News: Tuesday, Nov 01, 2011

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by Fiosfan, Nov 1, 2011.

  1. Fiosfan

    Fiosfan Red Card

    Mar 21, 2010
    Nevada
    Club:
    New York City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  2. walkingcity

    walkingcity Member

    May 17, 2007
    Boston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  3. jond

    jond Member+

    Sep 28, 2010
    Club:
    Levski Sofia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  4. HailtotheKing

    HailtotheKing Member+

    San Antonio FC
    United States
    Dec 1, 2008
    TEXAS
    Club:
    San Antonio Scorpions FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Always liked how he played, couldn't understand why he couldn't latch on with another MLS team.
     
  5. pate

    pate Member+

    Jun 12, 2007
    Provo, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  6. RSLer

    RSLer Member+

    Sep 24, 2008
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  7. fifty7

    fifty7 Member

    Oct 27, 2010
    Long Island
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A New MLS Cup Format?
    Big Apple Soccer

    How about scrapping the idea of "conference finals" altogether, yeah? And maybe making the final two legs instead of just at the higher seed? Oi....
     
  8. cthomer5000

    cthomer5000 Member+

    Apr 23, 2007
    Raleigh NC
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    I would be strongly against a two-legged final.
     
  9. carnifex2005

    carnifex2005 Member+

    Jul 1, 2008
    Club:
    Vancouver Whitecaps
    Yeah, that would be lame. Every playoff except the wild card and championship should be two legged, with total goal ties giving victory in the series to the higher seed.
     
  10. fifty7

    fifty7 Member

    Oct 27, 2010
    Long Island
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Honest question, why would you be against a two-legged final? I prefer the symmetry of it, and both fan bases getting to host the final would be great for both markets regardless of whether their team wins. I'm open to whatever you have to say, don't get me wrong, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

    My preference is that we get a straight two-legged knockout tournament if we have a balanced schedule, or a 3-game group stage/two-legged semifinals/two-legged final tournament if we have an unbalanced schedule. What're your's?
     
  11. cthomer5000

    cthomer5000 Member+

    Apr 23, 2007
    Raleigh NC
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    I very much prefer the finality of a winner-take all game. There is a reason almost all the big competitions are one-off finals.
     
  12. armani

    armani Member

    Dec 18, 2007
    I think the general american public would be confused at seeing there team lose 1-0 and yet celebrating winning mls cup because they won the first game by more goals. Something about celebrating a championship after losing the second leg just doesnt marinate well with your average joe the plumber type.
     
  13. xbhaskarx

    xbhaskarx Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    United States
    Feb 13, 2010
    NorCal
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  14. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Same reason the UEFA CL final is one game, World Cup final is one game, FA Cup final is one game. The moment is just so much bigger as a one game final. One titantic big clash for all the marbles. I like the idea of semis and conference finals being two-legged ties, though I can live with the current format as long as they never add another team to it. 10 and no more.

    I actually prefer no wild-cards, but I like the advantage it gives the top seeds.

    -----

    Now what scares me is the idea the MLS will have the two finalist bid on who hosts the final. The better to ensure the final is hosted by a favored team. :rolleyes:
     
  15. fifty7

    fifty7 Member

    Oct 27, 2010
    Long Island
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States


    I expect a better response from a fellow Everton supporter than 'hurr durr that's dumb ur dumb.' I was genuinely asking to be persuaded to the other side of the argument, no need to be a jerk.
     
  16. Etienne_72772

    Etienne_72772 Member+

    Oct 14, 1999
    Just for the record, count me in for the one-game final.

    I would be ok with two games for the "conference finals". But the funny thing is, it lessens the home field advantage. One thing I have tossed around (and internally debated) is whether it is better to host the first game or the second game in a two-game tie. With the extra time and shootout at home after the second game, I would think hosting the second game is better. But why not give the higher seed the choice - either host the first or second game? Then nobody can complain that the higher seed is gypped because they are forced to host the second game.

    But I am also an advocate of the group play, but I am sure there are logistics and debates that would have to rage about that - such as, who does the higher seed host first? The order of the games, can the last games be played simultaneously? Lots of questions to answer there.
     
  17. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This.

    Of course I'm also against giving guaranteed home-field advantage to one of the teams in the one-game final for sporting reasons. It should stay as a neutral site. What other major sport with a one-off final has it guaranteed to be at the home of one of the teams?
     
  18. xbhaskarx

    xbhaskarx Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    United States
    Feb 13, 2010
    NorCal
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Everyone complains about how the top teams don't have enough of an advantage in the playoffs. Let the higher seed host the MLS Cup final, that's quite an incentive to do well in the regular season. And it would mean better crowds than at a neutral site, maybe we can go back to a "Soccer Bowl" in a few decades when MLS is somewhat closer in popularity to the NFL.
     
  19. fifty7

    fifty7 Member

    Oct 27, 2010
    Long Island
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'd rather it be either one game neutral site, or two legs home and away. Doing things halfway to try and appease everyone is how MLS got itself into this mess we call a playoff system with the implementation of "wild cards" while still clinging to the idea of "conference finals"
     
  20. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Everyone not being me that is...
     
  21. HailtotheKing

    HailtotheKing Member+

    San Antonio FC
    United States
    Dec 1, 2008
    TEXAS
    Club:
    San Antonio Scorpions FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well of course, Colorado hasn't been a top team entering the playoffs yet ;):cool: .... I keed I keed.
     

Share This Page