11/5 Take That Peter Hirdt!

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by kpaulson, Nov 5, 2003.

  1. Northside Rovers

    Jan 28, 2000
    Austin TX
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Quakes Unhappy with Playoff Format after Getting Bitch Smacked in Game 1. ....no kidding.

    True. But tell it to Lamar Hunt.

    Often proposed here - without too much dissent.

    Okay. I applaud MLS for changing the playoff format to its current version - but the reason Ivan gives is laughable. Read this quote again:

    That's ludicrous. This is the 4th different playoff format in 8 years. 8 years in MLS is still at 10 teams. We'll be lucky if at Year 10 MLS has more than 10 teams. But saying you're sticking with 8 playoff teams because you plan to expand is just ass backwards thinking. What the hell is the problem with going from 4 or 6 teams in the playoffs and add teams as you expand. Answer: Nothing.

    But we know MLS will stick with a bad idea at least 2 years before changing it and Uncle Lamar like 8 of 10 so teams get a chance to host a playoff game.

    I like this year's format - but Ivan's reasoning is...well I can't think of what it is like - but its bs.
     
  2. BenC1357

    BenC1357 Member

    Feb 23, 2001
    KC
    Re: Re: 11/5 Take That Peter Hirdt!

    You seem to be missing the point. MLS knows it has been changing too much and wants to stop changing the format. His point is that we'll set a playoff format now and then once we have 12, 14 and 16 (or more) teams we'll still have 8 playoff teams. Thus making the regular season more meaningful.
    On one hand you're saying its great that MLS is looking ahead and getting to constant format. Then on the other hand you're saying MLS and Ivan are wrong and should change the format to match each season. Thats kinda contradictory if you ask me.
    IMO its better to suffer now (having to put up with 8/10). If we set a precedent of handing out a bye, if 6 teams are allowed in, then other fans will do exactly as you are when we go back to 8 teams. They'll be saying "Why does MLS change the playoff format every year!? Can't they just settle on one format so we can keep track and not be surprised every single year?"
     
  3. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    Actually Ben, I think you're missing the point.

    It is ludicrous to not make the most obvious playoff change in the name of consistency when you've previously shown a eagerness to vary the format for lower-priority (but ultimately more disruptive) changes.

    To me, altering the number of teams in the playoffs is not as disruptive as altering the very way the series is decided. I think this year's format is an improvement and there's really only problem: 8 of 10 is too many.
     
  4. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    Some may consider the "world soccer scene" in the Plain Dealer a bit of a bash, but I thought it was kind of amusing. Reminded me a little bit of some of the old soccer columns in the early days of the Web (Alex Johnson at the Post springs to mind).
     
  5. dawgpound2

    dawgpound2 Member

    Mar 3, 2001
    Los Angeles, CA
    Actually, the writer, Bob "Railbird" Roberts, is a huge soccer guy.
     
  6. JMU Soccer!

    JMU Soccer! New Member

    Jul 19, 1999
    I shall second this.
     
  7. BenC1357

    BenC1357 Member

    Feb 23, 2001
    KC
    No, I'm not missing the point. I simply disagree with it. I was just pointing out that Northside had contrasting arguements. First he said that its good that MLS is trying to be consistent, pointing out that the reasoning given was BS. Then he said MLS should have had fewer teams in the playoffs and change as expansion occurs.
    My view (beside the fact that I just wish there were no playoffs at all) is that MLS is doing right by reaching for consistancy. They're realizing that their formats should stay consistant, not changing 4 times in 8 years as they've been doing. Yes, I absolutely agree that 8 of 10 makes the regular season pointless and is too high of a percentage of the teams in the league now. But MLS is looking long term and saying that 8 of 12 or 8 of 14 is better. I like the fact that the league I pump money into is trying to become consistant and planning for the future.
    All the fans of MLS will never agree on one format, no matter what it is. The only thing MLS can do is be consistant, which is what they're trying to do. Realizing that for now its not ideal, and hoping that 2+ years from now it makes more sense.
     
  8. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Reading it I didn't see it as a bash really of any kind. Maybe a slight poke at international soccer antics, but overall I too thought it was amusing, even funny.
     
  9. Northside Rovers

    Jan 28, 2000
    Austin TX
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Exactly. Better said than I did.

    Part of my rant was the reasoning Ivan gives for the changes or lack of changes. As I understand THE driving force behind the new playoff format is the abysmal MLS playoff attendance. This new format has fewer games and more weekend dates and that should increase attendance.

    But the things is - changing the playoff format every 2 years looking for the right formula is more disruptive than changing the number of teams invloved.

    I don't think I'm being contradictory. Yes, I applaud MLS for saying they're trying to be consistent - but we'll see how that goes. But its more important for the format to be consistent than the keeping the # of teams the same in the face of its ridiculousness. For the sake of consistency.

    Again - let the NFL serve as the example. The format has remained much the same since 1967. One game playoff at the home of the higher seed. Good format for them. Now with the new conference alignment they didn't change the way the playoffs are condcuted. They also didn't have 12 teams going into the playoffs when they only had 24 teams. Teams got added to the playoffs as the league expanded, not in advance of expansion.

    If MLS has taught us anything is that they are NOT consistently consistent. Why wait 2 years when the playoffs could have made sense this year? Or last year? Expansion is an expensive, dicey proposition. Holding up playoff changes while waiting on that is ludicrous.
     
  10. SYoshonis

    SYoshonis Member+

    Jun 8, 2000
    Manistee, Michigan
    Club:
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This from The Monterey County Herald article:

    I'm sure all 6,000 people in Denver appreciated it.
     
  11. BenC1357

    BenC1357 Member

    Feb 23, 2001
    KC
    Two very good points here. I'd say if they want to be consistant and have fewer teams you'd have to use four, because having six teams would introduce a bye which is in a sense changing the format.

    In the end decreasing the number of teams in the playoffs is just trying to increase the meaning of the regular season. I want no playoffs making the regular season even more. So desire is the same more important regular season), we just want them at differing degrees.

    I say give the Denver fans a break. 35 degrees, Tuesday night, 6000 ain't bad. Its not their fault the Donkeys made the game be on Tuesday and not Saturday.
     
  12. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    Actually, the fact that you didn't see how they fit together sort of does suggest that you missed the point, no?

    There is no contradiction between between wanting a consistent means of how the playoffs are settled and wanting to reduce the number of post-season teams.

    Indeed, if they were going to change the playoff format for this year anyway, I don't know why they couldn't have done a bit more.
     
  13. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I loved that guy's writing. Beau, any word on what he's up to now?
     
  14. purojogo

    purojogo Member

    Sep 23, 2001
    US/Peru home
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is too ridiculous to ignore:
    'International implications'
    Libyan leader's son fails doping test after Perugia match
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/soccer/11/05/bc.eu.spt.soc.gadhafijr.ap/index.html
    Sad news
    Former USSF president Eugene Ringsdorf dead at 91
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/soccer/11/05/bc.soc.obit.ringsdorf.ap/index.html
    BTW Grant Wahl is finally back
    Room for surprises
    Eight teams in the hunt in overly inclusive MLS playoffs
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/grant_wahl/10/31/wahl.soccer/index.html
     
  15. purojogo

    purojogo Member

    Sep 23, 2001
    US/Peru home
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  16. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Please.

    Lemme get this straight -- the ninth-best team in the league is smacking the second-best and the problem is that we've got too many teams in the playoffs? Huh?

    I'll tell you why this year's format is so much worse than previous years' format. In previous years, the second-best team would have potentially an addition entire game on their home field, just as long as they won Game 2. Now, they only get an extra 30 minutes of golden goal on their home field, and only if they beat LA by two goals.

    If MLS were still doing best-of-three or first-to-five or even single-elimination, then I'm sure that Baby Jesus wouldn't be complaining about LA's winning their one home game. But MLS has essentially wiped out the home-field advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds this year.
     
  17. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    Wasting his talent as a Web editor in MSNBC's news department, last I heard.

    (I kid -- he's quite happy there. There's just no way you'll find me going back to "news.")
     
  18. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Let me expand on the ridiculousness of Landon's whine that the playoffs need to be contracted because some "unworthy" team is smacking his team right now.

    Let's reduce the playoffs to the top two seeds in each conference. San Jose would be playing Kansas City. So if Kansas City had done to San Jose in Game 1 at Arrowhead what LA did at the HDC, would it be unfair to ask "what's the advantage?" when you realize that you, as the #1 seed, get as many matches at home as the #2 seed? Of course not.

    But nobody would be asking whether Kansas City belonged in the playoffs. And nobody should be asking whether LA should be in playoffs, based on what's going on in their playoff series with San Jose. It's fair to say "they had the 9th best record out of 10 teams in the regular season, therefore they don't belong," but not because they're on the verge on disposing of San Jose, with whom there was a level playing field.

    MLS should make the playoffs single-elimination all the way through. It gives the higher seed a REAL home-field advantage, it reduces scheduling uncertainties, and it adds importance to the regular season (You want a home playoff game? Then win more games in the regular season.) And then, if #4 LA were to beat #1 San Jose, then there'd be no questions whether they earned it.
     
  19. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Washington DC
    Huh is right? What the hell are you talking about? It's got nothing to do with what I said.

    What does that have to do with "too many teams in the playoffs"? Over a two game series, I'm certain the Burn could beat the Fire (it was close this year on aggregate).

    SO what was your point again? Of course the 9th team can smack the 2nd team over two games. Does that mean, boss, that this is a desireable way to run the playoffs? 8 of 10 teams, regardless of what kind of homefield you give, is ridiculous. You're confusing this argument with "The Quakes and Jebus shouldn't have to play the Gals just because they shouldn't".
     
  20. BenC1357

    BenC1357 Member

    Feb 23, 2001
    KC
    Great post. Good points.

    SJ is just slumping and needs something to bitch about, instead of focusing on their own problems IMOH.
     
  21. PZ

    PZ Member

    Apr 11, 1999
    Michiana
    Club:
    Ipswich Town FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So, should LA somehow managed their first road win of the season on Sunday, everyone quit complaining about the playoffs?
     
  22. BenC1357

    BenC1357 Member

    Feb 23, 2001
    KC
    I'll complain that playoffs exist until they're eliminated. I have a feeling I'm going to be complaining a very long time....
     
  23. Blong

    Blong Member+

    Oct 29, 2002
    Midwest, the real one.
    Finally someone agrees with me.

    About what Gazidis said, I think both sides of the arguement are right, in a way. The way I see it, 12 years from now, when we have maybe 18 teams, It will be nice to have had the same playoff format(and number of teams) for twelve years running (even though the first round should be one game). Is anyone else getting tired of the TV announcers explaining the format 5 times a game, often getting something wrong, then proceeding to have a BS discussion about whether it is a good system?
     
  24. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It would work for me.

    Hell, even if San Jose goes out by winning 2-1, then I wouldn't complain because it would show the ridiculousness of having two-legged series in a seeded playoff where seeds are based on regular season perfomance.
     

Share This Page