore?