Is this something specific to San Jose because this goes on all over the country? Remember the bidding wars that cities/states were engaged in to "win" the right to have an automobile plant built in their jurisdiction? They were throwing gigantic piles of tax abatements at the auto companies.
Simmer down now. I never said that San Jose should spend it's money on the Quakes and not on other things. You and I are in agreement that San Jose is free to establish its own spending priorities. Duh. Why bother to reply to my post when you apparently didn't read it? All I'm saying is that MLS' business model involves public support of one kind or another for a SSS for almost all of the teams. If San Jose doesn't want to help out the Quakes, don't expect the team to stick around. It's a lot more fun to take your paycheck and go out and buy new things as opposed to paying off your credit card bill on things you already own. San Jose has big city ambitions but is delinquent in supporting its current cultural institutions. They also seem to value a slim chance at landing a MLB franchise well ahead of preventing the loss of their MLS franchise. If that's the case, I hope that the Quakes move this year instead of dragging things out for another season. And Argyle, plenty of states, counties and municipalities offer business incentives to major for-profit corporations to locate in their boundaries. That happens every day and is part of business/government, trust me. The city I live in, San Francisco, offers whole industries like bio-tech complete exemptions from paying taxes if they re-locate here.
I know what you mean - I watched one of the former FIFA's beat himself up mentally over a missed PK in one game. Glad to see someone else get it.
You do understand that the Friday night games would replace the Saturday afternoon (low attendance) games, don't you?
Good question. They have mentioned Interliga in the past. (SUM runs this US based winter tournament for MFL teams with Libertadores slots as incentive.)
CONCACAF made noise about going to a league format a couple of years ago. Maybe the broadcast interest will make it happen?
Took the words right out of my mouth. City and state governments give all kinds of tax incentives for major businesses to come to their neck of the woods because they know that they bring tons of money and jobs with them. There's no reason why sports teams shouldn't try and get the same sort of treatment. This thread is awesome. I think I've learned more in the last 20 minutes reading it then I have in the last two or three months hearing heresay and innuendo.
Bingo. The argument for public $$$ for a SSS has to be centered around multi-use facilities as part of a larger project... and even then, the people against it will yell "DEFEAT THE SOCCER STADIUM!" over and over again as a rallying cry against it until the entire project is suitably ridiculed and ultimately defeated... I really don't think the people who feel publicly funded soccer stadiums are the answer GET THIS. Garber's comment was politically incorrect CRAP, pure and simple. It provides fodder for the media and does ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD. It may reflect the fact that MLS has probably given up on San Jose, at least for the time being. Watching the firestorm over any public/private funding for what turned into "the Mayor's soccer stadium" a couple of years back in Tulsa, I learned the best thing league officials can do is SHUT UP! To avoid making the "soccer stadium" into a political lightning rod, the mayor cut that part of the proposal at the last minute. Tulsa will instead be building a bloated 150 million dollar, publicly funded 18K seat indoor arena that it hopes will draw the NCAA basketball tourney, concerts, etc... despite the fact another slightly larger facility already exists in Oklahoma City... another comparable one exists in Little Rock... a bigger one will be built in Kansas City... and the only tenants Tulsa has for their arena are AFL II and minor league hockey, neither of whom will draw crowds that will even half fill the new 18K seat facility... Yet I didn't hear Garber publicly criticize Tulsa, Okla. for building a publicly funded clone of dozens of half empty arenas strewn about the country rather than spend less than half that amount on a multi-use soccer friendly stadium. Get used to it, guys-- as soon as the papers and the citizenry get wind of "soccer specific stadium" plans, you have to be extremely careful or it will be the death knell for most, if not all, efforts to get public funding. Keep in mind the same people who vote FOR public funds to refurbish a theatre for the symphony may also be open to a vote for public funds to help a sports stadium come to fruition.
Happens all the time. Public money to help get good jobs for people to feed their families is pretty popular when it comes to a vote-- "keep American Airlines from closing our plant"... give huge tax breaks to Boeing to "bring more jobs here"... etc., etc... But soccer is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BALLGAME, pardon the pun. People aren't exactly clammoring for MLS teams in their local hometowns, let alone the brand new stadiums MLS insists on being built to house them, now are they?
Ah, the old 'politicians occasionally do idiotic, economically unsound things for others, so won't they do it for soccer' argument. Yeah, you're right. They spend on our money on other profligate causes. I'm glad they occasionally rein themselves in. One of the problems is that sports teams get away with pitting cities against each other. I'd like to start a nationwide anti-public sports stadium organization. Its motto would be 'leveling the playing field - literally'.
The J-League plays (or used to play) a split season. Their format was different from yours in that the "first stage" winner would play the "second stage" winner in the Grand Finale at the end of both stages, to determine the yearly winner. The problem that arose was that the first stage winner wouldn't play as hard during the second stage, since they had a guaranteed slot in the final. Thus, they'd play reserve players, with lower attendances, and a real lack for playing hard.
My suggested playoff format for a split season: 1) Six teams make the playoffs at the end of the regular season: the Apertura winner, the Clausura winner, and the remaining 4 teams with the best record over the entire season. 2) The Apertura and Clausura winners would get byes for the 1st round. In the event a team won both the Apertura and Clausura, 5 other teams would make the playoffs, with the team with the 2nd best record over the regular season getting the other 1st round bye. 3) If additional incentive is needed to prevent the Apertura winner from coasting during the Clausura, MLS could reward the Supporter's Shield winner the opportunity to host that season's MLS Cup.
If the board thinks the american fan can't understand away goals, how in the hell would they understand all that?
What's so hard to understand about that system? Apertura = 1st half (call it the "Opening" if you prefer) Clausura = 2nd half (call it the "Closing" if you prefer) 1st half winner and 2nd half winner automatically qualify for playoffs and get 1st round byes the 4 remaining teams with best records over the entire season get the other play-off spots and don't get 1st round byes Doesn't seem too confusing to me.
Ok, first of all, there should only be one champion in a given year. Second, if you're going to have a long season, then you should be judged on how you preformed for the entire time. I don't understand why people would want a "first-half winner" to be rewarded. As long as the break isn't more than a month or six weeks, or so, then there shouldn't be a "split" season.
I agree, I don't think it's complex either, but using away goals as the measuring stick for what is forgein or complicated, this far exceeds the limit.
1) Americans love to claim at some sort of championship for their team. Obviously the League Championship (in the US its MLS Cup) is the most important. But the Conference Championships and Supporter's Shield aren't bad consolation prizes. 2) Giving the Apertura winner an automatic 1st round bye will add some urgency to the play of the better clubs early in the year, and I think something we all can agree on is that it we'd be a lot better off if MLS teams played the late spring and summer months at a higher level of intensity 3) Under my proposal, the Supporter's Shield winner would earn the opportunity to host that year's Cup, and that should certainly provide some incentive to players to play hard the entire season (particularly if MLS allows the Shield winning team to distribute some of the gate from MLS Cup to its players in the form of a bonus) 4) Besides the Apertura and Clausura winners, 4 playoff slots would go the remaining teams with the best record over the entire season. So that certainly rewards playing well for most or all of the regular season.
See my suggestion that the Supporter's Shield winner host that year's Cup to help boost the motivation of the Apertura winner during the Clausura.
I think you and I would agree that's a cop-out excuse that MLS execs would admit isn't true if they spoke honestly. Actually Garber mentioned at the Supporter's Summit that no major changes were planned to the playoff system for 2006 other than perhaps a minor tweak or two, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they initiated away goals as 1st tiebreaker, followed by best regular season record as 2nd tiebreaker for the 2006 playoffs
the lame duck sindrome.... But if you want to win the whole thing but don't have to worry about losing a single game, you must win both seasons. This is a bit crazy, but I am feeling a bit crazy right now. How about a points system. Two seasons, and two cups. Use both the MLS and US Open Cup. Season points Winner- 36 pts 2nd- 20 pts 3rd- 17 pts. 4th- 15 pts. 5th- 12 pts 6th- 10 pts 7th- 9 pts 8th- 8 pts 9th- 7 pts 10th 6 pts 11th 2 pts 12th 1 pt Cup points Final Round Winner 36 pts runners up 28 pts Semifinals 19 pts Quarterfinal 8 pts To me I like this because there is a definite bonus doing well in the season, not only do you get a big jump over another team, but there is a definite downturn in being in the cellar as far as season points, it makes you have to win your first round games of the Open Cup, or miss out on points all together in the MLS Cup.
Possibly, but as I posted earlier in this thread, MLS should let the Supporter's Shield winner host that year's Cup. And since Supporter's Shield winners typically make the Cup about 50% of the time (so far, 5 of 10 Shield winners have made the Cup), that would provide a pretty big incentive for the Apertura winner to play hard in the Clausura as well -- particularly if the Shield winner were allowed to give $5000 to $10000/player bonuses to its squad members from part of the Cup's gate.
Was there anything said of the league will start seeking more investors from some of the football clubs out of the country such as Barcelona..
From what I gathered from conversations with several Quakes fans, the part in bold isn't a problem. The front office staff for SJ was down to 12, when including the former interim GM. And since she recently took a job with a marketing firm in the bay area that leaves 11 SJ FO staff members.
Although your ideas are interesting they magnify an MLS STATED major marketing flaw with the playoffs. That being the uncertainty with teams and venues prevents MLS from having enough time for pre-match hype and ticket sales. Waiting until season's end to determine the site of MLS Cup may jeopardize its marketing opportunity. Of course MLS may just be blowing smoke since soccer playoffs do not compete well with the crowded fall sports scene. A somewhat similar system does not seem to hamper the NFL nor MLB from filling stadia for every playoff match. For that matter can you imagine a Super Bowl that was not a sell-out even if the location was not determined until December. The World Series of MLB sites are finalized a week before the beginning of the games and tickets are quite scarce. Once MLS has enough cachet and media hype your plan becomes more realistic. Then filling stadia and column inches will no longer be an issue!!!