Of all the leagues on the planet that probably most resemble the parity and champion format of MLS, the Mexican Futbol League (FMF) stands out as that league. In 1996 the FMF decided to beak long tradition and establish a playoff format and a split schedule. The playoffs were primarily about money and about breaking monopoly of big clubs, the split schedule was devised to conform to a FIFA calander. Since 1996 the playoff format as played a seeded format with home and away games and a sole tie breaker in non finals. That tie breaker is the higher seed advances in case of an aggregate tie. Seeding is similat to MLS but with notable differences. - Their league is broken up into 4 groups (we call confences) and each group winner is seeded 1 through 4 based on total points. The remaining 4 seeds are ranked in order of their overall combined table finish. - In their league the #1 seed plays the #8 seed. And so on. Since 1996 the FMF playoff structre has produced a data pool of 132 H/A match ups (not including the final) The following is the yearly results of advancment; the advancment %; the eventual seed of the champion; and the average Goals per leg. (See next post for the info)
YEAR 1996 (Invierno) #8 def. #1 #4 def #5 #6 def #3 #2 def #7 #6 def. #4 #2 def #8 #2 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement % = 50 Goals Per Game Leg 1 = 3.0 Goals Per Game Leg 2 = 4.0 1997 (Verano) #8 def #1 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #2 def #8 #3 def #4 #2 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 83 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.16 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.50 1997 (Invierno) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #2 def #3 #1 def #4 #2 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 100 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 1.50 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.50 1998 (Verano) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #6 def #3 #4 def #5 #2 def #4 #1 def #6 #1 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 83 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 1.83 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.66 1998 (Invierno) #8 def #1 #7 def #2 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #3 def #8 #4 def #7 #4 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 66 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.33 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.16 1999 (Verano) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #5 def #4 #2 def #3 #1 def #5 #1 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 83 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 3.00 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.33 1999 (Invierno) #1 def #8 #7 def #2 #6 def #3 #4 def #5 #7 def #1 #6 def #4 #6 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 33 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 1.83 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.33 2000 (Verano) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #2 def #3 #1 def #4 #1 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 100 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 3.83 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.00 2000 (Invierno) #8 def #1 #2 def #7 #6 def #3 #5 def #4 #2 def #8 #5 def #6 #5 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 50 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2,00 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 4.00 2001 (Verano) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #6 def #3 #5 def #4 #2 def #5 #6 def #1 #2 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 50 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 4.33 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.66 2001 (Inverano) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #1 def #4 #3 def #2 #3 Seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 83 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.00 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 2.83 2002 (Verano) #8 def #1 #7 def #2 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #7 def #3 #8 def #4 #8 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 33 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.33 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 2.16 2002 (Apertura) #8 def #1 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #2 def #8 #4 def #3 #2 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 66 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 4.16 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.66 2003 (Clausura) #1 def #8 #7 def #2 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #1 def #7 #3 def #4 #3 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 83 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.50 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.50 2003 (Apertura) #1 def #8 #7 def #2 #3 def #6 #5 def #4 #1 def #7 #3 def #4 #3 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 66 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.33 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 2.83 2004 (Clausura) #8 def #1 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #5 def #4 #2 def #8 #3 def #5 #2 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 66 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.33 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.33 2004 (Apertura) #8 def #1 #7 def #2 #6 def #3 #4 def #5 #8 def #4 #6 def #7 #8 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 33 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 4.33 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 4.00 2005 (Clausura) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #4 def #1 #3 def #2 #3 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 66 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.66 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.33 2005 (Apertua) #8 def #1 #2 def #7 #6 def #3 #5 def #4 #2 def #8 #5 def #6 #5 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 50 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 1.83 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 2.83 2006 (Clausura) #1 def #8 #7 def #2 #6 def #3 #5 def #4 #1 def #7 #5 def #6 #1 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 50 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 3.00 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 3.33 2006 (Apertura) #8 def #1 #7 def #2 #6 def #3 #4 def #5 #8 def #4 #6 def #7 #8 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 50 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 2.00 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 2.50 2007 (Clausura) #1 def #8 #2 def #7 #3 def #6 #4 def #5 #1 def #4 #3 def #2 #1 seed wins title Higher Seed Advancement %= 83 Goals Per Game Leg 1= 3.00 Goals Per Game Leg 2= 2.33 STATISTICAL FINDINGS: Overall Higher Seed Advancement Percentage = 65% GPG First Leg = 2.65 GPG Second Leg = 3.26 Higher Seed Advancement by Seeding Match Up 1 v. 8 = 54% 2 v. 7 = 64% 3 v. 6 = 59% 4 v. 5 = 64 % Second Round Higher v. Lower = 73% FMF Tie-Breaker Used = 16% (21/132)
Things that stand out to me: * The seeding advancment % is roughly equal to MLS under surrent data * The tie Breaker was used very rarely (i thought it may be more) Perhaps the rule being in place forced a team to go all out attack late in the second leg and they were caught on the counter? Could also explain the GPG difference. * Second Leg avg is like MLS, its almost a GPG higher. * The #1 seed was upset the most in the first round * The advancment of the higher seeds in the second round was signifigantly higher compared to the first round (same format) The reason i post this is for two reasons. #1- Given the massive sample size of games it paints a much stronger picture of how seeding works in parity driven leagues like ours. #2- For comparision and information purposes for future debate regarding format changes using H/A models and for information on the effect of a FMF tie breaker rule that is often discussed Enjoy.
Also, In case you need to know the eventual champion's seed in the post season -------------------------- 1 = 5 (22.7%) 2 = 6 (27.2%) 3 = 4 (18.2%) 4 = 1 (4.5%) 5 = 2 (9.1%) 6 = 1 (4.5%) 7 = 0 (0%) 8 = 3 (13.6%) all %'s rounded
What are the GPG during each season? Higher or lower than the GPG in the playoffs? That might help with the debate over whether or not their tiebreaker encourages goals. It is, however, very interesting to see how rarely the tiebreaker is actually applied. It doesn't mean it isn't effecting the way that games are played (I suspect it is effecting games), but it is interesting to see how rarely it is officially applied. Great information. Repped.
The tie breaker always forces teams to go all out and try to win the game if for some reason the lower seed tied or lost the first game. I wish the FMF will forget groups and just use the table, we have done this in the past but the owners what the wild card game to happen, i guess the wild card increases the chances to join the playoffs.
Yeah i didn't include the wild card games to get into the last 8, to random IMO. if you were the lowest seed in the last 8 after the wild card you were #8.
Good info OS, IMO its a good system and once more teams are inducted I suspect a change is inevitable.
Great information. Thank you. If people favor this tiebreaker for the first round of MLS playoff (the Conference Semis), please vote. Major League Soccer does browse these board. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=616484 For the 2-games Conference Semi-Finals, which tiebreaker do you prefer? 1. Away goal 26.92% 2. Higher seed advance 38.46% 3. Current tiebreaker (30 minutes OT + PK) 34.62% 4. Other tiebreaker 0%
MLS 1996-2006 66.2% (51 of 77) By Type Code: Best 2/3 70.8% 1st to 5 72.2% Agggregate 68.8% Single game 52.6% Total 66.2%
Good stuff, Onionsack. One minor correction is that the Mexican League has 3 groups not 4. I'm not sure how long the 3-group system has been in use but it IS the current system. I've thought that having 2 seasons (each with playoffs) is a bit too much but the Mexican fans seem to like it. So if the fans and the sponsors support it I guess it works. Anyway, too many posters on this board seem to only be willing to look to Europe as a soccer model but we could also learn useful stuff from Mexico.
Interesting. I actually liked the first-to-5 system, by the way... real home-field advantage, without a whole lot of gimmickry.
Very interesting thread. The above shows that single games (at the higher seed) aren't exactly the regular season reward many here claim it to be. The more games you play, the less likely an upset.
The first team to get 5 points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss) advances. The series goes two games if both are won by the same team. The series ends after three games if one team has either two wins or one win plus two draws. If neither team has 5 points after 3 games, which would happen if each team won once with one draw or all three games were draws, a minigame (something like extra time) was played after Game 3. A problem with first to 5 is that the teams could have 4 points each after 3 games but have unequal aggregate goals and go to a minigame anyway.
Actually, that includes the MLS Cups, which have had mostly upsets. Since 2003 the conference championships would be 75% (6/8).
Got it, thanks for the info. And dear God, if people thought aggregrate goals was confusing to the average fans.... Sometimes even the concept of 3 for a win, 1 for a draw instead of just "x games back" makes my friends' heads explode, let alone something like that.
Yeah, i have to change the actual rankings to a 1-8 seeding, so it isn't gonna be 100% compatable but it can give you a rough estimate on how it will look like: Since 2003 (the current format) ---------------------------------------- #1 - 0 (0%) #2 - 1 (25%) #3 - 1 (25%) #4 - 1 (25%) #5 - 0 (0%) #6 - 0 (0%) #7 - 0 (0%) #8 - 1 (25%) 1996-2002 (best of 3 and first to 5) --------------------------------------- #1 - 3 (42%) #2 - 1 (14%) #3 - 2 (28%) #4 - 0 (0%) #5 - 1 (14%) #6 - 0 (0%) #7 - 0 (0%) #8 - 0 (0%) Overall all Playoffs --------------------------------- #1 - 3 (27%) #2 - 3 (27%) #3 - 3 (27%) #4 - 1 (9%) #5 - 1 (9%) #6 - 0 (0%) #7 - 0 (0%) #8 - 1 (9%)
Interesting thread, thanks for the analysis. I did want to mention that the split schedule is from the 90s, but the playoff format is from the 70s. The topic comes up every so often in the Mexico forum. My recollection is that most support the playoffs, are against the split schedule, with varied opinions on the high seed advances tiebreaker. Other info- In the "old" days (70s/80s/early 90s), the league had 4 groups (resorted every year), with the top 2 from each group qualifying. The current format has 3 groups, top 2 qualify direct, next 4 in single table qualify to wildcard round. However, I believe they reseed after the wildcard round, so a wildcard team does not necessarily end as a 7/8 seed. I don't think any of this really affects the analysis. I personally like the 'high seed advances", but feel more comfortable with it as a reward after a long season than after a short/split season (also- I was against it before I was for it). I don't like the split season because it seems to cheapen the old titles, but it does bring new hope to the "losers" twice as often than under a single season.