MLS Cup TV Broadcasting and Playoff Format (split from MLS Cup post-game thread)

MLS has that playoff series format back in the early years, although I dont recall the exact format. I do recall sparse attendance and quick turnarounds in some cases.

 

It wasn't quite the same (it was first to 6 points which meant no ties and it guaranteed three games) . . . playoff attendance was bad even after the switch . . . and the turnarounds were not as quick as this year if I remember correctly (in fact game 2 and three were at same location so no travel).

 

I like the first to four points idea (allowing ties), but I think the bigger impediment is psychological.

The two-legged format is at least used throughout domestic leagues up and down the Americas, as well as numerous international competitions. There are lots of soccer fans in the US who know that format.

Any three-game format has the disadvantage of being unfamiliar to most soccer fans, regardless of whether they grew up with English/European or Latin American soccer. Some people remember the different three-game format that MLS used in the past, but that's not much precedent for a fan base that's often bitterly traditionalist. It's probably just one bridge too far for the league.

 

Out of curiosity, who uses aggregate two leg games in a playoff or cup setting? UEFA, Copa L, is that it?

I would only counter with your other points with those that are fiercely traditionalist have written off a playoff structure in general unless they are from one of the regions that employs it already. I think almost all american born fans are more familiar with a "best of" series as opposed to an aggregate score.

 

Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and others in Central America, like Costa Rica, use two-legged playoffs. (Brazil did at the national level until they eliminated playoffs, but many state leagues use them).

I agree that some traditionalist soccer fans don't like playoffs. But there are also traditionalist soccer fans who grew up with soccer playoffs. We often think only England/Europe when we say "traditionalist" in soccer. But those aren't the only traditions.

I agree with your point about "best of" series for most sports fans in the US. I'm not sure if soccer fans in the US like the idea of "best of" for soccer. I do. But I'm not a traditionalist.

 

Neither am I (and I refer to traditionalist being from anywhere that doesn't have playoffs for this discussion). I only know, for people who have passing interest in MLS, I have had no less then three discussions/explanations on the aggregate scoring deal in our playoffs each of the last two years. And the current format can lead (and did for many of us) anticlimactic second legs.

 

I have to do a lot of explaining about that too. But the "first to" points system also requires explanation, perhaps even more. I recall that it seemed really odd to casual fans back with the old format.

Oh, and sorry for the edit, but I'd just add in terms of the "traditionalist" term discussion, that playoffs are traditional in some places. In Brazil, for example, the elimination of playoffs was seen as a pretty radical innovation for the national league. The jury's still out about whether that was a good reform. I know that's not a huge point, but it really bugs me when people talk about soccer "traditionalists" or "everywhere else in the world" when what they really mean is "England", or maybe "Europe", when they say those things.

 

Well the old format was just a best of three . . like any other sport here. The first to four I don't think would be any more confusing to anyone that watches the game (and knows 3 points for a win and one point for tie). Easier in my opinion then explaining the score from last week still counts.

 

Didn't they also have that 20 minute mini-game after the third game in the event of a tie?

 

Mini-game . . .no it was not independently scored. I don't remember if it was the same OT rules or if it was just a shootout but not too dissimilar to today's OT - just applied to every game (so no ties) instead of only one of the games in a series.

 

I could've sworn that the 20 minute, sudden death mini-game was only after the third game. I think the other two games could have a tie if the shorter, sudden death OT, like in the regular season, didn't have a goal.

And wasn't it first to five points, not first to six?

 

it was first to five and the 20 minute mini game was sudden death. LA took out Metro in that format back when there were 3 divisions. I think Victorine scored the winner which was complete bullshit since IIRC, Metro won game 1 then tied game 2 then lost game 3 to force the mini game that year. I believe Tim Howard commented that it was one of the most confusing things he has ever heard of.

Disaster-goes down with shootouts and backwards counting clocks. oh and the 3 subs and a goalie sub. Yep. I am surprised MLS didn't try a blinking ball back then too.

 

It has been so long, I am fuzzy on the specifics. However, if I go back and look at early statistics you will see Shoot out goals used in game one and it is tracked by games (Team won 2-1 after three games for example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Major_League_Soccer_season

 

traditionalist (in any sport)=old farts that don't like change and still read newspapers.

 

They didn't allow ties in the first few years so it couldn't be first to five.

I think that was later.

 

whoa-there was no first to five pts back in '96, just first to win 2 games. The min game that Anderson is speaking about only happened I think in 2003 when there were 3 divisions.

 

Our posts need to synchronized. Yep no ties-pre 2002 or 2003.

 

yeah we were taking about the past, I was thinking of 96-2001 or so when it was a best of three.

OK we are on the same page. Anderson . . . . it was done both ways.

 

Ok that makes sense now.

 

back in '96, ties ended in the shootout and thus a team won or lost a match. See the famous Metro/DC shootout (one for the ages in any soccer competition).
Vermes, on one leg, in the 12th round scores and Metro wins. I used his famous line on him at BBVA when he walked by me "Esse, I shoot we win!" well, in truth it was "Esse, I shoot, we win?. He got a chuckle out of that.

 

First to six, then first to five, then two legs. They've been trying to find the right format. They're probably close to a format that will stick around for a while now, with maybe some comparatively minor tweaks. But they do discuss the playoff format and look at possible changes every year, so who knows. They just need to stick to one for a while.

 

if troutseth keeps up this 'best of' talk, i'm going to block him.

back in the day Euro Cup qualifying was non-group home and away.

 

ahh come one! Just my preference. I hate aggregate scoring.

 

Once it's set for a while it will become tradition, and then you can't change it or the traditionalists get mad.

Or they can do it Dynamo pregame style and declare everything about it a tradition from the start.