Yeah, you are definitly missing the point. An 8 team playoffs is and will be standard for MLS. This has been consistent since day 1. As Ben and 1000 others have mentioned, your objection will seem silly even to you as MLS adds teams. The greater point is why not reward more groups of fans with playoff games? The only answer on this board is, "it's too many". Yeah, and...? The greater stupidity that should be illuminated is the switch from first-to-5 to this current mess. The positives of Ft5 are that it's the only system that does all 4 important things. It allows teams to find their own separation on the field by actually having a series of games, fairly incorporates ties as a necessary result, eliminates flukish one-off results, and rewards the regular season and fans properly. The big gripe from fans was "you can't understand it". Funny, people seem to understand it well enough to complain about it with absolute certainly. People seem to get through the whole of the regular season just fine without wondering how many points a win is worth. People seem quite capable of understanding baseball. The entire world of sport is less complicated by comparison, but whatever. The players do have a reasonable b*tch with the possible 7 games in 4 weeks thing. Those things are easy to solve. Then again, most of us would love to have their problems. Also, some might even agree that the type of schedule mentioned above has much more validity in determining the best full roster instead of the best set of starters.
Fair enough. It doesn't offend me that MLS decides to have eight teams in the playoffs. It also wouldn't offend me if MLS reduced that number to six or even four. But I do think that no matter how many teams you invite, the teams with the better regular-season record should be given a real advantage, not the rather flimsy one that they've got now. The team that was better than 80% of the league this season should not have a level playing field with the team that was worse than 80% of the league this season.
Me too. Also, a 2 game playoffs isn't a series. I agree that it's rediculous for your reasons and because the series should be 3 games in R1 at least.
I think there should be a one game playoff between the 2 and 3 seeds at the 2 seed's house. 2 seed gets the real advantage of playing at home, 1 seed gets the advantage of a bye. Winner of that game plays the 1 seed at the 1 seed's house. 1 seed gets an additional real advantage of playing at home. Winner of that goes to MLS Cup. You win your conference - you are halfway to the title. You finish second, you get a home game. You finish third, you get in the playoffs. Fourth and fifth stay home. MLS regular season actually has meaning.
Its simple, straightforward, meaningful and its got a beat you can dance to. I like it. You like it. Max Bretos likes it. MLS team Mgt won't like it. Fewer teams in the playoffs means fewer home playoff games and the team marketing geniuses (read blithering idiots) don't get a chance to roll out gems like Metros Playoff Fever. Your scenario just makes too much damn sense for it to be implemented.
I can't help but think that Landon and his teammates wouldn't be bitchin' and moanin' if San Jose had won Game 1. The Fire and Revs each had to go on the road for their first game and neither team seems to have a problem with this playoff format. Winning on the road isn't impossible. ('Cept for the Galaxy) and championship-level teams should be able to do it (again, 'cept for the Galaxy). This point is further amplified by the fact that San Jose earned the right to play a bad team in the first round. That's what the regular season is about. The Quakes were rewarded by getting to play a fourth place team. But, they didn't take advantage of their reward when they went out and got their asses kicked by the Gals. This is their fault, and not the fault of the playoff system.
Why have a playoff system if if is entirely setup eliminate the potential for upsets? There is a benefit to playing the second leg at home, but you have to do the work on the road to make it count. Look what Chicago did, now they are sitting pretty. SJ is crying because they couldn't get the job done. If they were the better team they should have been able to get a tie in LA. The system as it stands is a good one. I wouldn't change a thing.
I like your setup, except I'd prefer to see #2 and #3 play a home and home series. Having a home and home series helps keep MLS happy since it gives them one more round of games to sell to tickets to, and it also lets every playoff team host 1 postseason game. To me, the only teams that should earn special consideration for the playoffs are the conference winners. The #2 and #3 clubs are regular season also-rans, and I see little reason to give #2 a sizable advantage over #3 by making the entire playoffs single elimination.
Completely agree. Anyone who doesn't understand a best of three game series with a series tie breaking procedure that is used in just about every cup competition in the world is either a complete idiot or pretending to be confused.
this is almost like the open cup you gotta get results each game if you can't... you won't be out there for long this isn't the regular season, there aren't a slew of games to figure out the winner... this is short and sweet i like it... hell, i might like it more if the second round was home and away... then only the final was a one off at a predetermined site
I agree that San Jose has nobody but themselves to blame for the mess they are in. But I also thought before the playoffs, as I am sure others did, that a home and away between the top 8 teams in a 10 team league signifantly reduced the meaning of the regular season and provided little incentive for earning a higher seed in the playoffs. I think the playoffs can and should be altered in a way that makes the regular season more meaningful. As I stated above, I think the format I noted provides a heavy incentive for finishing at the top of your conference. While winning away from home is not impossible, I would bet a lot of money that in a one-game playoff between the 2 and 3 seeds, every coach in the league would really want to be the home team. By not including the bottom 2 teams from each conference, I think teams would have a reason to play from game 1 to game 30. Just my opinions, but I think this format would be exciting for fans and the league. This format would also, IMO, make scheduling playoff games easier, and I wouldn't be surprised if the home-crowds weren't more motivated to attend the games. That admittedly is pure speculation on my part, and I could be completely wrong. Thoughts?
That's a good alternative, although I still think providing the incentive of a one game home advantage would force the 2 and 3 seeds to take every game seriously to the end of the season. I still believe what you propose is a step better than what we have now.
I don't think the system I propose entirely eliminates the potential for an upset. The 3 seed could advance to the MLS Cup by winning two road games - not unheard of. The NFL playoffs have a Wild Card system not too different than the system I propose, and if I am not mistaken the Patriots won the Super Bowl a couple of years ago as a Wild Card. I could be wrong - I don't have time to check my facts right now.
Can the fcuking Quakes stop complaining? That whole team is a joke. I lost any respect for them after Landon tackles Amado late, and makes an awkward gesture at Walker at full speed. Then he has the balls to make derogatory comments after the game? I'm happy they are going to lose to the galaxy, and I hope LA pummels them. As for the playoff format, it is wonderful. Problem obviously is that there are too many teams, and this format should have been installed 3 years ago, isntead of the ridiculous first to 5 points system which was so inane. Fcuk off SJ you guys are sore losers.
Maybe if LA do win the Cup, people will start recognizing the Supporters Shield more. If course, all the meaningless game comments from the Smurfs and their fans before facing LA the last two games of regular season sure are taking on a new light now. Shield fans should be hoping for LA to go all the way.
The problem, of course, is that occassionally Fullam beats Manchester United 3-1 at Old Trafford. Yes this way is more exciting, yes this way includes more teams, but it's a lousy way to determine who the best team in the league is. Besides, the Earthquakes ain't close to being out of this, nor is anybody else. People overestimate two goal leads in one of these things. If it were up to me, the Fire would play the Earthquakes for the MLS Cup and be done with things. It isn't up to me though.
Shield Fans ARE hoping for the Galaxy to take the Cup... Go LA!!!!!!!!! PS - As a nuetral fan, I love all 9 MLS teams, I don't count San Jose cuz one, they don't have fans, two their team didn't care about the Supporters Shield, meaning they don't care about the supporters, of the league, of soccer, of even their own team... Screw San Jose, get yallop out of this league, get dayek and waibel out of this league, and then put the rest of the players in a draft and put an expansion team in Rochester for next season...
This barely dignifies a response, but here we go: There are still plenty of San Jose fans who aren't whining, realized we played like an U-12 side last game, and are hoping for an "upset" this weekend to see if the Quakes can pull off the win. Please, there is a real discussion going on here -- take the cheap San Jose jokes ("They don't have many fans...I'll make fun of that! I'm creative!") elsewhere. Obviously, the biggest problem, as mentioned a few times, is bringing more relevance to the regular season (even if attendance figures sometimes look as though the playoffs need more relevance brought it.) In my ideal world that still worked with playoffs, I'd go with top 4. Play a one game conference final at the higher seed, then play the cup final. I'd be OK with 6, but I have a difficult time accepting that a team that wasn't in the top 50% of the league can get hot for a few games and win a championship. And it isn't the nature of the playoffs; there's a reason they're called "big games." It's more about earning the right to be in that position. If we want to go to absolute fantasy world: more teams, single table, supporter's shield winner is league champ, US Open Cup means more, and Concacaf Champions Cup gets big money behind it and becomes a premier tournament
Heh heh. Isn't it fun typign that back and forth? RIght. I got that. I don't care. I think consistency in some things just doesn't matter. 8 teams in the playoffs is one of those things. It's just not important to keep that consistent. Yeah, but I won't be bitching then, will I? So what's your point? WE're keeping a format with too many teams now because we might add enough teams in the future so that it doesn't look completely ridiculous? What are you talking about? The playoffs have not worked as a reward for fans EVER in MLS's history. To be honest, I'd like to see single elimination, with the top four, or the top 6 format that others have mentioned. What mess? The first round isn't even done yet. Funny-- they only people who complain are diehards on BigSoccer, which has virtually no relevance to the other 5950 people in Colorado on Tuesday.
I have no idea why we have to have playoffs anyway. They have them in the other sports (Baseball, etc.) because they generate lots of short term money (there are issues about the long term loss of revenues from the regular season). That's not the case in MLS as games on the schedule at the start of the year draw considerably better. The _only_ playoff game that brings in big cash is the MLS cup. Seems to me if you divided the league into two conferences with unbalanced schedules, you could play a few extra games during the regular season and then have the conference champions face off in the MLS Cup. Use the other finishes to determine the teams who will go to whatever international tournaments we're in.