Two beautiful games in the Conference Finals, great LA-SJ series, awaiting the much anticipated CHicago Fire and San Jose Quakes MLS 2003 Cup. If the final is anywhere decent, this could very well be the best post-season in MLS.
Of course not, these two legged playoffs in the 1st round, and single leg in the semi final are the worst thing ever, they make the regular season so worthless, what a joke =) So basically this horribly flawed system worked PERFECTLY, every higher ranked team advanced, and the two best teams over the course of the season are in the final.
This post season has been fantastic. As Profiled said, the system has worked perfectly. All the higher seeds advanced and the best teams won. On top of that, there was wide open soccer, pressure filled games, and unbelievable comebacks. All leading into a marquee final featuring two teams, of which there can be no "upset". It's a great time to be a fan of MLS.
With all allegiances aside... yes, it has been as close to perfect as any playoff scheme or format in MLS has been so far. The participating teams have played the games right down to the letter, with passion, skill and excitement-- and for the last two days in these knockout semifinals, I don't think you can beat it for drama. I know there had been a lot of debate here over the two-legged format versus that of a straight knockout, and I think we've seen the best either one would have on offer over the course of the past three weekends.
single elimination games are the way to go... yes, the San Jose comeback against LA was great and i was freaking out during the whole match, but after watching this weekends conference finals I have to say watching these games was like watching the NFL playoffs (which I used to live and die NFL, now I'm MLS then NFL) or like watching the MLS Cup Final...whoever wins advances, people were saying greatest ever MLS game after LA-SJ last weekend, well SJ-KC beat that game tonight (still don't think its the best MLS game ever though, Dallas-Chicago 99 playoffs, or MLS Cup 96, MLS Cup 2001, MLS Cup 2002)
In so many ways You bethca, Not only is it the best ever, I actually got to watch it the best games LIVE, or nearly so on FSW. This weekend was soccer heaven. Three great games, two live, all with drama and passion. AND ALL OF THEM WERE IN THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, AND THE KEY PLAYERS WERE AMERICANS, for the most part. That is what MLS is all about. How good is this playoff system? As more teams are added it will only get better. It already eclipses the Euro way of producing a league champion, and rivals the best of SA. Garber et al have found the formula to turn the post season into the best part of the MLS year. If there is anything he brought over from the NFL it is the ability to make sure the playoffs are the payoff for real fans.
The two-legged playoffs are a problem. Just because they worked out so well this time doesn't mean they will every year. I'd prefer a single-elimination first round match. Give the better regular season team home field advantage.
I think this is a good post-season. Not as good as last year, but I'm partial to that one. The format works - it's not perfect, but I liken it to Churchill's quote about government: Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all those other forms. The goal aggregate makes a lot of sense for the first round - and it makes sense that playoff games not be limited - so home fans can see their teams in the playoffs at least once.
I don't know about you, but in my eyes two major upsets were brewing in the conference finals. NE almost saved themselves to penalty kicks, and KC couldn't hold on to the lead with few minutes to go. The final could very easily have been NE vs. KC. I personally think single elimination puts too much pressure on the home side (the lower seed has got nothing to lose), and both Chicago and SJ showed signs of that. I'm still in favor of home & away (MFL style)
If you like chalk this has been a great offseason. Anyone want to rethink if MLS has a home field advantage or not? All the higher seeds have advanced and for the most part even the losers played better at home. Is that a function of the higher seeded teams just being better no matter where the games are played or is that home field advantage?
Best Ever. I am sick of this: the playoffs worked great, and people are still whining about "home field advantage." You don't think SJ's home field advantage helped them score 5 unanswered goals when they needed to? You don't think the pressure on DC and Metros to win their home games made it easier for the Fire and Revs to grab 2-0 advantages and make their home games much easier? And the KC-Colorado series was tight, but the Wiz knew they could play for a draw that first game and sneak a win at home. If the advantage isn't clear from the way things went, then there's no helping you. If you deny that these series have home-field advantage, then you deny the existence of home-field advantage, so what's the point. We have a nice, compact postseason, and we have a great final to look forward to. And we have single-elimination when it matters most, so stop whining... I wouldn't say it "eclipses" determining the regular season champ by playing a regular season (the "Euro way"), but if we're going to have playoffs, this is the way to go.
Who's whining? Bob Bradley chose to start a B team the last game of the year with second place and a higher seeding on the line thereby limiting the Metro chances for winning the game. Many fans at that time said it didn't really matter because there was little advantage if any to being the higher seed in the first round. I would like to know if people think differently now that the results are in: all 4 3-4 seeds lost in the first round and all 2 seeds lost in the second round.
already stated my opinions on the playoff format above... but i just have to ask, who's whining? get this 352gialloblu guy outta here, apparently he can't comprehend anything or just flat can't read?
All I was saying is that I'd been reading posts going on and on about how there was no home field advantage in this set-up, and now that the results are in a few people continue to insist that first-to-five is the way to go, or that this format makes the regular season especially meaningless, etc. If you were making the same point as me, I obviously wasn't saying you were the ones whining, eh? Nevermind, I'm outta here, because I can't read...