Battle-tested players fired up for playoffs-Chicago Sun Times Earthquakes, Crew hook up again-Columbus Dispatch After an Off Season, A Long Offseason-Washington Post Wizards look forward to first-round match with rival LA-KC Star Coaches Praise Scheme-LA Times Hartman Is Key to Galaxy Hopes-LA Times Soccer: Metros' housecleaning might include coach-Star Ledger What went wrong>-Bergen Record MetroStars are left to kick selves-NY Daily News Parity time in MLS-Boston Globe Hot Brown set for Fire-Boston Herald Revs find chemistry: Llamosa a key ingredient-Boston Herald
Carson Brightens Streets with Development - CSULB Forty-Niner The End of an Era Indoors in Dallas - N.Y. Times Galaxy Switching to Playoff Mentality - L.A. Daily News
I read the first part of this story and then thought, damn, Tatu is no longer being allowed to leave the rest home he no doubt lives in. Then I scrolled down and, lo and behold, it says that next year's MLS schedule will have a July break, and MLS cup will be in mid-November (Carson City, anyone?) And yeah, I posted it to the ongoing thread sparked by Jamie Trecker's column. Good find on the Cal State LB paper, Jim.
Didn't Nick yesterday say OZ would be staying around. From the Ledger: From the Boston Globe: Bring It On, I say, if only for ease of the scheduling process for spectators, television, and ticket-sellers. 12 out of 18 playoff games midweek is dumb. Wed - Sat - Wed // Sat - Wed - Sat. 6 games in 18 days = Nutty. I never get tired of hearing this: It's still true today if you ask me, just less successful. Lots of good reading today. Thanks. Looks like we may get some real announcements at MLS Cup 2002.
Bell didn't exactly attribute anything in the NYT story when it came to MLS, now did he? Sounds like he just took his info from Trecker's column. Sloppy reporting -- although, to be fair, he had a good story on Tatu. But did Tatu ever buy that home back in Sao Paulo? Heck, he's probably got one each in Texas and Brazil.
how often do you think that is going to happen though?? i mean be realistic... home and home is much better than a 3 games series
Not often, but it was used in the article to somehow discredit the first-to-5 series. One of the best things about the first-to-5 format is that if there is a blowout, the subsequent games still matter. Not for a seeded tournament that should provide some motivation for teams to do well in the regular season.
Well, wasn't it Chicago that beat New England in a game 3 6-0? Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part...
Once again--they can still have a two game home and home, but use the mini-game and pks, instead of aggregate goals if tied. Therefore, I guess it is a first to 4 system over two games, and not a first to five over 3 games. Award the higher seeded team the second game. Therefore, the higher seeded team has the benefit of hosting the mini-game and the pks in front of their home crowd.
Wow. Not just coverage, but insight and analysis. Maybe the quality of MLS coverage IS getting better...
If they insist on making the playoffs home-and-home, then they should make the seed the next tiebreaker after aggregate goals, like they do in Mexico. That would be a serious advantage to the higher seed.
Both sides have a good point. So, how can you have a home and home series and still give the higher seed the advantage?
Doesn't the higher seed already have an advantage in that it is playing a (nominally) weaker team? LA worked hard all year for the right to play the 3rd worst team in the league. By the same token, if KC had performed better over the course of the season, they wouldn't have to play LA (and nobody wants to play LA right now). There's your regular-season motivation right there.
I agree with Mattbro--higher seeded teams play supposedly weaker teams. But, as I stated above, if you didn't use an aggregate goal system, and used a mini-game followed by PKs after the second game, AND if you gave the second game to the higher seeded team, then the higher seeded would: -have better control over their fate by knowing how they would have to perform in front of their home crowd in the second game; -have the mini-game and the PKs in front of their home crowd, if necessary; -have the advantage of wrapping up the series in front of their home crowd. And if you wanted to quarters and semis up in two weeks, you could design it so that the higher seeded team got the Saturday night game instead of a mid-week game. Therefore, first game could always be Wednesday (or Thursday, for ESPN2), and the second game could always be Saturday night, assuming the stadium is available. Therefore, the higher seeded team would have the raw potential of attracting a bigger crowd, and netting a bigger income, than the lower seeded team.
On the other hand, the difference between the good teams and the bad in MLS is razor-thin. LA may have had the best record in the league, but they only had 51 points. Meanwhile, DC was worst in the league and still had 32 points. The difference between the #2 record in the league (San Jose) and the number #4 record (Colorado) was two points. So I don't think that a #2 seed is all that much better off by playing the #7 seed than they would be by finishing #5 and playing the #4 seed. In fact, I would say that it's very marginal.
Ya know what though, we wring our hands waaaaaay too much about this. Ultimately, what is the more streamlined and marketable approach? Seriously, ask yourself that without a knee-jerk reaction. (not saying your inclined to knee-jerkism, just saying in general). It is 1,000 times simpler to explain a home and home playoff system than the first-to-five. And that's extremely important when building up a fan base. I think a lot of folks forget that when they discuss the playoff sytem. As it stands, only the truly indoctrinated come close to getting it. The media and the casual fan just throw up their hands in befuddlement. And KC's blowout to Morelia (which is the example du jour of why home and home is soooo awful) is (1)OT because its not MLS v. MLS and (2) an anamoly in the context of the MLS. Some stat geek can prove me wrong, but how many games were decided by 3 or more goals this year? Not many I bet. I'd wager that a vast majority of wins were by one goal, a ton were 2 goal and only a handful (under 10) were 3 or more.
Shouldn't conference winners (or #1 and #2 in single table) get a first round bye? 3 vs. 8 4 v. 7 5 v. 6 #1 plays lowest seeded winner of this first round #2 plays next lowest. Somewhat similiar to the Wild Card system employed in different iterations by the NFL.
... all good, we all ************ up from time to time i think part of the thought with that is that they will have more time to promote games, games will also be during the weekend and so attendance should rise for the playoffs... the last couple of years have been pretty bad for the playoffs... and the mls cups are usually fairly solid -jim
I think this logic is potentially defeated by the system that you favor. The two-game aggregate system, without considering relative team strengths, gives only a very small inherent advantage to the higher-seeded team. Therefore, battling for post-season seeds means very little, so there is little initiative for a good team to not rest key players or sandbag games on the way. Thus, it seems to me, the advantage gained from playing a 'weak' team may not exist at all as the standings may not represent actual team strength. A good team can save themselves during the reg season and bank on a good win at home and a Game 2 bunker. I just wish they'd leave the damn thing alone for a little while.