Has anyone heard the latest on the new playoff format? The Washington Post indicated a few days ago that the league was leaning toward a two game home-and-home series with a 30 minute mini-game to be played in the event of a tie. Just wondering........would this be an aggregate competition like the UEFA Champions' League? Would away goals count as two?
I would bet that this would be like the current system, only with one less game. If you win game 1, a win or a tie gets you through. If you lose, a win gets you to the mini-game. The reasons that I would see them staying away from goal differential are that they wouldn't want blowouts where the winning team drives up the score, and they wouldn't want a team that loses big on the road conclude the serie with a "meaningless" home game. They get the benefits of having a set number of games on set dates without going to the "confusing Euro method" that "you need to understand complex scenarios including away goals and pks". They could do something like a Wednesday-Saturday for the quarters and Saturday-Saturday for the semis.
Anything is better than the current best to five crap. I'm for two games with aggregate score counting, and a mini game to finish it if the scores are tie (no away goals consideration). However, I see how this has the advantage of people still turning out for the second game if your team loses 4-0 in the first game. They can win 1-0 and you'll be around for a mini-game at the end. It does make the home field advantage a little tricky though, especially in a one table, 80% are in league. Say you are LA and you finish first with 51 points or whatever. So you are playing KC with 36 points. Do you get the first game at home, with the chance of having the mini-game at the away ground, or do you take the final game at home with the possibility of losing the away game to start of the series and needing a win at home just to tie and force the extra game? Neither are sexy options.
Not all sports give a great advantage to the higher seeded team. The NBA switched from a 2-2-1-1-1 to a 2-3-2, which is almost favorable to the away team.
I always enjoyed the aggregate system employed in the Champions' League. But then again, soccertim's suggestion sounds pretty interesting. Even if you get blown out in game one, you still have a chance to win the series in game two. In the aggregate system, it can be quite tough to carry a deficit into the second leg. I strongly encourage MLS to determine the new format as early as possible to keep all playoff games on Saturdays. This way, they can be added into the television contract. If an unavoidable conflict brews with ESPN's coverage of college football, why not show playoff games in the a.m., ala USA-Honduras 9/1/01? 51,000 strong didn't seem to have a problem with the 10am start. US Soccer had the foresight to try something like this in '01; why doesn't MLS follow suit in '03?
The 10am PST is the worst spot for a saturday final...ABC, ESPN and ESPN all have college football from 9am-noon...What I don't understand, is we have this 1pm PST soccer saturday spot all season...and over the past few weeks on saturdays ESPN and ESPN have not been showing college football from 1-3...they had on like dance finals or something??? So the spot should be open for the last few weeks of the season and for the playoffs and on ABC for the cup final (if held on a saturday)... But I, as does everyone else on BS, know nothing about the TV contract, its just another one of those things that seems to make sense...so far MLS has been able to pick up the 1pm spot on saturdays...and at the end of the reg. season it disappears and there are no playoffs then the cup final is on a sunday at 1030...
cup also I would love it, as long as, the Cup was also a home and away...and i would love it, if i could also actually get to watch a game on tv, or something like that
I like the idea of not having aggregate goals but I HATE the idea of a "mini" game. Beside a mini-game and pk's, is there another way to resolve a series tied at one game a piece? What do you think about having a Golden Goal mini-game where first goal wins?
The two game series with tiebraking mini-game (and no aggregate) sounds good, to build on that idea I suggest, reducing playoffs to 6 teams, with division winners getting first round byes. Have the first round play Wednsday-Saturday (with the lower seed getting the weeknight home game (smaller home-field advantage), and higher seed getting the weekend game + mini-game (with the better home-field advantage). The semis will be Saturday-Saturday. The division winner will have had a weeks rest (and the challanger will be a little more fatigued), this would incorporate a reward for a division winner's good regular season finish. The final should be as is it right now, single tie, predetermined site.
I have a different take. In my ideal world MLS fits into that window of uncongested sports during the summer. They don't compete with the NFL or college football at all. They start their season when it starts to get warm (with the first 2 or 3 weeks played at the warm climate locales even if it is a neutral site), and they end the MLS Cup prior to the beginning of the NFL season. They play no midweek games except for holiday specials like July 4th and Cinco de Mayo. These things create attendance. This time also allows for TV exposure. But to do this means a slightly shorter season game-wise and time-wise. So, to accomplish all of this I'd play a single playoff game rather than a 2 or 3 game series. Attendance would be higher because it wouldn't compete with football, and the better record has the home field advantage. When soccer is truly accepted, yeah, we can move to a series, but until then, I'd opt for one game. -Tron
ok, not competing with them makes sense...but instead of just saying compete when they aren't going...give us a time period that would work..you want to play what april-july, with a midseason break...a 4 month season, with only about 15 weekend dates? a 15 game season or what?
This keeps getting pointed out, but people keep ignoring the obvious. Ending the season in the summer is not wise. The best soccer is played in temperatures under 75 degress fahrenheit. The MLS Cup tournament should be some of the most attractive soccer the teams can produce, so the league should attempt to arrange as many variables as possible to ensure this. Competing with the very beginning of the college and pro seasons is hard, but honestly, all sports experience a mid season ho-hum phase. This would be the perfect time period for MLS to schedule its postseason, and it comes around just after Halloween.
I agree...an april-october regular season with playoffs and the MLS Cup in November would be fine with me...but the US Open Cup final should be held in late august...
If we went to this home and away series, you would have no home field adavanatge, the only product you would get from the regular season winnings it to play a team with less points in the first few rounds.
That's what it is under the current format, the mini-game is golden goal. Colorado won their mini-game with Dallas this year with a goal early in the mini-game, and when the Wizards won MLS Cup, they beat LA in the semi's with a win in like the second min of their mini-game. Just pointing out that the mini-game currently is golden goal and would probably stay that way in the new format
Two games without using aggregate goals would be the worst of both worlds. You're losing the home field advantage, and you're also still avoiding a format that soccer fans are familiar with. If they must go to a two game format, please let it be aggregate goals. The away-goals rule should be avoided at all costs. If tied on aggregate goals, either use the Mexican tiebreaker, or play extra time (It's not a "mini-game").
If we really want to maximize average attendance, I suggest we have a 1 game season and promote it heavily for 11 months.
Aggregate goals doesn't add in home field advantage. Playing a weaker team and having the mini-game played in your home stadium should be enough of an advantage for the (presumably) stronger team. With aggregate goals, you'll get a playoff system that people are familiar with, but you'll also get games where teams try and run up the score and have the second leg almost predetermined, both of which the league would like to avoid if at all possible.
Have one team try to run up the score? You mean, have them play exciting attacking soccer? And then have the other team try to score some goals to reduce the aggregate goal differential? Heaven forbid! We would likely see some games where the score of the first game makes the second game all but predetermined. But I think that would be the exception and not the rule. I think it is likely that the team to win the first game will win the series. But that is not a foregone conclusion. I am just envisioning the "classic" game that would inevitably happen in MLS where a team down 2 or 3 goals in the first game comes back and wins the series in the second game.
Tim, you're clearly guessing. I don't see how the "mini-game" at the end of game two is anything that Americans would be familiar with, more than aggregate goals. And it seems fundamentally flawed because a two-game scheme is substantially more likely to end in a mini-game-- exceeding any television time windows-- than in a three-game set-up. If both teams win one game, or both games are a draw, then it's a mini-game. Four of this season's six playoff series would have gone to a game two mini-game-- one third of the games prior to the MLS Final under a two-legged scheme, while in this year's play-offs, only one game of the sixteen play-off games went to a minigame. So for television time considerations alone, I'd tend to believe Tim's proposal isn't even being considered.
I never said that I wasn't guessing. In fact, I did say I was guessing in an earlier post. Also, I didn't start this thread with my new playoff proposal. I was just guessing how a two game playoff with a mini-game might be implemented. I also didn't say that Americans would be familiar with a mini-game. Someone else posted that they should go with aggregate goals (which, by the way, can also end up in a mini-game) because people were familiar with aggregate goals. What I did say, in response to a question about a two game series, was that it was likely that they might not go with aggregate goals, because if a team loses the opener by a large margin then there is not much suspense in the second game. While Etienne_72772 envisions the "classic" game that would inevitably happen in MLS where a team down 2 or 3 goals in the first game comes back and wins the series in the second game, I envision the nearly empty stadium for the team that loses the first game by 3 or 4 goals.
MLS has a very difficult choice staring in them in face. There is no, and I repeat no, format that is ideal. Every one of them has distinct problems, which have been pointed out ad nauseum on countless BS threads over the years. Based on statements made by Garber and others, MLS sees the current format as flawed due to: 1) confusion about the first-to-5-points format among many fans and the media 2) the scheduling, marketing, and TV coverage problems that result from the uncertainty of needing the third game. At the same time, MLS needs the new format to reward regular season performance in some non-trivial way, as the MLS playoffs are not like the European Champions League and similar tournaments where there is no need to bestow any kind of advantage on one of the participants. IMHO, none of the proposed two game solutions address this issue in a satisfactory way. Using the Mexican tiebreaker of regular season record is fine, but each team still gets a home game. In most playoff systems, home field advantage is very important, and teams bust ass during the regular season to get it. Is having the tiebreaker period on your home field enough of an advantage ? I think that is debatable, and my gut reaction is "no". WRT confusion over the first-to-5 format, many people have posted that the two game aggregate goal format is what soccer fans are familiar with, and therefore should be the choice. In order for the playoffs to be successful, MLS must sustain the interest of the casual fans (ie families, youth soccer groups, etc...) that flow through the turnstiles during the regular season. Most of these fans do not want keep track of points or aggregate goals. They were born and raised with the "best of N games" and single elimination playoff formats, and that is what they and the media are comfortable with. The only format that appears to address all of these issues is single elimination. It is the simplest format and is beyond criticism on that front. The dates of every playoff game are known at the beggining of the season, allowing games to be scheduled for national TV coverage months in advance. The location of every game is known immediately at the end of regular season, allowing for more time to market the games. Since it is a winner-take-all event, attendance should be better, as casual American soccer fans have shown many times that they will turn out for such events. Regular season performance is rewarded with the ultimate home field advantage, a well attended game.
I don't entirely buy this. Fans are fickle in the US, but they don't appear to be ridiculously playoff-savvy when it comes to the MLS. Look, if they we'ren't showing up when it was a wednesday game 3 when the home team had every opportunity to advance, saying they won't show up for a saturday home leg when they're down 4 goals is ridiculous. Fans show up more for saturday matches, period. And how often in the playoffs, ever, has a team won a game by 4 or more goals? Really? Not enough to make the 'slaughter argument' hold any water. The TV slot thing is also mostly irrelevant because game 3's now often go to up to 30 minutes extra time in the playoffs...tv stations can manage if just for the playoffs as it's what they're already prepared to do. Having the second match at home w/ tiebreaker and a weak team as the opponent may not be ideal home field advantage, but it's some home field advantage. Besides, with at least 2 champions' league slots available to clubs through regular season accomplishment, ensuring ridiculously balanced favor to the top seed shouldn't matter as much for the playoffs any longer.
Exactly. I am less concerned about a "home field advantage" than I am in a format that gets more fans to the games. Single elimination and "home and home" are more likley to do that. I would support both. I give the "home and home" the nod so each playoff team gets a playoff game at home and increases that mythical emotional attachment to the team.