Fine. I have heard lots and lots of "better" formats, that all have their positives and negatives. But NOT ONE OF THEM REALLY IS ANY BETTER THAN THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE, for various reasons. The only thing hurting the playoffs, in my mind, is that too many teams make it. But you know what? Next year, it gets better, and the year after, it gets better still. I can certainly live with 8 of 14 teams. And I can stomach 8 of 12 for a year (or two?). I love the two game series. Three game series killed the playoffs, in my opinion. What could have been intriguing was merely ho-hum, because the first two games really never mattered, since it almost always went to a game three. Granted, game three was for all the marbles, so the playoffs finally became interesting then--but that was after a week and a half of not really caring about the games. One game series would be fine--but I really like aggregate and two game series. and with two game series and aggregate goals, the first game matters a lot. I love the possibilities with aggregate goals. I said before the playoffs last year, when the playoff system was discussed to death (like now)--that people would see the greatness of the system when a team that was down 2 goals came back in the second to win 3-2 on aggregate. And then the LA v. SJ game came on, when (for those living under a rock) SJ came back down 4 goals and won 5-4 on aggregate. It was probably the best game in the history of MLS. I would have thought that after that game, any criticisms would be laid to rest. I guess the only thing I might change about it, is to give the higher-seeded team the option of playing the first game or the second game. That way, nobody can complain that the higher-seeded team has to travel more. And it is another way to give the higher-seeded team a benefit of doing better during the season.
Personally, I dont think P&R is ever going to happen here either. Its easily the best system, but won't here in the forseeable future. Why though, if someone likes something out of European soccer are they called Eurosnobs? You can only like something if its American? Looks more like a case Amerisnobbery to me.
I am at work and somewhat busy, but i would like to ask you a follow up to this. How can you promote a format that rewards the team in first place the same as they do the eighth place team. Even if there were as many as 20 teams in the league; how do you reconcile this with yourself?
Haven't had a chance to read all 16 pages of this thread, so forgive me if I repeat an earlier post. The two-game system does have its appeals and can be quite exciting. So, I don't have a problem with the system per se. However, the main reason why the two-leg event was created was because the tournaments did not have a full season to determine which was the better team and provide adequate advantage as a reward. A two-leg system is the most equalizing of the formats w/ only a slight advantage to the team playing the second game at home. I have always felt that such format is not nearly rewarding for the team finishing higher in the regular season. A simple NFL-style single-elimination-game-playoffs would be as exciting, if not more (I'm sure we can argue about this for a long time, since it's a question of preference, not fact). Plus, to me at least, it would seem like the right amount of advantage for playing better during the 30-game season. So, it was up to me, I would do a single-elimination throughout the playoffs.
To attendance in the league RIGHT NOW, yes, that is what im saying. Maybe down the road it could make a difference, when fanbases are (hopefully) larger, more passionate, and follow the team regularly. but right now the fans filling most of the seats aren't even aware of a playoff picture, so I don't see how the number of teams in the playoffs could make much difference.
Because, despite what you say, there are advantages to finishing higher in your conference table. The question really comes down to--is it enough of an advantage. I am willing to say that, on balance, yes. You, I am sure, will say that the advantages are not enough. But to get to the advantages, here they are: 1. You get to play the (theoretically) weaker team based on seeding. I realize, of course, that this does not address home field advantage, but it is an advantage of finishing higher. 2. With the system as it is set up right now, the higher seeded team gets to play the second game, which I think is more advantageous, since the team gets to play at home in front of their own crowd and knowing exactly what they need to do to advance. (Of course, the counterargument is that the higher seeded team has to travel more (once to the first game, once again to the second game), but with a week between games, and playing regionally in your conference, I do not see this as being that big of a deal. Maybe a player in MLS would beg to differ, I don't know). 3. The higher-seeded team also gets the over-time and pks in front of their home crowd. 4. The higher you place in your conference, the better chance you get to host the single-elimination conference final game. Now, if the higher seeded team was given the choice between the first or second game, I would think they would probably pick the second game at home, anyway--but if the league wanted to offer that option, I wouldn't be against it, and it would take away the argument that the higher-seeded team HAD to travel twice, since it would then be their choice. There are other advantages to the league that I think ought to be considered as well: such as having each team host a game, thereby generating some amount of revenue. Of course, with attendance being what it is, perhaps this hasn't panned out the way the league has hoped. But frankly, I don't think I have convinced anyone, and we're really just arguing in circles. But I wanted to specifically present to you why you are just plain wrong that there is no advantage finishing first, as opposed to eighth. There are advantages. You might not think they present enough of an advantage for the higher seeded team, but they are there.
Technically ofcourse, you are right. These are infact, definate incentives built into MLS's format. You are also right to question their weight. From the fans perspecive: Lets suppose for a second, that we all agreed with the value of your above bullets. Is it interesting to watch a 30 game regular season to determine who will be seeded against the weaker teams and to decide who gets homefield advantage? Is there drama there that comes close to covering a near 6 month long soccer season? Or might it be more compelling to see teams actually fighting just to make it into the playoffs, see teams vying for 'real' homefield advantage in a one-off knock out match or perhaps watch your team earn a bye from winning their divisional title? You guys can decide for yourselves which format gets your blood boiling. I suspect you know which heats mine.
No format gets my blood boiling and I would argue that the format in Europe contributes next to nothing to the boiling blood over there. Perhaps you are right that limiting the playoffs to six or four or two teams would be more exciting at some point but the difference would be marginal to what we have now. (On the other hand there would be several late season games in that or a single table format that would be noticeably more dreary and pointless than anything we have now). If MLS decided it was in their best interest to change that would be fine with me. But if they don't that's fine too, the playoffs will simply become more meaningful with expansion. If there were millions of dollars at stake and decades of history and packed stadiums and players whose careers were on the line and over the top media exposure then any format would seem exciting. We don't have that here and there's no quick way to get it. If people want to keep arguing for single table or pro/rel or any of the other mechanisms from Europe, that's fine, we should always keep Europe in mind. I just get tired of hearing how the blueprint for MLS success is "simple" or that some system is clearly the best. There is nothing inherently great about single table. There is nothing inherently great about pro/rel. Single table makes each game of the regular season meaningful, but only for the two or three teams who actually are contenders. It also means deciding the league champion with a game three weeks before the end of the season between the top team and a mid-table side that has nothing to play for. England gets to see the title decided between the two best teams on the last day of the season about once a generation. We get to see that every year. Pro/rel is great for giving the bottom feeders something to play for and for creating excitement in the "minor" leagues, but it also creates constant turnover so that the rich stay rich while the poor are just happy to survive. A team in MLS can afford to play their young players more, knowing that one bad year will not cost the club hundreds of millions of dollars. As someone has already said, all playoff systems (including no playoff system) have advantages and disadvantages and none of it would matter if MLS had a sixty years to build up its fan base.
Okay, so you tried the shootout, that didn't work, then overtime, that didn't work, then first to five, then nicknames like the Wiz and the Burn, that didn't work, now all that's left is the playoffs. Dallas is changing to FC Dallas with a more 'traditional' logo, as with REal Salt Lake and Chivas. As the saying goes, if it's not broken... I find it amusing the aversion to single table. It works in 99% of the footballing world but what do they know eh? Yes and I do find the premiership insanely boring. My god, sometimes, once a generation it doesn't come down to the last few games. It's not like the NFL where if your team doesn't make the playoffs then, well there's always next year... Now that's exciting. The fact is, the MLS regular season is meaningless. Will it get better when less teams make it? Yes, but then you can apply the same argument previously applied to single table. Only the top teams will qualify and that will be decided before the final game of the season, unless parity still reigns (in which case a single table championship will be just as nail biting). And no, I don't particularly care how Mexico or the Carribean do things. The exception does not prove the rule.
You have yet to put forth a convincing argument as to why single table is more desirable than what we have. All you seem to be saying is "Everyone else does it!". So in essence you are encouraging us to something not because it is desirable but simply because you want us to conform. This is the kind of intolerance to anything different that gave birth to the term eurosnob. I think you need to understand that. You are advocating change for changes sake. Nor do we care how they do it anywhere else. Now what?
Could you contradict yourself any more? It works for 99% of the world but you don't care about Mexico or the Caribean. So they comprise less than 1% of the leagues in the world? And what is not working in MLS. Attendance overall is moving up and money coming into the league is moving up. We are in better shape than we were 2 years ago.
Okay, taking into account the title of this thread and regurgitating what I've already said numerous times before, here's the plus points of going single table: 1. Simplicity. At a glance, single table tells you exactly what you need to know. Who's on top, who's at the bottom, respective to every other team in the league. 2. More meaningful games. Every game matters because the title's at stake, not just the teams position in the pecking order of the playoffs. 3. It's different. Other US sports don't do this, which makes it more attractive to the casual fan who might appreciate something different and the soccer purist or eurosnob who doesn't appreciate the need to have playoffs for playoffs sake. 4. Soccer has other competitions that have sudden death knock out matches as in the cups which run concurrent to the season. Therefore, the excitement of the playoffs is already emulated in the Open Cup, and a move away from a league cup competition may boost the Open Cup. 5. It looks better. I believe there's one website that posts MLS results in a single table format and it looks better, and you don't have the bizarre scenario that you had at one point this season where three teams in the Eastern Conference all had more points than the top team in the Western Conference (if memory serves me correctly). Okay, now the negative: 1. You lose the entertainment of the playoffs (the Open Cup could step in here). 2. You lose a showcase event such as the MLS final (see 1). 3. The travelling home and away would be more expensive for the team and the fans (although it wouldn't be a huge additional expenditure considering teams play each other's conferences fairly often now). 4. Rivalries may suffer as 'local' teams play each other less often (although in the case of Dallas v Chicago, they play in different conferences anyway). Can't think of any more points although I'm sure you Yankosnobs will think of some more, such as 'the Premierships crap right now only 2 teams have ever won it and 78 teams are stuck in the middle of the table and will never get relegated or win it, blah blah blah'. I'm not knocking MLS per se, I suggested a change as per the thread title which I believe would improve the league. Incidentally the Mexico/Caribbean comment was aimed at those who suggest knocking the playoffs is the same as knocking Mexican and Caribbean leagues etc. etc.
MLS's regular season is not meaningless. It's a statistically proven fact. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3313060#post3313060
Last year all these exact points were made. This exact thread could have been written then. Then the playoff system ended up producing one of (or perhaps the) best games in MLS history. Another team exhibited such on-field dissention that the coach was fired. Our most "English" style team produced an upset and a potential tradition of late season success was established. And most everybody thought the playoff system was a success. This thread has been largely created by people who joined BigSoccer after last year's playoffs. So it is no wonder that a lot of more established posters are defending the current system.
I'd actually prefer a 4-6 teams out of 10 going, but I also realize that it doesn't mean squat in the big picture.
I disagree and I believe that is where the fundamental difference is. We all know that we need new stadiums and that we need to fix alot of things with MLS. And I know that MLS has bigger things to be concerned for. That's a given. BUT the big picture is the quality of play through the season and right through the playoffs and that is what the fans care for and the people selling the tickets care for because that makes their jobs easier in the end. Fine, I'll agree that in due time that the dynamics of the league will change and all this will be moot. But I disagree with the notion that this isnt a present problem, because we all know it is. I guess my basic issue is, since we all agree (we as in hardcore fans) that 8/10 is too much. Why not do something about it rather than leave it as is and all of us bitch and moan about it next year, then the next, then the next. Because as a member of these boards for quite some time, we all know that this really isnt the last that we will hear on this issue. That is a bigger problem than any of the current apologists havent answered. If more people agree with you, then why is it we argue these same points over and over again? Why not just change it and get it over with?
Because it is not going to be 8/10 next year or the year after. It is going to be 8/12 next year, and 8/14 (if plans go forward) the year after that. I have said in a prior e-mail that I can live with 8/12 for one year, and 8/14 the year after that. What you really need to do is argue that 8/14 doesn't make any sense, then we could get somewhere (and I would respectfully disagree with you on that point)--but the constant arguing about 8/10 makes no sense, because the point is moot.
I guess. I can live with it. But I still disagree that this league cant and shouldnt do something to make qualifying for the playoffs more gratifying and special for the immediate future.
Sorry for the double post--I just realized something that I wanted to emphasize. Many people have argued that 6 of 10 teams in was the right balance for the playoffs--meaning 60% of the teams get in (as opposed to the terrible 80% it is right now). 8/12 next year is 67%, of course. But 8 of 14 in 2006? It actually means that 57% of the teams make it into the playoffs, which is slightly below the comfort level of many people on these boards.
In other words, if Europe does it then it must have been written on the tablets presented by the soccer gods? Granted, I'm saying this as someone who would like a more "traditional" format (single-table, pro/rel, no playoffs, although I'm fully aware it'll probably be at least a generation before we could be large enough and stable enough to go to pro/rel). But Europe is not the end all and be all of how to organize a soccer league. There are a lot of different examples to draw from, whether a single-table/no playoffs style in Europe and Brazil, a single-table/avg. points determining relegation like in Argentina, group stages with relegation like in other South American leagues, group play/playoffs/avg. points to determine relegation like Mexico. Let's not discount any of these just because they don't things "like the rest of the world does."
1. Lets not discount that until about two years ago Brazil had playoffs too. 2. People seem unable to grasp the fact the shape competitive leagues take is directly related to how the game evolved in that country. 3. Good post.