Split Season: Those in favor

I would want to see an actual proposal, or plan, before I tried to figure out whether or not I like it. I am not unilaterally against the idea, however.

 

All I know is that I'm for one table. I don't know if I'd prefer split seasons, one season with a huge break in the middle, etc.... until I saw a proposal with more details.

 

I'm all for it. It gives United two opportunities a year to finish in last place.

 

My suspicion is that Trecker heard they are considering taking some kind of break to accomodate the national team--a scheduling decision, not a format change--and Trecker extrapolated it in his mind into a possible Mexican-style split season.

 

One positive that I can imagine is that MLS likes to market themselves off of the national teams performances. So by allowing the US team to play in the mid summer tournaments allows for more marketing possibilites. But of course, this does no good if nobody can watch these games on TV. IMHO the marketing campaign connected with the WC was effective, and perhaps similar results can be made.

Also if they do this every year, perhaps they can schedule around qualifiers. The qualification for 2006 promises to be the toughest in recent times, and the US will benefit from a break in the schedule. MLS should care about this because if the US doesn't qualify, then that is a huge marketing loss.

 

I think having a split season would be interesting. There would be a lot more MLS to follow which is never bad. The single table standings would be a lot more fair. This year, the Revs who are under .500, is ranked 2nd best in the league. And it also gives a team two chances to be awarded champion.

Though playing in the cold might stop the casual fan from going to the games. If they do decide on a single table standing, more teams need to be added. Four teams going to the playoffs isn't enough I think. And MLS would have to spend more money on the salary cap, because 40+ games a year is too much. Mathis playing for the US and the Metros at the same time might be part of the reason why he tore is ACL.

Would there be an All-Star game? US versus World?

 

There's already a thread in this forum regarding this topic, I'm going to move it to the MLS General Discussion forum. If you have any questions, please PM me.
Thanks,

 

I took a Meteorology class in college and I don't remember them mentioning this. All I recall is something about a squall line - course I got a D so what do I know.

I am familar with most ways soccer seasons and tables are set up across the world. One thing I need help with is this split season thing.

1. Is it one season with a month long break in the middle OR is it two separate seasons?
2. If its two seasons - does the Spring Champ meet the Fall Champ in a Final and if so, what if they are the same team.
3. Does one have title have more prestige than another?
4. Do we go 18 games and 18 games? Where did 20 and 20 come from?

Anything that extends the season and means more MLS games I want to hear about but I have to think that this idea is more about what the author would like to see than Garber and the boys are thinking up in NYC.

 

The 40 game season is unlikely. I don't know where that figure came from. More likely in my opinion would be a split 18-18 season, with each team playing home and away in the first and second halves.

Mexico plays a 17-17 split, with teams organized into four qualifying groups for the playoffs, which are held twice a year. This format has been the norm only since about 1996. The top two teams in each qualifying group and the next best finisher (the wildcard) advance to the playoffs. In the first phase, the wildcard plays off home and away against the worst of the eight automatic qualifiers, and then the knockout continues as usual (home and away series).

The Mexican champions are the winners of these playoffs, not the teams that get the most points in the regular seasons. Within the last few years, Pachuca won a championship as the wildcard.

Mexico also has promotion and relegation, but honestly, I don't fully understand how that works. I do know that there is a multi-year formula that helps pick one team each year for relegation. (I think that the worst team over the last three years -- six seasons -- is picked, based on average points per game). That team has to play off against a team meeting certain criteria from the 2nd division. The winner goes (or stays) up.

In our setup, we could have two seasons and the top point winners of the first and second season could get the first and second seeds in the playoffs. The remaining teams could be seeded based on a full year table. If the champions of the first and second seasons are the same, you would just fill out the brackets with the next best seven teams.

The supporters shield could continue to be awarded to the team that gains the most points in the full year table. MLS Cup is still the league championship.

But this format would possibly create problems. Two 18 game regular seasons plus a 4 week playoff campaign once a year doesn't leave much time off for anything else if you only play one game a week in the two league seasons (it leaves about 12 weeks). That's twelve weeks for Open Cup, whatever crazy international stuff is going on, and to take time off for severe weather (August and the Winter). Also, Unless you take off Jan-Feb or Feb-Mar you don't get close to having your summer month break in the hottest part of the year.

Many european leagues have a break over the holiday period.

I'm in favor, but there are a lot of odd things to deal with in a schedule of this sort.

Best part of playing later in the year or earlier in the year: More excuses to wear scarves without having people look at you like a loony.

Worst part: Soldier Field in January.

 

1. Unless ALL teams in the league control their own facilities, this whole idea is pretty mute!

2. Whatever family fan-base you have gained because of warm-weather scheduling you will lose between colder weather and back-to-school activities.

3. Having a split season will only further confuse the general population and diffuse the momentum of what most people can relate to in this country as a sinlge season.

There are plenty of knowledgable fans on this board, and around the country, that can offer various positions supporting this proposal. It is my contention, however, that there are not enough PAYING fans in this country to support a proposal that further fractures the professional soccer "season" in this country and/or brings part of it's season head-to-head with the NFL season, baseball playoffs, kids going back-to-school and other such competition for the entertainment dollar!

 

You said it before I could.

 

all for it

 

Need to see real date proposals. Columbus fans are definitely "fair-weather" in the literal sense --- apart from me, I'd be there even when they break out the glowing orange balls.

 

I think it's an intersting idea, but the weather issue really may prove decisive. Most countries that play split seasons enjoy far milder winters than much of the US. You have a lot more flexibility with the schedule when you don't have to worry about freezing temps or getting snowed out.

Japan is the only country that I can think of that has to deal with very cold weather and also uses a sort of split season format. IIRC, Japan runs a First Stage tourney Mar-July and a Second Stage Aug-Nov, with a final two-legged championship between the two Stage winners in early Dec. I believe they have a single table (play each team once in each Stage) and no other playoffs (just the final).

You can definitely reduce the length of the total playing season to avoid the harshest weather if you have no playoffs at the end of each tourney, or at least have no overall championship playoff at the end of the year between the two winners. But we're probably gonna have some sort of playoffs.

Split seasons also aren't necessarily more likely to bring a single table. Mexico's system is well-known and has now been adopted by Chile. Other countries that use split seasons also have groups. The arguments (whatever you may think of them) for groups in the regular season still apply even if you have split seasons.

Argentina has split seasons with a single table and no playoffs of any kind. But they're the exception in the region. Most, if not all, of the other big leagues that use split seasons have playoffs and some of those also have groups.

 

I say go for it. You can always go back to the old way if it doesn't work out. I for one would be very interested in the new format. I really don't care for the present one , which is meaningless season followed by untelevised playoffs.

 

New York & New Jersey says NAY to split seasons.

 

The current season ends at least a week too soon. A split season would allow for a single table, so the supporters' shield would have more meaning. I'd be open to the idea, but I'd need to see a real proposal with actual dates and the like. Because December soccer is just cruel.

 

I think some might argue that this assumption is untrue.

 

One season with a break is OK, but two months might be a little too long. Two mini-seasons would be flat out stupid IMO.

 

The New York Times

The Globe is also reporting today that the league seems to be gravitating toward home and away aggregate goals for playoffs in 2003. Apparently to reduce scheduling and other issues related to first to five.

 

Viking64, my response here was to point out the realities of the BUSINESS of soccer - I sincerely hope that the MLS, and pro soccer in general, succeeds in the USA. I will not, however, just go along with every idea that someone throws up and say that "that's great - let's try it" because pro soccer's current position in this country is shaky at best! The game here can no longer financially afford such experimentation on this level.

My response to your post was meant to point out opposition in a thread where others may have just said "do it" and not considered the consequences. Why start another thread? At the very least, another poster could consider my opposition and agree or disagree. My difference of opinion was just that, and presented in a realistic way, open for discussion.

Your response, however, was dismissive and insulting and I do NOT appreciate it! Simple respect - I ask for nothing more and expect nothing less!