think of upside: more games = more experience for players, develop faster, quality increases in mls national team + mls benefit
So we should emulate them? Money or no money, the Mexican league has, in my mind, always been an organizational joke. The "grupos", two titles in one calendars year, uniforms straight out of NASCAR. No thanks. And while Mexico's organization may be just a joke, Brazil's is a nightmare. You should know that. Anyway, I don't want the Latin fascination with "organizing" more competitions just so more victory laps can be realized to take hold here.
He said four teams would make it instead of eight, and it might be "best out of 3" or home v. home a la the Europeans, as opposed to first to 5.
Other than not predicting the U.S.A. for World Cup greatness in 2002, what has Jamie Trekker written that is so objectionable to you?
Really??? Whoops! Must have been reading a different version of the article. But I think the last paragraph of my prior post still applies (and I still think Trecker is accenting what he wants to happen).
I have not read this thread, but a split season strikes me as incredibly stupid and here is why: 1. You have managed to increase attendance for two years straight. You are doing things right. Do not change for something that is completely foreign to YOUR fan base. I could care less how they do it in Argentina. They have only one sport there. 2. It makes the season too long. 3. It will alienate you even further from the media. 4. By creating two titles of any sort through one season of play you cheapen the championship. Note the Open Cup is something entirely different in my mind. And if you throw in the "Supporters Shield" you've made not two titles, but four.
From the prespective of already having players under contract. It might be a good idea. The winters arent to friendly so I would hope the dont try to emulate mexicans league. Maybe just starting earlier is a good idea with a 2 or 3 week break midseason. In certain respects the mls has to contiue to chart there own course. with trading allowed on the break to add more drama. HMM what are they thinking first breaking off with the A-league which actually was more adventagious for mls the A-Lge. But that is why I have only been going to A-Lge games. I like the idea i proposed though!!1 cheers everyone onward to Milwaukkeeee Gooooo Kickers!!!!!
i think that it cheapens the status of being champion. Not only that, it adds fodder to those soccer bashers in the media when they say that soccer is a socialistic sport that rewards parity. 2 champions in one year. Wait till they hear about that.
I agree. The league has worked to hard to build a fan base only to suffer bashing not only of their sport but also their very organization. It is already working. LEAVE IT BE!
28 games is not enough. Until they control more stadia, it probably doesn't make sense to have more games. Eventually, I think we'll see 40 games or so. I totally agree about the two seasons per year. That would be horrible.
Why is it we can't start refering to the unfair-for-seeding-concerns two leg playoff series as "needing to be changed to a TRUE first to 5 series." I'll even answer: Because Euro CL series are not meant to be seeded unlike MLS series that most definitely are. MLS DOES NOT NEED TO BE EUROPEAN ABOUT ANYTHING. First to 5 is the single fairest way to reward seeds anddetermine who moves to the next round.
10 teams 9 Homes and 9 Away= 18 games per open Take off months of June-July 10 teams 9 Homes and 9 Aways= 18 games per close 18+18=36 games instead of 40 games I like it
If there's a way MLS can get the season started a little earlier, and have room for breaks for the WC, Confederations Cup, and qualifying, then I'm okay with it. From a soccer stand point, I don't think the two season is that foreign to most soccer people in this country. The old leagues before the NASL used to have a two season format and all over the country kids play fall seasons that start in September and spring seasons that start in March. A two season set up would be forieign to a mainstream sports fan and the media though. I think that would make MLS difficult to follow and hard to understand. For that reason, I would be in favor of a two season MLS. I think a 36 game season with a break would be better. However, I think MLS could make a two season format work if each season had a streamlined playoff and the winners of the respective seasons met for the MLS cup once each season was completed. Of course if the same team wins both trophies, then you have to come up with a convoluted way of crowning a champion, so I guess that's where things fall apart.
This reeks of MLS floating a trial balloon through a disrespected member of the media. If we the fans hate the idea, MLS backtracks, saying there was nothing to Trecker's piece. If we love the idea, they go further with possible plans. Sounds to me like MLS using the media very well to do its' market research. Well, Trey, if you are reading, THIS IDEA SUCKS CANAL WATER!
More games. Single table. Sounds good to me. Two 20 games seasons? I would guess two 18 game seasons (home and home with every opponent in each season) would be the more likely schedule. Still, that's 36 games and every opponent visiting twice.
I like the idea of making sure that league isn't competing with the big international events, and if this means that the U.S. will always play in Copa America, then it's great. And I think that people would take the two season thing -- with a final championship game between the two winners -- relatively easily. And I think that there's lots of sense in starting the season MUCH earlier -- like February, which is traditionally the dead time on the U.S. sports calendar -- football done, pro and college basketball playoffs not started yet, baseball not even in spring training yet. There are really only two MLS cities where there's an overwhelming likelihood of bad conditions at that point, and they can just start their seasons with 3 or 4 road games every year. In most of the country, February's much more hospitable soccer weather than July. BUT . . . if we're going to play more games, we need bigger rosters. Much bigger. It's an absolute prerequisite.
Taking time off in the summer doesn't make business sense. It's the only time MLS has access to a consistent time slots on TV, and there is much less congestion on the sports calander. Plus, playing more games in the fall make it tougher for field availability (not to mention more gridlines). I know the weather is a bit warm for soccer, but its the currently works best for the league. I'm all for having more MLS games but the split season doesn't sound good. And please, leave the 1st to 5 alone.
Several points. 1) Jamie Trecker has bashed both MLS and US Soccer. So what. If everything he typed was made up, then he wouldn't have a job. I don't see anything in the article claiming that any of this will come to pass. 2) This is news. We definitely want to know what the league is considering. If this same news was leaked by Jeff Bradley or Grant Wahl the reaction would be completely different. 3) Remeber the contraction bombshell fell one year before contraction happen. There was no way in hell that the MLS was going to lop off two teams. Especially a "successful" year after they had decided not to. 4) The league has to consider alternatives. To be honest, I don't think a split season is feasible until they have better control over stadium dates. 5) There is nothing un-American about split seasons. Minor league baseball is chock full of examples. I'm not advocating it, I'm just pointing out a counter example. 6) Folks worried about negative reaction from the press over this plan are way ahead of themselves in my opinion. Any word written or spoken about MLS is a good thing. ---- Personally, I'm intrigued by the idea. It would definitely align MLS with most of the rest of the world, allowing the US National Team to participate in things like Copa America, the Confed Cup, and the World Cup without major roster disruptions.
If the US has a chance to bring their A team (dah du-du-dah!) to as many serious competitions as possible, all the better. Though not the biggest problem in the world, missing the biggest stars in the league for 1/3 of the season every 4 years isn't great. And who knows if FIFA puts any more effort behind the International Calendar. However...MLS has done a good job of making progress with the current format. More fans are coming out to the games and becoming familiar with the teams, players, feel for the games, and the format of the league. There's no need to change things every couple of years. Also, wasn't there some example where this happened in baseball one season? This could be wrong, but I believe that there was a work stoppage of sorts, and they deemed that the leader in the first half and leader in the second half would make the playoffs. It turns out some team (I want to say the Reds) had the best overall record in the season, but finished 2nd both times.