At the risk of being flamed I am posting this.... http://umlscc.blogspot.com Basically this is based off of the idea of the Unofficial World Champion -- http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/unoff-wc.html The idea here is to have a club champion that defends their title every game. I went back to the first MLS game San Jose vs DC United. Used that as the inaugural game and San Jose being the first champion after they won. I do not include playoffs nor any USOC games involving 2 MLS clubs. I also did not count the Shootout or Overtime wins. Thus 90 minute draws resulted in the club champion retaining the title. The current UMLSCC is FC Dallas after they defeated KC 2-1. Anyway, I thought this might be something fun to do. It in no way really validates any team - I mean, come on!, the MetroStars are the 14 time champion - (all in good fun). But I do have some statistics and post them from time to time. Like for this past weekend I posted about past UMLSCC games that were on Sundays and included past games between KC and Dallas. ****** I know some might not agree with not using SO/OT results. Too bad I do have have a match listing that uses SO/OT wins and noted that on July 10, 2004 (KC over DCU) the using of SO/OT wins or just draws no longer matter. KC won that day and consolidated the two options.
If someone flames you, you can just shook them. Very interesting analysis--it's funny to see that the Wizards have only held the title 7 times--same as the rapids. Although the credibility of this concept is undermined by the fact that the unofficial world champion was recently Zimbabwe (until Nigeria beat them on the last day of WCQs--and Romania is the latest champ, I believe.).
Good work! I like this kind of stuff. But why not include playoffs? The Unofficial World Championship thing you based it off of uses World Cup results. Seems like kind of the same thing to me.
If I used the playoffs then the UMLSCC ends up being the same as the MLS Cup winner at the end of the season. Well, I guess unless the Cup final goes to overtime I suppose. Just thought it was better to not include the playoffs, espcially under the old "First to 5" format.
not always, what if a team that doesn't make the playoffs beats the UMLSCC at the end of the season? Then they're the champion at the end of the season since they didn't make the playoffs.
Yeah, I thought of that too after I posted. But still, I preferred to go with the MLS season schedule only counting.
You should treat San Jose just like you treat Miami and Tampa Bay in terms of the number of "titles." MLS has stated that Houston is to be treated as a brand new franchise in terms of records, so Houston starts from scratch this season like Chivas and RSL did last season.
That's sorta tough to swallow just 'cause MLS says to treat them like new. Same owner, really just moved the team, renamed but got to keep it's championship quality players. I never liked it in terms of Baltimore/Cleveland and don't like it now. If there was a new owner and some core group of players, say 13 (I don't know....), then maybe I could see it. Then it could be treated new maybe. But all it is is the exact same team in a new city. The rest is just pretend(so is this title ) But even so, I did think about that when I was going through all this and saw that the 1836DynamoQuakes were champs at end of the season. But decided to keep it as SJ/Hou.
Honestly, I have to agree with cristo, According to MLS, Houston is an expansion, not a move. the Earthquakes are still in SJ, just lacking an owner and SSS. IMO, you should halt SJ at the end of next year and the first time the Dynamo win the title this season, its Championship #1 and count from then on.
So when AEG sells the team, then you will treat it as a new franchise? Or how about when the number of former Earthquakes players drops below 14 (50% of an MLS roster)? (Right now there are 18 former Earthquakes on the Houston roster).
I meant.. when they moved to Houston. For example, Kansas City got an Arena Football team this year. It was the New Orleans Voodoo last season but then the Hurricanes hit and N.O. could not continue operations. So the league got the team sold to a new KC ownership group and a few of the players went with the team. N.O. owner is promised re-entry into the league(next season I would guess). Therefore, I see that it makes sense that the AFL in essence suspended N.O. Voodoo operations in N.O. and granted KC a franchise 1 year early and the KC team is considered brand new and got to pick some of the Voodoo players and the rest were made free-agents/dispersed. There's a big difference when the Cleveland Browns just up and move to Baltimore and the NFL makes a stupid move and says that the owner has to abandon the history of his team. I'd never consider the Baltimore Ravens an expansion team. The current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team. It's just dumb to treat it any other way. If SJ ever gets a new team, they'll be an expansion team. Houston is the same team they were last year, with the normal turnover of a team in the off-season, when they were in San Jose. It's just really funny that others are buying this kind of move cause of how it hurts the fans of San Jose. If the Wizards move out of KC and MLS tries to say that wherever they move to are an expansion team then I'll treat it as the joke it is. I'd never consider any new KC team to be the same as the KC team that moved(hoping it dont' happen) Houston and SJ are really the same franchise. I'd never consider that the 1969 KC Spurs NASL title to be part of the Kansas City Wizards history... or the 74-82 Earthquakes were part of the 96-05 SJ History. But really that's what it would be akin to.
So ... San Jose was contracted this year, while Houston is completely new? Nice job, MLS! You guys are really intelligent ... I don't want to get into this argument again, so I will leave it at that. Seriously, nice job! That is interesting to find out about that "king of the hill" scenario.
It wasn't a stupid move. It was a good business decision to preserve a strong brand, limit the alienation of a fanbase, and convince a city to build a brand-new stadium. It also helped the conscience of people in Baltimore that they weren't taking another city's football history the way theirs was taken.
That would be interesting. Make it the US Club Champion. It's conceivable that the title could leave MLS to another league via the Open Cup. It'd be interesting to see how it could work its way back.
One could probably figure that out if they knew where the first 2 "professional" clubs met up in the US... it would be a matter of figuring out the history. Although a title like that could die with different leagues and such.
Update Houston 4-3 FCD. Houston franchise takes 13th title. 112 time the title has changed. Next up a May 13th rematch! FC Dallas-Houston http://umlscc.blogspot.com/
I still disagree with you giving Houston the SJ titles. As Garber said when they left SJ, all the teams records and results stay in SJ for a rebirth as an expansion franchise. With SJ holding the title at the end of last season, you should have either awarded the title to the winner of the MLS Cup or the first game of the 2006 season. I know of your arguments regarding the players, coaches, etc, but when the people that make the rules regarding the MLS say its a new franchise, then that needs to be respected. Even in the case of a fictious title. Just my two cents
I agree that you can't treat Houston and San Jose as the same team. MLS has decreed that they are not the same team. That is a definitive ruling, and there is no room for debate on the point.