Based on games through Saturday, August 13, 2005... Eastern teams have forged in front of their Western counterparts. GP W-D-L Pts GF GA GD New England 22 12-6-4 42 40 23 +17 Chicago 24 12-3-9 39 41 38 +3 D C United 22 11-5-6 38 36 23 +13 Kansas City 23 10-8-5 38 40 31 +9 San Jose 22 10-8-4 38 33 25 +8 FC Dallas 21 10-5-6 35 37 29 +8 Los Angeles 23 9-5-9 32 27 27 0 Metrostars 22 7-8-7 29 33 31 +2 Colorado 22 7-4-11 25 27 28 -1 Columbus 20 6-3-11 21 18 20 -12 Real Salt Lake 22 5-4-13 19 23 44 -19 Chivas USA 23 3-3-17 12 22 48 -26
I would like to see a single table in the MLS. We don't need to see weaker teams in the playoffs, only those teams that deserve to be there.
I wouldn't mind seeing a single table either, so long as the current schedule were maintained with the understanding that New England and Real Salt Lake would only play twice like they do now, and each team would play their divisional opponents four times. At season's end, take the top 8 teams for the playoffs. So what if you have 5 teams from the East and 3 from the West make it to the playoffs? I hate it when teams like the Metrostars are punished because they happen to be in a stronger division, while a weak team like Colorado can get into the playoffs with a chance to pull an upset in the first round because they got the benefit of having 2 expansion teams in their division. Ah well, it's the curse of geography! Other pro sports should try the concept too. Most fans know which division their teams play in anyway, so it shouldn't be too confusing to try it for a couple of years to see how it goes.
Thanks for the correction--fixed the original post. I try to update this after each MLS game day. Sometimes it's at weird times of day!
you can't have a single table with an unbalanced schedule, its unfair the only reason it is ok now is because you play the same schedule as those in your division (those you are fighting against for playoff spots) if MLS went to a single table, it would have to have everyone play each other 2 or 4 times. If you kept the unbalanced schedule you have the possibility of very weak teams making it into the playoffs over strong teams only becuase the weak teams have a much easier schedule now at least when that happens you can argue that they at least qualified withing their own division
Here you go... This is a snapshot of my excel single/conference comparison for this season. I update it as the games are played.
Of course, the what would single table look like question is all moot, because if there was single table, teams wouldn't have already played 4 games against conference opponents. The schedule would be balanced. in that case, the table would be even MORE heavily Eastern Conference top-heavy, as the current Western Conference teams wouldn't have 4 games against Chivas, Colorado and RSL to fatten up on, while Eastern Conference teams like DC have already played 11 games against Chicago, KC and the Revolution.
I think its more of a conjecture of what it looks like if anything else. And we only have what we have to work on. If anything, the conference systems shows the weakness that expansion brings when you "flood" one side. And this happens because I/O are just going magically sprout in the right locations to balance a conference. And the other problem is you might have I/O all in one location, and of course MLS will give them teams if everything adds up.... its not like they're going to turn away money. And we all know expanding "correctly" under a conference system puts one expansion teams in each conference balance out the W's and not give a lopsided situation like we see in the 2005 season. However, I think The Don is qouted somewhere saying single table won't happen. IIRC, it was in 2005 SOTLA.
The only difference right now is the Metros onstead of Colorado, and Colorado hasn't had the chance to beat up on the expansion teams as much as some of the other teams have (1 game against RSL, 2 against Chivas). So maybe the Mtros are being robbed by the split conferences, but it's too early to tell. Certainly Columbus, RSL, and Chivas are where they belong.
Yeah!!!! And we need relegation and promotion, plus elimination of the playoffs plus no more divisions. And lots of washed up Europeans!!! Yeah!!!
I'm not a proponent of promotion/relegation for soccer here in North America, but you gotta admit, some teams in other leagues need it (ie. Devil Rays in MLB, Warriors and Hawks in NBA)
Setpiece and javier66 need to visit the England board and read the thread where people are bored by the EPL already. The posters are all looking forward to European competitions where the outcome (this year) is not a foregone conclusion.
I forget... how did you guys (CRapids) fare in that one game you got to "beat up" on RSL? ... I'm just curious. Wiseman once say, "Don't count chickens before they hatch..." I love how you count your wins before getting them...
Hey, I wasn't the one in this thread discount the Western teams for playing the "weak" expansion teams. And a 1-0 loss to RSL in their home opener isn't exactly an indicator of team strength. I knew they were going to win that game (though I was hoping otherwise), just like the Rapids always find a way to win on the 4th of July, regardless of how bad they are playing going into the game. Let's see what the 3 games in the last 6 bring...
I did see and read some of that thread earlier today. I don't disagree with much of what was written. It would have been surprising if Chelsea, Arsenal, and Manchester United had all lost or drawn their first matches, but as it is, only West Ham's victory caught my attention this weekend. Sure, it's a long season in the European pro leagues, and things could change a lot, but it would be surprising to see any one of the "Big 3" not holding the top slots by the end of September, mid-November, Christmas, etc. And that's just in England. It probably is the same in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands too. There has been some debate on whether or not a salary cap would work in Europe if anything, to even out the playing field between the "haves" and "have-nots" like the NFL does. Maybe that would make the season more interesting. Of course, if one pro league (for example, Germany) does it and another (Italy) does not, it wouldn't work in terms of being competitive for the Champions League.
Sorry to put a target on you Jason . I was the one that said it, but it was basically a generalization that most expansion teams (you can pick the sport and the league) do poorly in their first season or two. This year in MLS is happens to be Chivas and RSL. In a couple of years, it will be someone else if the league expands like it wants to.
Promote-Relegation has been beaten to death on these boards. It will prob. never happen as long as the MLS is a separate entity vs what the USSF and the USL are set up.. All these leagues should have been under 1 umbrella from the get go, with a strong USSF organizing.. This is one thing GOOD about England, a strong FA. ---I think the compromise is the single table in MLS. The fans deserve the best 8 in the playoffs. As long as expansion continues to add 2 at a time, 1 west and one east to give both sides equal chance at the final 8. Just remember, every year the powers change as well as the weak teams. To me this means that all games would count more.. --once we get to 16 strong MLS teams, with 16 different owners, then we can move on to getting 16 strong ALeague teams, then we can start promoting/relegating or yet another compromise, do away with the playoffs as structured and have a LEAGUE CUP instead with the 32 teams comprosing the 16 mls teams and 16 Aleague teams..