Jeez, one of the biggest flaws of the current system is that few fans actually understand it. For example I wonder what percentage of MLS fans actually understand the circumstances that can lead to an Eastern Conference team winning the Western Conference. This group play and money incentives will be even more foreign to the average American sports fan. Hell it'll be foreign to Eurosnobs and hispanics as well.
Umm, no. Europeans understand group play very well; with the Champions League and UEFA Cup and European Championships and World Cup Qualifying and the World Cup and... And Hispanics understand group play just as well; with the Mexican Premiera and other Hispanic Leagues that use groups in the regular season and/or post-season (like Columbia) and InterLiga and SuperLiga and World Cup Qualifying and the World Cup and... And the money thing isn't confusing at all. You want to explain it to someone, here's the one sentence explination: "The more points you earn in the Group Stage, the more of the Playoff Purse you get." Most people could care less about the specific details and whatnot. This system looks a lot more complex than it really is just because so much of this thread is a response to critics (and it's been a good thread for that reason; honest critics are a good thing). But some of the debate has gotten complex and/or obscure because we've stared talking in shorthand like "1v3", Matchday 3, etc. It's really a very simple system. 2 groups of 4 Single round-robin Group Winners and Runners-up advance to the single match knockout Semi-finals Final is exactly as it is now. Almost all of the other "incentive" stuff is technical window dressing that isn't necessary for the overwhelming majority of fans to completely understand in order to understand the playoff system. And most will already understand the system if they are at all familiar with soccer/football/futball almost anywhere on the globe, and/or the World Cup. And, well, those that don't understand it really shouldn't have much trouble learning it. It's simple. We just have to put this all in one, nice visual schematic or something (instead of our terminology and obscure references) and you'll see it isn't that complex.
Playing against an unmotivated number one team seems more of an advantage than the extra home game. Regardless of whether it is more of an advantage or not you have to admit that it is somewhat of an advantage and since I assume the main reason you want to see a group stage is to reward regular season performance, this seems to go against your own goals. As far as money, your plan for dividing the money is clear without a spreadsheet. I have no problem with it but dividing a few thousand dollars among 20 players isn't a huge incentive, and of course it is no incentive for the fans. If you are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars then I think you are dreaming and there's far better ways MLS could make use of an extra million dollars. And since presumably you would make more money for winning the Cup it would actually be more of a financial incentive to save your best players for the knockout than to try to gain that extra three points. Maybe I'm wrong but I assume that the third place game at the WC offers a financial incentive but those games never are played at full intensity. Since I don't see $ or USOC spots as much incentive for players or fans, games between two teams on 0 points would be pointless, but canceling them seems like it would cause serious headaches for marketing.
One more problematic situation: Matchday One: 1 defeats 4 and 2 draws with 3 Matchday Two: 1 draws with 2 and 3 defeats 4 Which leaves us with the following table: Team 1 4 pts Team 3 4 pts Team 2 2 pts Team 4 0 pts So Matchday 3 1 and 3 might both be happy with a draw depending on the tiebreakers, but more importantly team 4 is on the road with nothing to play for except pride and a few extra dollars. Worse you could have the same situation happen to one of the higher seeds and then the home fans have no reason to turn out for the final game and one of the lower seeds gets an easier match the final day. So we now have three situations (none of which require many upsets) that would result in one team having a meaningless game on Matchday three. If you factor in extreme goal differential situations (which admittedly would rarely happen) there could be many more. Anyway, I don't want to debate any more about how intense the matches would be. Maybe you are right that the players would play hard for whatever reasons. As a fan who has enjoyed American playoffs throughout my life, I feel that what makes playoffs great is that every game is so important and so intense so, for me, any system that would produce games that are less than full intensity or which don't have a lot of meaning for one of the teams is a non-starter. That being said if MLS adds a group stage I'll watch every game because it doesn't really matter that much.
Dude, you are creating more strawmen. Under this scenario 3 & 1 are going all out because if 2 blows out 4, 2 advances. Two is going all out to try and advance. If 4 wants to lie down like a dog, they can. But they are professionals; they will play hard, try to win.
Regarding the incentives, I want to see MLS have $1,000,000 for the MLS Cup winner - split up for the players. Runner up (other conference champ gets another $500K. Split up another $500K for the other six teams any way that seems fair.
Why not just reduce the playoff teams to four? Conference champion and runnerup. Play a two-legged conference final. Winners go the cup. That would be my preference. Regarding the group play proposal: Every playoff team must get at least one home playoff game. That only makes sense.
Look, you're obviously an intelligent person. But, you're also trying way too hard to make this argument work, and it simply doesn't. Let me try and answer this again: The ONLY way that the 3-seed has an allegedly easier schedule (due to an allegedly unmotivated 1-seed on Matchday 3), is if the 2-seed fails to take care of business (by first, dropping points, at home, against the aforementioned 3-seed, and then, also, failing to take any points from the 1-seed on Matchday 2). IF the 3-seed faces an "unmotivated" 1-seed on Matchday 3, it's DIRECTLY the result of the 2-seed not playing well enough. And that's the 2-seed's fault. Not the schedule. If the 3-seed faces an easier 1-seed on Matchday 3, than the 2-seed has only themselves to blame, because they are the ones that dropped points at home on Matchday 1, and then, also, failed to take any points on Matchday 2. It's the 2-seeds own doing. They have nobody and nothing (like the schedule) to blame. Period. The money wouldn't be just a "few thousand dollars." And I'm not insane enough to think it's going to millions of dollars either. It's somewhere between the two extremes - which should be just enough to help motivate players - and it is reasonable to assume that level of money for several reasons. First and foremost, despite the fact that this format only adds a single week/matchday to the current format, it expands the post-season by a total of 4 games. That 4 extra games of revenue alone - not just ticket sales, but sponsorship, television, etc - means an increase in post-season revenue. Additionally, it should be easier for FOs to sell tickets and sponsorship and media and etc to the now 12 first round games because, with this format, there is both more time to prepare for first round games and there is increased date-certainty for matches (see earlier in this thread for an explanation of this). From a business perspective, this is a lovely model. But, you're right, money doesn't motivate the fans. But motivated players - professional athletes, competing at home, and fighting for a larger share of that money - does have a funny way of rubbing off on the people in the stands who turned out to watch. Which brings me to the USOC. The USOC incentive is a very real competitive incentive. It means that, next year, early in the season, you don't have to play in the MLS Qualifying rounds for the USOC - rounds that will only grow as MLS continues its expansion. Avoiding the Qual rounds for the USOC means reduced fixture congestion, and I'm quite certain that any/everyone would consider any/every reduction in fixture congestion a competitive incentive. Umm, no; sorry. In this situation, #1 and #3 would not be happy to settle for a draw. Both of them would like to top the group, winning the right to host a semi-final. But only one of them can do that. And thus, the one that is behind on tiebreakers, will not be happy to draw at all. They would have to push for a win. And moreover, if they did draw, then [gasp] #2 could top the group!! After all, if #2 is sitting on two points, it means two draws and a +0 GD - putting them in very good shape to top the group on GD if #1 and #3 draw. A mere two goal victory could be enough. And if #2 tops the group, then neither #1 nor #3 will host a semi, and one of the two (depending on tiebreakers) won't advance at all. There is quite a bit at stake in this situation. Indeed, it's almost the ideal situation... except, of course, for #4. Who, you're right, has been eliminated. But, if they finish with 0 points, they get 0 Bonus $. And, it is still possible for them to finish third in the group, and thus secure the USOC Qual. incentive. So, yeah, #4 may not have the primary motivation - motivation to advance - but they are far from having zero motivation.
that's the spirit. the group stage worked well in the 2007 SuperLiga. the group stage would work just as well in a future MLS post-season. yes, there are issues that could arise, but it is a very simple concept, and one that i think the fans would enjoy more than the current H/A system used in the first round.
Group stages might be a good idea to replace best of 7 series, because what can be more stagnant than two teams matching-up 7 times in-a-row? But MLS doesn't have that problem so I still don't see what the need for the group-stage is? Does the importance of an extra home match or two in the playoffs really add much to the NHL or MLB regular season? Nope. So why would it add anything to the MLS regular season??
your analogy to the best of seven (MLB/NHL) system is completely unrelated. a workable analogy would be to the SuperLiga or even the World Cup -- those tournaments have first rounds that function well as single round robins. (add in the home field advantage for the higher seeds that this proposed MLS post-season group stage would incorporate, and I think it is an excellent system). under the system proposed here, ChivasUSA (and DC) would have 3 home first round games (and zero on the road), and KC (and Chicago) would have 3 road first round games (and zero on the road). that is a much better system (and one with significant incentives based on regular-season performance) compared to the every team plays H/A in the first round system that is currently used. "I still don't see what the need for the group-stage is" there is no "need" for a group stage, but many here do think the league would benefit from playing a group stage in the first round of the playoffs. for a compilation of those "benefits" or "needs to improve the first round" -- go back and read this thread again.
Dude, my quote stated that 3 and 1 might both be satisfied with a draw depending on the result of the other game. You were the one who said earlier that games would not be played simultaneously so if 2 wins by only one goal and both 3 and 1 know they have the tiebreaker they would both be happy with the draw. It used to happen all the time in the World Cup. It is the single worst thing that can happen in a group stage format. You are right. If 4 wants to lie down like a dog they can. That's the whole problem. That's why this isn't a strawman. Why would they play hard on the road at the end of a long season when they've just been crushingly knocked out of the playoffs? Their morale will be zero. At the very least they won't be the same team that played in the first two games.
You are right that #2 could avoid any problems by taking care of business at home. The schedule, though, has punished their failure to TCB more than another team might be punished. It would be easy to come up with a similar situation where 3 draws with 4 at home, thus not taking care of business, but doesn't end up in the same awkward situation. So the schedule does have some effect. I think your projections of how much money could be added to the pot are wildly optimistic at the moment and even if we could raise that much more money I'd prefer it be spent on bringing in better players and building stadiums and marketing rather than fixing the holes in a new playoff system. Of course, I have nothing but opinion to support this so I'll drop it. How is USOC qualification an incentive? Teams only play their reserves in the early rounds as it is so there's little to no fixture congestion and no player is going to go all out in November so that they can play one less game 9 months later when they might not even be on the same team. If your $ and Open Cup incentives are meant to be useful 20 years from now I'll buy it, but they will provide no incentive now. The situation I've outlined happens all the time in the WC and CL. You are right that the teams would prefer to host the semi-final but NO coach is going to risk not qualifiying at all in order to have a better shot at homefield. Here is what would happen. Teams 1 and 3 start out cautiously while the asst coach keeps track of the other game on a cell phone (assuming the games are played simultaneously). If team 2 jumps out to an early lead (largely because team 4 has already started their vacation) then the game might get intense. If team 2 falls behind or the game stays tied then both coaches will pack it in knowing that barring a miracle they've got qualification wrapped up. It happens every year in the CL and it is so awful watching two good teams pass the ball around the back waiting to hear the score of another game. Admittedly they don't have homefield to play for in the CL but theoretically winning the group means having a weaker opponent in the next round so there is some incentive, but no one ever seems willing to risk a loss.
i don't think this situation you've "outlined happens all the time in the WC." it would be interesting to see an analysis of how group play usually goes in single round-robins. i think someone has done it before, and the percentage of games that do involve "already-eliminated" teams or "under-motivated" teams (from groups where two teams advance) is quiet small. your analogy and discussion of the UEFA CL is not very relevant. the CL group stage is still H/A over 6 games (and that fact changes the dynamic of how groups can play out, and how teams approach games in the group). there is no home-field advantage (by design -- as all teams are treated equally in the first round) in the CL (in both the group phase and the knock-out phase). in the MLS (or SuperLiga) model, teams play single games against each opponent (with a significant home-field advantage in the proposed MLS playoffs based on regular season results) and there is the added incentive of winning the group to avoid a road game in the semis (there is no comparable advantage in the CL as everyone plays H/A in the knock-out stages; although the group winners all avoid eachother in the next round -- but with the quality of available opponents and the fact that those will still be H/A series, the incentive is tiny compared to what is offered in the shorter 3-game group phase followed by a single home semifinal match proposed in this thread for the MLS post-season).
Artist, honestly, I think you're overstating both the degree and frequency of meaningless games in Group Stage competitions. But, I will admit, the reason I keep responding to you is because I recognize that, while possibly overstated, it is a problem. I think I said that early on in this thread. And there is no definitive way around it. I (and others) have offered incentives/alternatives to minimize this problem and, you may be right, they may not be good enough. Maybe, possibly, if SuperLiga ever expanded to 6 teams from MLS, then we could switch the "USOC incentive" with a "SuperLiga incentive." Or, something like that; something really worth playing for if you're eliminated from the semi-finals before Matchday 3. But in the end, I find myself returning to the belief that the positives of this system outweigh the negatives. By expanding the post-season by 4 games, you expand both revenue potential and media exposure - while at the same time adding only a single week/matchday to the current system. And by using the "higher seed hosts" format in a single round-robin group, you also significantly improve the post-season incentives for regular season performance. The risks (which I think are overstated), are well worth the rewards. And I support this system for two other major reasons: 1. I'm not terribly fond of the current system - no clear advantage to higher seeds in the first round. 2. I think a straight single elimination is a really, really, really bad idea - from both a business (too short) and a competitive (too fluky) perspective. Thus, I keep drifting back to the Group Stage idea; warts and all.
That's all I wanted to point out. That there are problems with any system. I agree with the advantages you point out to the group stage and the problems you point out with other systems. For me the threat of meaningless matches (and in the last three world cups 20/24 groups have had at least one team eliminated or one team clinching first place on Matchday 2) is worse than a lack of a proper home field advantage. Like I said I'd learn to enjoy the MLS group stage if it ever came to pass.
Just opened this thread, I think this is a great idea. It is unique compared to other US playoff systems yet is in a format that soccer fans will understand. But of course, if MLS wasn't smart enough to go to a 6 team playoff when it has 10-13 teams, it probably won't be smart enough to adopt something like this. Giving a superliga spot to the 3rd place finishers is a good idea (if the superliga doesn't expand it can be a play-in spot). I do agree though that it is a bit problematic that 3 would get to face 1 on the last day, so why not reverse the inital game order that was posted? Have 1v2, 1v3, and 1v4. The teams most likely to have nothing to play for are 1 and 4 seed. Since it is a 1 home game you will still get a good crowd. Also, for the purpose of selling your idea there is no need to get in to revenue splitting, that is just distracting
And that is why it's essential that, before a Group Stage is used, a proper incentive for 3rd in the Group is established. That would dramatically cut down on the number of meaningless games. It's part of why 3rd place in a Champions League group means a parachute into the UEFA Cup; and only 4th place sees you out of European Competition altogether. If the USOC incentive isn't significant enough than maybe we have to wait until the SuperLiga expands to 6 from MLS. Or wait until some other significant competition can be used as incentive for 3rd in an MLS Cup Group. Because that incentive for 3rd is the key to a good Group Stage format. In fact, if you have the numbers in front of you, what is the number of groups over the last three World Cups that have resulted in a team being eliminated from at least 3rd place after only 2 Matchdays? I suspect that is a much, much smaller number.
If you mean that its rare that two teams are happy with a tie you are probably correct (though that is the worst case scenario and I would hope it would rarely happen). If you mean that it is rare that one of the three problematic situations I've mentioned occurs then you are wrong. In the last three world cups when only the top two teams qualified only 5 groups have ever gone to the last day with all four teams capable of qualifying or failing to qualify. This does not include goal difference tiebreakers which might have made qualifying a pure hypothetical for a team. The worst examples I can remember where this affected results were in 2002 England and Nigeria played one of the most lifeless draws ever because a draw saw England through and Nigeria was already eliminated. In 1998 Brazil had already clinched first place in the group so they came out just to entertain on Matchday 3 and Norway was able to grab full points on the famous Esse PK call allowing Norway to qualify. I don't remember this last game particularly but in 1998 Nigeria had already clinched first in their group and they lost to Paraguay on Matchday 3 allowing Paraguay to qualify ahead of Spain (I assume that Nigeria played second teamers but I could be wrong). So the problem of unmotivated teams is persistent in group stages. In the World Cup it tends to not make a big difference because performing on an international stage is usually enough motivation that even eliminated teams play hard day 3. I doubt MLS Cup would provide the same incentive.
I was actually wrong and there were 8 groups when no one was eliminated (in four instances a team had been eliminated from winning the group but could still get second if both Matchday 3 results went their way). There have only been 5 groups when everyone was playing for their lives on the last day. I believe it's mathematically impossible to be eliminated from third on Matchday 2, barring a double digit negative GD.
(This is great information, thanks much.) So, in the last three World Cups, before the final match of Group Play, at least one team had already been eliminated (from a finish in the top two) in 66% of the groups. That's bad. Not terrible. But not good. HOWEVER, at least one team had already been eliminated from a finish in the top three in 0% of the groups! Which is sort of my point about finding a proper incentive for 3rd place. And then you've got a real lovely little Cup format, methinks. Group Winner: Hosts a Semi-final Group Runner-up: Advances to other Semi-final Group Third Place: Something significant - but what? That's the question.
Of course they understand it, but not in the context that you suggest. CL, WC and Euro qualifiers all use group stages to narrow teams down to a final 16. MLS already plays an entire season to narrow down to 8 teams. But really the group of people that are least likely to approve of a group stage format is the traditional American sports fans. Group stages is simply not the way champions are crowned in this country. But this really isn't my primary argument against the system because I honestly don't have any way of knowing what the greater public prefers. The best argument against group stages is the one put forth by artist. The majority of possible scenarios would result in at least one team having little or nothing to play for on last matchday. Having even one team already qualified (or disqualified) on last matchday can throw off the entire competitive nature of the group. Like artist says, we see this every World Cup in the majority of groups.
A pat on the back for a good season. Maybe some money to spread around for not finishing last in your group. I think you are trying too hard to respond to a bunch of straw men arguments.
IT wasn't an analogy. Please re-read. You didn't respond to my point about NHL & MLB teams with higher seeds also getting upto 4 extra home games in the playoffs. Does that really add anything to the regular season? Answer is "no". I mean there are 2 issues here: 1) making the playoff format more fair. ie. rewarding regular season performance 2) make the regular season truly seem important right from Day 1 in April. Your plan doesn't really tackle issue #2. The only way I see to tackle it is to have fewer playoff teams or the format I propose below. You don't tackle issue #1 all that well either. You're putting a team like DC back to 0-0-0 just like the Chicago Fire. Yes, they get home advantage but still... If the Fire win in DC on playoff matchday 1, then that advantage that took 7 months to obtain, just went up in .... flames D) Plus I don't like the idea of most playoff games being played in the same 2 stadiums while some other teams are not getting at least one home game. With your format, some cities will go 6-8 years without ever hosting a single playoff game. That won't work! This isn't the NFL. If you want a group-stage, how about carrying over points obtained in the regular season (after dividing by 5, say). That way, you'd have: Dc United - 11 (55 / 5 = 11) NE Revs - 10 RB NYC - 9 Wizards - 8 Then play 3 matches, with everyone getting at least one home match.
Re: #1 - I have to strongly disagree with you here. First of all, the current playoff system also puts "a team like DC back to 0-0-0 just like the Chicago Fire." And so would a single elimination knockout. Yours is the only suggestion I've ever seen that doesn't "wipe clean" the record from the regular season (and I am not a fan of your plan, sorry). However, despite the fact the regular season is wiped clean in all playoff systems, in all American sports, some kind of advantage is extended to the team the had a stronger regular season (usually in the form of home field/court advantage). You're 0-0-0 criticism makes absolutely no sense at all. Moreover, if, in your example, the Fire traveled to DC on Matchday 1, and won, it would not eliminate the advantage that is took DC 7 months to obtain. Because, on Matchday 2, the Fire go back on the road, and DC plays again at home. And then, on Matchday 3, the Fire go on the road yet again, and DC plays yet again at home. DC still has a significant advantage over the Fire. I'm increasingly convinced that much of the criticism of this plan is coming from people who, intentionally or not, misunderstand the system or exaggerate it's features or set up strawmen (Revolt, you're absolutely right; I should stop wasting my time with these replies). There are legitimate criticisms to this plan (like any plan). But it's getting tiresome replying to the creative nonsense that some are spewing. Re: #2 - The plan does make the regular season much more important. Primarily, because it doesn't stop at simply rewarding the top 8 with a post season birth - it significantly rewards teams relative to their finish in that top 8. The teams that finish the regular season 1 & 2 have an advantage over the teams that finish 3 & 4, who have an advantage over the teams that finish 5 & 6, who have an advantage over the teams that finish 7 & 8. For all the criticisms that can be made of this plan, the argument that it doesn't incentivize the regular season - the whole regular season; not just "a top 8 finish," but the place in the top 8 that you finish - is not a good criticism of this plan. Of all the plans I've seen on bigsoccer (except yours; which, I'll say again, I do not like at all), the Group Stage plan is the most rewarding of regular season performance. Period. For me, the question of meaningless games (on Matchday 3 - and only on Matchday 3) remains the main concern of this plan. Some would suggest this is just an acceptable part of the plan. And I am likely to agree. And I think Revolt is right in that the hypotheticals and objections are often straw men. But I would still like to see a reward for 3rd place in the group, because it almost entirely eliminates this problem and I think makes the format even more compelling. In my mind, this plan remains the best way to simultaneously increase post-season revenue/profile and improve the incentives for regular season play. Which makes this an improvement over the current system from both a business and competitive perspective - the two perspectives MLS is most concerned with.