I was looking at the East standings yesterday...leaders TIED at 10 up, 10 down and 4 ties.... Is this 'creating a buzz' or highlighting the point that there is tremendous inconsistency/mediocrity league-wide? This time last year, Miami was wasting most everyone they played (4-0, 5-2, etc..). Teams got juiced up to play us. Attending most of those games last year at lockhart, it was exciting to see teams come in and throw everything at us---and lose (except Metros)... This year, there are no gimme games. Why can't anyone (save Quakes) break away? There seem to be no glamour teams this year, which means less excitement. The standings look just plain odd. Look, there's an uproar when an 8-8 or 7-9 NFL team makes the playoffs. Might we have a division winner in MLS this year with a sub-500 record? Any way you spin it, it's not good for the league. We miss the blue and gold, don't we?
Referring to the title of your thread, I'm voting for "parity." I think this has been a really exciting season. Nobody is dominating this season, and I think that's great. Let it go down to the wire. You can look at it from the other end--there are no truly terrible teams this year. That's the upside of parity.
We'll see a true end to parity when MLS has owners instead of the single entity structure. Then teams will be rewarded or punished for their front office (think 49ers v. Bengals.) I think I'd be more for parity if fewer teams made the playoffs. Now, it's a contest to see who doesn't make the playoffs
The thing that makes NFL great is the parity and the fact any team with the right approach that can avoid key injuries and get hot right at the end of the season can win the Super Bowl. Does the sound anything like MLS?
Mediocrity Judging from the league wide inconsistency I've seen, I vote for mediocrity. Of course, massive player movement doesn't help.
To answer the question.... Painful Mediocrity..... And to answer the other question.... No, I don't miss the blue and gold....not one bit....they can rot in hell with the blues (TB).....
What!!!???? The NFL is all about parity. I do agree that teams are rewarded for their front office ability in the NFL, but this is true in MLS (think Galaxy v. Revolution). Single entity has nothing to do with parity. Salary caps (o.k., I concede - perceived salary caps in MLS) and revenue sharing, which MLS basically has, have everything to do with parity. Just like the NFL. The amount of clubs that MLS has making the playoffs will get sub .500 clubs in the playoffs. This I also don't like. With a ten club league, MLS should have a single table - playoffs or not. However, this has nothing to do with parity, even if the league didn't have parity, sub .500 clubs would still make the playoffs. I also don't think there is parity. I think it is more of the fact that there are stronger clubs in the league this year (see the SEC - the best in the NCAA - in college football and the 7-8 teams that get into a Bowl Game) making for good exciting soccer. No club is mediocre, at least they aren't as bad as West Browich Albion. Both D.C. and New England are better than they were last season. They can't crack the top eight because the other clubs are also better than they were last season. Even though Chicago are at .500 and could win the East with this record, I think the #3 seed will not want to play them in the playoffs. The two Conferences does make things look worse. The NFL will run into this problem at some point with only four teams in their divisions now and a asinine unbalanced schedule (6 division games and 10 non-division games). I think fans are beyond the ".500" stigma now, though not over it. Who said San Jose is running away with the league? If they had to play Dallas again, Dallas could still win the Conference (best record in MLS). Since they have to play LA twice, LA could still end up with the Supporter's Shield. San Jose is two points ahead of Dallas and three ahead of Los Angeles. If Dallas wins out and LA takes four points off of SJ the last two games, SJ could end up third in the West. Thank God for parity - not mediocre play - otherwise there wouldn't be this battle in the West and a club with Chicago's talent that could win the whole thing. I don't like playoffs, but it is how MLS decides their Champion - I've been waiting for them to start for some time now. September and October will be exciting.
I agree that the NFL is a model for parity - I didn't say otherwise. I just mentioned that a team with poor management, such as the Bengals, will suck for a long time. Meanwhile, teams with quality management, such as the 49ers, remain competitive and are able to rebuild quickly if they fall. Perhaps some MLS manuevers should not be attributed to single entity, but there have been a plethora of dubious dealings: player allocations and the various levels of an allocation, the "salary cap", players demanding to be placed certain places, the trades between the Revs and Clash back when Kraft operated both teams. Private ownership wouldn't allow this, as they would place the interest of their team above that of the league. Whether this is a good thing or not is up for argument, but the self interest would probably cause a greater disparity amongst the clubs' success level. Despite what you call it, a true playoff race would make things more interesting. Imagine how much more exciting a playoff race would be right now for 4 spaces instead of 8.
How about both? Mediocre parity? The parity has made for some exciting match-ups this year, but I have to agree with cpwilson - in the long run, it's my preference for single owner franchises to make or break their fortunes. The blame or success is theirs and theirs alone - as for MLS, HQ intervenes to the extent that I have a hard time believing an MLS team could, with exemplary managing, break away from the pack. The teams are too hamstrung through bizarre rules and budgets that only serve to consolidate the interventing ability of HQ. Dispersal drafts, midseason lotteries and the lot are beyond bizarre, they're almost criminal.