Another genius taking a shot at the playoff system! That is a very bad idea. How can a playoff game end in a tie. To many teams in the playoffs, it should be no more than 4 teams making playoffs. Stupid idea overall
I'd love to see MLS' playoff format changed, but the only proposal of his that makes sense is to change to single elimination. Seeding teams based on their overall point standings in the league is a lousy idea because it defeats one of the main purposes of having conferences: to help foster rivalries. And allowing the higher seed to advance on a tie will not discourage bunkering as he suggests. In fact, if teams like DC United and FC Dallas went into their 1st round match knowing that a tie will see them through, you could pretty much count on Nowak and Clarke starting the game in bunker mode and playing for a 0-0 draw.
Something needs to be done, MLS has to be the only league where there is a bigger attendance for regular season than playoffs, it's not working, a single table would be great but this country is too big, L.A. would be traveling way much more than other teams and the cost.... How about the first 2 of each conf. in a single elimination and the final at the home of the team with the best record? You should be rewarded for having the best record after a loooong season. just my cent and a half.
I don't disagree that ties would discourage bunkering, it's just that I've never seen a Novak team bunker. Frankly, DC doesn't have the personnel for that. I know, wrong subject. Single games would be OK with me. I don't really like the best of three format, and it stretches out forever. I would prefer seeing <= 50% of the teams get in. 4 or 6. But whatever. I'll go no matter what.
The number playoff teams need to be a power of 2. 2, 4 or 8! I don't see a need for home and away for the first round - particularly if the attendance doesn't make it profitable!
What's wrong with 6? Rewarding the top teams of each conference with a 1st round bye would be a great way to increase the importance of the regular season.
The playoffs are lower for MLS because its a niche sport, where front office staff bust their butts all season long getting people to a stadium where the schedule is known LONG IN ADVANCE. They can rely on season ticket holders, group sales, and corporate sales to help them get through the season. Once the playoffs start, they have to start from scratch, but only get a week or two to sell the tickets. I happen to find the two game series very compelling, and it has made for some great and very dramatic games. Could it be tweaked a bit more? Perhaps. People often say that one-off series at the home team's field rewards the higher seeded team. I happen to believe that one-offs allow for more flukey results. A series is needed. But MLS tried three games (or first to five points), and it was clunky and cumbersome, and the series never seemed to end. Two games is just about right. Not sure how else you would do it, really. Perhaps giving the conference winners first round byes would work.
this is from stewart mandel's list of 20 reasons on cnnsi.com why following college football is better than following pro football "15) Games with national-title implications in September. 16) Games with national-title implications in October." top college football programs have outrageously successful regular season attendance. This is a result of not having a huge playoff system which allows regular season matchups to have championship implications even earlier in the season. Most fans might not think of this when they attend a game but they do think of the electric atmosphere that awaits them for many regular season games. My observations have been that early season NFL games (who save the highest level of excitement for the last weeks of the regular season and playoffs), although still exciting, fail to reach that level of having an electric atmosphere. Sporting events are more exciting when something is on the line. Whether MLS fans want no playoffs (with single table winner takes all) or smaller playoffs is not a huge deal to me but the fact that McIntyre writes this: "With four or even six playoff qualifiers and without a promotion-relegation system (which will never, ever happen, just in case you're one of the dreamers), many teams would likely be out of the playoff hunt by August, resulting in even more summer snoozers" causes me to consider him an imbecile right up there with the MLS format creators. I love soccer and I love sports, but I find the MLS format so insulting to fans that if Utah had not gotten RSL I would hardly even follow the league.
To wit... Since the format started in 2003, higher seeds have gone 11-2-5 at home. HOWEVER, here's how the four higher seeds did in the 2005 playoffs at home: West #1 San Jose (down 3-1 after first leg) drew 1-1 with #4 LA West #2 Dallas (0-0 after first leg) drew 2-2 with #3 Colorado, then lost in PKs East #1 New England (down 1-0 after first leg) won 3-1 over #4 MetroStars East #2 DC United (0-0 after first leg) lost 4-0 to #3 Chicago West #3 Colorado lost 2-0 to #4 LA East #1 New England won 1-0 over #3 Chicago That's an unimpressive 2-2-2 record. So while a single-elimination will USUALLY reward the higher seeds, the records of the higher seeds in last year's playoffs should show that upsets can and will happen. And while the current system can have a season's worth of excellence go up in smoke in two games, straight single-elimination can have it going up in smoke in half the time. Something tells me that that would increase the howling about the unfairness of it all. Perhaps, as you suggest, this could be mitigated by giving the top seeds a bye through the first round and kicking out the #4 seeds.
Who could still lose that one playoff match thanks to a fluke result or bunkering for penalties and we'd still get just as much bitching and moaning from Dominic Kinnear-types who can't seem to beat teams in the playoffs as easily as he did in the regular season. Excuses for failure are format-proof, they just change their appearance. The problem around here is that too many people buy said excuses because they think they're making a suggestion that needs to be done, whereas it really just makes them feel smarter than those in charge...
Wow what a suprise, someone else coming out against the format. Shocker. And where are the Garbers and the Gazidas in the debate? For the third year in a row, they are nowhere to be found. Cowards.
That's a bit unfair, isn't it? They've admitted (Garber, at least) that the system may need tweaking. Won't there be a committee looking at changes after this season? Perhaps they're busy sorting out the details of the Champions League-style tournament -- which (imho) has the potential to dramatically affect the fortunes of MLS so much more than does any change to the playoff system.
Well now that Hunt has less of a say and there's more owners... we might just see that. Word out onthe street is that Hunt insisted/insists that teams get a chance to host a playoff game b/c his Chiefs went decades w/o that privilege.
I think it is very fair. But if don't think so, then what's his reasoning for sticking with our current format? If he has been part of the debate, he surley should have voiced why be believes our current format is the best available, right?
NEWSFLASH: Changing the playoff format yet again won't magically make the league more popular. Most people have no idea when regular season MLS matches are scheduled to occur, and no clue when MLS playoffs start. Tweaking the playoff format again won't do a damn thing to help the league.
I've no idea what his reasoning is, but (if you'll permit me a wild-assed guess) I'll answer by saying that when it's all said and done it probably comes down to.......wait for it.......money?
If you have no idea what his reasoning is, they how can you say it's unfair for me to say they havn't engaged in debate on it? And how is leaving the regular season mostly meaningless helping MLS's cash flow?
I don't think they're oblivious to the notion that changes could be made. If they are willing to examine ways to make the playoff process better, then I think it's unfair to say they're not engaged in debate as that implies that they're perfectly fine with the system. I guess for me the historical minutae relating to why/how we've ended up with the current playoff system is not as important. We've got the system that we've got. And, if the league is to be believed, they are looking at ways to make it more appealing. That's good enough for me. I don't need Garber vs Trecker on BS to know that the league is "engaged." Great. Now I sound like both a league and a playoff apologist. Sheesh...
Wasn't the story that the league was going to implement a 6 team playoff for 2003 with the conference champs earning first round byes, but Hunt, owning almost 1/3 of the league's teams, blocked it single-handedly on those exact grounds?
Just for record they said the same thing last year. This fabled competition commitee was looking into changes. No REAL changes were made. The latest from Garber (around the All Star break) is that no changes are being planned, but the competition will take a look at things at the end of the year. If they were not perfectly fine with the format, then why would they have not fixed it years ago. It's been bad for that long. Does it really take these guys 3 years of studying the issue to realize there is something wrong? And if they feel this is the best way to go, no one asked for a cage match. But how about a little dialogue on something that SO MANY of its fans, players, coaches and commentators find wrong with the league? If you think it's a great format, tell us why. Explain it so perhaps we get it. That too much to ask? Anyway you seem pretty convinced this league is working on the problem. Why, I have no idea. I just hope you are right. And no, I don't think you are a league apologist. You just play one on BigSoccer.
Why does him selling away the Wiz make me happier each time I read things like this. This league can use the the new blood.
Good one. You want to know where I stand on the playoffs? I really don't care. It's playoffs. So, single-elimination versus home and away.....8 teams versus 6...byes, etc...I just don't care that much, and I don't think it matters in any material respect. Maybe someone has concocted the perfect formula of a playoff system that will be the "silver bullet," making soccer a grand success in the US. I don't think so. The playoffs provide the drama of a quick knockout tournament at the end of the season, and that's fine and all. But for me personally (and I know I'm in the minority on this) I care more about the regular season. I know that here in the US we like to crown the playoff tournament winner as the Champion. But to me, I would prefer to watch my team enjoy sustained success over the course of the season. I'm not trying to persuade anybody on this one, just telling you where I'm coming from. Perhaps now you'll understand if I don't get all bent out of shape over whatever failings you perceive in the playoff system. It's all playoffs -- and I'm happy that they exist. I just don't think changing the format will do much to affect MLS' success over the long term in the US. So I think the playoff system is fine in that it allows the League to crown a Champion at the end of the tournament. If they want to tweak it, that's fine with me too. I'll still watch and enjoy it. But what I'm really and truly invested in is the performance of my team over the regular season. Again, not trying to convert anybody. It's just my preference.