But there are rewards for seeding. Seeds 1 & 2 get a bye. Seeds 3 & 4 host the knockout round. How does that "reward mediocrity"? Not really. If a team has made the playoffs and stands to gain no advantage from advancing in the standings, the coach will take his foot off the gas, rest his starters, and save energy for the post-season. He'd be stupid not to. But again, look at Columbus last year. That last game against Philadelphia was huge, because a first-round bye was on the line. Most teams in MLS have something to fight for even late in the season. I ignore it because it's the equivalent of tilting at windmills. It drives me nuts when fans of any sport talk about shrinking the playoffs, as if that were even a remote possibility. I'm a realist. Sports leagues only ever expand the playoffs, they never shrink them. So we can either accept this, or quit watching sports and find something else to do on Saturday. ------RM
I don't really follow the EPL, but I just looked at the standings. With 4 or 5 months to go, it looks like at least 16 of the 20 teams are already, realistically, eliminated. Now, apparently, that is exciting to some; but I'd prefer my team have something to play for going into the final month. Admittedly, I'm use to playoffs. Though I'd prefer a smaller number of teams (even down to just the East winner vs West winner), that ship has sailed. It's all about entertainment and money. MLS entertains me.
I found the MLB postseason extremely compelling in 3 of the last 5 years. A very welcome distraction from watching the Quakes stumble to the finish line late in the season.
Of course that is standard fare for pro leagues in the U.S., but if a team is already obviously the worst team in the league by the halfway point of the regular season, it seems ridiculous to me that the format should be tweaked to help the fans of this worst team keep their championship hopes alive. Your team sucks this season! Deal with it! come at the end of the season because you love the sport, or you love a rivalry, or you want to play occasional spoiler. When every team gets to stay into contention until almost the very end, there is no point for fans of any team (except Lord Robin) to look at the standings until the last month or two of the season. (Of course, there is Lord Robin who is still figuring that the Galaxy won 2014 MLS Cup not with Robbie Keane's goal in the 111th minute of the MLS Cup Final but rather with Zardes's 18th minute goal against the Revs in July.)
Or some of us can just not start following the league until the end of the regular season and the playoffs. I'm glad to find even a small bit of common ground.
So this is personal now? You're gonna call me out by name? What the hell did I do to deserve that? I'm just disagreeing with you, man. I don't play Internet Fight Club. If you want to discuss this issue on the merits, I'm here. ------RM
Why not? Deal with it! Come at the beginning of the season because you love the sport, or you love a rivalry, or you want to claim the Shield by starting hot.
Certainly, that's your choice. I think you're going to miss some good games; still, your choice. I'm sure there are NBA fans that don't follow too closely until the last month or so of their season. Some don't follow the NHL at all until the playoffs. Unless your a diehard fan of a specific team, I'd guess it would be difficult to stay revitted to the MLB an entire season. Back to EPL/MLS: I'd rather things heat up during the last half of the season than already being out and simply playing to finish 12th instead of 16th. But again, that's me. EDIT: I see JasonMa posted ahead of me. Yea, the beginning of the season, any season, is exciting - as they say, "Everyone's in first place." Rivalry games, personnel match ups, any number of story lines to keep one interested in the beginning.
Heck, I would argue that everybody but Chelsea and Man City are realistically eliminated. Southampton and Man U are only 10 and 12 points back respectively, but when the leader is going at a 2.3 PPG clip that is a big gap.
I said rewards for seeding is a separate issue. The "mediocrity" I was talking about being rewarded is the teams making the postseason in 5th or 6th place (out of 9/10). I was trying to find a point of agreement with you, but you are disagreeing with me on it. Fine, never mind. Can I keep watching soccer, but just quit watching MLS?
Love this post, as it encapsulates all of the major points I believe as well. For competition's sake, it'd have been best to wait until at least 22 teams, if not 24. But this move may bolster fanbases in the eastern conference (expansion teams (NYC, ORL), recent successful teams off the field without playoff success on it (Philly, Toronto, Montreal), and fanbases needing or experiencing rejuvination (nearly all of the old guard in one way or the other - Crew have probably been the one consistently successful on the field, and now have rebranded with a seemingly great owner/front office now in charge)), which could be amazing long term....amazing how these teams break down, and the opportunities an owner could take to make these teams so relevant. I see/understand/support sides, but overall I'm slightly ok with this change because of the east, and even possible playoff storylines in the west.....still such a young league still in terms of history & tradition, so I can see the argument that this could help build more of that for the next few years....but I think this should stay at 6 at least through 24, if not 28.
I disagree with the point being made with this post, and a collegiate landscape with its history and structure only makes sense to go to 4, or possibly 8 in the future. Additionally, as Jason said, this doubled the previous structure as well. That said, O - H - I - O !!! Still high on the national championship euphoria!!! (and maybe painkillers for a broken wrist, but nevermind that) This is a good point though. Overall, 12 teams would be ideal for me for a league with 28-ish (maybe 24) teams, and I feel there is a good argument to be made for devaluing the regular season, and awarding teams under .500 (especially who don't win a division (unlike the NFL's Panthers)). However, I do think there are possibly major short-term benefits with this specific situation, considering we are on track to add at least 4 teams in the next 5 years or so...
And how compelling would a top-8 playoff be in the EPL this year? I don't really care about the EPL much, but I'd probably be glued to the TV for those matchups (and just imagine if the standings shuffled a little bit to provide even stronger rivalry matchups). Position Club 1 Chelsea 2 Manchester City 3 Southampton 4 Manchester United 5 Arsenal 6 Tottenham 7 West Ham 8 Liverpool
I just like to be precise. People in the "playoffs make the regular season meaningless" camp will argue that there's no incentive to win once you've clinched a playoff spot, and they won't accept your "win for pride" argument, even though there's some truth to it. The argument is that, while the players are going to give 100% every time their boots touch the field, the coaches will have a different perspective. But my position is that no coach can relax unless his team is in at least 2nd place with more points than the leaders in the other conference. I can't emphasize enough how big a deal hosting MLS Cup is. MLS Cup has been hosted by the home team six times, and only once has the home team lost. In most seasons, the two MLS Cup opponents are going to be pretty close on points. If they end the season less than six points apart, the hosting privilege will have come down to whoever won the single regular-season meeting between the two teams. Think about that for a minute. Any inter-conference matchup between two strong teams is potentially a six-pointer. ------RM
And yet, I'm sure it wouldn't take much digging to find some grunpy folks who think Ohio State shouldn't have been there because they lost that single game to Virginia Tech. I guess they're the 2005 LA Galaxy of college football. ------RM
The 2013 San Jose Earthquakes had the best record in MLS over the period from the end of June to the end of the season. They also missed the playoffs. Tell me again how the first part of the season doesn't matter.
With the new expanded playoff format, San Jose would have qualified. So more great evidence that we don't need to start watching from the beginning.
And the beginning is more important than the end why? I mean you told fans of teams that would be eliminated to suck it up and keep watching, why doesn't the same apply to your scenario?
The artisans behind "Taken 3, Electric Bugaloo" would like a word with you. Not to mention 13 or 14 of the 20 were eliminated from winning anything meaningful before the first ball was kicked. The rest of us in big10 country are super happy for you guys and Urban. Maybe next year some of your conquering heros can even try attending a class or two.
Your guys attended their first classes this year. You see the results. Time to go back to the old ways. I've gotten so jaded on college athletics. I'm a bad person anymore.
However bad the SEC is always said to be, I've actually long thought the Pac-[insert #here] is the worst conference about actual academic and institutional violations. I thought they got away with even more recently because of those who don't want to be accused of East Coast bias.
Tell that to USC (who deserved what they got IMO, but most people think they got way over-penalized).