That is fair, but at 2-0 that game is still really interesting. RedBulls trying to keep the series alive by scoring, but also needed to keep it from being almost dead and buried by conceding. I'd argue it is still a play-off game, your team does not get many of those, and you go see them bomb forward and try to win 4-0. But I think that your point is valid that it is less compelling for the neutrals. Especially if they concede an early one. I like the aggregate system, but I take you point.
I always love that in Euro2000 Norway cynically played to a 0-0 tie against last place Slovenia in the final group game and were on the field celebrating advancing to the knockouts when word filtered in that Spain had scored a 95th minute penalty AND a 96th minute goal from the run of play to beat Yugoslavia and take Norway's space. Norway, thinking Spain, losing 3-2 to Yugoslavia, too their foot off the gas.
I was there at Arrowhead Stadium for the second leg between San Jose and Kansas City in the 2004 Western Conference Semifinals. San Jose won the first leg 2-0. Kansas City won the second leg 3-0 and advanced. While 3-0 wouldn't see Red Bulls advance, they'd live to play another 30 minutes. And that doesn't even match what San Jose had done to Los Angeles a year earlier. Atlanta isn't 100% through, but a single goal would mean New York would need five.
I hate most 0-0 games. The final day of the 1999 Women's World Cup featured a doubleheader of the two extremes of 0-0. The Brazil/Norway third place match was one of the worst high level games ever played. It was obvious that none of the players wanted to be there. The 120 minute 0-0 final that followed was one of the single greatest games I've ever seen. But there are definitely plenty of 0-0 stinkers for every 0-0 gem.
The away goals rule (which wasn't in effect for those 2003-2004 comebacks) is a killer in this situation. A three-goal comeback is tough but not a crazy impossibility. The fact that a single away goal would change RBNY's burden from three goals to five makes things look a lot bleaker.
But Kansas City overtaking San Jose involved no away goals. It's been done. We have seen a 3-0 second leg. That's what NYRB needs. They almost certainly won't get it, but it's not over until Atlanta scores a goal - which San Jose couldn't do in 2004.
Let me start by saying I am not for the 0-0 neither team advance thing... I have heard people talk about teams trading goals before. I just don't buy it. Being the first team to allow in a goal would be SUPER risky. The other team would have no rule requiring them to reciprocate. All it would take is one time for a team to not return the goal and the whole system of trading goals would collapse. Also what keeper are going to be ok with destroying their records/stats? They would never have a clean sheet. This is a different thread topic but I do think 0-0 draws during season should reward both teams 0 points..yeah I know all the "but defense should be rewarded" responses but it's just my preference. I think offensive play should be rewarded over bunker ball.
I'm not sure why people think single-elimination MLS playoff games won't be exciting--the first round this year was chock full of action and emotion. No 0-0 games, not even close.
1. Nobody would ever make the deal with you again. It’s a self defeating strategy. 2. I wouldn’t want to be the ACL for a star player of the team that reneged on the deal.
As I said... The system of trading goals would break down real fast and nobody would want to allow the first goal. It really is a silly idea that teams would do this for an extended amount of time.
https://www.frontrowsoccer.com/2018/11/30/22613/ So there's a report claiming the single elimination proposal is a done deal. The source is Tyler Adams and Chris Armas, who might not ordinarily be so in the know, but I suppose it's possible the league let the players know before the formal change. I do imagine they would want to run such a change past the union.
You mean go to single-elimination? It is not that big a reduction in home games for individual teams. Right now with 12 teams qualifying there are 17 games. Only 8 of those teams are guaranteed a home game. One team will likely host 3. Most will host 1 or 2. Under the new plan there would be 14 teams playing a total of 13 games in single-elimination. Again 8 are guaranteed to host a game. One team will probably host 3, maybe 4. The others will host 1 or 2. Six teams would be unlikely to host a game but those would be teams #5, 6, and 7 in each conference. Right now teams #5 and 6 are not guaranteed to host a game and #7 doesn't even make the tournament.
It is official. Single-elimination, fixed bracket MLS Playoffs in 2019. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/12/13/2019-mls-playoff-structure 14 teams will qualify. The Playoffs and MLS Cup will run October 19 through November 10. That is four consecutive weekends in between the FIFA breaks.
While I like going to single elimination, I wouldn't mind if the MLS Cup was after the November FIFA window. An extra week of build-up and the possibility of advertising during the USMNT games could be beneficial.
That definitely changes things for me. Blows away the first week of NCAA Basketball, but it frees up both the men and women's College Cups.
The only oddity in this is the reduction of the regular season versus the debate that MLS has too long an offseason. Generally I like the changes other than the playoff expansion (feels a bit too soon for that).
Also would this make MLS the only pro sports league not to reseed after each round of the playoffs? College doesn't (March Madness, etc.) but I think the big 4 all do.
It is interesting that they are going with a fixed-bracket. Teams will know exactly their route through the playoffs.
I hadn't noticed that.. It is interesting that the 2/3/6/7 bracket could have an easier path to the conference final than the 1/4/5 bracket if 6 and/or 7 win their games.
The elimination of the mid-week Play-In games combined with the increase to 14 teams means that there will be 13 weekend post-season games in 2019, the same as in 2018.
I suspect that they will push the start of the regular season up into February in 2020 and beyond. They probably couldn't do that on short notice for 2019.
I think they make a mistake by pointing out that the new format is compatible with the 2022 World Cup in Qatar - which will start on November 21st. It's a mistake because it draws stark attention to the fact that MLS Cup will almost certainly be missing a bunch of players. In 2018, countries had to submit preliminary rosters of 35 by May 14th - one month before the start of the tournament. With the exception of payers in the UCL Final, there was a mandatory rest period for those playes from May 21st-27th. Final squads of 23 were due by June 4th. Unless MLS Cup in 2022 is pushed back a month, which it might be, the league is going to run into issues. Of course LigaMX, a bunch of countries in South America, and some of the other "summer" leagues of Scandinavia will have summer issues. Of course MLS Cup 2000 was played on October 15th, and Kansas City has played a 32 game regular season, a USOC game, and six MLS Cup playoff games prior to facing Chicago.