I had the opportunity to stand with a group of fine gentlemen yesterday and shoot the “breeze,” and answer a few questions on the stadium. Nothing more, nothing less; but it’s obviously generated more questions. So, let me provide some clarification – probably information that’s a bit premature, but what the heck. The bottom line is that we want to win championships. Crafting a schedule to do so next year, based on available historical data and our venue options provides some interesting variables. Add in the construction calendar, the addition of 2 regular season games and the League’s desire to use Wednesday night frequently, and there’s a lot in front of us. There are many layers to this discussion, and unfortunately I brought up none of those layers yesterday. Playing “home games” in neutral sites is likely not a good idea. But, the concept of us playing “a” neutral site “home game” in a location in which we can assure a pro-Wizards/pro-Bravo crowd early in the season is something we are willing to entertain – particularly if it is near our AZ preseason training site and we can minimize travel on a west coast swing by playing away-“home”-away over a 3 game stretch without coming back and forth to Kansas City. We have nothing as such scheduled, but we are going to look in to it. We will not be able to play games at CAB next season, because much of the seating and stadium services are leased on an annual basis – i.e., bleachers, portable toilets, etc. As such, the numbers don’t work there. There is potential for us to play at Arrowhead, and we are talking with them, but nothing has been settled. In my (not necessarily the organization’s) perfect world, I think we should figure out a way to play 3 home games prior to the opener. That would likely mean 3 home and 9-10 road games, which while still not optimal, would provide some relief competitively. As of today, all 17 home matches will be played in the new stadium. To the extent that changes, STH accommodations will absolutely be made. If we play a neutral site game out of market, we’ll do our best to put together a package to travel to warm weather, and if you’re not interested, you’ll be accommodated. If we play in Arrowhead, we’ll do our best to put you in a similar seat (which will be harder with the new stadium) or some other accommodation. Hopefully this provides some additional context – I’ll be at the stadium today if you have questions. Thanks for the support - rh
Is there any data indicating that stretches of away games result in less points than the same number of away games played on a normal schedule? I understand the concern is the travel of the team, but the trip is made regardless in each scenario. This year, the best 3 away results in a row, all came during a 3 game road stretch (Gals, Union, Goats). This happens also to be the longest road stretch of the seaon at 3 in row and was a back and forth between the coasts. I am not sure I buy the thought that a long stretch of road games will result in different results than a standard schedules road games.
The problem with this is that the team's true fans, the season ticket holders, won't be able to attend a game in Arizona. Anything that is not in the metro area or within a hour's drive of it, is not truly a home game for the team or the fans. I guess if we aren't charged for that ticket, it's not as big a deal, but I think I probably speak for at least a few people here in that I am not in favor of counting any game not at CAB, Arrowhead, or our new stadium as a home game. Unless, of course, you are willing to charter a plane and rent out a hotel for us who are willing to travel that far............ I, for one, wouldn't mind hosting LA and/or NY at Arrowhead early in the season to make room for what would hopefully be bigger crowds, then have the rest at the new stadium.
Paging Mike (if he's already done the research - if not, I'll look at it this afternoon)... Compare 2003 Galaxy results to 2002 and 2004 Galaxy results, both home and away.
Thanks for the clarification Robb. I am very open to having a couple of games at Arrowhead next year with a "Bravo" crowd in Phoenix as another possibility. Looking forward to the tour tonight.
I compared the 2003 Galaxy to their historical road record last night a bit on the blog. The 2003 Galaxy went 0-4-4 on their road trip, .5 PPG. Historically they have averaged about 1.23 PPG on the road. As was pointed out to me on the blog, Chicago also played an extended road trip and did ok, picking up 10 points in 9 games I believe, I'll need to compare that to their historical road record. The Wizards currently average 1 PPG in their history on the road.
To be totally fair, there's an argument to be made that even those results don't apply considering the unbalanced schedule, and the playoff-qualification structure then compared to the balanced schedule/structure now. Basically, the two aren't really all that comparable.
The only question I would have in both of those cases is whether the home performance saw a corresponding/ameliorating spike. Obviously LA made the playoffs in 2003, but was it a matter of weathering the storm or enjoying a true home field advantage? On to Robb's comments. First of all, thanks for coming on here and clarifying the position for those of us not privileged to attend the tour. To respond to the alternatives, I stand by my comments made in the other thread. If it is not possible for me to see all 17 home league games without leaving the Kansas City metro, whether in the new stadium, Arrowhead, CAB, or god forbid even Durwood Stadium, then I will not be purchasing season tickets. As a fan, I am quite happy to sacrifice the potential of making the 2011 playoffs to maximize exposure for our new home. To be honest, I'm not confident - even with the addition of Bravo - that we are a playoff team next year if we play all 17 games at home. I am somewhat amenable to playing a few home games in Arrowhead.. I know that the parking would be a sticky issue and that as a result it would be tough to make the numbers work, but to me it's the only palatable alternative.
To expand on the potential consequences of a long-road-trip discussion: With a true balanced schedule (which MLS has now), every game is weighted the same, so a result at the beginning of the season has, in essence, no more importance than a result at the end of the season. Now, that's not an entirely true statement in the current playoff/division structure of MLS, because obviously you have the two top teams in each division gaining auto-entry... But the point is: four teams making the playoffs from each division after an unbalanced schedule in 2003 is in no way comparable to the set up currently with the balanced schedule. It's two disparate situations.
Are you arguing "balance" in terms of playing certain opponents, or are you arguing "balance" in terms of playing games at home versus away. I'm looking for the latter, and I'm not interested in the position of LA in the 2003 playoffs. I'm interested in looking at whether LA's road performance in normal schedule years (2002 and 2004) were significantly better or worse than in a season that saw a frontloaded road schedule (2003) and vice versa for the home. Arguing whether they made the playoffs is irrelevant to answering the original poster's question, and certainly not what my response looked for either. Looking at the raw win-loss record in three distinct seasons is not as disparate from the question as you seem to want to make it.
Thanks Robb for the insight. I really do appreciate your posts and information you give out, even though sometimes people tend to go overboard with certain pieces of info. I hope you continue the process, it really helps the average fan feel like they are a part of the organization. I myself would prefer to have all of the home games at the new stadium. My wife and I have been saving up these past couple of seasons just so we could afford season tickets at the new stadium. I think the new stadium will be fantastic and cannot wait. However, I would feel a little let down if there are some "other" home games played a neutral site or Arrowhead. I want to be able to "experience" all the home games at the new stadium. I understand history is going to be against the Wizards with playing on the road so much, but what is really the difference in playing all games on the road, compared to just having a couple at Arrowhead sprinkled in? Stats are made to be broken. Let us play in the new stadium.
Balanced schedule = each team plays each other team an equal number of times. * i.e. - baseball has an unbalanced schedule weighted so teams play the teams in their division more than other teams within their league. The Tampa Bay Rays had the best record in the AL with 96 wins this year, even though they had a tough division and therefore tougher schedule than say, the Twins had in the Central. So there's an argument to be made that had the Rays had a balanced schedule, they would have won even more games. MLS has always had a "balanced schedule" in terms of home/away that I recall. Makes sense to me. At the same time, it should be studied whether or not the extended home schedule at the back-end resulted in more points than a typical home season. I'd think a team that gets hot is more likely to continue that momentum with a prolonged homestand, or less road "interruptions." This should all be looked into. Not at all, because making the playoffs is step one. As Robb said, we want to win championships. You can't do that in MLS without making the playoffs. I still think it's quite different. See the Tampa Bay Rays example from above. With a balanced schedule, they play fewer games against teams like the Red Sox and Blue Jays and more games against teams like the Royals, Indians and Mariners (as well as more against teams in the middle). They probably win a few more games there.
Yes. mlsnet.com had a numbers collum when stat duties were taken over by Elias years back. In it was proof then that as road trips extend, less points should be expected game after game...all other thing being equal. Nothing has happened since to change history. You should. The positive points expectation from lumped home games doesn't balance the negative from the extended roadies. Simply, extended roadies negatively impact the overall, period. Doesn't mean winning is impossible, just that less points will be earned and the home slate doesn't fully compensate for it.
That would be covered by the "vice versa" that I mentioned. Whether LA made the playoffs in 2003 or not is irrelevant to a comparison of their overall win-loss record as a building block to project the Wizards' chances of doing the same in 2011. Comparing any team against themselves season over season does not suffer any sort of issue with balance unless the composition of the opponent slate changes significantly from year to year. In MLS, I don't think you can argue that's the case, and I frankly don't know enough about baseball to care to dissect the argument. It's really a tenuous comparison anyway due to the humongous difference in sample size. You'd have been better off comparing the Chiefs year over year, but that doesn't work either because of the changeability of the NFL schedule.
our actual team and results this year go against that is the mentioned w/ 3 game trips as opposed to 2 or a single, or was it for the Fire and Galaxy only in those years?
That 3 game road trip is a bit of a misconception considering it only became a 3 game road trip due to the rescheduling of the Houston game, giving us an extra week off in between. Which I would hope we'd had at least 1-2 of those if we do have the first 3 months of the season on the road.
we have done better with back to back than just single as well, but yea, the team did get a week break. you would thnk the MLS would throw a bone in this regard next year Fire and Gals are the only 2 that have had similiar situations to what we are looking at next year, correct? mlsnet had these stats and they just threw em away?
Yes, Dallas' stadium opened so late that they played much of their season at the Cotton Bowl I believe, CO opened to open the season, Columbus opened in like May, New York opened to start the year. I have the Fire and LA media guides from a few years ago, I'll look at those tonight.
Philadelphia was in the same situation this year. Played 8 of their first 10 on the road until PPL Park opened on June 27th. They played two home games at Lincoln Financial Field, against D.C. and Dallas. The Union went 2-7-1 to start the season, but that must be qualified by the fact they were an expansion franchise.
i simply can't see how having a 12-13 game road sequence can do anything but be harmful to team performance. moreso than the reverse home sequence would give benefit. it would be interesting to see the data both ways to see if the reality matches the intuition. another thing to consider is having so many home games crammed together closely can lead to attendance issues for some of them. both from some needed to be midweek and just from general "burn out". if it will take 12 games before the stadium opens it would seem 8A/4H would be a good balance. the key as i said in another thread is to try and find some positive benefit to having to have home games at Arrowhead or at a "neurtral site" that at least partially ameliorate the drawbacks that are unavoidable. i would think that 3 games at Arrowhead could be used to maximum advantage if one of them was part of a big double header. probably the first home game. whether that would be a international club double header or even better if that could be a Senior International double header (obviously Mexico would be the ideal choice). maybe there is a FIFA date in the early part of the season on which Mexico could be persuaded to have an international match at Arrowhead that could be followed by a KCW game. added benefit of maybe gaining some new fans with Omar Bravo. the next two games can be the "big" ticket MLS teams LAG and RBNY (i imagine that MLS would oblige given the situation). in this way you make the maxiumum positive use out of games you have to have at Arrowhead. maybe two instead of three if you want to maximize the games at the new stadium. say just the opening double header and the LAG. as for the 3rd/4th neutral site "home" game i simply don't see any benefit from having it in a place like Arizona. somewhere in the KCW region where they are supposedly trying t branch out and grow the KCW brand? that i can see. Arizona has no upside from an organizational/fan building standpoint. maybe it makes things logistically easier but if you are going to take a home game away from the new stadium there needs to be a benefit greater than just logistically. not to mention the whole point of having a few home games before the opening of the new stadium is to mitigate the negative on field impact of having so many away games. it hardly makes sense to then turn one of those into an "away" game. i have no idea what regional/nearby markets the FO is trying to expand the KCW brand into but those seem like far more logical places to have the non KC based 3rd or 4th "home" game.
And just to be clear...both those teams made the playoffs. Seems a little premature and pessimistic to say it won't happen.
Both times in a league where over half the teams made the playoffs. The 03 Galaxy made the playoffs because of the 4 from each division rule and a horrible FC Dallas team in the West, with the current playoff format Columbus would have made it in before them. Next year with 18 teams it's going to be a lot less forgiving having a long ass road trip to start the season.