How can you have seen any evidence; we have never tried a good format yet. Better question, have you seen any evidence your format has had on the popularity of the league. This we have actually had a chance to see.
8 of 10 is too much - but the deal is, the bottom line is, that there is absolutely NO evidence or reason to believe that reducing the number of playoff teams is going to increase playoff attendance. Or regular season attendance for that matter. Its that simple. 1,000 - 5,000 fans to go to MLS games because they care. The rest are there because they don't have much else to do. Or they want to have a good time at a game instead of going to the movies. And because MLS knows that 8 of 10 doesn't move the attendance dial one way or the other - they opt for the inclusion theory. I too think they should drop the # of teams to 6 max - but the bottom line is money and fans and more fans see 8 teams in a playoff game than would 4 or 6 teams. Pure and simple. I don't like it -- but I understand it. If reducing the # of teams to 4 or 6 increased playoff attendance from 11,000 to 16,000 and had no effect on the regualr season, MLS would do it. But it won't, so they won't.
Thats not my position either. Its people simplifying a point thats rather difficult to articulate in full here. I tried to make my point piece by piece, but the discussion always turns into a lesson in semantics. Its a hard format. Its not as easy as saying, let reduce the amount of teams and the stadiums will be packed. Ofcourse not. I never meant to imply this, but when you read the posts independently, I can see where you get that impression. Its only 1 piece to the puzzle. Personally, I think soccer can be popular here. How popular is obviously debatable. But much more popular than what we see now. How? Making the product, the soccer, that we want are trying to sell the most compeling, interesting, exciting as we possibly can. More people would watch, if we would just give them a good reason too.
So are you trying to compare college basketball and it's 300+ division one programs to MLS and it's 10/12 teams? And are you implying that the 17week regular season in the NFL means nothing. Where are you coming up with these off base comparables? They mean nothing to the issue Crusio and myself are arguing about. All we want is a regular season that is played with a little heart and emotion from week one right to week 30, and a playoff format that isn't diluted with crap teams. That's it. Simple stuff to comprehend. And yes I do feel it would make a difference to the intensity and quality of regular season games. And for those who want facts to back up that statement, all I can say is Get a Life! As a fan, how am i supposed to be emotionally attached to a team throughout the season if the season means squat? How am I supposed to be pissed at a team througout the season for winning only 26% and losing 43% of their games, only for that team to be in the Conference finals! It s@cks. And the MLS Cup is not going to make me think that my NE Revs is the best team in the country. And that's a shame because I feel that the MLS Cup should mean exactly that! (note: there was no comments regarding attendance in this and any previous post's that I have written, noting that I am fully aware that there is no such magic bullet to solve soccer's overall perception)
Well, I would counter your arguement with the fact that the Crew had the best regular season record in the end and I thought that they were absolutely a CRAP team. They had a good run at the end of the season, but at the beginning, they were playing like crap and most of the season...boring to watch. So what's the big deal if the Revs situation is a flip-flop? The Revs beating the Crew actually gave this league some needed drama...and people are complaining about it...I can't believe it.
Are you for real or is this some sort of material? Why do you guys equate who wins playoff games with how the league should be formated? One has nothing to do with the other. Saying this team won or that team lost is completely immaterial. I don't get it. Unless ofcourse you are yankin my chain, then, good work. PS: Sean Wheelocks article on this topic is posted in the MLS General section. You guys might not like what he is saying, but give it a read nonetheless.
Yeah, I'll be here all week... Huh? I don't get something here either. Did I offend you somehow? All I'm doing is saying to Revs007 that I don't feel that its such a travesty that the Revs (his team!) are in the playoffs. No, I wasn't yanking your chain. I wasn't even talking to you.
I, ofcourse agree with this. Taking it a step further though Do you think more people might embrace MLS if it were more exciting? Or .... Do you suppose that MLS has already appealed to its potential market and making the league more interesting wouldn't have much effect on making it more popular? IE: Fix the playoffs or don't fix them, its really not going to make much of a difference.
That's what I am saying. MLS is laser focused on the business side of MLS - expansion, owners, stadiums and sponsors. In order to maximize revenue and profits. Hoepfully when that is done they can focus more on the on-field product: raise the salary cap, increase roster size, get rid of always all-white uniforms, reserve teams, etc...
And the "base" of support fans like playoff games, and most teams include "extra games" in their season ticket packages, so it's good for business to give everybody a playoff game. As you pointed out - and some here want to ignore - there is no evidence whatsoever to support the supposition that reducing the number of teams in the playoffs will increase the profitibility of the league.
But we are not arguing the profitablity of the league. GET THAT OUT OF YOUR F'CKN HEADS. We want the competitive nature of the Regular Season to be enhanced. You cant have that without reducing the number of playoff teams. Granted when the league is at 16 then all this will be moot. But im willing to take a guess that expansion by 4 teams isnt something that is going to come anytime soon. God, why does every argument having to do with MLS come right back to attendance and stadiums even when it is irrelevant! This debate is about the competition between teams througout the Regular Season through to the playoffs, cause it sucks right now, especially for a league that is filled with parity!
1. We have pointed out that the people running the league are taking profitibility over a few people's concerns over the playoff format. Get that in your head. b. Expansion to 12 is here, so you're little problem is solved. And the move to 14 is on the boards for 2006 or 2007, when new stadiums are also coming online, which means more season tickets and sponsorship dollars. iii. You say there was no competition in the regular season. Why do the teams who do better there historically do better in the playoffs? Sure, every game isn't nip and tuck and that bums me out to a degree, but to act like the regular season doesn't mean something when the playoffs have historically born out the regular season results shows a delusion that will get you mocked. Sorry that some people are better able to look at the big picture.
Big Picture! WTF are you talking about. Paint me this big picture that you see! If the playoffs have historically born out the regular season results, then why do we even bother having Conference Semis? Is it because they ooze cash for the league? Is it because league sponsors demand it? Get real! It's a waste of time, and of money. This is a tiresome debate, and unfortunately I don't see the league doing anything about it. That doesnt make you right and I'm not going to ever back down from the point that the Regular Season means Nada. I will say this. I hope DC get's their ass handed to them come Saturday. I found a new reason to hate DC. Go Matt Reis!
Just to be clear, you dont think making the product better would result in more people becoming fans of the league. Is this what you are saying? I am not judging, just asking. While its not the topic of the thread; I guess its not suprising that it will always revolve back around to attendance.
The big picture is getting stadiums built, enticing sponsors, courting investors, building media relationships, etc. The kind of stuff that really pays the bills. If you haven't gotten that this is the main concern of the people running MLS, I'm sorry. Have you seen the books to determine that it is a waste of money? Unless you know the financials, you have no idea the impact of this on the league. Maybe sponsors do want it. Maybe investors want it. You mean beyond expanding the number of teams while keeping the number f playoff teams the same? You're whole tiresome argument about this year's playoff situation is completely nullified by the fact that things will be different next year. Go for it. Tell that to the Wizards and Galaxy. Wow, I guess I'll just go cry in the corner.
If you'd just throw out that one statement, we'd proabably find some good basis for agreement. But instead you take one team in one season and throw out a bullcrap generality like "the season means squat" when the facts show that this situation is not typical of what happened this year, or any other year for that matter. Your second sentence has some merit, if only you'd realize the first one is shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite. And this one just makes me want to beat my head against a wall. ?????????????????????????WHAT MLS CUP?????????????????????????????? All the Revs have gotten for their series victory so far is a trip to the unfriendly confines of Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium to play a team that did not need two bricked PKs and a goofy-ass lineup to crush its last opponent. Just curious. . .. if you feel you have no need to back up any of your opinions, then why do you feel the need to continue to post? You've said your piece, we've heard it, we've agreed or disagreed. Beyond that, what do you think you're accomplishing, other than frustrating yourself and others? Point acknowledged, but I don't think I personally debated you on that point.
It's right there in my thread. I believe you'll find in said thread I asked that very question, and arrived at a fairly similar conclusion. I don't really need a coference semis.
Stan: I wouldn't come down so hard on others for not having facts when you seem to shy away from some some very real questions about this yourself. Try to be fair. If you think this format is the best, then you havn't supplied many facts yourself to back this up.
The winner of the domestic cup qualifies for Europe in most countries. The winner of the League Cup qualifies in England, but I think they are just about the only country that has a League Cup (France, maybe?). The winner of the domestic cup used to qualify for the Cup Winners Cup, but then UEFA rolled that competition into the UEFA Cup - a mistake imo. But, regardless, the winners of the Cup have actually done something to justify their entry even if it is unrelated to their league performance. This is really why your analogy falls to the ground.
We all want a more competitive regular season. But to 98% of MLS fans is doesn't matter. They don't mind the 8 of 10. And IF MLS were to reduce the # of playoff teams - thereby increasing the number of games potentially played that have no bearing on a team's ability to make the playoffs, it is a safe bet that attendance in those last few games could go down. That is a risk MLS does not want to take. Also - playoff games don't cost the team that much more money to stage. Player salaries are static. Front office salaries are static. Stadium Leases are priced based on number of events and playoff games are factored in. That is why KC can sell tickets to this week's game with LA for $5. Had they lost last weekend - they would not have the chance to bring in $50,000 - $75,000 of ticket revenue with stadium expenses being their only cost. My statements may be too simple and I have no inside information, it just bolis down to MLS feeling it is in their best interests to have more team in the playoffs than less. They sell more tickets this way. So you can argue that the playoff format is working because the fans buy more tickets. If you go to the ultimate competitive schedule of a single table, MLS would sell fewer tickets and you could say that format is not working because fans don't like it. The playoff format is working - just not the way you want it to. It all depends on how you define "working".
I think you'll find my preferred playoff system is almost exactly the same as yours (six teams in with a bye for the conference champions). I simply think you guys take your critique of the non-optimal system MLS has right now much too far when you suggest it makes the regular season irrelevant. I think the best data yet presented tend to back up that specific and limited claim. I also don't claim to have all the facts on the larger issue of which structure is better for the league, but the difference is, I can't back the concept that facts are irrelevant to the debate. I don't know how we can have a debate without facts. It devolves into "I like blue." "Yeah, well I like Green!" I hate to put words in you guys' mouths, but it seems like what you're really arguing is that championship playoffs render the league "illegitimate" if "big" upsets can ever happen in them. (And just how big they would have to be hasn't been yet defined, so forgive me if I wonder whether the definition would be arbitrary even if you did define it.) To that line of thinking I would respond: "Well, illegitimate is in the eye of the beholder, and you guys are gonna have to accept the fact that most of America doesn't generally agree with you." (That's where the relevance of the NCAA tournament and the rare but possible 7-9 beats 13-3 NFL playoff game comes into play).
I was curious as to whether we actually know that. It would make MLS's tolerance of poorly attended playoff matches make a lot more sense, but I've never seen anyone who would have knowledge come out and say it.
The entire conversation borders on being irrational. The champion of MLS is the team that wins MLS Cup All teams have (almost) the same opportunity to win MLS Cup and that involves making it into the top 4 teams in the conference followed by winning a home and away, followed by winning a 1 match final hosted by the team with the better record, followed by winning the championship game at a site predetermined. If a team finishes 8th in the league and then wins the Cup they have just as much of a claim to being the champion as the team that finishes first in the league and wins the Cup. They both went through the same situations and did what it takes to win the Cup. In the Olympics if a sprinter lays off in his initial heat and finishes third, but then in the final turns it on and wins is that less of a win than if he finished first both times? In World Cup 94 would Italy have been an unfit winner if they won because they did not win their opening bracket? Sure, right now it is not hard to qualify for the playoffs in MLS, but if an 8 seed knocks out the 1 seed that does not mean that the playoffs are broken, that is *why* the 8 seed and the 1 seed play. If the 1 seed is going to win every time it is played you might as well just give the 1 seed a bye. I do hope that MLS will go to a 3 competition format one day that will be a single table league, full MLS knock out Cup, and the US Open Cup. However, unlike Europe I keep looking at the single table league and thinking that without relegation and without Europe the league won't have as much intrigue. I guess you can make the league finishes the seedings for the MLS Cup tournament, but anyway...
