Playoff tiebreaker to the higher seed after 180 minutes of play

How about what they did many years ago bring out a big ass clock on the field have the player run from practically freakin midfield & he has so many seconds to get his shot off once gk play is caput. How about that for a tie breaker?

 

I like that better than taking PKs to break a tie, but I think we're in something of a minority on that one.

But then again I am a sucker for weird tiebreakers and could live with:

• Bronze Goal: whoever scores the first goal of the first leg (or the only game) wins if their is a tie. PKs or higher seed determines winner of a scoreless draw.
• Corner Kick Shootout: Each team takes a number of corner kicks. The attempt ends with a goal or when the ball legally leaves the box
• "Behinds:" Stealing an idea from Australian Football, if teams score an equal number of goals, the team with the most "Behinds" wins. A "Behind" is scored when the ball hits the crossbar,or is deflected or saved by a defender.

 

Aside from the idea of Behinds, how are any of my idea, which are all basically using soccer as a tiebreaker, instead of one isolated skill to decide games worse than 9-ball?

 

- good, just like the NFL ... you get a bye

- That's absolutely retarded

- so is that

 

That's why NPB is so big internationally, right? That's why any baseball fan in the biggest baseball country in the world can name as many as 2 NPB teams?

 

I had an idea thread in here somewhere with the group stage option.

 

I'd personally love going back to the 3 game series ... including the final.

pros : More playoff games. 15 is not enough IMO compared to 323 regular season games. That's a lot of grueling regular season for a flash in the pan playoff. Also you give a real tangible advantage to the higher seed. Also aggregate is really not an America friendly concept. I don't think Americans like the idea of a series being over just because you bomb game 1. In a 3 game series you can redeem yourself with a heard fought 1-0 at home and everything resets for game 3. All or nothing. The biggest pro is not having such a massive advantage for the final game. Having 100% homefield advantage seems to skew the odds too much. Having a 50-66.6% homefield advantage seems to leave open the door to more possibilities. So far the home team is 2 for 2 in the finals. If that continues for several years it'll take the drama out of the game because people will assume it's all settled before it even starts.

Cons : Scheduling. Short notice Wednesday games which could hurt attendance. Not enough notice for networks to clear air time.

I think the pros outweigh the cons.

 

I can live with keeping two game aggregate and openly want the finals expanded to two games. If two games determine who plays in the final, why is the final deemed less important than the semifinals? Teams have a chance to recuperate from a bad semifinal game but not a bad final game and that makes no sense to me.

I can also live with having three game series, though they do have all the problems mentioned and more. Do we need to have a winner in all three games? What happens if ties are allowed and the series is level after three? Etc.

I still like my version of the two game concept:

• Two games are played
• The winner is decided on points, not aggregate scoring. A team wins the series 6-0 or 4-1.
• If the series is level after game two, a winner take all third game is played. That game comes with extra time and penalties if necessary. (Or a better tiebreaker or a tie is decided by just giving the higher seed a win with a Game Three draw)

 

If I had my way I'd make the 3rd game only if teams are tied on points after 2 games. If one is up 4 pts. to 1 it's series over.

If the series is still level after 3 maybe you go to extra time and PKs.

It's not perfect, but it would be more entertaining to my taste than what we have now.

 

That's how I would do it too. I'm just not sure that too many others would agree.

 

They get the SS and a CL spot.

How is that not being rewarded ?

 

And Allocation Money

 

I don't believe anyone is saying that a team that actually wins games and series shouldn't advance. But what those of us who support this tiebreaker are saying, is that instead of the lottery of penalty kicks allow the better team from the regular season to just move on.

After all, if games that go to penalties are listed as draws that one team advanced from, there was no winner.

 

If Penalties were a coin-flip, England would win one every once in a while

 

By correctly guessing which way to duck?

By kicking at a large target 20 feet away?

If a team had put more balls in the goal, we wouldn't have to worry about picking a winner through penalty kicks. But I do, and always will, find it strange that when two teams prove themselves equal when actually playing soccer, we use one minor facet of the game to choose a winner. You are technically correct in saying that PKs aren't lotteries. But they aren't much better.

 

Oops, my bad.

My point remains the same.

 

I liked the first to 5 format.

 

Unfortunately MLS just doubled-down on that by going with away goals...