-============ Thus my other thought... Let the DON continue to be the face and money person for the league.... Then get a Soccer person to organize the league, schedules, cups in a proper traditional way that respects the history of the game both in the USA and world wide.. would sure put us in better eyes in FIFA... maybe for the next world cup we can go after in 2026
Um, Garber doesn't rule by fiat. If the BoG disagreed with him, they could put in what rules they wanted to. Obviously Garber isn't the only one who thinks it makes sense.
I think that having more competitions-more then just one cup, like we have now, is not a bad thing. Many complain because LA didn't win and Colorado did, which is nonsensical. If you have three entities they should be consider such and not one. Open Cup and MLS cup and Supporters shield are three different trophies from three different campaigns; for instance LA did not win the MLS cup. Some people have trouble holding such complex ideas in their head as three different trophies in one league but the fact is it is not hard to comprehend. LA didn't really finish that far in front of the Rapids as far as points at the end of the year so lets say we change things and let LA sit out the playoffs and only play for the cup. This would mean maybe that the Rapids won more points at the end of the day then LA- call it regular points from a regular or irregular season, it would not matter they would have, or a team in such a position, could have more points then the so called supporters shield winner by the time they meet and played them in the final MLS Cup game. This would mean that the teams supporters could claim a sort of Supporters shield win of their own having won more game points after playing through to the final. I like the idea that when a team wins both trophies in league and open cup play as well they make history; as they won three distinctly different entities. There will be the distinction of a monster team from the triple that will be a historical mile post for the league. Giving the SS winner too much help would lessen the distinction of such an achievement. There will always be foot notes as to why teams may have not finished the season well and a number of teams have different stresses; like the World Cup was to LA or the Concacaf play was to Seattle-Toronto and RSL or open up play is to other teams. Who's to say which is the larger burden and which team if not for an injury would have won it all.
I don't disagree with you about multiple trophies, the problem is that much more weight is put on winning the MLS Cup because that team is the recognized league champion. The NHL also has multiple trophies - the regular season champion wins the President's Trophy while the playoff winner gets the Stanley Cup, but no one remembers the President's Trophy winner. The thing is, while the NHL also lets too many teams into their post-season, they also have their teams play seven-game series, thus making it much more likely that a quality regular season team will win their biggest prize (not that the mediocre don't make it to the finals, see the Edmonton Oilers from a few years ago). This is unworkable for MLS, so as long as they insist on letting a lot of teams into the post-season and then having short playoff series, there will be a great likelihood that a mediocre regular season team will have a great playoff run and be considered the champion of the league. I doubt if another in-season tournament will work-the better teams already play a lot of midweek tournament games. So, as long as the league continues to insist on using a short postseason to recognize its league champion, the likelihood will remain high that we will have sub-.500 teams recongnized as MLS champions.
I've heard him say that about conferences but NOT playoffs. Playoffs is not just his thing. It will be just about every future MLS commissioner's and owner's thing as well. Playoffs is how it's done in America and I don't ever see it removed.
I was listening to all the hoopla on the radio concerning tonight's titanic Jets-Pats MNF match, and about how far the outcome of this match could possibly go towards deciding the #1 seed in The AFC Playoffs, and how potentially huge these implications are for both teams' Super Bowl chances in The NFL this season. Try as I might, I could not imagine a circumstance where a regular season match between a potential #1 or 2 seed in all of MLS or either conference would have such implications- if any, on the title race under the current playoff format. This has been the basis of my entire argument on this thread. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have BIG regular season matches that have HUGE implications on playoff seedings for The MLS Cup run? If we usher in a system where the top two seeds in each conference can earn an all-important single match first round bye then we can start to generate a better playoff system with a more significant regular season.
I'm guessing this is why they're adding 2 more teams in the playoffs. You'll have that important bye week and a "wild card race" for good TV. Casual viewers will understand the language if nothing else.
But a potential late season contest between a #1 and #2 seed in MLS in a conference CAN be a huge matchup with large implications as it can determine the home field for the Conference Championship if both make it that far. That's essentially what they're talking about in the NFL (I think) (if the Pats go on to win this game, they may get home field advantage throughout the playoffs).
Yes, so do you ever recall a huge MLS regular season matchup that we felt had major implications on a team's chances to make The Final? In MLS there are currently no byes, and in the first round each team gets a home match. Home field only comes into play in the conference final. Don't give me that, "..well if the first round makes it to OT" nonsense. I know we all REALLY want to be happy with our domestic league, but there is no argument that can convince that as an example Colorado had a more uphill climb to the title than did any of the higher seeds. They were technically a #7 and never even had to play the #2 which is hilarious. The regular season often has very little if any bearing on the title race other than to decide which teams are in, and which are out. They need to remedy this.
Currently, ten teams get into the playoffs and the format is unannounced, but it's a very strong bet there will be byes, unless you can come up with a 10-team format without byes.
Yes, but as I continue to point out, both NY and Columbus had leads at home and failed to advance. What more home advantage do you want than having a lead at home? LA had a one-game conference final at home and failed to advance, again, what more advantage do you want to give them? In fact, the only team to win all of its playoff home games was Colorado. If the higher seeds had done their job at home, we wouldn't be having this discussion. EDIT: Actually Columbus did win its home game, but lost in PK's.
I like how the NFL sets theirs up. But then again, having a bye doesn't always turn into an advantage.
Your argument is emotional, not rational. You are not listening to logic or reason and this is why it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. No matter what proof is brought forward you dismiss is without reason or judgement. You should honestly stop posting on these forums until you're able to have a reasonably intelligent discussion.
Damn, 1 for 3. For some reason I was thinking of Dallas as the home team in MLS Cup, but that designation is meaningless in a neutral site final. OK, forget the secondary point I was making.
Jasonma, the fact that the higher seeds earned a lead on the road and took them home is immaterial to my point. Should they have fared better at home with the lead as higher seeds? Of course they should have, and as such they both deserved to lose. This has nothing to do with the fact that NEITHER had any REAL home field advantage as a result of finishing better in the regular season. My point IS NOT that the higher seeds should have won; My point is that the regular season is worthless because it is pointless to shoot for the higher seeds as it offers very little advantage and so you are better off just making the playoffs and taking your chances in the short cup playoff.. And that's just how MLS is settling it's championship year after year: With an overly fair, very short cup playoff that opens the door to chance far too much. The playoff should be more heavily predicated upon the regular season, which it isn't. Bunge, Perhaps this is far too simplistic of a concept to grasp? Or is it too complex of a concept for too simple a mind? You still can't seem to account for how it is fair that if the main advantage a higher seed gets in the first round is to play against a lower seed, then how is it that Colorado who were the # 7 seed and had the least wins of every playoff team didn't have to open against the #2 seed?
And that's my point. At some point, no matter what you do, the higher seeds have to perform or they'll lose. It doesn't matter how much of a home field advantage you entice them with or give them, they still have to play the game. Every system is eventually going to end up with a 7 or 8 seed winning sooner or later, that can't be avoided. And every system that has multiple conferences/divisions/whatever is going to end up with a much tougher group and a much easier group. With the parameters MLS has set (one home game for every playoff team, conferences, etc.) this year was bound to happen sooner or later. I'm still waiting to see it happen more than once before getting too worried about it.
But you consider the best team in the league to be the team that can earn the most points from worthless games. I think this settles it. You are stupid.
A, Every team knows the rules at the start of the season and naming MLS Cup winners Champions is not so different from a team finishing 6th 10 points behind third place in the Championship in England gaining promotion to the EPL via the play-offs. B, Those of us "me included" who think the Supporters Shield winners are the true champions can have that opinion for themselves. If the majority of us feel that way eventually the league will likely fall in behind us. C, Though I do personally feel the Galaxy were the best team in MLS last season and that they should be considered champions, I still feel the play-offs and MLS Cup are a great end of season tournament for the best 8 teams in the league.
A lot of it is US fans getting used to the idea of a professional team sport with more than one trophy per year. MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA have only one major piece of hardware a year. Soccer is just not like that. You have league cups. You have international cups. You have inter-division national cups. We just have to wrap our heads around the idea.
Hey, how many regular season matches did you watch this season? And if you're admitting that the games are worthless.. Well, which one of us is stupid? That was precisely my point: That as fans of the league, we would like to see regular season games that are worth more, not less. Of course if you would prefer to keep the games meaningless, whereas I am suggesting a change.. Which one of us is stupid again? I never said that here in the United States, that the championship should be indefinitely settled on whichever team finishes first overall on points- Sorry. But then again, I could see how you would think that, seeing as one of us is DEFINITELY stupid.
Whether it turned out in the end to work as an advantage or not, it would certainly be something that was all-importantly worth shooting for, which in turn would give more meaning to regular season matches- as would having a SINGLE MATCH wildcard round that was for teams 3 through 6 in both conferences. That would keep the mid level teams fighting to get that wild card match at home if they couldn't achieve a bye, as opposed to having a home and home where there is only an advantage for the higher seed in OT. Finally, the teams that were lower in the table save for maybe the very worst ones would have a shot at the playoff picture for most of the season- It would keep most of the table playing for something important all season long. I'd like to think I could possibly convince everyone of this- Everyone of course except for Bunge.
Jasonma, I have NO PROBLEM with a 7th or 8th seeded team winning the championship, but I do think that a team that qualifies for a cup playoff as a 7 or 8 seed should have a considerably more uphill road to the championship than does a 1 or 2 seed. If they don't, what is the point of the regular season? The Rapids as the 7th seed didn't even have to open against the #2 seeded team in the league, and that team was in their own conference. I've been using the NFL as a model only because mostly it is a system that would serve MLS' purposes well. Suggesting that the top two seeds in each conference should earn a bye from a single match "wildcard" round does not suggest that the 7th seeded Rapids wouldn't have still won the championship, but it does suggest that the top seeds in each conference would have had something that was legitimately worth striving for during the season, making regular season matches count a little more- especially since the advantages currently given to regular season merit don't really kick in until the conference championships, or if after you open on the road in the first round you're "lucky" enough to get an OT at home. I say "lucky" in jest because the only advantage enjoyed here is IF the series goes to OT. In other words it's only a contingent advantage. Yes, the higher seeds should be able to win a home and home with a lower seed, but that isn't really the point is it? YES, you are correct, they DO need to perform better (especially if they plan on winning the championship) but what does that have to do with the point that the merit that they should have earned by performing well in the regular season is largely non-existent and not worth playing for? As a fan, should I just wait for the post season to kick in? I'm not saying they got jacked because they played like crap and lost (they deserved to lose). I'm saying they got jacked because they got jacked! In other words next season, if the system stayed the same don't bother winning games late in the season to get a 1 or 2 seed. Just rest your best players for the playoffs. Similarly fans, don't bother attending any mid to late season regular season games once the playoff picture begins to come into focus. I would suggest to Real Salt Lake next season, "F*** it, why even bother striving for the #2 seed next season? There's no real benefit to it." NOT because they might have fared better against Colorado, and NOT because they lost but because THERE IS NO REAL ADVANTAGE TO IT. RSL should have opened against #7 Colorado if that was the case, but somehow the league managed to even screw that up. They would have been better served by just ensuring qualification, blowing off much of the regular season late and then taking their chances in the playoffs, but what kind of a product do you have to sell to the fans then? That is why the league is looking at making some changes here- mercifully they aren't entirely stupid. Will they get it right though? That is the question.
I'll admit that FSL got jacked by the system, but it was the same system they used to their benefit in 2009 so I don't feel real bad for them. I don't think the other teams got jacked though. They may have not had the same advantage as you would want, but they all overcame that before they faltered. LA - Home conference final NY - Lead at home and they got the 8th seed Columbus - Lead at home (plus as the 5th best record but 2nd in the East they were already benefiting from the system) Dallas - No advantage for the 4th best record but overcame it and got to MLS Cup Seattle, San Jose, and Colorado - As the last 3 seeds there's no real expected benefit So one team got truly jacked this year, FSL. Everyone else either overcame the issue or wasn't in a position to benefit anyway. If NY had held its lead at home and LA had won its conference final home game (both advantages they earned through the regular season) the Rapids would have had to go through 5, 3, and 1 with only one home game instead of 2. Nobody would be complaining at that point. You can complain that Colorado had an easy road (and they did) but its only partially the system to blame. Partially its because the high seeds failed. I can get why FSL fans are upset by the system that jacked them this eyar. I really don't get the outrage from everybody else though. It seems like everyone is just now realizing what the worst case scenario might be and is applying that as the standard across the board when its the worst-case scenario that will likely not be repeated.