Get rid of the two 5-minute halves and just play one straight 10 minute overtime period!! Is anyone else tired of watching these dreadful overtimes in which two tired teams try to muster some sort of an attack before the time is quickly eaten up with fouls, substitutions, and balls out of play? Soccer wasn't meant to have this sort of OT. I am not a detractor of overtime in sports, or even soccer for that matter, but MLS overtimes are usually depressing to watch. The MLS would even be able to add an extra commercial or two in place of the switching of sides.
From The Laws of The Game A single period is not permitted. And Law 8 stipulates, among other things, the change of sides. http://images.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/2002/LOTG2002_E.pdf (On page 19) BTW ... After I wrote that I realized that the proper response to overtime dissatisfaction isn't to call for tweaking the overtime we've got in ways that would violate the Laws of the Game but to call for abandoning the regular season overtime altogether.
I agree with that. I don't think there should be any overtime in the regular season OR in the playoffs for that matter. I don't understand why MLS does such crappy things to the sport. Just let it be.
I never realized that Americanizing the sport bothered so many people. You guys treat the LOTG like the Ten Commandments. Well, FIFA didn't come off the mountain with these, people. The real question is does anyone really care? Just accept that it's there and, you know, move on to, like, more important things.
How do you suggest doing away with Overtime in the playoffs? Go straight to PKs? You have to resolve ties in playoffs or elimination matches. No method is ideal, that's why there has been so much experimenting with silver goals, golden goals, overtimes, and replaying the match. This is an issue for World Cup and UEFA Cup, as well as MLS. If time is an issue with the MLS overtime. What if the first 5 minutes was just added to the second half 45 minute period? If the game were tied after 90, the referee would just begin the first five minute overtime - much like extra time. After 95 minutes (plus stoppage), the teams would change ends for the second five minute overtime. The team in possession after 95 could start the second overtime. JUST a thought. Flame away.
I just think the the playoff system should be a two leg format. I'm not against playoffs. I just think that playing three games in a series and having to get 3 points is a little weird. For example when the Metros tied LA a couple years ago and them beat them 4-1 in game two and then lost a mini-game? I thought that was ridiculous. If you have a three game series in the playoffs already, there really is no need for an overtime. If by the third game everything is still tied, then play all the overtime you want.
Are there any stats available as to the % of games that have been won in overtime v. those that have been played? I can't remember the last time I actually saw a "golden goal" in an MLS overtime.
Just as a point of reference, I wonder how many overtime games there have been, and how many have been WON in overtime.
I'm leaning towards removing the overtime also. I think the overtime(and there are many of them) is a burden to ESPN's (or Fox's) program scheduling, as there is the constant concern a soccer match will run over another upcoming live match. I think the main reason for MLS wanting to eliminate the overtime would be to gain flexibility with the sports channels.
If MLS playoffs were a straight, knockoff tournament, then I would agree. Use the two-leg format. The problem is that if you remove the home field advantage, it would make the regular season even less meaningful than it is now. You have to give the higher seeded team some advantage, and so you have the current system. Personally, I like the first-to-4 points (rather than the current 5) that Jeff Bradley proposed a couple of years back. That way, if you get a win and a draw in Games 1 and 2 (i.e., you managed to get a result on the road) you go through. If the first two games are ties or the teams split the first two games, then Game 3 would become the elimination match and there would be no need for a mini-match.
This is because Fifa makes the rules and we are obligated to follow them as a Fifa member. We can't change the laws on our own and still be a member of Fifa. MLS needs a sanction from Fifa in order for it's players to compete internationally. In this respect, the laws are the ten commandments. Actually, they are 17 commandments plus an unwritten 18th called common sense. I have no problem with the OT really. It wouldn't really bother me if they got rid of it either. OT is here, I accept it and it, until this year, provided some extra entertainment on occasion. If MLS keeps it, it has to be two equal periods.
Did everyone miss the big announcement in the offseason about the change in the playoff format this year? Or did I just dream it. The top four teams from each division go to the playoffs. 1v4 and 2v3 from each division will play a two-game series, aggregate goal system. If tied in goals, they will play (I believe) a 30 minute overtime period followed by pks. After that, the remaining teams are bracketed and play a single elimination in the semis, culminating in the single elimination game at MLSCup. At this point, I'm not sure which team would host the semis, but I would imagine it is the team having more points in the regular season.
I certainly missed it. But I googled "MLS, playoff format" and waddayaknow, you're right. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/2002-11-20-mls-changes_x.htm
Yeah, but maybe he didn't see that one. The only one I have seen live, in person, was MLS Cup 2001 (says the Quake fan rubbing it in ).
So far this year 9 games have ended in an overtime draw and only one has ended with an overtime winner (KC v DCU). Last year however the numbers were a little more even. Looking at just the regular season 23 games ended in overtime draws (62%) and 14 ended in an overtime win (38%). If you include the playoffs the numbers don't change that much: 26 draws (63%) and 15 wins (37%). Unfortunately mlsnet doesn't give a clear indication of which games went to OT prior to last year but after the shootout years.
Percentage of overtime games that produce a winner: 2000: 13 of 47 = 28% 2001: 8 of 36 = 22% 2002: 14 of 36 = 39% 2003: 1 of 10 = 10% total: 36 of 129 = 28% The team that is most likely to see an overtime result (for or against) is the MetroStars, with 7 of 16 (44%) of OT games ending in a goal. The least likely is San Jose, which has had only 2 OT results out of 20 (10%).
I've come up with the perfect solution as an alternative to the two five minute periods of overtime. Just let ties stand. And Instead of awarding 3 points for a victory lets award 4 points for a victorry. Gaining 4 points for a victory will be so much greater thatn that one single point for at tie. Teams will always want to push for the win to get those four points.
Thanks, Noah. That is exactly what I was looking for. If this year's 10% is a statistical abberation, I guess I can grin and bear it. If it represents a new more conservative appoach to overtime, and we really get a "result" in only 10% of the games, then I would just as soon see it scrapped. I have no idea where the break point between 28% (OK) and 10% (scrap it) is.
Again, thanks Noah. It was more than I expected. And the 10% for this year only means it is still early.