More seriously: The notion that gaining the respect of world soccer is MLS' primary mission is wrong. It's not even a tertiary mission. The primary mission is to make a profit. What soccer fans in Buenos Aires, Birmingham or Barcelona think of MLS is not the league's concern in the least. The league's concern is with the fans and potential fans in Bethesda, Boston and the Bronx. So, in that respect, yes, bobblehead dolls are a far more important topic than what someone in Berlin or Bologna thinks of the Burn. Since we don't have promotion and relegation in this country, and won't -- if at all ever -- for a very, very long time, then MLS needs a reason to get fans out to the stadium even if the fans' particular club isn't fighting for the Supporters' Shield. Hence, the playoffs. Hence, fans in DC and New England still have a reason to agonize over their team's performance even into September. If you want to argue that eight of 10 teams making the playoffs is silly, fine. I'd rather see 16 or 14 teams fighting for eight playoff spots at this point, but I don't see eight of 10 as an overwhelming source of agony. More like a regrettable annoyance to deal with for the fun of having a Division I soccer league that's producing -- and will hopefully continue to produce -- players that will shock those who seek to sneer at this "isolated, lonely offshoot of the soccer world."
Yeah, but you better believe that Liverpool and Barcelona were. Spots 2-4 in Spain are highly coveted for what reason exactly? ManU needed to beat that Hungarian for what reason exactly?
The Canadians have been playing with the Burnside rules since before 1906. All those cute rule changes happened long before entertainment value was a consideration, and generally speaking, originated at the same time that American football was still trying to sort out whether to play with 11 players or 15, and whether to have three downs or four. I think this discussion should go to bigtalkingoutofyourass.com
Know your history. Every football game on the planet that isn't soccer or rugby union is a game with "the cute rule changes". Even the first two were the same game before a meeting of the minds ended up with two parties who disagreed on the legality of picking the ball up and tackling deciding to disagree and form two different sports.
Oh, that board RULES! I admit, the idea of having the regular season champion be the only champion didn't cross my mind, because it just isn't ever going to happen in this country. Why is it that when people say we should have the same formats as other countries, no one suggests split seasons, sectarian violence, or having only two teams in the whole country that anyone gives a damn about?
I vote for placing all teams within a two hour train ride of each other. I also demand that we build more train tracks so we can all ride the train. Plus we need to legislate that every team have average attendance of no less than 30K. Plus everyone has to stand and sing and eat meat pies. All of this would have happened by now if not for SEM and our goddamn baseball worshipping president.
Question for you then... I think we're in agreement that a majority of the immigrant population HERE in the United States ignores MLS. Correct? Fine, my point isn't to gain the respect of people over seas, who cares what they think. My problem is that MLS has a HUGE community who are big soccer fans ALREADY in this country, and instead of leveraging this fan base, they basically say "screw you" we're going to try and convert americans to the sport instead. So my question is, if it's in the best interest of this league to look at the bottom line, shouldn't they want to keep true to the spirit of the sport and try to give those people a product they can identify with? Now, I have no problem with making new fans in this country, I think that's a great goal to strive for. BUT, I wouldn't ever do this at the cost of changing OUR game to suit the needs of these newbies. It's funny because a lot of people on this site daydream about the day when we get packed stadiums with rabid fans like they do seemingly everywhere else in the world, but to get there you will have to embrace the way the rest of the world does certain things. The sport how it is now is what makes it so popular around the world.
MLS has (that the big leagues don't): - league playoff to determine champion - overtime - single entity (please don't begin the endless argument for why this has to be like this, I already know) - divisions And that's just off the top of my head. I'm still glad they dodged the "lets make the goals bigger" bullet back in 95.
What exactly do you want to do to make the league look like the rest of the world anyway? Games are 90 minutes plus stoppage time, rules are the same, three points for a win, one for a tie, etc. What's your gripe?
Thanks for being this ridiculous. All I'm asking for is a serious championship format. The sectarian violence can be cultivated naturally over a couple hundred years!
I just find it funny people are actually defending the current playoff system. It's a joke. And then the people who actually buy the whole MLS official line that "no no no...what you're watching is exciting! It's not mediocre, it's just unpredictable! This stuff kicks!!!!!" Get real.
To be more precise, games are 90 minutes plus stoppage time, and then - maybe - an additional ten minutes that knock games out of television broadcast windows. There is no point to having that joke of an overtime - so why do it? Thank Odin we no longer have that shootout abomination. As for playoffs... 1st to 5 is better than the old "best of 3" crap. IMHO, it's not measurably better than the "standard" two-leg system - they've both got flaws. My preference is for a two-leg playoff system, but I can live with what we have now.
Re: Re: Dan Loney Playoff Column OK, here's a question with a real world example for those of you who think that two-leg playoffs are the shizznit: If the playoffs were to start today, we'd all be disappointed about missing the last 11 games of the season. But if they did, San Jose would be playing Chicago in the first round. And if the playoffs were two-legged, like you advocate, San Jose would get a game at home, as would Chicago. Where does San Jose get rewarded for having a much better record in the regular season?
CaCTuS, I think your definition of the "big leagues" doesn't match your argument (as I understand it - and I may well misunderstand it) that MLS should appeal to immigrants who are life-long soccer fans by doing things the way they do things in the "big leagues." Most of the leagues in Latin America - including Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia - have playoffs or liguillas. They don't just crown their regular-seaon points leader as the champion. Argentina doesn't have playoffs, but they're one of the few who don't have some sort of post-season play. And Argentina does have split seasons, unlike the "big leagues" in Europe. Most of the Latin American immigrants to this country who follow soccer come from countries that have playoffs or liguillas - IIRC: Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. There are also championship playoff variants like the two-team final in Uruguay. The point is that most of the people that I believe you're talking about expect to see playoffs to crown a champion. We can also review how Latin American leagues structure their playoffs - some even use one-off's or three-game series; almost no one uses away goals to break ties in the playoffs (usually higher seed or OT plus PKs); etc. Again, the point is that if your goal is to appeal to Latin American immigrants, you don't do things the way they do them in England. The way that MLS is structured and determines its champion looks much more familiar to most Latin American immigrants than they way the English structure their leagues and determine their league champion. As a matter of policy, I think that MLS must experiment a bit to see what works. Trial and error is the only way to get it right in a country that's still very much developing its soccer culture.
I don't disagree with this final bit. But I do think they've been messing around in the laboratory over the past 5 years without much success. You are correct about the Latin American leagues, on a whole with the exception of Argentina. But, with possible the exception of Brazil, every league down there dreams of the stability and organization that the european leagues have. In Argentina they stopped playing a "european" schedule over a decade ago and the same arguments come up demanding they switch back every new season. And I'd be willing to bet the leagues that do have a playoff system haven't been using it for more than the past 10 years (I may be wrong...it's just a hunch). But hispanics are just one part of the equation to getting a diverse country like this one behind the global sport. Like I said, sadly I've met a lot more americans (non-immigrants) who are into a foreign team (in Italy, England, Spain, Germany, etc..etc..) than americans that get behind the MLS. And these are precisely the people MLS should be trying to get, instead they give them a format that the euro-fan thinks is silly. Face it, the european leagues are the glamor ones. Even in South America the Italian and Spanish leagues are wildly popular, they are the paradise on the other side of the Atlantic. So while a hispanic may understand a playoff system (even then, try explaining to them the first to 5 concept and 10 minute overtimes! good luck!) they will still be more familiar with the single table, dudes at the top are champs at the end of the season. PS: BlueLightning, you can go f*** yourself. Don't you have to go play in the FFA forum?
Sports in the US need the division system because the country is as big as CaCTuS's ego. The single table system works in other countries because they're geographically smaller. It's easier to travel from London to Newcastle or from Valencia to Coruña than it is to go from New York to Los Angeles. Other major US sports do not seem to suffer from teams playing in separate divisions and earning a championship through the playoffs. English football doesn't seem to mind the playoff system as a means to determine the final promotion spot amongst teams in Divisions 1-4.
That's true, but the stability that they want is financial stability. I don't think that playoffs or split seasons are why these leagues have been having economic difficulties. I'm not sure this is a key piece of the discussion, but Mexico has been using playoffs since 70-71, Colombia has had some sort of playoff or liguilla since the late 60's, and Brazil has had playoffs, quadrangulares, or triangulares since the national championship started in 71 (playoffs and final stages in the Paulista league go back, admittedly on and off, to 1902; in the Carioca to the 60's). I'd have to do more homework on the other leagues, but you get the picture. The Italian and Spanish leagues are so popular in South America for a number of reasons (people's favorite South American players are there; quality of play generally is exceptional; unrivalled super-star power; cultural and linguistic ease; etc.). But I just don't think it's accurate to say that Latin American immigrants from countries with playoff or liguilla systems are more familiar with the single table, although it's certainly fair to say that they're probably sufficiently familiar for purposes of our discussion. I think the key issue is that they're comfortable with playoffs - and, in many cases, group/divison play and unbalanced schedules - because that means that they're probably not being driven away from MLS because of playoffs. As far as first-to-five and ten minutes of overtime, well, ok, not the most graceful things. But there's so much diversity among Latin American league formats - triangulares, cuadrangulares, primera fase final, segunda fase final, one-off's, two legs with OT, two legs w/o OT, three leg playoffs, etc., that you're gonna have to do some explaining to some people no matter what. You're right that Latin American immigrants are only part of the puzzle. But I'm willing to bet that they massively out number the Americans born and raised in this country that you describe. I'm not so sure that the people you describe are likely to come around if MLS went to a single table, balanced schedules, and no playoffs. I've spent my fair share of time talking with more than a few of these folks and I think they have a lot of issues that MLS isn't going to be able to address fully anytime soon. If they insist that they'll only watch the best players and teams, I'm not sure that MLS will ever offer them what they really need. I suspect that MLS resources are far better spent on an audience that's passionate about soccer as a way of life, not as entertainment.
I'm in the camp that says, "the team with the best regular season record is the champion, the MLS Cup winner is just that, the MLS Cup Winner." It is easily solved, and in a weird way easier done, than said. The league just has to explain it to the media and the fans. Of course, we all know the media and many of the fans (casual ones, not 'fanatics' as found on BS.com) will be totally confused for several years as to the term Champion versus MLS Cup Winner - and admittedly, much of the soccer hating media will point their fingers and say, "What a bunch of idiots!" But then again, they do that for the international competition, reserve squads dedicated to parent teams, and youth players - all of which are being implemented by the "Big Four" sports now. Inovation always gets laughed at in the beginning. As for the "Best to 5-point" system, I've got to admit that I've swung 180 degrees in favor of it. No matter which playoff format is used there will be problems. The best to five system seems to keep the spirit of advantage for the better team - home field - but, allows for that all important Game 3 scenario. My only problem is that most important "Mini Game" if things aren't decided by the end of Game 3. I would give the head coaches 10-minutes after Game 3 to prep for "Game 4," the mini game. Wipe out the yellow cards in Game 3 - obviously red cards affect Game 4, but it goes away for the next series. Let the coaches throw in fresh legs if they want. Allow the coaches to sub 1 player (plus the GK) during the mini-game if he wants. If this is too radical, then give the coaches a "free substitution" at the beginning of the mini-game to throw on an impact player. Nothing is worse than watching tired players try to eak out another 20-minutes after playing for 100 minutes. The only way of changing it is by giving the coaches the freedom to throw in fresh legs for arguably the most important game of the year to that point, although it is only a 20-minute mini-game.
Lemme just pry open this can of worms...let's see...ok... Why is it a bad thing if the league determines its champion through some sort of competition that takes only a sub-set (how big that sub-set should be is a separate question) of league teams based on standings during the regular season? Yes, that means that the regular season is really a mechanism for qualifying the teams that will compete in the phase that determines the championship. But that’s not inherently a bad thing. It doesn’t make the regular season meaningless. Regular season games are very meaningful for seeding in the championship phases. Finishing with the most regular season points is very important for home-field (or tie-breaking) advantage. Finishing second through fourth is important for home-field (or tie-breaking) in at least the first round of a playoff system. As we’ve seen above, it’s the way that many leagues in our part of the world have been determining their champions for a long time. Most of our neighbors have also found that the post-season championship phase generates money through gate receipts, sponsorships, and tv/radio revenue that would otherwise be left on the table. Whether that also proves true for MLS is still something of an open question, as best I can tell. We also all know that many leagues, although rarely in our part of the world, determine their champion by having a single-table with every team playing every other team in the league home and away. That’s just another way to do it. Each way has its own logic and its own long-term authenticity. Differing notions about what determines a league champion arise from convention. Why get so ideological about it?
Re: Re: Re: Dan Loney Playoff Column Well, sidestepping the obvious "the Fire can't win at Naperville" argument... you have nailed the single biggest disadvantage to a two-leg playoff. Perhaps the only major disadvantage (I don't count rhe lost revenue of a third match as a competitive disadvantage to the two-leg system). Of course, the big problem with the "First-to-5" is the fact that one team may play more games in the same amount of time, resulting with a series (or the MLS Cup Final) starting with one team on 3-4 days more rest than the other. This is non-trivial with 18(+4) man rosters. Pick your poison, I suppose.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dan Loney Playoff Column The other major problem was demonstrated by the Wizards against Morelia. The useless 2nd leg after a 1st leg blowout. This is not a problem. It is a reward to the team that can get the job done in 2 games. If you don't want to play with less rest than your opponent, then go out and win the first 2.