My first time so go easy.... MLS Quakes fans must worry if anything's good enough A Letter From Cobi Jones To All Galaxy Fans Herron named MLS Player of Month Connolly: Eskandarian takes chances First XI: Chances are ... Restart Opportunity Nearly 400 'fubolistas' to try out Sunday for Chivas USA Cochrane Helps Stabilize Quakes Small MLS mention The Show: SportsNation Vice-Presidential Debate Paul.
10/28/04: Champagne Flute Wizards' Meola ready to return, but…-KC Star Metros will need goals for net result-NY Daily News Some Revs don't mind the red Cards-Boston Herald MLS postseason doesn't reward regular season winners-Fox Sports Two days in a row.....
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute Wheelock starts with the premise that he should ignore the 'eliminate the playoffs' take because, much as he supports it, MLS ain't gonna do it. But then he goes on to suggest the league cut the playoffs to six teams. Well, Sean, much as I've supported it, the league ain't gonna do that, either. And it needs to be said yet again, before you go around saying the playoff structure doesn't reward higher seeds enough, you might actually want to wait until they get their home legs. (See San Jose last year). The higher seeds went 4-for-4 last season, and I'm willing to bet they end up at least 6-for-8 after two years. 7-for-8 wouldn't shock me, as of the higher seeds only the Wiz are really in deep water, and even they could still pull it off.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute You're right, the league probably wont do it. But it has to be said that if the higher seeds advance in this year's playoffs, it's because they are simply the better teams - it has NOTHING to do with the playoff structure. I think Wheelock's just arguing (and I agree) that the playoff structure should FAVOR the team that had the better regular season. Why put the top 4 seeds in a pressure-filled position where they likely need to come from behind at home? Is that really much of a reward for a 30 game regular season well-played? If 8 of 10 teams get in, the top few teams should certainly get a big advantage against the lower teams (like a first round bye for the top seeds, or one-game sets with true homefiled advantage - more than simply second leg at home) or else there isn't much incentive to play hard during the regular season. If you cut the number of playoff teams (i.e. 6 of 12 in), the need for such incentives decreases because making the playoffs becomes an accomplishment worth playing hard for in itself. Plus you can still offer first-round byes as incentive to compete for conference titles.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute Studly, I like that. 6 of 12 teams in playoffs. 1st in each division get first round byes. Home and away for 2nd and 3rds. Winners play #1. Winners play for cup. Seems fair all the way around. More incentive during the season to get results. Eliminates the chance of a 1st place team getting bounced in the first round.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute BINGO!!!! EXACTLY! JESUS OPEN THE GATES FOR THIS ONE AND HAND OUT A MEDAL. Seriously, 12 teams, half make it, half don't, top of each division first round bye. WHY NOT? Cause it makes too much sense...
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute You want your division winning team sitting for two weeks on a bye? I sure as hell don't.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute if it means going to conference final, hell yeah... why would u want to play extra two games in the first round? what u smoking
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute i like it too except the 1st seed would get a bye in the first round and there would be no home and away in that first round its one match with the 2nd seed getting home field vs 3rd seed then a one match semifinal with the 1st seed getting home field vs the previous winner this way the playoffs would be three weeks long total - not the current 4
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute Not two weeks, but if you do it as one game like NFL then at least it makes more sense. That way there is also a difference between the 2nd place and 3rd place. Hence Metro have something to play for instead of scratching their @$$. I, for once, agree with Wheelock on the 6 teams in the playoffs format. Lets face it, its not like the playoffs are making MLS any money!
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute I think he is using the logic of the French WC team from 1998. As defending champions in 2002 they didn't have to qualify...and they exited the first round. One argument for this was that the players weren't 'sharp'.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute So make the lower seeds play two/three games in a 9 day span. Seeds 2 and 3 play home and way with a Saturday game, as Wednesday game then the winner takes on the 1 seed on Sunday. then the division winner's only sitting out one week. Between the 2 and 3 seeds, the higher seed should get to choose whether they want home field the first or second game. And yeah Wed night won't be the best for attendance but lets face it. There aren't a lot of people coming out for playoff games period no matter what night it's on. When the winner of 2/3 meets the 1 seed, 1 seed gets home field. Does this all seem unfair to the winner of the 2/3 seeds? To be playing 3 games in 9 days and then have the 3rd game be away? Well you know what? Win the division on you won't have to deal with it. It think doing this would make the regular season very much worth playing for.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute I guess, but as soccer fans, don't we want to see soccer being played? Don't we want two extra chances to see our team dominate? Basically, you are trying to legislate away upsets. Any time there is an upset in a playoff game, everyone starts clamoring to change the structure of the playoffs. But if there weren't the possibility of upsets, why play the game at all (which is what you are actually advocating by allowing byes into the conference final).
Only criticism: You need an avatar dude! You can use mine ... I have others ... how's athens doing this year?
Wheelock: What's Sean talking about? For being such an Anglophile, Sean should realize that even this early in the season it's pretty clear that they're about 6 to 8 teams in the middle of the Premiership table who have little chance of reaching European competition and don't much to worry about relegation. What does a match between Charlton and Man City matter for in October, let alone April or May?
Haven't figured out the avatar yet (I really am saving it for the MLS-Detroit team logo). Athens hurt; beat #2 (Rochester), lost to #5 (Utica Ike), strong season overall. Paul.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute It's not like this is unique to MLS. Sheesh, a wild card team enjoyed home field advantage over the team with the best record in baseball in this year's World Series.
Er... [groan] Man City and Charlton could still get relegated or qualify for Europe and as with any sport it matters if you support Man City or Charlton. The top of the table looks like Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd catching up. Also in with a shot are Liverpool, an outside chance is Newcastle and Everton (who were fighting relegation last year btw). Although Everton are probably aiming for Europe to be more realistic. Birmingham City, Charlton, Man City, Spurs and Aston Villa are all competing for the coveted 5th and 6th spots, and no-one is ever happy with mid table mediocrity (unless your relegation fodder, as in West Brom, Norwich, Crystal Palace, Portsmouth etc.) There are two points between Arsenal and Chelsea and I think eight between Man Utd and Arsenal? If Spurs had won last weekend, then we'd be 4th and in a similar position (although I'm not for one moment suggesting we could challenge for the top spot). The season lasts from August to May and is never tedious or boring. Every year, the relegation battles, fights for cup spots and the title more often than not come down to the last game. To compare MLS regular season to the tedium of the premiership is like comparing ChampionsWorld to the Champions League.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute -First, I think we should be far more agnostic than that at this point. We should wait for the results to come in before we claim to know what they are. As was pointed out in another thread (https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3480033), the home field is 30 out of 210 minutes, if you happen to get that far into the series. This is exactly the same home field advantage (1/7th of the series, if you get that far) that prevails in the NBA, the NHL, and in MLB (with PKs after the OT, you could argue it's slightly more). You may call that tiny, but in most situations, it's likely to be all the team with the better record will need. Look, there's two ways we can looka t what happened last week. Either a) the lower seed took three of four, or b) the home team took three of four. Last year, that only happened once (LAG did it to SJ), and they still didn't take the series, thanks in part to the OT that SJ hosted. Is this a one-off, or is it what will usually happen? Bottom line is we don't know. Frankly, given the fact that if Columbus wins 2-0 (or 3-1, etc) at home, they move on, and if they win 1-0 (or 2-1, etc), they'll then get to host an OT and possible PKs, my money's still on Columbus (and probably the Galaxy, too). And in my view, that doesn't have "NOTHING" to do with the format. I think the format enhances Columbus's chances. -Second, Wheelock just had to throw in the (europoseur, if you'll excuse the namecalling) last paragraph about how the two-game series is somehow an 'improvement.' According to what he just argued, it most certainly is not! In the following thread, I went over the reasons why the old three game system was ample enough advantage to heavily favor the higher seeds, to the point where just making the playoffs and considering the regular season as meaningless would be stupid for any coach. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3313060 Wheelock's position on this issue tends to undermine the credibility of his argument.
Re: 10/28/04: Champagne Flute Ha, ha, I remember a recent San Jose Mercury News article saying that even the Earthquakes players have no clue how starting the playoffs with a road trip helps the higher seed. So says the team the overcame a huge deficit in the playoffs last year, and lost its Champions Cup tie in the same format.
I find it odd, but I feel I need to add that it is completely accepted in world soccer that the team playing a second leg at home has an advantage. The home team hosts the business end of a 180+-minute match. Home field advantage is also widely accepted as being a much bigger factor in soccer because of the duration of the games, limited substitutes, (technically) constant action, etc.