As a result of that record, they had to play a single elimination game on the road, overcome the top two teams in the league and take on Toronto FC in their home stadium in another single elimination game. The results of the regular season handed the Sounders one of the hardest sets of opponents that MLS had to offer. That they overcame that is to their credit and a fantastic piece of narrative.
If MLS had only four teams in its playoffs, would that make regular season games more or less critical for a title-chasing team? We don't know how teams would have reacted had relegation been on the line rather than better draft choices.
Yes. Does that necessarily make it better? After all, having 12 teams relegated from the Premiership would make the first third of the season critical for most teams. Would that be better?
In fairness, he did specify "regular season record" which was statistically mediocre. The season itself, both regular and post-season, was not. They had a catastrophic first half of the season, followed by a dramatic rally and excellent form throughout the second half, followed again by a spirited display to overcome teams with strong regular season records, who in at least two cases, had a home field advantage.
I think having a smaller percentage than what's currently the case would make the regular season more competitive and meaningful. Whether four is the right number, I don't know; really, I picked that number to illustrate a general concept. Effectively, the Premier League has a six/seven team "playoff" and three team relegation. That feels about right, i.e. about half the teams will either qualify for Europe or be relegated. The problem with closed leagues is that playoffs are really "the only game in town" in maintaining interest. Hence the oversized playoffs that MLS has, to the detriment of the regular season.
Meaningful, yes. Competitive? Hard to say. The league is extremely competitive as it is. Again, "less meaningful" does not equate to "meaningless" by any stretch of the imagination. That's fair. Likewise, I chose a drastic number of relegation spots to illustrate that "more critical" doesn't necessarily equal "better". To a point. I still feel like the stratification between top teams and bottom limits the interest, as does the variation in interest in the Europa League between different English participants. We both agree that the UCL has contributed to tethering certain clubs to the top third of the table, meaning that the chase for Champions League spots, often isn't all that open or dramatic. I'm not sure that relegation generates as much interest as people tend to think. It's good for a couple of crunch matches here or there, but generally speaking, if you don't follow one the clubs involved, for much of the season they're just poorly performing teams that aren't usually very appealing to watch. Agreed to a point, but is that truly the case for the fan of a club? Middling teams like Stoke and Norwich seem to maintain relatively consistent attendances. By the most wildly optimistic reckoning, the Galaxy's season is hanging by a thread. Barring this discussion, it hasn't crossed my mind to miss any upcoming games or indeed to not renew my season tickets. Again, is any detriment that substantial? Even without the Supporters Shield and CCL berths (which combined are being contested between 9-10 teams in what is one of the least competitive seasons in recent memory), we've been over the benefits of qualifying top two, versus top four, and top four vs top six. Whatever issues some may have with standard of play, you can't say there isn't anything to play for. There may be a little less weight on the results, but is it really that much? Is it not more than offset by the drama of the playoffs? And of course, parity means that you get few games where one club is outright expected to walk over an opponent. I doubt you'd get the "left it late" analysis that some leveled at Man United for a 4-0 win in MLS.
Not when he adds "Says it all really as to the importance of the regular season". If he had left it just as "regular season record" he might have a point, but to add the rest on? Yeah, it's a bad argument and he should be ashamed to make it. The Sounders turn around shows the value in the regular season results, imho, and completely disproves the statement that playoffs increase the number of meaningless games in the regular season. In a single table league with relegation, the Sounders' title chances would have been over by the beginning of June and their relegation chances would have been over by mid-August when they had a comfortable mid to high single digit cushion between them and the relegation zone. That would have meant over 1/3 of the season was meaningless for the Sounders. Having playoffs meant the Sounders had something to play for all the way up to the final weekend when Portland crapped the bed up in Vancouver.
Are you telling me teams had nothing to play for? For almost every team in the league the playoffs were still on the line until the last two or three weeks! In 2015, three-quarters of the league was still mathematically in contention for the Supporters' Shield with less than a month to play. That's "playing for better draft choices"?
Ahem... allow me... "Hardly surprising that most teams remain in contention when over half the league qualifies for the playoffs. Of course, we don't know what the table would look like, if teams had to put more emphasis on their regular season performances to secure a playoff place. Cartel."
Would each regular season game be more meaningful and significant if, say, four teams qualified for the playoffs? Would they be less significant if every team qualified for the playoffs?
No, I'm saying we don't know what dynamics would play out if teams were fighting relegation as opposed to playing for better draft choices. You simply can't extrapolate results from a closed league and say certain things would have happened in a pro/rel league.
Actually, each game probably wouldn't. If the sole reason for the regular season was to jockey for seeding, then the only time any game would be completely insignificant, would be when neither team involved could mathematically change position for the rest of the season. It's unlikely that even on the last game of the season, every single team would be so far behind and ahead of the teams immediately above and below them, that the results of the day would have no effect. In such a scenario, the meaning would be determined more by the resultant benefits of the various seeding positions. Assuming CCL berths were still available for the Conference leaders and the Supporters Shield was still up for grabs, those chases would continue to carry the same meaning they do today.
Someone remind me, weren't there a few teams last season with a better regular season record than Seattle?
That's a non-sequitur because the "closed league" dynamics would only affect teams that have been eliminated from the playoffs. You're essentially making the argument that relegation might make the bottom teams more competitive. I'm pointing out that the bottom is plenty competitive as it is, and would likely remain so even if the playoffs are smaller. I gave an example of a very recent season where, with only a month left to play, three-quarters of the league was still playing for the Supporters' Shield, a trophy that is awarded for first place in the overall regular season standings.
No, I'm saying we simply don't know how the dynamics of team performance would play out if MLS had pro/rel and that trying to extrapolate from closed league results is bogus.
I believe the initial point that this stems from, was that the teams are close enough in standard that the matter of a few points can have a serious impact on your playoff path, not to mention mere qualification. Therefore, as large as the field of qualifiers may be, you can't exactly rest on your laurels. Say what you will about Seattle's regular season record. Having lost their penultimate game, a final day loss and a Portland victory could have seen them miss the playoffs altogether, having rallied from near-toast status with less than half a season remaining. By virtue of that dynamic, neither Portland nor Seattle had a single meaningless game for the duration of the MLS regular season.
I'm not sure there is a difference on average? If there are too many teams allowed into the playoffs then there are a large number of games that are meaningless because teams secure their spot in the playoffs earlier in the season. However, if there aren't enough teams allowed into the playoffs, then there are a large number of games that are meaningless because teams are eliminated from the playoffs sooner. Leagues with playoffs need to find a sweet spot where teams neither secure a playoff spot, nor are they eliminated from the playoffs as far into the season as possible.
Someone remind me.. But didn't the Sounders have to play an additional game, the #1 and #2 teams in the league, and then play the MLS Cup away because their seed was so low?
They were 4th in the Western Conference so they had to play 5th place SKC in the knockout round before advancing to the Conference semis. They were seeded 7/12 I think.